Religion correlation with poverty

[swansont]

I didn't say that advancement didn't happen in China. I said that scientific discovery was dominated by the west, especially in the one discipline, astronomy, so often used as an example of Christianity holding back scientific discovery. But if you want to find a discipline in which China excelled in that era far beyond the West then by all means offer it up. Seamanship, mathematics, metallurgy, chemistry... none of these are dominated by Asian discovery, and certainly by the 1700s the gap between Western and Asian technology was tremendous.

 

Well, except for gunpowder (chemistry), the compass (seamanship), along with paper making and printing and a whole host of other inventions, yeah, China's done nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_inventions

 

China fell behind when it closed itself off in the 15th century.

http://www.basicrps.com/chine/histoire/china.htm

See also Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond

[jryan]

Seriously dude, you should live where I do for a while and see the constant turmoil of school boards trying to teach creationism as science.... or teachers refusing to teach evolution... or asshats knocking on your door every Saturday afternoon wanting to tell you why the bible it literally true and that homosexuals are possessed by demons and you are going to burn in hell... the MBE goes on forever.... they get torqued completely out of shape over a bill board that suggests that if you don't believe in god you have company but there must be hundreds of bill boards claiming everyone is going to burn in hell if you don't believe my version of a damn fairy tail..... They get pissed off and claim they are being assaulted in some way if I answer merry christmas with happy holidays, I seriously expect to see religious violence in my life time started by these stupid fundamentalists.... And yes there are lots of them and more moderate religious people are afraid to stand up and be counted because they know they will be persecuted as though they are atheists and oh yeah, you don't want to admit to being one of those immoral father rapers for sure... I am sorry A Tripolation but we live in different worlds no doubt....

 

 

Well sure, but the same argument on what goes into text books is happening on any number of subjects with just as entrenched sides. I argue with those very same kinds of people all the time because they suffer the same kind of intractable thought patterns as those who argue mind numbingly superficial historical anecdotes to prove that atheism is morally superior to theism while showing themselves to be deeply ignorant in the process.

[Moontanman]

Well sure, but the same argument on what goes into text books is happening on any number of subjects with just as entrenched sides. I argue with those very same kinds of people all the time because they suffer the same kind of intractable thought patterns as those who argue mind numbingly superficial historical anecdotes to prove that atheism is morally superior to theism while showing themselves to be deeply ignorant in the process.

 

 

The argument that atheism is morally superior or inferior to theism is a straw man, first you have to show that atheists believe in an common morality much less an objective morality then you have to show that the theists objective morality is somehow superior and then you have to show things like genocide, murder, war, plunder, rape, slavery and such are moral... I think I'll stick with atheism... so far not believing in an objective morality based on a bronze age book about myths associated with supernatural beings has served me quite well....

Edited January 5, 2012 by Moontanman

[John Cuthber]

1 Yes, very different. Especially if you don't believe in an afterlife.

 

 

2 No, it's nothing like that. The point against which I am arguing is, however, like saying that Roman Cathedrals are not architecture because they were built by a religion.

 

Indeed it has, and you get a really screwy view of history when you skip over it.

 

3 Surely you need to actually educate yourself in the universities of the middle ages rather than speculate in a manner that best fits your personal bias.

 

4 And no, religion doesn't want things to "stay the same". That is simply absurd and ignores the very history you want to use as evidence. Again, the common anecdotal evidence is against the assertion as the propensity of humanity to resist change, especially powerful human organizations, is well documented regardless of how religious the organization is. As I said, science and religion are two separate pillars of intellectual devotion. One focuses on the how, the other on the why.

 

5 All that atheists have managed to argue in their rejection of theism is that there is no why... which is as lacking in compelling thought as arguing that religion answers the how so the scientific debate is over.

 

6 I bet those theology students studied more than that "one old book".

 

7 In fact, I would argue that on your myopic interpretation of theological study that your education is better defined as "avoiding old books".

 

8 Nope, nor does political correctness.

1. Without an afterlife (for which, I remind you, there is no evidence) they are the same. In both cases it's "conform or die".

2 I think that's nonsense, would you care to clarify it?

3 I could, but the end of the middle ages roughly corresponds with the start of science, so what would be the point? Incidentally I went to a middle ages University Oxford was founded very roughly in the middle of the middle ages .

