Praying Before Game WILL NOT BE STOPPED AT UT (merged)

[PowerSweep]

After reading the past 5 pages I have determined that we have some very messed up fans. I am waiting on someone to say that Aliens came to this planet and had sex with monkeys and that is how man was formed.

c'mon..this surprises you in the american south?

As of 2008 a Gallup poll indicated that 36% of U.S. adults agreed with the statement "human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.", 14% believed that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process." and 44% of US adults agreed with the statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."[8]


That last statement, that 44% of the country believes something for which their is a mountain of contradictory evidence and you can only conclude these folks are sadly just brainwashed. Most grew up in the church and it's tough to escape...kids believe in santa claus also but at least someone finally says, "ehhh...we were just messin w ya"

These are the people that buy, I Know Heaven is For Real

 

[Orange_Crush]

my grandfather gave me that one and I've heard it elsewhere, sporadically within my church growing up. Also had the whole radiocarbon dating thing taught to me. I never thought to ask why geologists were all ignoring these flaws.

Scientists have paradigms through which they interpret evidence.

please show me these geologists

Just from a 2 minute search:

Steven Austin, PhD Geology
Andrew Snelling, PhD Geology
John Baumgardner, B.S., Texas Tech University, Lubbock, 1968
M.S., Electrical Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 1970
M.S., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1981
Ph.D., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1983

there is nothing wrong with an "appeal to authority" as you state it. We rely on experts and their use of the scientific method all of the time.

There is a lot wrong with resting your entire point on appeals to authority. At one point, the entire geological community believed in a young earth. Was it true then, and not now?

It is incumbent upon you to do one of three things...either to show that they aren't really experts in their field, to show there is not consensus in the field about the thing with which you disagree, or to show that there is reason to elieve there is a conspiracy by which the real truth is being withheld.

False, false, and false.

It is not incumbent on me to prove anything. I am the admitted agnostic, remember? You are the one that made the fallacy of incredulity. You are the one claiming the positive statement that the earth is millions of years old and young earthers are wrong. So, the burden of proof is on you.

Go!

Expert opinion does not prove a fact either true or false. Truth is not a democratic endeavor. I stated the assumptions that age dating methods are built on. Either show why these assumptions are valid, or ignore them. It doesn't matter to me.

Michael Behe, that you?

Irreducible complexity got absolutely and embarrassingly torn apart at the Dover Creationism trial. There is no such thing...he seemed helpless up there being cross examined on the supposedly irreducibly complex flagellum. Can't believe you guys still trot that out.

Truth is not dictated by legal maneuverings either. have you read the court transcripts?

Behe wrote some very compelling responses to his critics in the 10 year edition of DBB. Thee irreducible complexity is anything but disproven. As a matter of fact, the major criticisms to the theory of IC was that it's not fair to expect biologists to be able to show evolutionary paths.

 

[Carl Pickens]

Just bc it is a Christian nation doesn't mean EVERYONE is a Christian. It doesn't offend me when people pray bc I simply don't follow with it, but it may offend some people.

Breathing offends some people....the aggravating part for most is that the "unsilent minority" always get their way by saying they're offended. What about the majority that is offended by this?

 

[volbeast33]

After reading the past 5 pages I have determined that we have some very messed up fans. I am waiting on someone to say that Aliens came to this planet and had sex with monkeys and that is how man was formed.

That's my theory LOL

 

[Carl Pickens]

After reading the past 5 pages I have determined that we have some very messed up fans. I am waiting on someone to say that Aliens came to this planet and had sex with monkeys and that is how man was formed.

I agree Gman....the more I read and post here the more I realize I'm in a fraternity that includes a very large number of dullards

 

[PowerSweep]

Scientists have paradigms through which they interpret evidence.


