(03-31-2014 02:40 PM)Liberty Fan Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 02:28 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 02:16 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 02:11 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 02:00 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  What if BYU wanted in the Sunbelt. They bring the same issues as Liberty. Would anybody want BYU in the conference? Even for fb-only?

You realize what a laughable athletic comparison that is right? Liberty to BYU?

Having said that, does BYU have compulsory religion masquerading as science classes?

http://religion.byu.edu/religion-requirements
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Doctrine_an...:_Overview


So just because BYU has athletic success, you'd ignore all of the other aspects that you slight Liberty unless Liberty was like BYU on the field.

First of all I didn't say that athletic success trumps everything else, but BYU would be a real boost to Sun Belt football, Liberty wouldn't even be a blip on the national radar.

You also didn't answer my question, compulsory religious classes are to be expected, but creation studies undermines the scientific education given. So again, does BYU have compulsory religious studies classes masquerading as science?

If that's the best excuse you have left, then you're officially out of good ones. You're splitting hairs.

No I'm not. Creationism is literally the opposite of science. It is teaching the unprovable as provable.

Call creation studies what it is, religious studies, your entire science department is null and void when creationism is taught side by side with actual science.

UMASS

1. Already FBS
2. Boston
3. .....

(03-31-2014 02:43 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 02:40 PM)Liberty Fan Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 02:28 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 02:16 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 02:11 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  You realize what a laughable athletic comparison that is right? Liberty to BYU?

Having said that, does BYU have compulsory religion masquerading as science classes?

http://religion.byu.edu/religion-requirements
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Doctrine_an...:_Overview


So just because BYU has athletic success, you'd ignore all of the other aspects that you slight Liberty unless Liberty was like BYU on the field.

First of all I didn't say that athletic success trumps everything else, but BYU would be a real boost to Sun Belt football, Liberty wouldn't even be a blip on the national radar.

You also didn't answer my question, compulsory religious classes are to be expected, but creation studies undermines the scientific education given. So again, does BYU have compulsory religious studies classes masquerading as science?

If that's the best excuse you have left, then you're officially out of good ones. You're splitting hairs.

No I'm not. Creationism is literally the opposite of science. It is teaching the unprovable as provable.

Call creation studies what it is, religious studies, your entire science department is null and void when creationism is taught side by side with actual science.

comment deleted to move back to athletics.

(03-31-2014 02:43 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  No I'm not. Creationism is literally the opposite of science. It is teaching the unprovable as provable.

Call creation studies what it is, religious studies, your entire science department is null and void when creationism is taught side by side with actual science.

----> http://csnbbs.com/thread-680690-page-13.html

Wrong thread Science guy.

(03-31-2014 02:43 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  No I'm not. Creationism is literally the opposite of science. It is teaching the unprovable as provable.

Call creation studies what it is, religious studies, your entire science department is null and void when creationism is taught side by side with actual science.

From what I recall from another thread (one in Smack)... The Liberty folks said that the creation class does not count towards science. Now it might be in the science department, but it is not a science core class.

Just a required class for graduation.

I'm sure if I misrepresented this, the Liberty folks will correct.

(03-31-2014 02:56 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 02:43 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  No I'm not. Creationism is literally the opposite of science. It is teaching the unprovable as provable.

Call creation studies what it is, religious studies, your entire science department is null and void when creationism is taught side by side with actual science.

From what I recall from another thread (one in Smack)... The Liberty folks said that the creation class does not count towards science. Now it might be in the science department, but it is not a science core class.

Just a required class for graduation.

I'm sure if I misrepresented this, the Liberty folks will correct.

Biology at LU is taught from the School of Health Sciences. The College of Arts and Sciences teaches Creation Studies. The College of Arts and Sciences also covers English, Modern Languages, Mathematics, History, Social Sciences, Philosophy, and Family and Consumer Sciences. You do not receive science credit for the creation class it is just a required class. I posted all this info starting on page 6 of this thread.


Department of Biology & Chemistry is the department Biology is in which falls under the School of Health Sciences.

Center for Creation Studies is the department Creation Studies falls under which is in the College of Arts and Sciences.