4 If you can show me evidence then I will change my scientific beliefs. If you show a theist evidence that he is wrong- for example the moons of Jupiter or the scientific age of the world, you will be ignored, lied about or threatened. They will not change their belief. In that respect they do not want change. It's not absurd to say so.

5 to any extent that that statement is true, at least the scientist have evidence for the lack of a "why"- they looked and couldn't find any. The assertion without evidence that "there is a "why" because we believe in it" is absurd.

In order to make any progress with that, you need to show that this magical "why" actually exists.

6 yes, fair enough, they read books about the book and books about those books too. A bit incestuous I think.

7 ad hom, not worthy of comment.

8 political correctness would require me to ignore the issues that Islam (and other faiths) raise.

My point is about as politically incorrect as you can get. Please feel free to find out what the phrase means.

 

 

And, if you want to know what moral guidance religion gives today in the West, have a look back to the story I cited in post number 64.

Edited January 5, 2012 by John Cuthber

[jryan]

Well, except for gunpowder (chemistry), the compass (seamanship), along with paper making and printing and a whole host of other inventions, yeah, China's done nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_inventions

 

 

Again, as I pointed out to iNow, I am not arguing that Chinese invention was non-existent, only that Western civilization far outpaced China in discovery in that time period.

 

 

China fell behind when it closed itself off in the 15th century.

http://www.basicrps.com/chine/histoire/china.htm

See also Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond

 

...while the Christian west didn't. This doesn't counter my point. This point simply makes the argument that the Chinese were a more closed society than the West.. which supports my assertion.

 

I am not arguing that the Western people were more ingenious than Eastern people, only that Western people excelled while the Chinese didn't. Arguing why Chinese innovation slowed is certainly interesting and informative, but my assertion was simply that the Western Christian countries outpaced the Chinese, which is contrary to the argument that Christianity stifled scientific discovery.

[Moontanman]

Well, except for gunpowder (chemistry), the compass (seamanship), along with paper making and printing and a whole host of other inventions, yeah, China's done nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_inventions

 

China fell behind when it closed itself off in the 15th century.

http://www.basicrps.com/chine/histoire/china.htm

See also Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond

 

 

Outrageously good post, i was too lazy to look it up for people who are unlikely to care....

[John Cuthber]

Sorry, have I missed something?

If China was atheist in, say, the 15th C and Europe was theist then the discussion might have some point.

What is being argued here is that one bunch of religious folks may, or may not, have developed "better" technology than another bunch.

So what?

If you can show me how a bunch of 15th C atheists did, that would be interesting.

 

Anyway, I'm reminded of this

[swansont]

I am not arguing that the Western people were more ingenious than Eastern people, only that Western people excelled while the Chinese didn't. Arguing why Chinese innovation slowed is certainly interesting and informative, but my assertion was simply that the Western Christian countries outpaced the Chinese, which is contrary to the argument that Christianity stifled scientific discovery.

 

But you have examples of Chinese technology that outpaced European technology, so your point that the Chinese didn't excel is false.

 

Further, the position that Christianity stifled scientific discovery is not disproven by finding a non-Christian group who didn't excel. (A —>B. You cannot conclude that ~A —> ~B. That's a fallacy)

 

IOW Nobody has claimed that Christianity and only Christianity, stifled discovery. There are many ways one can stifle discovery. Religion is one of them.

[jryan]

1. Without an afterlife (for which, I remind you, there is no evidence) they are the same. In both cases it's "conform or die".

 

 

And if I tell you to hand me your wallet because Vishnu commands it you are less likely to do so than if I demand your wallet or I will shoot you.

 

2 I think that's nonsense, would you care to clarify it?

 

 

The original argument against the contribution of universities of the middle ages to the advancement of science was that these institutions were religious in nature and that scientific discovery was just some insignificant side effect from their initial purpose. This is both wrong and ignorant.

 

Your "cave men" analogy made no sense, and you are free to explain it more clearly however. By my reading you argue that we shouldn't care what happened to Galileo and his theory since modern astronomy is independent ancient discovery.

 

 

 

3 I could, but the end of the middle ages roughly corresponds with the start of science, so what would be the point? Incidentally I went to a middle ages University Oxford was founded very roughly in the middle of the middle ages .

 

 

(remarking on the bolded bit) Ummmmm... what? "Science" started after the middle ages? That must come as a great shock to the ancient Greeks.

