Liberty University and Appalachian State University seem to have a lot in common with regards to fundamentalist culture. Is this a mountain people thing?

(09-22-2017 03:56 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 10:25 AM)Meathead Wrote:  

(09-21-2017 09:00 PM)McLeansvilleAppFan Wrote:  AppManDG Wrote:
Then there's Darwin's theory of evolution. Key word being theory. No proof, no facts and most importantly no speciation in the fossil record. That's not to say animals and organisms can't adapt and change with their environment. But to teach all life on this planet developed from some self-replicating molecule is borderline insane.

AppManDG- Do a fellow App fan a favor and change your name to something that is not connected to App. I don't claim to have all the answers and am not a research scientist, but please don't type out such ignorance about the whole idea and meaning of what a science theory is, when it is obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. If you did know what a science theory is you would not make it seem a theory is just some whim of a few people.

I know what I am typing may seem a bit harsh, but views you are posting come across as someone very ignorant about what science even is, and I expect a bit more from a App grad to be honest. I like to think my fellow App alums have some grounding in a liberal arts degree that has taught them a few things about many subjects.

... because God forbid that anybody associated with AppState would welcome diversity of opinion or thought. You've just supported Falwell's tweet... remember: "Few bigoted U pres big on diversity & inclusion (except 4 conservatives) vetoed LU from Sun Belt, CUSA. It backfired... "

I'm proud to be associated with a university that is bigger than just a liberal cesspool, and I hope that it will always encourage diversity of thought. AppManDG, I respect your willingness to jump into this subject matter because you likely knew beforehand that you'd be attacked, it happens anytime a conservative or Evangelical Christian point of view is put out there. McLeansvilleAppFan, you and I have some massively different opinions on lots of subjects, but I believe we both agree that AppState is an amazing place and we both love this football team... I'd tailgate with you anytime! I would never ask you to disassociate yourself with AppState just because I don't agree with your thoughts or convictions.

Thanks, Brother. You're wasting your time using any reference to God when addressing McLeansville App.

b

Without getting into my own religious beliefs too much, I do think a supreme being would be a bit of a jerk to have all these science facts connect and support each other and not be contradictory to each other except for some very specific cases involving the age of rocks. I never have stated I am anti-God or an atheist. I do trust in the laws of science regardless of how they came about. I also think a supreme being able to create a universe has the where-with-all to use metaphor in making a text, so I have no need to throw well founded science truths out in the face of some rather hard to take literally statements in a holy text. But that is just me.

I believe the Earth is billions of years old, the dinasaurs died 65 million years ago, evolution is more than a theory, and God. I think it's called faith.

And if we can step aside of any name calling or accusations, myself included, this is a really interesting conversation that will keep your brain from turning into goo.

(09-22-2017 07:16 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  I believe the Earth is billions of years old, the dinasaurs died 65 million years ago, evolution is more than a theory, and God. I think it's called faith.

I don't understand those adherents of a faith-based religion who continue to seek some sort of proof, either through archaeology, geology, physics, etc.

Such proof will not be forthcoming. "Blessed are those who believe without seeing me".

Science describes and explores the natural. Science cannot, by definition, ever prove or disprove the supernatural. God cannot be forced into our box.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(09-22-2017 07:32 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 07:16 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  I believe the Earth is billions of years old, the dinasaurs died 65 million years ago, evolution is more than a theory, and God. I think it's called faith.

I don't understand those adherents of a faith-based religion who continue to seek some sort of proof, either through archaeology, geology, physics, etc.

Such proof will not be forthcoming. "Blessed are those who believe without seeing me".

Science describes and explores the natural. Science cannot, by definition, ever prove or disprove the supernatural. God cannot be forced into our box.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

I agree. This may sound crazy but learning physics help restore my faith as a young man: "You're telling me all of these forces are the same? All of them the same? Water through a pipe and electrons through a wire operate the same way? Same formulas too? Can that be a coincidence?"

Keep in mind I've always been a giant dork.

(09-22-2017 02:39 PM)McLeansvilleAppFan Wrote:  By only taking the one route (Genesis) Liberty is doing the exact opposite of science, and calling it the Scientific study of Creationism does not make it scientific. It makes it religion, which is fine, just call it what it is.

