Court rules Pledge of Allegiance 'unconstitutional'

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I think that you are confusing the common understanding of theory with the scientific understanding.

 

Not really, I have degrees in Math, Physics and Mechanical Engineering. A postulate, hypothosis and a theory are all different animals. None are fact.

 

Well, since firstpusk used the term correctly, and you used "only a theory" in the same way that nonscientific creationists use it ("theory" is as good as you'll ever get), I'd say he understands the term and you don't. Facts are data, not theories; theories are models that make predictions.

[firstpusk]

"We've observed the world and concluded that God made the world. That's science at its purest and as valid as an unprovable theory of evolution."

 

"Theories remain theories until they are proven for all cases. Gravity is still not understood. Nothing about evolution has been proven for all cases."

 

"I have degrees in Math, Physics and Mechanical Engineering."

 

From the above quotes I can only assume they were mail order. Your alma mater must be proud...

[Zorn Packte]

I suppose that means that Assimov, a Biology professor as well as a sci-fi author, didn't understand the meaning of the word as well.

 

BTW, not all facts are data but all data should be fact.

[firstpusk]

Henry M. Morris has three degrees including a PhD from one of my alma maters. That didn't make him right when he misrepresented the work and words of real scientists. You paraphrased Asimov, so it is tough to judge exactly what he was trying to say. I am sure the same source has him supporting creationism, too. I can't give you an answer on his understanding. But I would say that both your understanding of the concept and your credibility are on par with Dr. Morris.

[littlebillie]

"See, still the classic response. If I don't yell out that blacks deserve specialtreatment and that being white is horrible, I must be a white supremacist. "

 

Still not answering the question, I note.

 

Are you a white supremacist? It really only takes a yes or no.

 

All the rest is filler and fluff until then.

[littlebillie]

Rooster7,

 

Ok, I will absolutely grant that there are probably individual exceptions to ALL general categories, especially when those categories are of human behavior. Which I why I tried to underscore the whole MAYBE side of things - I AM aware that exceptions will exist in this stuff.

 

Let's deal with the example that gave us this quote "Apparently, robbery and rape is being claimed as the killers' motivation. But let me ask you some questions - Do you think you could shoot someone in the head, point blank, without hating them?" First, the DA bringing charges has apparently decided that they can more easily get a guilty verdict without using any hate crime statute, assuming any such statute is currently in force in that venue (I'll assume that you know that it IS, tho' - otherwise it wouldn't be a valid example, right? I guess I should also assume that there's no evidence of the alleged perpetrators ever having murdered members of their own ethnic group - since this too might undermine the example.)

 

So ok - since it's black against white, it'd be touchier, practically speaking, and probably harder to get a conviction just on that. So rather than dilute the case, the DA has decided to forego that charge. But it's STILL in the tool kit if they need it. Personaly, I see it as a good thing.

 

Method, motive and means - without cold, generic group hatred being legally defined as a motive, can it be used? I don't really know, just raising the question... And regardless, if it's there and it can be used when you know you've got a crime and no other tag to hang on it, well, I'd rather make sure the criminal gets punished than go free.

 

Now, as to pulling a cold-blooded trigger. How literal do you need that? Is pulling the plug on a terminal loved one the same? You authorize death, you symbolicaly pull a trigger - indivdual exceptions, yes, i know.

 

One problem is that we don't have a system that allows us to wait for an individual case to occur, gives us the chance to study just that specifics of that case, and then pass a law just for that case after the fact, and send up the perp under that law that didn't exist when the crime was committed. Since we DO use a system of "general" laws, the hate statutes give us something to use when we might not otherwise be able to meaningfully bring charges.

 

where does hate speech leave off and free speech begin? frankly, I find this a more troubling issue than whether or not I can add a dimension called hate to a rape or murder charge.

 

I abhor hate speech, certainly - and I embrace free speech. So I'm still wrestling here, and it'd be great to have those wiser than I suggest some brilliant guidelines. Even so, I'll just take these on my OW - libel and slander remain, and any speech that urges violence against a minority for no other reason than that minority's simple existence is WRONG.