 

 

 

4 If you can show me evidence then I will change my scientific beliefs. If you show a theist evidence that he is wrong- for example the moons of Jupiter or the scientific age of the world, you will be ignored, lied about or threatened. They will not change their belief. In that respect they do not want change. It's not absurd to say so

 

 

This statement is rather absurd and incredibly bigoted. The fact that you can hold such a bigoted stereotype of the majority of your fellow humans is evidence of your own intellectual dishonesty more than evidence of the lack in anyone else.

 

I mean, you are saying this to someone who IS a theist and it doesn't even apply to me. Your bigoted stereotype failed to pass it's immediate comparison. It's like you arguing that all Corvettes are yellow while staring at a red corvette. Of course, I am also rather confused by what you intend to prove to me about theism by showing me the moons of Jupiter...

 

 

 

 

 

5 to any extent that that statement is true, at least the scientist have evidence for the lack of a "why"- they looked and couldn't find any. The assertion without evidence that "there is a "why" because we believe in it" is absurd.

 

In order to make any progress with that, you need to show that this magical "why" actually exists.

 

 

And you have broken the cardinal law of scientific inquiry in the process when you claim to have proof of a negative.

 

 

 

6 yes, fair enough, they read books about the book and books about those books too. A bit incestuous I think.

 

 

Again, you are simply spouting ignorance.

 

 

7 ad hom, not worthy of comment.

 

 

If having your own arguments applied to you makes you uncomfortable then I suggest finding arguments that are more universally applicable and that you can apply to yourself comfortably. I would teach you the Golden Rule, but that is in some old book that theologians read and is therefor false by your estimate.

 

 

8 political correctness would require me to ignore the issues that Islam (and other faiths) raise.

My point is about as politically incorrect as you can get. Please feel free to find out what the phrase means.

 

I didn't claim that your thoughts are politically correct. I simply pointed out a wholly secular trend in today's culture that plays havoc with writing truthful textbooks. It is also far more ingrained in modern textbooks than is creationism.

[Moontanman]

 

 

 

If having your own arguments applied to you makes you uncomfortable then I suggest finding arguments that are more universally applicable and that you can apply to yourself comfortably. I would teach you the Golden Rule, but that is in some old book that theologians read and is therefor false by your estimate.

 

And what book specifically would that Golden rule have originated in?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule

 

 

 

I didn't claim that your thoughts are politically correct. I simply pointed out a wholly secular trend in today's culture that plays havoc with writing truthful textbooks. It is also far more ingrained in modern textbooks than is creationism.

 

Please point out some specific truths that secular text books lie about....

[jryan]

But you have examples of Chinese technology that outpaced European technology, so your point that the Chinese didn't excel is false.

 

 

To pick a nit here, no, "technology" is not synonymous with "discovery". Technology is the end result of science and engineering... and on that ground the West crushed China even more soundly than in scientific discovery rate alone.

 

And you continue to miss my point. Scientific discovery was dominated by the west. You simply say "gunpowder" and think that that equates to dominance in chemistry, which ignores about 100% of the science of chemistry in the process.

 

Looking at the timeline of discoveries in Chemistry, for example, shows several thousand years of discovery before the middle ages taht we know about precisely because monastic orders saved them from destruction in the dark ages, and after the dark ages the discovery is dominated by the West... but yeah, gunpowder... I suppose that is the beginning and the end of chemical discovery...

 

The Chinese also discovered the compass, but that is immaterial given that fact the European superiority in astronomy allowed them to far outpace Chinese navigation abilities using the skies to find their way.

 

 

 

Further, the position that Christianity stifled scientific discovery is not disproven by finding a non-Christian group who didn't excel. (A —>B. You cannot conclude that ~A —> ~B. That's a fallacy)

 

 

Which is not what I am trying to prove, so good! I am showing that stating that Christianity is anti-science is an absurd argument as there is ample evidence that controls and hindrances on innovation are far more uniformly true in human societies. If you want to claim that Christianity is anti-science, then you have to make a case for an inordinate amount of anti-science on display in Christian society, but you can't. In fact, when you look at the bigger picture it was the Christian societies that were excelling in science even while you claim they were being stifling.

 

 

 

IOW Nobody has claimed that Christianity and only Christianity, stifled discovery. There are many ways one can stifle discovery. Religion is one of them.