I am going to have to say UMASS so every thread will not suck or get sidetracked.

(03-31-2014 02:49 PM)knucklehead Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 02:43 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 02:40 PM)Liberty Fan Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 02:28 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 02:16 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  http://religion.byu.edu/religion-requirements
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Doctrine_an...:_Overview


So just because BYU has athletic success, you'd ignore all of the other aspects that you slight Liberty unless Liberty was like BYU on the field.

First of all I didn't say that athletic success trumps everything else, but BYU would be a real boost to Sun Belt football, Liberty wouldn't even be a blip on the national radar.

You also didn't answer my question, compulsory religious classes are to be expected, but creation studies undermines the scientific education given. So again, does BYU have compulsory religious studies classes masquerading as science?

If that's the best excuse you have left, then you're officially out of good ones. You're splitting hairs.

No I'm not. Creationism is literally the opposite of science. It is teaching the unprovable as provable.

Call creation studies what it is, religious studies, your entire science department is null and void when creationism is taught side by side with actual science.

comment deleted to move back to athletics.

Deleting your comment about evolution being a theory was wisely deleted.

You make the common mistake that all theories are created equally.

The theory of evolution is fact based and supported by countless hours of constant and continuing exhaustive research.

Creationism is based on non researched writing that is thousands of years old and the source it comes from has it's greatest source of verification self contained(see: this book is accurate simply because it is the word of god which is infallible according to his followers).

The two are not even remotely comparable.

Honest question, does Liberty's creation studies teach "young earth theory"?

I deleted it because I'm trying not to get reeled in. This is an athletics discussion.

(03-31-2014 02:50 PM)Liberty Fan Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 02:43 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  No I'm not. Creationism is literally the opposite of science. It is teaching the unprovable as provable.

Call creation studies what it is, religious studies, your entire science department is null and void when creationism is taught side by side with actual science.

----> http://csnbbs.com/thread-680690-page-13.html

Wrong thread Science guy.

Not a "science guy" by any means, just a fan of legitimate higher learning which Creationism is anything but.

(03-31-2014 03:13 PM)knucklehead Wrote:  I deleted it because I'm trying not to get reeled in. This is an athletics discussion.

Wise to separate the two, the two are inseparable to those who believe in legitimate higher learning, to which collegiate athletics is undeniably tied to.

(03-31-2014 02:56 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 02:43 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  No I'm not. Creationism is literally the opposite of science. It is teaching the unprovable as provable.

Call creation studies what it is, religious studies, your entire science department is null and void when creationism is taught side by side with actual science.

From what I recall from another thread (one in Smack)... The Liberty folks said that the creation class does not count towards science. Now it might be in the science department, but it is not a science core class.

Just a required class for graduation.

I'm sure if I misrepresented this, the Liberty folks will correct.

To me, the issue is not that creationism is taught at all (as long as it's kept out of the science department), although it being compulsory is a red flag. What concerns me is that creationism is brought up in the science curriculum as an acceptable alternative to evolution.

So anyways.....I think UMass will wait till the end of the 2015 season to really decide on a move. They have time on their side and could have a slot open up in a conference like the AAC. All I can see is downside for UMass if they jump early. Sure there would be upside for the SBC but they have to look at it on how it benefits them too. Which right now it doesn't.

(03-31-2014 03:24 PM)Curtisc83 Wrote:  So anyways.....I think UMass will wait till the end of the 2015 season to really decide on a move. They have time on their side and could have a slot open up in a conference like the AAC. All I can see is downside for UMass if they jump early. Sure there would be upside for the SBC but they have to look at it on how it benefits them too. Which right now it doesn't.

I think UMass will have to decide soon after the conclusion of the 2014 season at the latest. Right now their advantage over JMU, MSU, LU or any other candidate is their immediate eligibility as an FBS program. To wait is to diminish that advantage. I'm sure they could come up $250,000 (or less, if the MAC is of a mind to release them) in order to guarantee and FBS home for their football program.
If they choose to wait, that puts all the FCS teams on better footing as they could be begin transitioning in 2015.

