Conservative doublethink on the first amendment

[Calboner]

true dat, its "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" not "let he who casts the first stone, sin be overlooked"

It is neither. The ungrammatical combination of words "let he" does not occur in any translation of the Bible. The correct English phrase is "let him." As for the Bible, here are a few translations of John 8:7:

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. (King James Version)

So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up[a] and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” (New King James Version)

But when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. (American Standard Version)

And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." (Revised Standard Version)​

 

[B_Nick4444]

It is neither. The ungrammatical combination of words "let he" does not occur in any translation of the Bible. The correct English phrase is "let him." As for the Bible, here are a few translations of John 8:7:

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. (King James Version)

So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up[a] and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” (New King James Version)

But when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. (American Standard Version)

And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." (Revised Standard Version)​

ah!

if only the compilers of the King James Version has access to the scholarship that the compilers of the Revised Standard Version had -- King James excels in the use of the language!

 

[1kmb1]

It is neither. The ungrammatical combination of words "let he" does not occur in any translation of the Bible. The correct English phrase is "let him." As for the Bible, here are a few translations of John 8:7:

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. (King James Version)

So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up[a] and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” (New King James Version)

But when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. (American Standard Version)

And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." (Revised Standard Version)​

i just finished my translation yesterday.

 

[workandplay243]

Well then you should have continued your studies of evolution in college and gone into that field. Evolution doesn't claim to know it all. It only claims to be a framework (and the most scientific one so far) as how it might have happened.

There should be no Creation v. Evolution in class because they are two different subjects entirely. Creation is not biology and Evolution is not Christianity.

Asserting that they need to be taught along side each other makes about as much sense as a Metal Shop v. Evolution class.

There is no scientific logic to the framework of evolution and its reasoning. From 'Lots of time' to hoaxes to 'mutations' to natual selection and all kinds of thought up 'scientific' dug up, theorized, 'filled in the gap' stuff. It's never worked, and has never worked, and is not in work today.

For this reason, yes, an intelligent design should be an alternative form of thought in our schools.

the information sciences are evident in our building blocks, that is, they can be proven they exist in carbon based life forms. The information, - that tells the amino acids - that tell the proteins - to build YOU. All coded.
ATGC, error correcting, vastly complex, and that's just 1 strand.

So, you can't tell me the information hap hazardly got there by all the mutated, natural selected processes. - (by the way, no one has ever witnessed these, but attribute it to 'lots of time', and 'must have been'.)

Finally, you'll certainly never convince me intelligent design should not be part of a students decision as an alternative to 'evolution' and it's concocted, circular never ending lies.

 

[workandplay243]

Evolution has NOT been disproven..

Go for it man... I'm not an evolutionary scientist but I have enough knowledge on the subject to be confident that I know more about it than you do by your current displays of ignorance on the matter.

I don't have to be an evolutionary scientist to understand pure and simple reasoning and mathematical proofs.

 

[Quast]

I don't have an issue if creationism is taught in schools, however I believe most people object to it being taught in science classes. There's nothing scientific about creationism. If your school wants to offer a theology/religion class then teach it there, I just believe there's no grounds whatsoever for it being in a science class.

 

[B_Nick4444]

I don't have to be an evolutionary scientist to understand pure and simple reasoning and mathematical proofs.

true

but you fail to recognize the lib mind's reliance on making assertions attributed to scientists

it goes to the very heart of lib dogma -- a lib merely asserts that a position is "scientific" or "based on science" to curtail and suppress alternative or dissenting views, and to surrender individual responsibility

much as an Islamic Imam or Muslim warlords claims a directive from Allah to claim authority, stifle dissent, and compel obedience

 

[workandplay243]

It's ok to break Christian rules as long as you enforce them on everyone else..... at least that has been my observation of the breed.

ok, let's believe in nothing, no rules, no codes of ethics. I mean why? Our ethics DO come from Christian roots and should be upheld, contrary to popular belief.

I know - Anarchy. No rules for morality. Everyone for themselves.

 

[Quast]

true

but you fail to recognize the lib mind's reliance on making assertions attributed to scientists

it goes to the very heart of lib dogma -- a lib merely asserts that a position is "scientific" or "based on science" to curtail and suppress alternative or dissenting views

much as an Islamic Imam or Muslim warlords claims a directive from Allah

It's comparisons like that that make this country absolutely appalling. Relating liberals to Islamic Terrorists is by far one of the most offensive attempts I've seen at insulting a group of people.

 

[workandplay243]

I don't have an issue if creationism is taught in schools, however I believe most people object to it being taught in science classes. There's nothing scientific about creationism. If your school wants to offer a theology/religion class then teach it there, I just believe there's no grounds whatsoever for it being in a science class.

If you are studious to look deep enough, it is there, all there, evidence of design. All taken from the labs of scientists. It is most definetely scientific.

