Jump to content

Religious caches


Recommended Posts

"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." - Charles Darwin

What was Darwin speculating on when he wrote that?

The odds are it was his work that led to the theory of evolution.

Darwin understood that "evolution" was simply a theory. Even he understood that. Folks today seem to think that evolution is some kind of scientific fact. Evolution is not a proven theory. Anyone that thinks evolution is a PROVEN theory needs to join me in the off-topic forum to discuss this further :anicute:

 

I only bring this up because someone quoted my tagline.

Science teacher here--Sorry, I have to chime in to correct a major misunderstanding. When a scientist says "theory" they are not saying "just some idea we think might explain this" or "this is just a guess"--They are saying they have looked at all the evidence and made numerous tests and observations, and there is no better explanation available at this time.

 

The wikipedia article on it explains it well.

 

Further information can be found here

 

It's amazing to me that we geocachers can't relate better to the scientific method, since we "do science" all the time:

 

We formulate a research questions, something that can be answered by testing (How can I find cache x?)

We consider the background information (What we know about where it is, how large it is, what we know in general about geocaching etc)

We come up with a hypothesis (We think the cache is "there" based on the coordinates, what we know about the cache, what we know about caching in general, etc"

We test that hypothesis (We go look for the cache in that spot)

then we analysis the result (we find the cache or not, and if not we go back to one of the earlier steps and repeat the process until we are sucessful)

We even publish our results for our peers (post a note online or sign the cache log).

 

Darwin understood that his ideas about how natural selection affected evolution (change in the gene pool over time) were a theory that might stand up to even further tests than those he had put them through for all of his adult life before publishing. Since Darwin's time, we have made further tests of his studies and added many new methods to analyze relationships among living organisms (DNA testing for example). Although we have added to Darwin's knowledge abse, the principals of evolution remain supported.

Sort of like geocaching--Although we have made changes to the game over time (more features on the website, new types of caches, additional players, etc) they basic prinicpal still holds--put something out for people to find and let them go find it!

Link to comment

Darwin understood that his ideas about how natural selection affected evolution (change in the gene pool over time) were a theory that might stand up to even further tests than those he had put them through for all of his adult life before publishing. Since Darwin's time, we have made further tests of his studies and added many new methods to analyze relationships among living organisms (DNA testing for example). Although we have added to Darwin's knowledge abse, the principals of evolution remain supported.

Sort of like geocaching--Although we have made changes to the game over time (more features on the website, new types of caches, additional players, etc) they basic prinicpal still holds--put something out for people to find and let them go find it!

 

Darwin's theories are not repeatable. They are speculation. Aside from Micro evolution and Natural Selection, but everything else is speculation. Since you are a science teacher, I'm sure you are well aware that evolution is taught in the school's as FACT with no other options given to consider. As mentioned above, kids are tricked into believing that Micro and Macro evolution are somehow tied together.

 

Explain this: The scientific method requires making a hypothesis and then experimenting to test the hypothesis. Evolution cannot be tested because it has never been seen. Since when did science include speculation? True science is the pursuit of knowledge through the use of the scientific method.

 

This is getting seriously Off topic. I've created a thread in the Off-topic forum to continue this if you would like.

 

Off-Topic Evolution Thread

Edited by ReadyOrNot
Link to comment

Now I'm going to have to dig it out and see if I can come up with some way to work it into a cache.

 

Cool, if you do, can you make it a night only cache?

In a spooky locale?

 

Hehe. I'm not good at finding spooky areas. Best I can come up with are a couple of "in fear for your life" places, and I lack the intestinal fortitude to even place one in those spots!

 

I should ask the local community here if there are any really spooky cache hides. I haven't been really good and creeped out in a long time.

Link to comment

Darwin understood that "evolution" was simply a theory. Even he understood that. Folks today seem to think that evolution is some kind of scientific fact. Evolution is not a proven theory. Anyone that thinks evolution is a PROVEN theory needs to join me in the off-topic forum to discuss this further

 

All too often people seem to confuse the scientific meaning of the word "theory" with the common usage meaning. They are not the same. Common usage implies guesses and conjecture. In science, the requirements for a theory are much more rigid - a scientific theory is logical, based on observation, subject to testing, and can be used in a predictive fashion.

 

So yes, evolution is a theory, in the same was the currently accepted explanation of gravitation is a theory. Despite gravitation being 'just a theory', one will note that we're not being spun off into the vacuum of space.