I agree with your thinking to a degree. Does traditional scientific thought consider the possibility of intelligent design? If you take an option off the table before even beginning research it influences the direction you take and how you assess the results. Both sides do the same thing from different positions. To deny otherwise seems intellectually dishonest IMHO.

I believe that everyone should strive to be a decent person on a day-to-day basis. If you need a faith or a heaven/hell dichotomy to keep you honest on that system, then do whatcha gotta do. There are no brownie points for living life the EXACT RIGHT WAY... just be a good person, or don't.

For matters not related to what happens after I inevitably choke to death on a hot wing while celebrating or cursing something that Georgia Southern has done, I'll stick to science.

(09-22-2017 09:12 PM)SlyFox Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 02:39 PM)McLeansvilleAppFan Wrote:  By only taking the one route (Genesis) Liberty is doing the exact opposite of science, and calling it the Scientific study of Creationism does not make it scientific. It makes it religion, which is fine, just call it what it is.

I agree with your thinking to a degree. Does traditional scientific thought consider the possibility of intelligent design? If you take an option off the table before even beginning research it influences the direction you take and how you assess the results. Both sides do the same thing from different positions. To deny otherwise seems intellectually dishonest IMHO.

If intelligent design cannot be refuted via testing then it doesn't fall within the realm of science.


How would you falsify intelligent design?

(09-22-2017 10:10 PM)LRP Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 09:12 PM)SlyFox Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 02:39 PM)McLeansvilleAppFan Wrote:  By only taking the one route (Genesis) Liberty is doing the exact opposite of science, and calling it the Scientific study of Creationism does not make it scientific. It makes it religion, which is fine, just call it what it is.

I agree with your thinking to a degree. Does traditional scientific thought consider the possibility of intelligent design? If you take an option off the table before even beginning research it influences the direction you take and how you assess the results. Both sides do the same thing from different positions. To deny otherwise seems intellectually dishonest IMHO.

If intelligent design cannot be refuted via testing then it doesn't fall within the realm of science.


How would you falsify intelligent design?

If you are looking for proof of God you are much more likely to find it in inexplicable events of your daily life than in explicable events of science.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(09-22-2017 08:07 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 07:32 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 07:16 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  I believe the Earth is billions of years old, the dinasaurs died 65 million years ago, evolution is more than a theory, and God. I think it's called faith.

I don't understand those adherents of a faith-based religion who continue to seek some sort of proof, either through archaeology, geology, physics, etc.

Such proof will not be forthcoming. "Blessed are those who believe without seeing me".

Science describes and explores the natural. Science cannot, by definition, ever prove or disprove the supernatural. God cannot be forced into our box.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

I agree. This may sound crazy but learning physics help restore my faith as a young man: "You're telling me all of these forces are the same? All of them the same? Water through a pipe and electrons through a wire operate the same way? Same formulas too? Can that be a coincidence?"

Keep in mind I've always been a giant dork.

That is not an unusual experience.

(09-22-2017 09:12 PM)SlyFox Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 02:39 PM)McLeansvilleAppFan Wrote:  By only taking the one route (Genesis) Liberty is doing the exact opposite of science, and calling it the Scientific study of Creationism does not make it scientific. It makes it religion, which is fine, just call it what it is.

I agree with your thinking to a degree. Does traditional scientific thought consider the possibility of intelligent design? If you take an option off the table before even beginning research it influences the direction you take and how you assess the results. Both sides do the same thing from different positions. To deny otherwise seems intellectually dishonest IMHO.

At some point science may take this up, but for now this is an untestable idea. That is not science, it is something you have to take on faith, which is religion. Again I have no problem with that as religious studies.

If done properly the study of the study of ID could be science but that sort of meta study would not make ID itself a scientific pursuit.

(09-22-2017 10:10 PM)LRP Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 09:12 PM)SlyFox Wrote:  

(09-22-2017 02:39 PM)McLeansvilleAppFan Wrote:  By only taking the one route (Genesis) Liberty is doing the exact opposite of science, and calling it the Scientific study of Creationism does not make it scientific. It makes it religion, which is fine, just call it what it is.