 

It goes on...

 

 

Regardless.

 

 

R7 - yeah, sometimes it seems redundant. Some folks think it's a slap in the face of those victims of "non-hate" crimes, and while I can sympathize with them, I think that as PART of a bigger picture, it's just one more weapon in the arsenal of law to be used in defense of the rest of us...

[littlebillie]

Full of Anger -

 

the HYPOTHESIS come from the Bible - God created the Universe and all things in it. That's not a theory until you make predictions and begin to test based on that hypothesis. Once you have some viably tested and proven results, then you can creat a model or even a theory.

 

After making observations - hmmm, perhaps GOD created everything - you then need to say, but if that's true, then this, or that, or THAT should happen under such and so circumstances. From the results thereof, you can then create a theory, positive or negative in statement.

 

Now, here's where I'm ignorant - Creationists, what predictions have been made or tested? I find I'm not really aware of any modern day tests and regardless of how 'hypothesis' and 'theory' have been butchered in this thread, I am sure there are enough scientists out there who have wanted to find just such proof as experimentation might provide...?

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I suppose that means that Assimov, a Biology professor as well as a sci-fi author, didn't understand the meaning of the word as well.

 

No, all you've quoted Asimov as saying is that relativity is only a theory; that's quite true, relativity IS only a theory. But you haven't given the context where he used it. He was an atheist, by the way, and wrote an entire book explaining why creationism isn't science, and he even went into detail about what a theory is:

 

Creationists frequently stress the fact that evolution is "only a theory", giving the impression that a theory is an idle guess. A scientist, one gathers, arising one morning with nothing particular to do, decided that perhaps the moon is made of Roquefort cheese and instantly advances the "Roquefort-cheese theory".

 

A theory (as the word is used by scientists) is a detailed description of some facet of the universe's workings that is based on long observation and, where possible, experiment. It is the result of careful reasoning from these observations and experiments that has survived the critical study of scientists generally. For example, we have the description of the cellular nature of living organisms (the "cell theory"); of objects attracting each other according to fixed rule (the "theory of gravitation"); of energy behaving in discrete bits (the "quantum theory"); of light traveling through a vacuum at a fixed measurable velocity (the "theory of relativity"), and so on.

 

All are theories; all are firmly founded; all are accepted as valid descriptions of this or that aspect of the universe. They are neither guesses nor speculations. And no theory is better founded, more closely examined, more critically argued and more thoroughly accepted, than the theory of evolution. If it is "only" a theory, that is all it has to be.

 

Creationism, on the other hand, is not a theory. There is no evidence, in the scientific sense, that supports it. Creationism, or at least the particular variety accepted by many Americans, is an expression of early Middle Eastern legend. It is fairly described as "only a myth".

 

 

BTW, not all facts are data but all data should be fact.

 

Since speciation has been observed, how do you explain the fact of new species arising? Evolution has no problem with it, but creationism would suggest that gods are still sneaking around creating new creatures that are almost, but not quite, identical to currently existing creatures, yet are still different enough to prevent fertile offspring.

 

[Zorn Packte]

Are you a white supremacist? It really only takes a yes or no.

 

Are you a white apologist? A black supremacist?

 

Draw your own conclusions about me. You made the allegations, you are obliged to prove them. I don't care what you think.

 

 

[littlebillie]

ZP, angry one,

 

well, it's obvious you don't want to answer the question. not sure why you wouldn't want to repudiate white supremacy - unless you ARE some kind of supremacist. clarification, btw - note that i never accused - I said that's how you were "coming across", offered an apology if I had mis-understood and asked for clarification so I would know what kind of person I was talking to.

 

apparently you don't want your position to be clear. again I'm not sure why that would be.

 

and yet it would seem that your screen name gives some kind of neo-Nazi clue...?