Link to comment

I agree with Johnny.

 

I also find it admirable that he made his point short and sweet without attacking anyone else (or the religion in question)

 

 

Requiring a person to read a bible to find a cache is pushing a christian agenda. I do not care how you want to sugar coat it, that is what it is.

 

I think it's humorous however that many who answer him:

 

* project feelings of fear or hurt onto him (that he never claimed),

* try to read his mind (telling him he is anti-christian or he would not object to xyz), and

* routinely take parts of his sentences completely out of context (he didn't say "requiring a person to read the bible" he said "requiring a person to read a bible TO FIND A CACHE"; big difference for those who like "put a gun to your head" analogies),

 

all the while keeping a tone that JOHNNY is the one who needs to lighten up, or has somehow gone to far.

 

* "You can ignore it" is not a logical argument that something doesn't violate guidelines.

 

* "I am so super-secure in my beleifs that this is not a threat to me" is not a logical argument that something doesn't violate the guidelines.

 

* "My religious beleifs are ___- and I don't have a problem with it" doesn't even adress the guidelines!

 

Johnny's point however, was a pretty logical argument, and didn't attack anyone. (tho many responded as if attacked, while advertising how secure they are)

 

No matter how you feel about religion or how appropriate this cache is, you should all take a page from Johnny's book and maybe theres a chance your point will be taken seriously in this ocean of emotional mudslinging. Props to Johnny for logical argument instead of the ad-hominem he received in return.

 

First off you aren't required to read it. You can pass. I know of caches that require that I watch a certain movie. Not interested, so I pass.

 

Johnny LIGHTEN UP!

 

No one is "requiring" you to do anything. You don't have to find this cache if you don't like it. Nobody is putting a gun to your head to find the cache.

 

Just because the Bible is used as part of a puzzle doesn't disqualify it nor does it violate the guidelines. No where in the cache listing does it solicit or promote any agenda. Can you for just one moment, overlook your hang ups on the Bible and look at it as a just piece of literature. Would you be as worked up if the text used were Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species", a book on Numerology, or even Michel de Nostredame's Quatrains? Probably NOT.

 

If some religeous nut-job where to make the same argument against the use of any of these texts, you probably would be singing a different tune.

 

Try keeping an open mind and you may learn something about literature and the similarities the Bible has with other books. No one is asking you to believe or "buy" into anything it as to say.

 

Ok. So making me go to the library to read Edgar Allen Poe would be an agenda also. Where does this end? You're the one that has an agenda and it is against Christianity, not the other way around. I looked at those caches and they are not pushing an agenda. You can find an agenda in anything if you look hard enough, but I think it's pretty clear that the cache owner was not pushing his religion on you.

 

Let's all relax.. If you don't want to do the cache, then skip to the next one.

 

First off your are not required to find the cache or even look for it, so if it is your wish not to look in the a book (the book) to find the need information so be it. Go find another cache....

Link to comment

Requiring a person to read a bible to find a cache is pushing a christian agenda. I do not care how you want to sugar coat it, that is what it is.

Johnny's point however, was a pretty logical argument, and didn't attack anyone. (tho many responded as if attacked, while advertising how secure they are)

 

No matter how you feel about religion or how appropriate this cache is, you should all take a page from Johnny's book and maybe theres a chance your point will be taken seriously in this ocean of emotional mudslinging. Props to Johnny for logical argument instead of the ad-hominem he received in return.

 

I'm not sure that a single, dogmatic, absolute statement of belief qualifies as a "logical argument", no matter how much you personally agree with it.

Link to comment

The bottom line is that the official word has been given. As it turns out, caches like those referenced by the OP do not violate the guidelines.

 

I'm reminded of a couple things by this thread:

 

First, shortly after 9/11, there was an email running around that included some inflamatory verbiage that was purported to be from the Koran. My brother sent it to me and I spent a part of a morning researching to find out whether it was true. (It wasn't.) As part of my research, I read some of the Koran. In doing so, I was not being pushed by an agenda, nor did I feel like my beliefs were in jeopardized.

 

Second, deals with how 'read' is defined. Some people have made it appear that these caches require you to study the Bible. This is not true. These caches often require you to go to a specific passage for the answer. While it is true that some caches (like the second one referenced) may (or may not) require you to do a little research to answer the questions, you are not being asked to forgo any of your current beliefs to find a cache.