 

But you singled it out even while the evidence proves that it was, in direct comparison, the LEAST stifling of science among the worlds disparate cultures. But it doesn't fit your narrative to admit the far more accurate "least stifling" descriptor or even "among the least stifling", or even, *gasp* "most nurturing" since that is where the evidence leads.

[iNow]

I am showing that stating that Christianity is anti-science is an absurd argument...

Please try to avoid putting forth such a strawman. I was quite clear with my argument, and have summarized it repeatedly. Here it is again:

 

 

When viewed overall, religions net support for scientific progress over the centuries is mediocre when viewed relative to religions net impediment to scientific progress.

 

 

If my point is (as you claim) so absurd, then you should not need to misrepresent it so completely when attempting to argue against it.

[Moontanman]

As much as I disagree with certain individuals in this thread I would like to point out that religion causes poverty in the same way that sex causes syphilis. Religion takes advantage of the despair of poverty to proliferate it's meme... I doubt it could be demonstrated that religion causes poverty.

[jryan]

And what book specifically would that Golden rule have originated in?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule

 

Please point out some specific truths that secular text books lie about....

 

 

 

You missed the joke there. Unless you are denying that the Golden rule was written in an old book that was read by theologians.

Edited January 5, 2012 by jryan

[Moontanman]

You missed the joke there. Unless you are denying that the Golden rule was written in an old book that was read by theologians.

 

 

No, i am saying the golden rule is part of human nature, if you had read the link you would have seen that virtually all human cultures have that in common, various religions co-opted the concept and convinced everyone it was part of their particular meme.

 

And you failed to answer my second question....

[jryan]

Please try to avoid putting forth such a strawman. I was quite clear with my argument, and have summarized it repeatedly. Here it is again:

 

 

If my point is (as you claim) so absurd, then you should not need to misrepresent it so completely when attempting to argue against it.

 

 

I used that term first in a response to John Cuthbert pages ago and your first response to that characterization of HIS argument (not yours) was something about a blind squirrel finding nuts, nothing at all about religion being a net negative on science.

 

And again, you have no actual way of showing this assertion in either version given that in an real comparison of cultures against their contemporaries it was the Christian religions that excelled while the secular ones didn't.

 

Had you argued that Christian cultures in the middle ages were the most nurturing to science among a sorry lot then you and I wouldn't be arguing. Many atheists are secure enough to admit that simple fact rather than spout poorly supported screeds against religion, you should try it, it's liberating.

 

No, i am saying the golden rule is part of human nature, if you had read the link you would have seen that virtually all human cultures have that in common, various religions co-opted the concept and convinced everyone it was part of their particular meme.

 

And you failed to answer my second question....

 

 

If it were human nature then it wouldn't need to be taught.

 

As for the second question:

 

Here is an article of examples.

 

I can only imagine the uproar if a 5th Grade science textbook spent three pages on Biblical Genesis before getting around to the physics of planet formation.. hell, I don't even have to imagine it!

 

As for outright fabrications, the latest edition of Huck Finn with all the objectionable words removed is a good example.

Edited January 6, 2012 by jryan

[Moontanman]

I used that term first in a response to John Cuthbert pages ago and your first response to that characterization of HIS argument (not yours) was something about a blind squirrel finding nuts, nothing at all about religion being a net negative on science.

 

And again, you have no actual way of showing this assertion in either version given that in an real comparison of cultures against their contemporaries it was the Christian religions that excelled while the secular ones didn't.

 

Had you argued that Christian cultures in the middle ages were the most nurturing to science among a sorry lot then you and I wouldn't be arguing. Many atheists are secure enough to admit that simple fact rather than spout poorly supported screeds against religion, you should try it, it's liberating.

 

 

 

 

If it were human nature then it wouldn't need to be taught.

 

As for the second question:

 

Here is an article of examples.

 

I can only imagine the uproar if a 5th Grade science textbook spent three pages on Biblical Genesis before getting around to the physics of planet formation.. hell, I don't even have to imagine it!

 

As for outright fabrications, the latest edition of Huck Finn with all the objectionable words removed is a good example.

 

Could you have found a more right wing christian news letter? Does the idea of biased source mean anything to you? The Weekly Standard? I mean really? Maybe we should consult Glen Beck to get a more balanced opinion...

[iNow]

I have been offered a grand total of three counter examples. Contraceptives, stem cell research, and evolution. The only one I can see as being impeded by religion is evolution and the teaching of it, because of pending legislation.