 

me? i'm no supremacist, and no apologist. i'm a we're-all-in-this-togetherist, and figure that we all have to pull our oar in Lifeboat Earth. I don't think lawsuits for slavery per se have merit, but those about getting cheated out of 40 acres and a mule do. I thik Jewish families should get back whatever heirlooms were taken in WW2, and that the braceros at least have a case to be heard.

 

I'm also for stem cell research.

 

Oh - but the issue isn't about my stance. that's been clear.

 

it's about your reluctance to answer a simple yes-or-no question.

 

Ta!

[Rooster7]

Now, here's where I'm ignorant - Creationists, what predictions have been made or tested? I find I'm not really aware of any modern day tests and regardless of how 'hypothesis' and 'theory' have been butchered in this thread, I am sure there are enough scientists out there who have wanted to find just such proof as experimentation might provide...?

 

Littlebillie,

 

The following may not apply to youI was just inspired by your thoughts. Please don't assume that I am addressing you personally.

 

Before one can address the theory of creationism, one needs to come to grips with the "God theory". That is to say, before scientists and anyone else can examine creationism objectively, they need to recognize the existence of God. Let's face it - How can someone believe an object was created, if they do not believe in the creator of that object? So please back up one step in this discussion, and let's examine another theory or hypothesis - God exists. Or, so I may illustrate my points better, let's try the inverse - God does not exists.

 

If you believe that God does not exist, then you need to recognize and admit these truths:

 

Emotions are meaningless. Love, hate, envy, joy, peace, etc. are all emotions that occur because of a chemical reaction in the brain. Emotions are not derived spiritually because the spiritual world does not exist. All motives and actions taken by human beings are self-serving because there are no spiritual bonds, which holds us together. If for some reason we act for the benefit of another, it's merely because a chemical reaction occurred in our brain, which prompted the response. If something "good" or "bad" occurred as a result of this chemical reaction, it is merely the result of our physical composition and completely uninspired. Human beings (and all other animals for that matter) are nothing more than biological machines. We have no capability of "growing" and become anything other than what the physical composition of our their bodies will allow.

 

The human soul does not exist. This is a spiritual concept, which represents the essence of who we are, beyond our physical bodies. If God does not exist, the spiritual world does not exist. The human soul serves no purpose. It's a useless idea.

 

Good and evil does not exist. No one should even recognize them as valid concepts. How we feel about issues and the behavior of others is simply irrelevant. If God does not exist, everyone's behavior is appropriate. We are simply executing our "program". People are not responding to spiritual things, they responding to the promptings of chemical reactions. If we foolishly accept the concepts of "good" and "evil", what individual or group is qualified to define them? Even the idea of plurality is a moralistic concept. So, the basis for morality (as TJ and others might have it) is open to change. A plurality could simply decide that the minority is now the source of all moral standards.

 

There is no purpose in life. We live. We die. All our efforts are temporal. From one generation to the next, we simply exist for a short period, and then we don't. If we believe that we are building a better life for our children, it's merely because our program tells us that is so. Motivations such as love, is a faade, an illusion. Our motivation, if any, would be to satisfy the chemical promptings in our brain. The world is simply the result of random interactions between objects and animate-beings and other objects and animate-beings.

 

If you believe that God exists. Emotions ARE the result of spiritual motivation. The human soul yearns for God. He enables us to grow spiritually. Good and evil exist. Life goes on beyond the physical world. Our efforts as mortal beings have meaning because what we do on earth matters. We will live on to see the fruits of our labors and to worship the God who loves us. I see these truths as being self-evident and undeniable. If you do not, then I truly pity your soul. You must be spiritually dead. Yet, this is my perspective. If you truly believe God does not exist, then my lamentations are just the ravings of a madmanor more appropriate, the random and uninspired mutterings of a fellow biological unit that's simply responding to a stimuli per the dictates of his physical makeup. There's nothing personal here. If you do take it personally, it begs the question - Why?

 

Now for the second theory or hypothesis - God created the world and all of its inhabitants.