 

I don't believe that these caches rise to the level of an agenda.

Link to comment

I don't believe that these caches rise to the level of an agenda.

 

I agree strongly! (and I'm not a Christian)

 

Though, as you say, it doesn't matter if any of us agree or not - the reviewers approved the caches, and their decision is the only relevant one.

Link to comment

...Science teacher here--Sorry, I have to chime in to correct a major misunderstanding. When a scientist says "theory" they are not saying "just some idea we think might explain this" or "this is just a guess"--They are saying they have looked at all the evidence and made numerous tests and observations, and there is no better explanation available at this time....Darwin understood that his ideas about how natural selection affected evolution (change in the gene pool over time) were a theory that might stand up to even further tests than those he had put them through for all of his adult life before publishing....

 

Since we are talking about misunderstandings it's worth clarifying.

A theory is a theory. Nothing more. Nothing less. Very often they are exactly "just some idea we think might explain this" and some other scientist has another one "that they think might explain this" and they vehemently disagree. Some theories are worked out better than others. Sometimes we know the theory is WRONG but explains X while another WRONG theory explains Y, but nobody has a theory that can explain X and Y at the same time (as discovered in Chem 102 back in college).

 

Darwin and all scientists who look backwards (to past events) have a major problem in that it's very hard to create experiments to operate today to duplicate what happened in the past. They start with limited information and then create 'thought experiments' and look for more of that limited evidence that's been preserved to see if it supports the theory. By this method Evolution has been patched and evolved itself many a time.

 

Lastly a theory that "might stand up to future tests" is not science. Case in point. The Theory of Intelligent Design. By the standards of science, it's not science, however at some point science may catch up to the point where it can be tested as did happen with Einstein’s theory of relativity. Einstein’s theory was beyond science at the time. That it was accepted by scientists did not make it science. It was the development of specific tools that allowed testing of the theory that moved it into the realm of science.

Link to comment

I agree with Johnny. ...Johnny's point however, was a pretty logical argument,...

 

For the sake of argument lets suppose this is true. The caches had an agenda evidenced by the fact that they had you referenece a specific book. A book that presends an idea on how things should be.

 

The question becomes what caused it to rise to the level of an agenda. Was it exposure to an idea? That scenery is beautiful and to be enjoyed and should be enjoyed is an idea. It's actually an idea fairly central to caching. Alas if the agenda argument has such a low threshold for what makes an agenda, taking someone to those locations to force their exposure to them would also qualify as an agenda.

Link to comment
I think it's humorous however that many who answer him:

* project feelings of fear or hurt onto him (that he never claimed),

* try to read his mind (telling him he is anti-christian or he would not object to xyz), and

* routinely take parts of his sentences completely out of context (he didn't say "requiring a person to read the bible" he said "requiring a person to read a bible TO FIND A CACHE"; big difference for those who like "put a gun to your head" analogies),

 

all the while keeping a tone that JOHNNY is the one who needs to lighten up, or has somehow gone to far.

 

* "You can ignore it" is not a logical argument that something doesn't violate guidelines.

 

* "I am so super-secure in my beleifs that this is not a threat to me" is not a logical argument that something doesn't violate the guidelines.

 

* "My religious beleifs are ___- and I don't have a problem with it" doesn't even adress the guidelines!

 

Johnny's point however, was a pretty logical argument, and didn't attack anyone. (tho many responded as if attacked, while advertising how secure they are)

 

No matter how you feel about religion or how appropriate this cache is, you should all take a page from Johnny's book and maybe theres a chance your point will be taken seriously in this ocean of emotional mudslinging. Props to Johnny for logical argument instead of the ad-hominem he received in return.

 

 

Though "you can ignore it", "I believe ___ and I don't have a problem with it", etc.. do not address the guidelines, they are the product of non reviewers expressing their feelings toward the caches in question.

Though they have no official standing, they have a right to their opinion.

 

As far as the guidelines, the fact hat the caches that JV linked to and numerous other similar caches have passed the review process is proof that they are compliant.

Link to comment

Though "you can ignore it", "I believe ___ and I don't have a problem with it", etc.. do not address the guidelines, they are the product of non reviewers expressing their feelings toward the caches in question.

Though they have no official standing, they have a right to their opinion.

 

Yes I know people have a right to an opinion.

