<p>Tarhunt – as an avid debater, I’m impressed!! Props to you 
Chuck – While I agree with you that 9-11 and Hiroshima were completely different, I can see where confused is coming from. He’s attempting to look at Hiroshima from Japan’s perspective, and 9-11 from the ME’s perspective. We saw Hiroshima as a strategic victory despite the deaths it caused. Similarly, those from radical fundamentalist nations in the Middle East saw 9-11 as a military victory. Now of course, Japan had provoked the US militarily with Pearl Harbor, and the United States had by that time officially declared war on Japan, and vice versa. However, both the nuclear bombings and 9-11 resulted in a huge number of civilian casualties. From Japan’s perspective, the nuclear bombings, most likely, were not seen as a strategic maneuver but sheer cruelty. Unlike the people of the U.S. who were fed patriotic propaganda by the media, the Japanese saw firsthand the horrors that the nuclear bombings caused. I’ll bet you that people in the Middle East were also fed propaganda. And unlike those of us living on the East Coast, they didn’t see up-close the destruction and death their governments caused. While there are, of course, major differences between Hiroshima, Nagasaki and 9-11, there are still similarities. Is this moral relativism? Yes. But does it have a degree of merit? Of course. It’s not a matter of confused not supporting the United States…it’s a matter of him/her attempting to look at both sides of both tragedies from a more objective stance.</p>
<p>Mocha- I also could see where he/she was coming from I just didnt agree with him/her on the matter. I would say that 911 and pearl harbor were more alike than 911 and hiroshima/nagasaki. The fact Pearl harbor was against a military base makes it less horrible than 911 which was against civilians even though one could argue that it was an attack on the US & World Economy or symbol thereof, instead of against the civilians. It could be considered a military target in time of war between governments. </p>
<p>Watson- I thought I was done with this but I did want to respond to your questions, implications and statements. I was raised in churches, spent some time in Christian school and a semester in a college. You could claim I was indoctrinated with the belief in God. But I have to share how I came to my own belief in God. I believe it was a rational , logical choice. In my teenage years I was questioning everything, what teen doesnt? I even questioned the existence of the God I was being taught about as well as the theory of Evolution I was being taught. Both in public school and in Christian school(didnt move there until 11th grade). Christian schools teach the theory along with creationism. </p>
<p>I sat one night staring at the stars and entered into a debate in my own mind.
I figured that which ever way you believed was true if you went back far enough you would have to go back to nothing. What was before GOd or what was before the ingredients that caused the big bang. I tried to keep going back till there was nothing in my mind. Even trying to imagine nothing, it was something. So when i went back as far as I could in my mind just short of nothing. I thought which belief makes more sense. In order to beleive in the big bang you have to take for granted that whatever it was that created the big bang was there. Thats a big jump from nothing to all that which involved the beginning by the bang. From that point forward it was a possibility to me that evolution is the truth. It was that point back that really was the issue. </p>
<p>So when I looked at the creation side I had the same problem. What was before God, where did God come from? You just cant go back before that, the human mind cant comprehend it. So to believe in creation you have make that jump and assume God existed from that point forward. </p>
<p>Bottom line one way or the other I had to either believe that one of these things just happened from nothing. So was it easier to believe that everything came from absolute nothing (just doesnt seem possible to me) or that there was a superior being that created it all? Yea its a leap to believe that, but to me it was easier to believe the creation option over the everything from nothing option which to me is a bigger leap. </p>
<p>Thats how I solidified my own belief in God. </p>
<p>Now to take it further and this is where some may say I am a wacko again. I believe there is only one God ,and that ,man has created most of the differences in the religions. I dont believe any one religion is completely right although I do think some are completely wrong. I believe the differences,conflicts and confusion regarding religion is all the work of evil to lead many a stray. </p>
<p>And if I am wrong in all this and you are right what happens to me after death? If you are wrong then what will happen to you? If i am wrong and I lead a life with strong morale character based on Christian principles how will I have adversely effected our society? To me there is no other rational choice.</p>
<p>I see you have taken a logical approach to your decision to follow a god. Truly many theories are taught in school that one can be skeptical about, but none are based entirely on skeptisism except ID/creationism. Acknowledging that we cannot comprehend “the beggining” is one thing, but then filling that ignorance with unfounded theories is another. Darwinism is different in that it is founded on emperical evidence, which all theories ought to be. (A theory derived from mathematics is indirectly based on emperical evidence)</p>