Just from a 2 minute search:

Steven Austin, PhD Geology
Andrew Snelling, PhD Geology
John Baumgardner, B.S., Texas Tech University, Lubbock, 1968
M.S., Electrical Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 1970
M.S., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1981
Ph.D., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1983

----->There are tens of thousands of geologists worldwide...the young earthers are perhaps .01%; 99.99% reject this foolishness.

There is a lot wrong with resting your entire point on appeals to authority. At one point, the entire geological community believed in a young earth. Was it true then, and not now?

---->The modern field of geology never believed the earth to be 10,000 yrs old. Even if it did it would not have been based on scientific evidence


False, false, and false.

It is not incumbent on me to prove anything. I am the admitted agnostic, remember? You are the one that made the fallacy of incredulity. You are the one claiming the positive statement that the earth is millions of years old and young earthers are wrong. So, the burden of proof is on you.

------>You are rejecting the consensus of 99.9%+ of a field of experts...it is indeed incumbent upon you to point out one of those 3 things to prove that my "appeal to authority" is a fallacious one

Go!

Expert opinion does not prove a fact either true or false. Truth is not a democratic endeavor. I stated the assumptions that age dating methods are built on. Either show why these assumptions are valid, or ignore them. It doesn't matter to me.

----->why do you think geologists reject what you say?



Truth is not dictated by legal maneuverings either. have you read the court transcripts?

------>I have

Behe wrote some very compelling responses to his critics in the 10 year edition of DBB. Thee irreducible complexity is anything but disproven. As a matter of fact, the major criticisms to the theory of IC was that it's not fair to expect biologists to be able to show evolutionary paths.

------>You should watch the PBS documentary on the Dover controversy and then read the transcript of his cross examination...both available online...to say it was embarrassing for the creationists (wait it's intelligent design now) is un understatement.

 

[KnoxVillain]

Anyone who prays or believes in God is an absolute rube. It's honestly embarrassing that so many of you exist in modern society.

:clap:

I'll say a prayer for you.

:huggy:

So all the references to God which include our currency, pledge, constitution, etc. are just there by coincidence..ok.

"God" isn't in the constitution and the pledge and currency with "In God We Trust" were only established in the 20th century.

SIAP. WBIR reported on their 6 pm broadcast that UT was going to continue the prayer before UT events.

...For now...

 

[Jax_Vol]

Way to man up Jimmy Cheeks! We will be praying on Saturday.

 

[Orange_Crush]

------>You should watch the PBS documentary on the Dover controversy and then read the transcript of his cross examination...both available online...to say it was embarrassing for the creationists (wait it's intelligent design now) is un understatement.

I've seen it. I've read them.

Is that the sum total of your response? You going to ignore the rest? OK. Pass and repass. Have a good evening.

:hi:

 

[PowerSweep]

Volbeast33, you never answered...has the general age of the earth been proven to your satisfaction?

 

[Orange_Crush]

That's my theory LOL

Haven't turned on the History Channel lately?

 

[Jax_Vol]

So if you were asked to lead the prayer on Saturday, on behalf of the VolNation......what would u pray for?

 

[PowerSweep]

I've seen it. I've read them.

Is that the sum total of your response? You going to ignore the rest? OK. Pass and repass. Have a good evening.

:hi:

What? you ignored half of my questions...still waiting for why you think so few geologists are young earthers? Is there a conspiracy? Are they just dumb?

From wikipedia:

Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations.[1] The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community at large,[2] which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3] Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments used by intelligent design proponents, the other being specified complexity.[4]

Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".[5] Evolutionary biologists have demonstrated how such systems could have evolved,[6][7] and describe Behe's claim as an argument from incredulity.[8] In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[2]

The whole god of the gaps all over...

Like intelligent design, the concept it seeks to support, irreducible complexity has failed to gain any notable acceptance within the scientific community. One science writer called it a "full-blown intellectual surrender strategy."[74]

Probably all just a grand conspiracy against religion.

 

[UTRavens]

False, false, and false.