And I have a right to point out that it might not constitute a valid counter-point.

And you have the right to point out that people have rights.

etc.

 

There is a rule on the forums about respect however, and I think a few people in the thread may have overlooked it.

 

As far as the guidelines, the fact hat the caches that JV linked to and numerous other similar caches have passed the review process is proof that they are compliant.

 

That makes a very strong case that they are compliant.

 

I don't beleive Johnny's post that I agreed with mentioned non-compliance.

 

Nor are his post and the idea of compliance mutually exclusive, especially if compliance is dictated by the judgement of reviewers (which is how it works I believe).

Edited by Team Cyberlove
Link to comment

As I see it, many people in america are confusing 'Pursuit of Happiness' with a mythical 'right to not be offended'.

 

Now being forced to suffer from the 'Tyranny of the Offended'.

 

Doesn't matter your point of view or politics, fully grown up people play this childish game everyday.

 

"I'm offended by what you do/believe/say so therefore you can't do/believe/say what you did/believed/said and I'm going to stop you so that you can't offend me".

 

Peronally, I'm offended by people who get offended so easily and I don't think they should be able to offend me by being so easily offended! :(

You are so right! I'm always surprised how many people have the authority to decide what is "appropriate" and what not.

 

GermanSailor

Edited by GermanSailor
Link to comment

Just wanted to add one more comment about this thread.

 

Although this topic could have very easily degenerated into some sort of an explosive flame war, I find it very encouraging how polite and respectful everyone participating has been.

 

I appreciate the honest, open, and respectful nature of this discussion.

 

Thanks!

 

:(

Link to comment

Just wanted to add one more comment about this thread.

 

Although this topic could have very easily degenerated into some sort of an explosive flame war, I find it very encouraging how polite and respectful everyone participating has been.

 

I appreciate the honest, open, and respectful nature of this discussion.

 

Thanks!

 

:(

 

you had to say something! it's like a gaolie going for a shutout he knows it, we know it...there is no need to talk about it! ;)

 

sheesh!

 

PS...topic was slowing...so I poked it with a stick....hope no one is upset

:)

Link to comment

It has probably all been said but my feelings are people that do not want to find caches that have a religious theme can ignore them.

 

I personally like to find caches that either I know a lot about and so can quickly solve the puzzles using my knowledge, or on the flip side I know nothing about the topic and so then I need to think outside the box a little bit.

 

That is the cool thing about caches in general is they all can be so different.

 

Now if a few seeds are planted in the process that may bring along with it eternal life change then that makes it even better...

Link to comment

I've got one of the various books printed over the years with that title. It is, as you say, fictional (in fact, I'd go so far as to call it a hoax), but it's a remarkably well done one.

 

Now I'm going to have to dig it out and see if I can come up with some way to work it into a cache. This thread has come dangerously close to inspiring me to do a series of caches based on non-Christian religious works.

Tactless as usual. Geez, man, couldn't you at least try to be nice?

Really?

I can't see anything tactless or unnice in that post.

 

I say go for it. As long as the book in question is readily available (or even if it is not - just increase the difficulty rating) it should not present a problem per guidelines.

 

How about basing a cache on "The Anarchist's Cookbook?"

 

A friend of mine had one back in the early 70's and its mere possession, way back then, got him a visit from a detective. <_< Can you imagine asking for that in your public library today?

 

The ironic part is that probably very few Christians will have a problem with the non-Christian caches. For my part, my reasons for not having a problem with Christian or non-Christian themed caches would be:

 

1. I have faith that the God of my understanding IS who He says He is.

2. I clearly recognize that there are non-Christians out there- otherwise our "great commission" would be a farce.

3. God is not afraid of false gods or the ideas of men.

4. Generally Christians, at least for the last couple of hundred years, have understood that no one is led to the Kingdom of God at the point of a gun or by any kind of coersion or trickery.

5. Generally Christians believe in freedom of religion and free moral agency (personal moral choice). Therefore it is not possible to coerce someone into true faith. An old Grandma's saying: "Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still."

 

I've been doing the Christian thing for a long time and whereas I have seen a few Christians who were obnoxious in their overzealous attempts to persuade unbelievers, the vast majority are content to just "plant seeds" or just politely "put the Word out there" and trust God for the results.

 

The caches in question do not even present the Gospel at all. There is no way these caches can be construed as an attempt to sway anyones' religious beliefs, let alone "coerce" seekers with an "agenda".