Have you ever stopped for a moment to ponder just what it means that so many countless thousands of people have rejected something so self-evidently true?

 

The description of evolution by natural selection has been around since Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species 152 years ago in 1859. One hundred and fifty two years... more than six generations between you and your great-great-great-great grandparents... where people have rejected such an obvious truth due solely to their beliefs... due solely to their religious teachings... due solely to being indoctrinated that a book of fairy tales written in the desert during the bronze age was the infallible word of their most perfect creator and lord... and that book says life just appeared, so evolution cannot be true.

 

152 years, man. 152 years of people choosing to ignore the logic, reason, and evidence before them. 152 years of claiming the experts are wrong and the evidence is a test put there by satan, and 152 years of rejecting something for no good reason other than, "this doesn't match what I want to believe."

 

Have you ever stopped for a moment to ponder just what that means? I mean... seriously stopped to think about it?

 

Have you ever considered how many other areas of life have been blighted by this rejection of reality? How many other simple truths and areas of valid science are rejected, discarded, and dismissed for no good reason? How many lives have been limited and/or negatively impacted due solely to a faith in an unproven bully? Due solely to a collection of stories told by men in power, and written in an internally inconsistent self-contradictory book?

 

Think of how many religious kids during those six generations may have gone into medicine if they didn't reject evolution. How many may have gone into research, and potentially found cures to diseases we still face, or ways to reduce suffering of those who need it most?

 

Think of how many other perfectly valid scientific concepts are rejected despite their obvious truth, and how this is made perfectly acceptable since religion enjoys such a special and unearned deference.

 

 

I'm just saying... Even if the one single argument you stipulate that lack of acceptance of evolution and its teaching is the only valid proposal we've offered you about how religion has impeded progress and tamped down good ideas (which it's not, there are other ways as have been shared, but let's say JUST evolution)... this one example still represents a monstrous and repugnant waste of potential, talent, output, and quality of life.

 

152 years where not a single argument or piece of evidence has shown it lacking... and yet it's still rejected.

152 years, and we still have legislation right now seeking to incorporate creationism into biology curricula, and we still have people who refuse to accept evolution as valid.

152 years, and nearly every republican candidate for PRESIDENT of the United States on stage right now not only denies the validity of evolution, but would be unable to secure the needed votes to win if they did not (see: Huntsman, Jon).

 

And all because of religious belief, and nothing else.

 

 

You can dismiss me as harsh, as an atheist, or a liberal, or whatever... but I'm sorry... That's just not acceptable, and evolution is hardly the only example of this exact thing happening as a result of religious belief and practice. All the dissembling and obfuscation in the world will not change that.

 

More than a century and a half, and that's merely one single example... if you'll excuse the pun... My god.

[swansont]

As much as I disagree with certain individuals in this thread I would like to point out that religion causes poverty in the same way that sex causes syphilis. Religion takes advantage of the despair of poverty to proliferate it's meme... I doubt it could be demonstrated that religion causes poverty.

 

That was not my claim, nor do I recall anyone making that claim. Poorer people appear to have a greater affinity for religion. As one becomes more prosperous, one appears to have less of a need for religion. And, to tie it into another part of the thread, as religion has had less of a grip, you also see that scientific discovery (among other things) becomes more open and free. (Short version: free inquiry and exchange of ideas works better than dogma)

[jryan]

Could you have found a more right wing christian news letter? Does the idea of biased source mean anything to you? The Weekly Standard? I mean really? Maybe we should consult Glen Beck to get a more balanced opinion...

 

 

Do you care to actually address the points in the article or simply engage in logical fallacy?

[Moontanman]

Do you care to actually address the points in the article or simply engage in logical fallacy?

 

 

How can I address a bunch of cherry picked points in a totally disingenuous "News Letter" that exists for no other purpose than to sow lies and misrepresentations and outright fabrications?

 

"people can't hear elephants" do you even know where quote was mined from? Do you have any idea of what they were really talking about? Who ever said that was a bald faced liar and I would tell him so to his face...

 

http://www.light-science.com/articles1003.html

 

You have shown your true colors, there is no way to debate such a dishonest style of discussion.... The very idea that talking to kids about outdated supernatural notions of what we used to believe and then going on to show what science has discovered as somehow promoting the supernatural and is therefore reason to teach Creationism (I'm betting only your particular Gods version) in science class is such a huge straw man I cannot fathom why any honest person could possibly go with that premise. Your stance is at best ignorant of the facts a or at worst willfully stupid. I see no reason to debate with dishonest people....