 

[B_Nick4444]

It's comparisons like that that make this country absolutely appalling. Relating liberals to Islamic Terrorists is by far one of the most offensive attempts I've seen at insulting a group of people.

read the post

 

[Quast]

If you are studious to look deep enough, it is there, all there, evidence of design. All taken from the labs of scientists. It is most definetely scientific.

Sorry, but apparently being scientific means being an Islamic Terrorist. So I now disapprove of it.

 

[D_Percy_Prettywillie]

There is no scientific logic to the framework of evolution and its reasoning. From 'Lots of time' to hoaxes to 'mutations' to natual selection and all kinds of thought up 'scientific' dug up, theorized, 'filled in the gap' stuff. It's never worked, and has never worked, and is not in work today.

For this reason, yes, an intelligent design should be an alternative form of thought in our schools.

the information sciences are evident in our building blocks, that is, they can be proven they exist in carbon based life forms. The information, - that tells the amino acids - that tell the proteins - to build YOU. All coded.
ATGC, error correcting, vastly complex, and that's just 1 strand.

So, you can't tell me the information hap hazardly got there by all the mutated, natural selected processes. - (by the way, no one has ever witnessed these, but attribute it to 'lots of time', and 'must have been'.)

Finally, you'll certainly never convince me intelligent design should not be part of a students decision as an alternative to 'evolution' and it's concocted, circular never ending lies.

Being a new member I decided to read your posts and take them at face value. Seeking out what someone has said before, in threads created in the past, seemed...disingenuous to me. So I forewent that. And while you have posted some rather... eye-opening comments, I hadn't disregarded any of them due to out right lunacy until this post.


If you can see the "science" in Intelligent Design (which by its very definition is a contradiction of the foundations of science itself in that science is the pursuit of truth through quantifiable and/or qualitative measurements neither of which can be applied to God in any meaningful way) but not in Evolution, you have deluded yourself to a point where ignorance is no longer a potent enough term to describe your state of being. To truly believe this one must actively seek and be not only complicit but cooperative in their own deception. This is the sort of inexcusable, inconceivable position that when espoused by more than just those suffering from a mental deficiency, has the potential to actually hinder the advancement of the human race.


This is what's wrong with the south. There isn't any other topic on the table that even warrants discussion. When this is from where your ideology stems? You live in a fictional world, tailored to and then reinforced by your own wayward beliefs. That will taint everything else that follows.






JSZ

 

[Calboner]

There is no scientific logic to the framework of evolution and its reasoning. From 'Lots of time' to hoaxes to 'mutations' to natual selection and all kinds of thought up 'scientific' dug up, theorized, 'filled in the gap' stuff. It's never worked, and has never worked, and is not in work today.

For this reason, yes, an intelligent design should be an alternative form of thought in our schools.

the information sciences are evident in our building blocks, that is, they can be proven they exist in carbon based life forms. The information, - that tells the amino acids - that tell the proteins - to build YOU. All coded.
ATGC, error correcting, vastly complex, and that's just 1 strand.

So, you can't tell me the information hap hazardly got there by all the mutated, natural selected processes. - (by the way, no one has ever witnessed these, but attribute it to 'lots of time', and 'must have been'.)

Finally, you'll certainly never convince me intelligent design should not be part of a students decision as an alternative to 'evolution' and it's concocted, circular never ending lies.

Surely, Worky, that is not an argument for including intelligent design as an "alternative form of thought" but rather for making it the sole basis of our biology classes. For if, as you claim, evolutionary biology is all a tissue of falsehoods, then it should be removed from the curriculum completely. Also, all of its practitioners should be fired from their positions in universities and museums.

Funny, though, isn't it, that virtually the entire community of professionally qualified specialists has accepted hoaxes as facts and lies as truths in just this one branch of science, while you and some other people, the majority of whom have no scientific credentials at all, have managed to see the truth of the matter. And even funnier that just this one branch of science is completely false. Surely the rest must be false as well, don't you think?

It is interesting to think how the future of science will look when your view prevails. For one thing, it will no longer be possible to develop vaccines against new bacteria and viruses, since that part of medicine rests on the pseudo-science of evolutionary biology. There will no longer be any point in inquiring into the fossil record (much of which, according to you, is all a hoax anyway; right?), since we already have the complete explanation of all the diversity of life, namely "God did it." Yes, a fine future.

 

[B_Nick4444]

For one thing, it will no longer be possible to develop vaccines against new bacteria and viruses, since that part of medicine rests on the pseudo-science of evolutionary biology.

citation supporting this statement?

 

[Calboner]

true

but you fail to recognize the lib mind's reliance on making assertions attributed to scientists

it goes to the very heart of lib dogma -- a lib merely asserts that a position is "scientific" or "based on science" to curtail and suppress alternative or dissenting views, and to surrender individual responsibility

much as an Islamic Imam or Muslim warlords claims a directive from Allah to claim authority, stifle dissent, and compel obedience

Examples of assertions made by the "lib mind" and falsely attributed to science or to scientists? Preferably ones relevant to the topic of this thread.