(03-31-2014 03:23 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  To me, the issue is not that creationism is taught at all (as long as it's kept out of the science department), although it being compulsory is a red flag. What concerns me is that creationism is brought up in the science curriculum as an acceptable alternative to evolution.

My personal stance is that as a private institution, I gots no problem with it.

I can understand others having issue with it, but for me, so long as it is not in the science department, I'm ok with it.

(03-31-2014 02:46 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  UMASS

1. Already FBS
2. Boston
3. .....

Some in our fanbase would be good with them for this reason. They loved the WAC because it offered destination roadtrips to the Bay Area (San Jose State), Northern Utah, Seattle, Denver, and a basketball tournament in Las Vegas.

(03-31-2014 03:16 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 03:13 PM)knucklehead Wrote:  I deleted it because I'm trying not to get reeled in. This is an athletics discussion.

Wise to separate the two, the two are inseparable to those who believe in legitimate higher learning, to which collegiate athletics is undeniably tied to.

Just to challenge you a bit, why does it matter if a bunch of college athletes who believe in the truth of the Bible are taught classes that involve Bible studies? They went to that university for a reason, it would be different if Middle Tennessee (not known as a religiously affiliated institution) tried to teach creation as a science, which by the way those classes are not located in the science department at Liberty. Nobody is FORCING them to learn about Creation, they made that decision on their own when they CHOSE to go to Liberty University.

Whether a 6'2, 230lb linebacker believes was created that way or evolved into that person isn't going to make one lick of difference on the football field when he's punishing your QB.

FWIW both creation and evolution when taken to their farthest points will agree that the universe was started out of virtually nothing. Creationists will claim that God (who has always existed) put that into motion. Evolutionists will eventually have to discover and explain how the universe was created out of nothing.

But yeah... this has everything to do with athletics.

BTW even if Liberty does go off the deep end at some point nobody is going to look at their conference affiliation and think that we are all crazy too. That's just absurd. If something ridiculous happened at Clemson I don't think anyone is going to point at Georgia Tech and think they are crazy too.

I personally have heard ZERO complaints from other schools since Falwell Sr. died about Liberty disrupting their game-day atmosphere.

(03-31-2014 05:57 PM)TrueBlueAlum Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 03:16 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 03:13 PM)knucklehead Wrote:  I deleted it because I'm trying not to get reeled in. This is an athletics discussion.

Wise to separate the two, the two are inseparable to those who believe in legitimate higher learning, to which collegiate athletics is undeniably tied to.

Just to challenge you a bit, why does it matter if a bunch of college athletes who believe in the truth of the Bible are taught classes that involve Bible studies? They went to that university for a reason, it would be different if Middle Tennessee (not known as a religiously affiliated institution) tried to teach creation as a science, which by the way those classes are not located in the science department at Liberty. Nobody is FORCING them to learn about Creation, they made that decision on their own when they CHOSE to go to Liberty University.

Whether a 6'2, 230lb linebacker believes was created that way or evolved into that person isn't going to make one lick of difference on the football field when he's punishing your QB.

FWIW both creation and evolution when taken to their farthest points will agree that the universe was started out of virtually nothing. Creationists will claim that God (who has always existed) put that into motion. Evolutionists will eventually have to discover and explain how the universe was created out of nothing.

But yeah... this has everything to do with athletics.

BTW even if Liberty does go off the deep end at some point nobody is going to look at their conference affiliation and think that we are all crazy too. That's just absurd. If something ridiculous happened at Clemson I don't think anyone is going to point at Georgia Tech and think they are crazy too.

I personally have heard ZERO complaints from other schools since Falwell Sr. died about Liberty disrupting their game-day atmosphere.

(03-31-2014 02:00 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 12:43 PM)Curtisc83 Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 12:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 12:02 PM)Curtisc83 Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 11:27 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  Creation studies is the opposite of science. The fact that the class is compulsory shows how science is regarded at Liberty.

When you say Science you mean Bio. And its treated just like any other University treats it, as a requirement for your degree plan. Since LU is private and religious they require 1 course in creation studies no matter the major. This is something other religious schools like Baylor University do.