 

What supports this claim?

 

If you accept the existence of God, it's not difficult to see his hand in the creation of all things. In fact, even if you don't accept his existence, there is clear evidence that all living beings were created and have very unique and sophisticated designs. Obviously, this statement does not ring true for some of the posters on this forum. That being the case, and since I am not an expert in biology, I won't attempt to prove it. Let's try this angle. Do you have soul? Is there more to you than a bunch of chemically produced emotional responses? If so, who put that in you? Did evolution produce your soul? Evolution? What purpose would it serve God to use evolution? If we ignore or choose to believe some other interpretations of these so-called scientific proofs (i.e., carbon dating, fossil records, etc.), the theory of evolution falls apart and a huge void is left behind. One could argue, and no doubt some will, that this proves that evolution must be true. To me, it only proves that man is desperate to find an explanation for his existence that excludes God. The scientific community makes a living by shattering old theories and/or the beliefs of others. They are constantly speculating, creating new theories, and writing papers to support their claims. Yet years later, these same theories and very often the means to derive them, are revisited, revised, and/or brought back into question. I'm not willing to ignore creationism because some of today's scientists and their current methods indicate that it's not so. These scientists and their supporters scream and yell that we (creationists) are ignoring reality. However, when their theories are disproved, they do not blush. They move on to another explanation that excludes God and/or justifies their previous position. Yes - the scientific process is never ending. They will continue to revisit and revise their theories until they come face to face with their creator. How ironic? Believe it or not, despite these thoughts, I do believe in the scientific method - but I also believe in God and common sense. All gifts which he gave us.

[littlebillie]

Rooster7,

 

I very much appreciate the courtesy and care of your last post. Things are hectic, but one thing I really needed to touch on...

 

" it only proves that man is desperate to find an explanation for his existence that excludes God"

 

and i gotta say that there ARE scientists out there who believe they are doing God's work, and that some of the more amazing things coming out of physics have convinced many researchers that there is indeed a God.

 

So I'd rewrite the comment maybe to say that "it only proves that some folks are desperate to find an irrefutable, undeniable and demonstrable proof of God - but sadly, they get sidetracked along the way".

 

You're absolutely right - some scientists are swonr enemies of religion, but some are indifferent, agnostic if you will - and some see the glorious mastery of the Lord in the tiniest particles and the vastest skies...

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Before one can address the theory of creationism, one needs to come to grips with the "God theory". That is to say, before scientists and anyone else can examine creationism objectively, they need to recognize the existence of God.

 

Creationism isn't science, then. Imagine a "science" that explained rainbows as the acts of leprechauns, and its proponents said you can't examine their theory "objectively" until you recognize the existence of leprechauns.

 

If you believe that God does not exist, then you need to recognize and admit these truths:

 

Emotions are meaningless. Love, hate, envy, joy, peace, etc. are all emotions that occur because of a chemical reaction in the brain. Emotions are not derived spiritually because the spiritual world does not exist.

 

You're just assuming your conclusions again. You're assuming emotions that aren't the result of a magical spiritual world are meaningless, but you give no indication why, nor do you explain how the existence of a spiritual world makes emotions meaningful. It's just a list of assertions based on what you want reality to be like.

 

And the very line of your argument indicates that you are making an emotional argument, not a logical argument; you're trying to argue for the existence of a god because you don't like the implications if you're wrong. If an astronomer calculated that an asteroid was about to hit the earth, you can't argue against his conclusions based on the fact that you don't like the consequences.

[ScoutParent]

"It's just a list of assertions based on what you want reality to be like."

 

what is reality like then Merlyn? could you explain it please?

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

"It's just a list of assertions based on what you want reality to be like."

 

what is reality like then Merlyn? could you explain it please?

 

I never claimed I could explain reality; I was objecting to rooster7's assumptions that a god has to exist based solely on his philosophical distaste for a godless universe. Pointing out flaws in his argument doesn't obligate me to offer any counterexplanations; his argument is still flawed.