<p>We like to be certain of things for we live in a fairly certain and definite world but we cannot be certain about the beggining. Have you ever considered accepting that we simply do not know yet? It is commonly said that evidence of intellegence is one’s ability to acknowledge what they are unaware of. Call that an ad populum fallacy, but also think of it conversely - the most unbelievable people are those who fill holes with mere speculation.</p>
<p>I was at that point where i accepted that I just did not know and neither way could be proven. Thats what prompted my thought. You can attest that Darwinism can be scientifically proven but I disagree. Both ways have a point where speculation fills gaps. I found it more logical to accept the speculation that a superior being created our existence than to accept that it all just happened from nothing. If there was something before the bang then you still have to go back and theorize where it all came from. No evidence or proof,its a theory or a speculation. If you go back to nothing then the bang couldnt have happened from nothing. Its a never ending circle that you are right we just dont know for sure yet, scientifically. I had to conclude creationism was the more reasonable of the two. From there i have accepted Christianity as the base religion I accept to be the closest to the truth.</p>
<p>SO anyways, I hear BJU sucks the big one.</p>
<p>chuck,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the problem…evolution is more than just “a theory.” I suggest that you read up on the difference between fact, theory, and law in science before you debate on this issue.</p>
<p>I don’t understand why words in a book, myths, stories, that were transcribed by scribes, and edited and purged, etc is taken as more reliable scientific evidence to some than real research…</p>
<p>and WHY is creatisnism more “reasonable” when it really based on FAITH</p>
<p>do some research Chuck, and see what THEORY in science means</p>
<p>
Technically evolution is a theory. In fact, it’s often called evolutionary theory or the theory of natural selection. Plate tectonics and relativity are theories too, for that matter. Although we’re 95% certain these are true (the threshold for experimental data), old theories like phlogiston theory or various atomic models have been disproved. </p>
<p>However, it’s important to stress that scientific theories are, by Popper’s definition, verifiable. Creationism is not verifiable and has no place as a scientific theory. Science can rarely prove things to be true, but it can prove things untrue.</p>
<p>If you want a good analysis of natural selection, I suggest [Darwin’s</a> Black Box](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/0684834936]Darwin’s”>http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/0684834936). It was mostly refuted in a court ruling, but it makes for good reading.</p>
<p>
That reminds me of a comic strip one of my biology profs has on his door. A professor is shown teaching physics & magic, astronomy & astrology, etc. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>The cell theory is just a theory. Anyone care to debate on whether or not organisms are made of cells?</p>
<p>Most Americans don’t know the difference between theory and hypothesis. They use the word “theory” as a substitute for “guess,” which is even less than a hypothesis.</p>
<p>I remember having learned that theories, in a scientific context, mean that it’s generally accepted as fact. Although a large percentage of the world believes that the Bible is “fact” (a sad thought indeed), I would never call it a ‘theory’ but an age-old religion that’s very slowly becoming mythology to many (just as in the ‘mythology’ we read today – Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Aztec…).</p>
<p>In response to claims that people that are critical of BJU are narrow minded I have to state that I do not oppose people’s right to attend an oppressive college, I criticize the college for being so oppressive and narrow minded. I could also argue that religion is by definition narrow minded because it deals with inrefutable axioms, but I do not want to start a flame war.</p>
<p>Speaking of flame, Liberty University has granted critics an obvious derogatory term for their students by naming their sports teams “The Flames”</p>
<p>UCLA I didnt mean to start a debate on the issue. I was asked a question and I answered it. Your minds wont be changed and neither will mine. Even if a i was a scientist and could debate with the proper terminology it wouldnt change a thing. For those that would like to see some opposing views I found a couple sites that are interesting. I only read some of them. They do a much better job than I could ever think of doing in this forum.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html[/url]”>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/[/url]”>http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/</a></p>
<p>and this one with quotes from darwin himself. </p>
<p><a href=“Account Suspended”>Account Suspended;
<p>there are so many more. </p>
<p>I believe those that wont acknowledge the truth about the issue do so because of an underlying agenda they are trying to protect or promote. Its based on humanism which in itself is a religion. I am sorry that evil has succeeded in deceiving the atheist. As I said earlier, in the end, who will be in the better position if proven wrong? </p>