 

I often wonder why people are so AFRAID of the Bible that they must constantly attempt to suppress it... especially those who count it nothing more than a fairy tale.

 

Perhaps John 3:19-21 would shed a little light on it?

Link to comment

Really? I can't see anything tactless or unnice in that post.

 

Thank you! I thought maybe my skin had finally grown infinitely thick and I was no longer able to recognize such things :huh:

 

How about basing a cache on "The Anarchist's Cookbook?"

A friend of mine had one back in the early 70's and its mere possession, way back then, got him a visit from a detective. <_< Can you imagine asking for that in your public library today?

 

I've still got a copy of it that I bought in 1986 or so. And I just checked the online catalog for my local library - you're right, no copy on file. Kind of a shame, actually, though I imagine it would have a tendency to 'wander off'.

 

I often wonder why people are so AFRAID of the Bible that they must constantly attempt to suppress it... especially those who count it nothing more than a fairy tale.

 

Though there are certainly cases where the goal is suppression, I suspect it isn't nearly as widespread as the alarmist ratings-hungry media makes it out to be. Most of us non-Christians aren't anti-Christian, and we don't want Christianity suppressed - we just don't want the government to be in the business of promoting one religion over another. If the local courthouse has a granite block with the commandments on it, I have a problem with that. If the Christian church next door has one, that's absolutely peachy with me.

 

edit - fist quoting error

Edited by VeryLost
Link to comment

Though there are certainly cases where the goal is suppression, I suspect it isn't nearly as widespread as the alarmist ratings-hungry media makes it out to be. Most of us non-Christians aren't anti-Christian, and we don't want Christianity suppressed - we just don't want the government to be in the business of promoting one religion over another. If the local courthouse has a granite block with the commandments on it, I have a problem with that. If the Christian church next door has one, that's absolutely peachy with me.

 

This shows your lack of understanding of our constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

 

What laws can you point to that establishes religion? Having a Christmas tree in your office and being a public employee is not what the constitution deems establishing a religion. If you passed a law requiring a Christmas tree be put in your office, I'd be on your side. Please re-read your constitution. This has been taken way out of context in the past 20 years.

Link to comment

Though there are certainly cases where the goal is suppression, I suspect it isn't nearly as widespread as the alarmist ratings-hungry media makes it out to be. Most of us non-Christians aren't anti-Christian, and we don't want Christianity suppressed - we just don't want the government to be in the business of promoting one religion over another. If the local courthouse has a granite block with the commandments on it, I have a problem with that. If the Christian church next door has one, that's absolutely peachy with me.

I agree wholeheartedly to the emboldened above.

 

It is interesting that it has always been the Christians that favoured separation of church and state- until recent times when we have had a few very vocal Christian minorities that seem to want a cross on every acre of government land, not comprehending that today Christians are in power and tomorrow TPTB might be Satanic.

 

As an American, I am solidly behind separation of church and state as without it there is no such thing as freedom of religion. If the state shows preference to any religion, the freedom to practice another diminshes. My beliefs might get the nod today, and might be shunned tomorrow. I prefer not to be coerced, especially by the government, into believing one way or another.

 

That does not mean though that every last vestige of the historical religious foundations of the country need to be removed. This is "suppression". That this country was founded by deeply religious, predominantly Christian, people is simply historical fact. Many symbols remain that attest to that fact, but by keeping these symbols the government does not coerce anyone into a particular faith.

 

I also agree that very few non-Christians are actually anti-Christian. But when one seeks to have something removed from the public eye, such as the caches in question, it can not be called anything else BUT suppression. Whether motivated by fear or hatred of Christianity or seeking what the would be suppressor believes to be the collective best for all, the outcome is the same. If anyone is forbidden to express their religious views when they are doing so in a non coercive way, then freedom of religion is a farce.

 

I find it interesting that "the commandments" have been the basis for all civil law in every western civilisation for the last 5000 years and now we have the concerted efforts of a few well heeled law types to destroy that foundation. Could that be an "agenda?" I think it is more than just media hype.

Link to comment

...Science teacher here--Sorry, I have to chime in to correct a major misunderstanding. When a scientist says "theory" they are not saying "just some idea we think might explain this" or "this is just a guess"--They are saying they have looked at all the evidence and made numerous tests and observations, and there is no better explanation available at this time....Darwin understood that his ideas about how natural selection affected evolution (change in the gene pool over time) were a theory that might stand up to even further tests than those he had put them through for all of his adult life before publishing....