It is not incumbent on me to prove anything. I am the admitted agnostic, remember? You are the one that made the fallacy of incredulity. You are the one claiming the positive statement that the earth is millions of years old and young earthers are wrong. So, the burden of proof is on you.

Go!

I love when people throw out the "burden of proof" card as if that gives them an excuse to not say anything. We're not at court here. If we're having a debate, both sides need to present evidence in their favor. You're the one who's challenging a widespread belief here, so if you think there's even a possibility of the earth being under however many thousand years old, you better have a good reason.

 

[Jax_Vol]

So if you were asked to lead the prayer on Saturday, on behalf of the VolNation......what would u pray for?

Good question. I would pray for all the homo activity to end in Florida. Maybe wipe them all out with a big hurricane or something.....right in the middle of Gainesville...boom

 

[PowerSweep]

I love when people throw out the "burden of proof" card as if that gives them an excuse to not say anything. We're not at court here. If we're having a debate, both sides need to present evidence in their favor. You're the one who's challenging a widespread belief here, so if you think there's even a possibility of the earth being under however many thousand years old, you better have a good reason.

Of course...when he says, "how can we believe geologists when they used to believe 'X'...maybe they're wrong now also"...when there is a mountain of evidence that didn't exist then and it was based on a non scientific book- the bible

Sort of like telling a cardiologist you can't be sure that the heart pumps blood through the body because they used to think it was where thought occurred.

 

[GmanTN]

c'mon..this surprises you in the american south?

As of 2008 a Gallup poll indicated that 36% of U.S. adults agreed with the statement "human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.", 14% believed that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process." and 44% of US adults agreed with the statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."[8]


That last statement, that 44% of the country believes something for which their is a mountain of contradictory evidence and you can only conclude these folks are sadly just brainwashed. Most grew up in the church and it's tough to escape...kids believe in santa claus also but at least someone finally says, "ehhh...we were just messin w ya"

These are the people that buy, I Know Heaven is For Real

Allow me to set you straight on me since you like to generalize things and think you have it all figured out. Both my grandfathers were Baptist preachers and I was a rebel and hell on wheels. I was not saved at an early age nor did I find salvation early on in life. I smoked pot, cocaine, dropped acid, did pretty much ever drug out except shoot up. No one brainwashed me into anything, I lived on the streets and did far more than I will elaborate here.

Did I find salvation and the true meaning of life? you damn skippy I did and the crap you speak of is based off of a man and his thoughts. I have read the bible 3 times which I would place money on is 3 times more than you have read it. My life has done a 180 compared to how I once was and I only have Jesus to thank for it. So you go ahead thinking you are so wise and have all the answers and anyone who doesn't think your way to be an idiot and less informed. The only person you are hurting is yourself, btw I am not here to get into some childish pissing match with you so please don't bother quoting some jackass that has led you down the path of destruction because i'm not going to read the crap. There comes a time in everyones life where you have to make a stance, i've made mine and feel very comfortable with it, if you can say the same, it is your life live it how you see fit.

 

[Orange_Crush]

What? you ignored half of my questions...still waiting for why you think so few geologists are young earthers? Is there a conspiracy? Are they just dumb?

From wikipedia:

Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations.[1] The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community at large,[2] which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3] Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments used by intelligent design proponents, the other being specified complexity.[4]

Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".[5] Evolutionary biologists have demonstrated how such systems could have evolved,[6][7] and describe Behe's claim as an argument from incredulity.[8] In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[2]

The whole god of the gaps all over...

Like intelligent design, the concept it seeks to support, irreducible complexity has failed to gain any notable acceptance within the scientific community. One science writer called it a "full-blown intellectual surrender strategy."[74]

Probably all just a grand conspiracy against religion.

How have I ignored half your questions?

I gave you geologists, etc... I answered all of your questions.