Here is an example of what Baylor requires for its Business degree program

University Requirements
Chapel 2 Semesters
Required Courses 6 hours
REL 1310 Christian Scriptures
REL 1350 Christian Heritage
http://www.baylor.edu/business/undergrad...p?id=91248

Here is some of the requirements of Baylor's Bioinformatics degree program.

University Requirements
Chapel 2 Semesters
Required Courses 6 hours
REL 1310 Christian Scriptures
REL 1350 Christian Heritage
http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/d.../74348.pdf

For all Baylor UG degrees its a requirement to take 2 semesters of Chapel for no credit hours and at least 6 credits worth of religious courses. I doubt anyone would have any issues accepting Baylor into the SBC. So when Liberty does it I see no difference. I'm sure the SBC Presidents are smart enough to connect the dots themselves.

Baylor was grandfathered in. And they'd be blackballed from any conference they'd like to join as a result of their polices and practices, none of which are as controversial as LU.

If LU was trying to join the SBC in 1991, and had the governor of Texas holding up the creation of a conference over LU's exclusion, then you would have gotten in back then.

But its 2014, not 1991. Lots has changed.

Again, it'd be nice if LU could at least make a half hearted attempt to compromise with the Sun Belt on academic, employment discrimination, and leadership issues. The real problem with LU is that there appears to be zero chance that LU will ever work with anyone.

The reason why these conversations end up in circular logic is because nothing has changed on either side. The Belt is still full of people who find LU's policies and statements to be unacceptable (even from the perspective of a public university in a very conservative and highly Christian environment). LU has refused to do anything with regards to those statements, policies, and associations. And we will be the ones doing the inviting. Calling our members anti-religious is on its face risible, given the fact that while evangelicals can and do serve at all Sun Belt institutions as athletes, students, fans, and employees, many non-evangelicals cannot at LU. Why should LU get a pass to discriminate? We get that it is legal, but we don't accept that it is correct to do so.

I think the real issue is that LU is treating those of us in the Belt that disagree with their policies as members of their flock who are filled with so much 'faith' that simply saying "God told me to do this" is going to be an acceptable response to concerns. That line of 'reasoning' isn't going to work when you are dealing with people who aren't part of your political/religious movement.

I get what you're saying and I can't disagree but you don't speak for the entire SBC. So using blanket statements for all parties involved is not accurate. Come June 1st we will all see if anything happens with LU. I'm leaning toward us not getting the votes for an invite. We might be close but I just don't see it happening. But I do enjoy reading the SBC boards about LU and especially about Lamar getting in. I get a kick out the Lamar posts...LOL.

What if BYU wanted in the Sunbelt. They bring the same issues as Liberty. Would anybody want BYU in the conference? Even for fb-only?

Jews and Gays are employed at BYU. And their advocates of extreme human rights abuses were moved off campus 4 years ago.

(03-31-2014 01:25 PM)Liberty22 Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 01:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 01:01 PM)redfan Wrote:  "What does all this have to do with playing sports in the Sun Belt Conference? These arguments are irrelevant when you step out on the field/court."

If a University only existed to create competitive sports then your statement would have logic. Collegiant athletic conferences are, and should be, more than that. In adding membership the conference asks some basic questions. Is this school a good fit. Are there strong objections from any of the member schools. Does the applicant have have some particular characteristic that is significantly different from the membership and which would create a problem within the membership if admitted. Do any members believe the conference would be viewed more negatively because of the addition. What is the purpose of adding this school(The possibility of a short term arrangement as happened in the MAC recently) as a example. There would be other questions that would apply,these are just examples.

Add to that the problem that LU's mission in athletics is to evangelize, while the mission of the Sun Belt schools' athletic programs is to compete at the highest level possible, athletically.

Now now Tom, our Athletic Mission is to win championships. Yea we will give God the glory if we do. If evangelization happens, that is a side benefit. No athletes are sharing the gospel in between plays, however we will pray with other teams at the end of the contest.

At UMass - overall goal is athletic championships leveraging the talents of all members of the community.

At LU - overall goal is "Champions for (their definition of) Christ". They'd rather lose games than hire someone non-evangelical to coach their athletic teams.

Please square that. The real problem is that LU's policies do not lead to championships. Tim Tebow isn't coming to a Sun Belt LU.