 

Since we are talking about misunderstandings it's worth clarifying.

A theory is a theory. Nothing more. Nothing less. Very often they are exactly "just some idea we think might explain this" and some other scientist has another one "that they think might explain this" and they vehemently disagree. Some theories are worked out better than others. Sometimes we know the theory is WRONG but explains X while another WRONG theory explains Y, but nobody has a theory that can explain X and Y at the same time (as discovered in Chem 102 back in college).

 

Darwin and all scientists who look backwards (to past events) have a major problem in that it's very hard to create experiments to operate today to duplicate what happened in the past. They start with limited information and then create 'thought experiments' and look for more of that limited evidence that's been preserved to see if it supports the theory. By this method Evolution has been patched and evolved itself many a time.

 

Lastly a theory that "might stand up to future tests" is not science. Case in point. The Theory of Intelligent Design. By the standards of science, it's not science, however at some point science may catch up to the point where it can be tested as did happen with Einstein’s theory of relativity. Einstein’s theory was beyond science at the time. That it was accepted by scientists did not make it science. It was the development of specific tools that allowed testing of the theory that moved it into the realm of science.

 

I'll be the first to admin that creationism, evolution, intelligent design, etc. are are theories and are not proven by science. The problem I have is that evolutionists tend to be self-righteous in that they make statements of fact when there is no place for them. I've already gotten several personal messages stating for instance, "I use to believe in religion and then I grew a brain"...

 

How insulting is that. Your theory of evolution isn't even proven and you make statements like this. How arrogant.

Link to comment

If the local courthouse has a granite block with the commandments on it, I have a problem with that. If the Christian church next door has one, that's absolutely peachy with me.

 

This shows your lack of understanding of our constitution.

 

I assure you, I understand it quite well. How would you react if instead of the commandments, your local courthouse prominently displayed an inverted pentacle above the entrance? An honest examination of ones answer to that question usually yields a better understanding of the value of not mixing government and religion.

Link to comment

I'll be the first to admin that creationism, evolution, intelligent design, etc. are are theories and are not proven by science.

 

How very magnanimous of you. Of course, in the case of creationism and ID, not only are they not proven by science, they are entirely unsupported by factual evidence.

Link to comment

...I've already gotten several personal messages stating for instance, "I use to believe in religion and then I grew a brain"...

 

Once upon a time I happened upon an athiest website. The guy had posted something like 100 reasons he was an athiest. I read the list and agreed with 90% of everthing the guy had to say. I'm not an athiest. Most athiests of the variety that you metion are clueless about what science is, and what it isn't. They don't understand the limitations both real and self imposed. They don't seem to get that on an idle tuesday afternoon everthing that everone thought was true can change due to some new observation. They just don't get that science more than anything else is a process and not an end result. They get caught up in the dogma.

 

I rather like the type of athiest that can post that 100 point list. At least they know why they think the way they do and you can have an honest discussion.

Link to comment

I'll be the first to admin that creationism, evolution, intelligent design, etc. are are theories and are not proven by science.

 

How very magnanimous of you. Of course, in the case of creationism and ID, not only are they not proven by science, they are entirely unsupported by factual evidence.

 

That's not accurate. You have two theories that explain the same factual evidence. One is generally accepted by most scientists. The other has two strikes in the world of science. First, you can't test for the guiding hand, nor has anyone fathomed a way to look backwards as it were, for difinitive scientific proof of ID. Second since you have two theories and one is 'more complex' "Things just happened vs Things didn't just happen they were guided" occams razor has you discount the more compex theory for the simpler one.

 

In simple terms, ID is not disproven, it's just not science at it's current state of the art. Science does have limits, and it's philosopy discourages certain theories (though they should all be treated with equil disdain until proven).

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

If the local courthouse has a granite block with the commandments on it, I have a problem with that. If the Christian church next door has one, that's absolutely peachy with me.

 

This shows your lack of understanding of our constitution.

 

I assure you, I understand it quite well. How would you react if instead of the commandments, your local courthouse prominently displayed an inverted pentacle above the entrance? An honest examination of ones answer to that question usually yields a better understanding of the value of not mixing government and religion.