I agree with your thinking to a degree. Does traditional scientific thought consider the possibility of intelligent design? If you take an option off the table before even beginning research it influences the direction you take and how you assess the results. Both sides do the same thing from different positions. To deny otherwise seems intellectually dishonest IMHO.

If intelligent design cannot be refuted via testing then it doesn't fall within the realm of science.


How would you falsify intelligent design?

Of course it cannot be refuted by science because it is FAITH. The only questions science can answer are the testable ones.
If your "hypothesis" is God put everything in motion, it's not a hypothesis because their is no way to test that idea with an experiment. So you can BELIEVE in intelligent design but its not science.

(09-19-2017 11:05 PM)panama Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 09:26 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  He says he's being discriminated against by our seemingly "liberal" universities because he's conservative. You can't use discrimination in admission standards, use school profits to fund lobbyists, AND be play the victim card. There's a difference between being a conservative and being an @$$hole. Falwell is the latter.

I have really bad news for him. Division one Athletics Conferences discriminate. They are under no duty to invite anyone and it's a beauty pageant. In addition the decisions end up being made by life long academics. Cultural fit is a real thing. And Liberty fits nowhere with anyone in FBS.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

A major university announced this week (cannot recall the name) that they are changing the admission standards in an effort to give minority students a majority population. Want to say it was an Ivy League school. Harvard had a majority nonwhite freshman class for the first time
this past year. Happening across the country. Discrimination in admissions is for real.

(07-15-2018 08:44 AM)Florida RedWolf Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 11:05 PM)panama Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 09:26 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  He says he's being discriminated against by our seemingly "liberal" universities because he's conservative. You can't use discrimination in admission standards, use school profits to fund lobbyists, AND be play the victim card. There's a difference between being a conservative and being an @$$hole. Falwell is the latter.

I have really bad news for him. Division one Athletics Conferences discriminate. They are under no duty to invite anyone and it's a beauty pageant. In addition the decisions end up being made by life long academics. Cultural fit is a real thing. And Liberty fits nowhere with anyone in FBS.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

A major university announced this week (cannot recall the name) that they are changing the admission standards in an effort to give minority students a majority population. Want to say it was an Ivy League school. Harvard had a majority nonwhite freshman class for the first time
this past year. Happening across the country. Discrimination in admissions is for real.

Harvard's non-white majority class is likely the result of a lawsuit they lost which was brought by Asian applicants who said there were white students with lesser academic credentials being accepted over them. Harvard has basically been using affirmative action to keep their white student population up in the interest of diversity. Now that they have to give spots more as a meritocracy, the white kids are getting squeezed out by the children of immigrants that are outworking them.

(07-18-2018 02:59 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 08:44 AM)Florida RedWolf Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 11:05 PM)panama Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 09:26 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  He says he's being discriminated against by our seemingly "liberal" universities because he's conservative. You can't use discrimination in admission standards, use school profits to fund lobbyists, AND be play the victim card. There's a difference between being a conservative and being an @$$hole. Falwell is the latter.

I have really bad news for him. Division one Athletics Conferences discriminate. They are under no duty to invite anyone and it's a beauty pageant. In addition the decisions end up being made by life long academics. Cultural fit is a real thing. And Liberty fits nowhere with anyone in FBS.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

A major university announced this week (cannot recall the name) that they are changing the admission standards in an effort to give minority students a majority population. Want to say it was an Ivy League school. Harvard had a majority nonwhite freshman class for the first time
this past year. Happening across the country. Discrimination in admissions is for real.

Harvard's non-white majority class is likely the result of a lawsuit they lost which was brought by Asian applicants who said there were white students with lesser academic credentials being accepted over them. Harvard has basically been using affirmative action to keep their white student population up in the interest of diversity. Now that they have to give spots more as a meritocracy, the white kids are getting squeezed out by the children of immigrants that are outworking them.

Which is the way it should be. And I say that as a plain ass white dude.

I'm a best man for the job, best credentials gets you in, type of guy. If Asians/Indians/whatever become the prevalent population at Harvard because they're more deserving over whites or any other race then so be it.

I'm sure in the end Harvard, like pretty much every university in America, will do whatever they have to in order to maintain an image of diversity. But I'm perfectly OK with not catering to any specific race even if it means less opportunities for myself. I don't deserve a spot over someone more deserving.