 

That was not my claim, nor do I recall anyone making that claim. Poorer people appear to have a greater affinity for religion. As one becomes more prosperous, one appears to have less of a need for religion. And, to tie it into another part of the thread, as religion has had less of a grip, you also see that scientific discovery (among other things) becomes more open and free. (Short version: free inquiry and exchange of ideas works better than dogma)

 

 

I understand that but I felt the need to clarify my original post about the connection between religion and poverty....

Edited January 6, 2012 by Moontanman

[jryan]

How can I address a bunch of cherry picked points in a totally disingenuous "News Letter" that exists for no other purpose than to sow lies and misrepresentations and outright fabrications?

 

"people can't hear elephants" do you even know where quote was mined from? Do you have any idea of what they were really talking about? Who ever said that was a bald faced liar and I would tell him so to his face...

 

http://www.light-science.com/articles1003.html

 

You have shown your true colors, there is no way to debate such a dishonest style of discussion.... The very idea that talking to kids about outdated supernatural notions of what we used to believe and then going on to show what science has discovered as somehow promoting the supernatural and is therefore reason to teach Creationism (I'm betting only your particular Gods version) in science class is such a huge straw man I cannot fathom why any honest person could possibly go with that premise. Your stance is at best ignorant of the facts a or at worst willfully stupid. I see no reason to debate with dishonest people....

 

 

Hah, I see you have sounded the retreat. You ask for examples and when I provide examples you declare them you first attack the source rather than address the information, and then when called out on that you declare the examples are "cherry picked". Ummm... Moontanaman, that is the nature of examples. I go out and pick some examples as you requested and I provide them to you. So far you have managed a stream of logical fallacy but little real meat. I remain ever the optimist though... you will eventually argue a point rather than attack it.

[Moontanman]

Hah, I see you have sounded the retreat. You ask for examples and when I provide examples you declare them you first attack the source rather than address the information, and then when called out on that you declare the examples are "cherry picked". Ummm... Moontanaman, that is the nature of examples. I go out and pick some examples as you requested and I provide them to you. So far you have managed a stream of logical fallacy but little real meat. I remain ever the optimist though... you will eventually argue a point rather than attack it.

 

 

I easily showed that one of the "News Letter's" assertions was deceptive, do i really have to post the entire article and show you how each and every one is bullshit? If I thought you cared one iota about facts, wanted to really understand, and weren't in fact a right wing christian apologist I would have some incentive but to so but spending my time debunking the same old bullshit over and over has become tiresome and i don't see how you are any more special that any other right wing christian conservative who only sees and hears what he wants to see and hear.... you swallow camels and gag at flies, that is no way to live an intellectually honest life....

Edited January 6, 2012 by Moontanman

[jryan]

I easily showed that one of the "News Letter's" assertions was deceptive, do i really have to post the entire article and show you how each and every one is bullshit? If I thought you cared one iota about facts, wanted to really understand, and weren't in fact a right wing christian apologist I would have some incentive but to so but spending my time debunking the same old bullshit over and over has become tiresome and i don't see how you are any more special that any other right wing christian conservative who only sees and hears what he wants to see and hear.... you swallow camels and gag at flies, that is no way to live an intellectually honest life....

 

 

No you didn't. Saying that elephants make some sounds that humans can't hear is not the same as saying people can't hear elephants. I would think that someone supposedly scientifically minded would be able to spot the difference in the two statements.

[Moontanman]

No you didn't. Saying that elephants make some sounds that humans can't hear is not the same as saying people can't hear elephants. I would think that someone supposedly scientifically minded would be able to spot the difference in the two statements.

 

 

No jryan, the "News letter" is full of quote mined phrases cherry picked to support the Right wing Christian agenda, you show me the actual book or the full text of that passage about elephants and we can talk but if you insist on deceptive quote mining to make your points you are just as dishonest as your source.... BTW, most of the sounds elephants make to communicate with each other are infra sounds, you read the article, stop using deception to make your points, it won't fly with me, i am familiar with quote mining by the religious apologists, it's the same thing as a lie, it's lying, the people who do it are liars..... Funny how that 9th commandment evaporates when the truth conflicts with the religious agenda...

Edited January 6, 2012 by Moontanman