The wording of the constituation says nothing about separating church and government. Merely that the government can't promote any church above another one. At the time though every church that was even thought of was a variation of christian and the 10 commandments were universal and not promoting one churce above another. Since then things are more complex and it's probably better to not allow government to muck with religion at all, while at the same time not letting it muck with individuals who have every right to practice their faith fully. So while the principal can't lead a school in prayor, a student can say one at will.

 

Relating it back to caching. I can place a cache that reflects my faith, I can't however ask you to say a prayor to log the cache. That's the line.

Link to comment

I'd like to thank you all for a very enlightening conversation!

 

Many here that share my views are much better with words and present their case much more adeptly than I ever could, so I won't bother with posting a less articulate response!

 

I would also like to thank some of you that have posted views that are opposite of my own. Reading some of what you have posted has helped me to clarify some of my own views even more, as well as understand others points of view.

 

For instance, I appreciated the comment about "Seeing an upside down triangle" in front of a courthouse. (Or whatever the actual statement was, I'm too lazy to go back and quote it.) That helped me see another side to an issue that I was pretty set on.

 

I didn't appreciate the comment about the Bible being a fairy tale. That comment was inflammatory, and disrespectful to me and my beliefs...

 

(Sorry for adding to the OT conversation, but we have pretty much left the OT behind.)

 

(Edited for spelling, and since some of my grammer was horrible!) (I've been at the office for 17 hours...I need sleep!)

Edited by Cornerstone4
Link to comment

What a timely argument now that I am reading 'The GOD Delusion' by Richard Dawkins which I received for Christmas (yes, I see the irony).

 

Funny though, as a non-Christian who never entered a church, I have never been more interested in the topic after reading this book, and will probably read the bible for the first time.

 

One thing he says, though, is Christians are atheists too, except for one particular God of the many Gods believed on earth. Maybe we should embrace what we we share, and minimize our differences <_<

 

To get OT: might use this book in a cache...

Link to comment

I'll be the first to admin that creationism, evolution, intelligent design, etc. are are theories and are not proven by science.

 

How very magnanimous of you. Of course, in the case of creationism and ID, not only are they not proven by science, they are entirely unsupported by factual evidence.

 

That's not accurate. You have two theories that explain the same factual evidence. One is generally accepted by most scientists. The other has two strikes in the world of science. First, you can't test for the guiding hand, nor has anyone fathomed a way to look backwards as it were, for difinitive scientific proof of ID. Second since you have two theories and one is 'more complex' "Things just happened vs Things didn't just happen they were guided" occams razor has you discount the more compex theory for the simpler one.

 

In simple terms, ID is not disproven, it's just not science at it's current state of the art. Science does have limits, and it's philosopy discourages certain theories (though they should all be treated with equil disdain until proven).

 

Another science teacher here, saying basically the same as the last. Actually, you're incorrect on your definition of the word theory, as used in science. ID is in no way a theory because, as you say, it can't be tested or observed. Evolution has been observed and has more evidence to back it up than most other theories out there. I could list more things that count as evidence for the theory of evolution than for the theory of gravity, yet there's no movement to challenge Einstein! A theory contains an explanation for how things happen, as shown by evidence, and is accepted by the scientific community. A law can change in the same way as a theory. A law is a statement (or often equation) that summarizes what happens in a situation. Theories and laws are on equal footing as far as "provenness" goes and both can be revised if needed. Ideally, we have laws that state what happens, and theories that explain how they work.

 

You're right that science is tentative. That is, we hold on to our theories and laws without dogma. We expect new information to come along, and that new information may require us to modify our current theories or laws. Personally I find this approach far more intellectually honest than the ID/creationism proponents who say, "the Bible was written 2000 years ago and could not be wrong, therefore any new information that contradicts the Bible must be incorrect". Actually, I don't believe that evolution necessarily contradicts the Bible anyway, but that's another story.

 

OK I'm off to give Ready or Not a list of observed speciation events, in the off-topic forum. I agree, that's where this probably belongs.

 

Here's my lame attempt at being on topic:

I will definitely put out an evolution puzzle cache this summer! <_<

Link to comment
What does ANY of this have to do with geocaching?
I have no clue why this thread is still going. Although people have been somewhat civil, this is way off topic, both from the original topic, and from geocaching. <_<

Agreed. Maybe there's a thread in Off-topic to continue this?

 

Topic closed.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...