This is what's wrong with the south. There isn't any other topic on the table that even warrants discussion. When this is from where your ideology stems? You live in a fictional world, tailored to and then reinforced by your own wayward beliefs. That will taint everything else that follows.

It's not just the South, JSZ; it's the USA. States in which school boards have attempted to insert anti-evolution materials into public-school science curricula include Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Kansas.

 

[Calboner]

citation supporting this statement?

Here are a couple of passages that I turned up at Talkorigins.org. The first is from "The 'Death of Darwinism'" by E. T. Babinski:

Darwin's theory continues to be supported by recent evidence and by the vast majority of biologists. Take the recent book that details the decades-long study of Darwinian evolution of finches on the Galapagos Islands, The Beak of the Finch: The Story of Evolution in Our Times by Weiner. Or see the recent study of the Darwinian evolution of bacteria and viruses, titled, Why We Get Sick by Nesse and Williams. Or see George C. Williams' Adaptation and Natural Selection. "A beautifully written and excellently reasoned essay in defense of Darwinian selection" -- R. C. Lewontin in a book review in Science magazine.

The second is from "The Evolution of Improved Fitness by Random Mutation Plus Selection" by Edward E. Max:

Despite the logical fallacy in the creationists' dismissal of Dawkins's simulation, the seductive appeal of this argument led me to think that it could be most clearly countered if one could cite a biological example in which -- without the intervention of any intelligent designer -- successive rounds of mutation and selection could be unambiguously shown to lead to increased fitness within living organisms. As it happens, my own laboratory research in the area of antibody genes made me familiar with experiments showing just such a biological example. This example -- somatic mutation and selection of antibody genes -- should make it very difficult for the creationists to continue to insist that random mutations are always harmful and cannot lead to improved function in a real biological system. To appreciate the beauty of the mutational evolution of antibody genes, it is necessary to understand as background the deep mystery that this system posed before recombinant DNA technology made it possible to probe antibody genes directly, beginning in the late 1970s.

 

[B_Nick4444]

Here are a couple of passages that I turned up at Talkorigins.org. The first is from "The 'Death of Darwinism'" by E. T. Babinski:

The second is from "The Evolution of Improved Fitness by Random Mutation Plus Selection" by Edward E. Max:

Is this what you are relying on?

Or, did you simply select these for their simplifications?

 

[D_Percy_Prettywillie]

Is this what you are relying on?

Or, did you simply select these for their simplifications?

When you're dealing with someone who makes broad, generalized, disconnected statements like

a lib merely asserts that a position is "scientific" or "based on science" to curtail and suppress alternative or dissenting views, and to surrender individual responsibility

simplistic is probably too euphemistic a term to describe the level at which an appropriate conversation can be had. I can talk to a four year old about the machinations of Congress but to get them to understand the point I'm trying to make would require colorful graphs and an appearance by Elmo. See what I'm saying?


If you even understood the definition of the word "science" you'd know that suppression of alternative or dissenting views is contrary to the very nature of the pursuit. That's what science is; alternative and dissenting views in a progression toward understanding that can only be had once through discussion, debate, and through the scientific method. The only things that are dismissed are those things which have been deemed to be significantly implausible or scientifically impossible. That includes fairy tales and mythology that has no way of being qualified.

As for "surrendering individual responsibility?" No one ever called Chemistry the Opiate of the Masses.




JSZ

 

[B_Nick4444]

When you're dealing with someone who makes broad, generalized, disconnected statements like

for examples of broad. generalized, disconnected statements please review the previous posts throughout the thread

you might also want to review some basic concepts in epistemology, hermeneutics, and the logical fallacy known as "the straw man"


simplistic is probably too euphemistic a term to describe the level at which an appropriate conversation can be had. I can talk to a four year old about the machinations of Congress but to get them to understand the point I'm trying to make would require colorful graphs and an appearance by Elmo. See what I'm saying?

I'm sure you think you are conceptualizing, and speaking at an informed and intelligent level -- no question there
If you even understood the definition of the word "science" you'd know that suppression of alternative or dissenting views is contrary to the very nature of the pursuit. That's what science is; alternative and dissenting views in a progression toward understanding that can only be had once through discussion, debate, and through the scientific method. The only things that are dismissed are those things which have been deemed to be significantly implausible or scientifically impossible. That includes fairy tales and mythology that has no way of being qualified.

you're describing the paradigm of the scientific method; read my post -- was I discussing the paradigm of science, or ...?

As for "surrendering individual responsibility?" No one ever called Chemistry the Opiate of the Masses.

JSZ

read more on history and current events; and keep at it, once you leave public high school, I'm sure you'll find junior college immensely rewarding. I do applaud your efforts at meaningful thought and speech. Seriously.