I even did so without resorting to wikipedia. However, I did notice in the wikipedia article that IC has been both debunked, and it is a "god of the gaps". Translation: We can not answer it (god of the gaps, i.e. Behe is relying on holes in the scientific evidence), but we have debunked it.

lol

I love when people throw out the "burden of proof" card as if that gives them an excuse to not say anything. We're not at court here. If we're having a debate, both sides need to present evidence in their favor. You're the one who's challenging a widespread belief here, so if you think there's even a possibility of the earth being under however many thousand years old, you better have a good reason.

I didn't throw out the burden of proof card. Sweep did. I merely responded to sweep's assertion that the burden of proof is on me. Since I'm not making a definitive statement one way or the other, and he is making a positive assertion, the burden of proof is, indeed, on him.

Debate 101.

Of course...when he says, "how can we believe geologists when they used to believe 'X'...maybe they're wrong now also"...when there is a mountain of evidence that didn't exist then and it was based on a non scientific book- the bible

Sort of like telling a cardiologist you can't be sure that the heart pumps blood through the body because they used to think it was where thought occurred.

You mean you actually missed the point of that analogy that truth is not a democratic endeavor? Even when I explicitly explained that was the point of the analogy?

Really?

OK

 

[MiramarVol]

1,000 years is but 1 day to God. All this evolution talk is way off the original topic of prayer at a UT game.

 

[Gramps]

After reading the past 5 pages I have determined that we have some very messed up fans. I am waiting on someone to say that Aliens came to this planet and had sex with monkeys and that is how man was formed.

Yes we do. I think we need a good old fashion revival meeting to go along with the prayer.

 

[ncvol17]

Haven't turned on the History Channel lately?

This is Satan's playground...I heard it from the group at the convention wearing the 'Jesus hates Obama' t-shirts..if they say it...book it...:elephant::elephant:

 

[Jax_Vol]

Yes we do. I think we need a good old fashion revival meeting to go along with the prayer.

We can take them all down and dunk them in the Tennessee River.........just in case that sprinkling thing ain't right

 

[timbowyn]

Yes!

UT: Prayer before games not unconstitutional - WRCBtv.com | Chattanooga News, Weather & Sports

 

[PowerSweep]

How have I ignored half your questions?

I gave you geologists, etc... I answered all of your questions.

I even did so without resorting to wikipedia. However, I did notice in the wikipedia article that IC has been both debunked, and it is a "god of the gaps". Translation: We can not answer it (god of the gaps, i.e. Behe is relying on holes in the scientific evidence), but we have debunked it.

lol



I didn't throw out the burden of proof card. Sweep did. I merely responded to sweep's assertion that the burden of proof is on me. Since I'm not making a definitive statement one way or the other, and he is making a positive assertion, the burden of proof is, indeed, on him.

Debate 101.




You mean you actually missed the point of that analogy that truth is not a democratic endeavor? Even when I explicitly explained that was the point of the analogy?

Really?

OK

Is it that hard? Good grief..

Why do so few geologists think that the earth is <10,000 yrs old?

Why do only a handful of the tens of thousands of biologists believe in IC?

What is so hard about that?

And you stated "how can we be sure geologists aren't wrong now since they were wrong then?", and I told you why...before, based on no evidence. Now? Mountains of evidence.

Who believes w determine science by a vote? The point is that modern scientists follow the scientific method, have a peer review process, and go where the evidence leads them. While it is possible some future contradictory evidence may be found, the mere fact that contradictory evidence was found in the past is hardly reason to reject current consensus.

Based on your analogy, would it be reasonable to reject
that the heart pumps blood because it used to be thought to be where thinking occurred. Silly.

 

[jarvol]

In what way are "xtian groups" pushing their view on everybody. I grew up in Knoxville Tennessee and currently live in Nashville Tennessee. I have never had anyone "push" their view on me. In fact i'm not even sure how one "pushes a view" on to another person.

Seriously? The fact there are locales in America where a private business can not open before a certain a time on Sundays, where alcohol can not be sold on Sundays or before a certain time on Sunday are just 2 of the many, many ways Christians have bribed the government into pushing their views onto the masses.