<p>Getting back the the thread. i have to agree that BJU university would not be my choice but I dont ridicule them and make fun of them because of what they believe. This thread in the end really got down to the real reason the trashing was so prevalent in this thread. It wasnt about silly rules, it had a much deeper root.</p>
<p>chuck, do yourself a favor and look at the backers of those site…me thinks you might see a pattern, if I am not mistaken</p>
<p>Faith is not science and to pretend the are the same is doing a disservice to them both</p>
<p>I make fun of BJU/…I don’t like them, I think have some very scary agendas, and I dont’ think they really educate a person well, and I have major issues with its founders and funders</p>
<p>So yeah, I ridicule them…and in America that is allowed…just because someone claims religion does not mean they shouldn’t be look into…</p>
<p>Humanism is NOT A RELIGION…please, Chuck you need to do some real reading beyond what you have</p>
<p>And evil are you saying the devil made us do it?</p>
<p>So, to yourself, you would rather believe some information in an ancient text over true science and if you read some views that show how creationist misrepresent the science they claim validates the idea they propogate, you will be truely amazed</p>
<p>“I am sorry that evil has succeeded in deceiving the atheist.”</p>
<p>You know, chuck, I’m getting really sick of your remarks that are, thus far, abrasive to the community at large. Frankly, your behavior and attitude were at first combatant, then bordered on ‘■■■■■■■■,’ and now are just downright asinine. I suggest you stop this activity and move onto another site to make your [unsupported] case for creationism, lest you be banned from College Confidential altogether.</p>
<p>
Oh, I wouldn’t say that. I can cite several examples where archaeological data supports biblical events or places. It’s not exactly an unbiased historical document, but it certainly shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.</p>
<p>Personally, I think the ■■■■■■ are the people who feel the need to bash BJU (this thread wasn’t the first). Personally, I would never attend a military academy like USMA or an urban university like NYU, but I don’t bash them.</p>
<p>warblers:</p>
<p>Yep. Some things are confirmed by archeology. Others have become extremely unlikely but, since archeology can never “prove” a negative like religion can “prove” a negative, one can’t say they’re impossible.</p>
<p>General: </p>
<p>What Chuck has demonstrated to us is what should have been plain from the beginning:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Many, many, many Americans are completely ignorant of what science is and how it works. They cannot even construct a cogent argument on the subject because they don’t know enough to know where to begin. So, they provide links to others who are almost as ignorant as they, and they don’t even know how ridiculous those sites are.</p></li>
<li><p>Humankind has always been plagued with those who “know” the truth of things even though they have absolutely no clue what they’re talking about. When challenged, they build a wall of defense against the truth. We have Holocaust deniers who ignore mountains of evidence to believe what they want to believe. The pseudo-Christian religionists are the same in principle, and have been this way since the Roman Empire adopted Christianity. The pseudos have had people imprisoned and/or killed for suggesting that the Earth isn’t the center of the universe, or even the solar system, for instance.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Today, we have people denying global warming and its potential effects who have a vested interest in clinging to their belief that it is not true. Most of these people know nothing about the the fields they are attacking. So, they point to a rapidly shrinking minority of other “scientists” (many of whom do not work in a field that would qualify them to have an opinion) who disagree as “proof” that global warming doesn’t exist or, if it does, that it has no relationship to human actions. </p>
<p>Most scientifically trained people who know nothing about the fields involved in global warming (like me) have no opinion except for one of probability; that is, if 90% of the people who study the field say it’s very likely, then it’s a very high probability that they are right. People like Chuck have 100% certainty that they are wrong because, well, it isn’t important to actually KNOW anything to make up one’s mind 100%. All one has to do is say, “My opinion is just as good as anyone else’s.”</p>
<p>I’ll remember that next time I need brain surgery.</p>
<ol>
<li> Those who “know” without actually having to learn anything have always been with us and they always will be, barring a change in the human brain. There is a part of the brain that seeks certainty, and it will always fight with the neo-cortex, which seeks data to determine certainty. In many people, the neo-cortex loses the battle. Only proper education can mitigate this tendency sufficiently, and then only with a portion of the population.</li>
</ol>
<p>It is what it is.</p>
<p>I think universities should teach creationism/evolution/whatever. Let everybody get their opinion in.</p>
<p>TheMK99:</p>
<p>Absolutely! All opinions are equally valid. Including the opinion that all opinions aren’t equally valid.</p>
<p>Think about it.</p>
<p>TheMK99:</p>
<p>As long as creationism is taught in a religous studies class.</p>