One Big Reason No LU in the Belt

[Saint3333]

With all those advantages while in the FCS how many playoff games did they win?

[AppfaninCAALand]

I'm sitting at a collision center across from LU as I write this (I'm in the car insurance claims business). I passed their stadium on my way here - the construction equipment is out in force. While I'm not particularly a fan of the school or their brand of Evangelicalism and opposed them in the SBC, I'm impressed with the school (particularly how the school has revitalized Lynchburg) and happy for them that they are going for it.

When I say I'm confident they will be successful, I'm actually not talking wins and losses, I think more in line of attendance, attention, etc. I'm sure with their 100k online students they will eventually become a big nationwide TV draw, but it will take time of course.

But to get back on track of the OP, I'm less worried about them for recruiting purposes than I am about ODU or UNCC, or JMU if they moved up.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

Am I the only one that keeps taking a wrong turn at US-29 & US-460 just before the James River. Something about that stretch or road, not sure if I am missing a sign or what?

[Stonewall]

Never mind

[1ASU78]

I don't get all the hate for LU. I guess they teach stuff like any other university to be accredited. Their belief of how we got here may or may not be the same belief as others. If you want to believe we slithered out of the mud that's you. I don't. That's me. But when our tolerance for each other hinges on "I will be tolerant if you agree with me" that's not tolerance it's I'm right you're wrong. So far my view is based in faith and a belief, the other is based in theory that its practitioners are working tirelessly to prove. In the midst of all this who is right who is wrong? Does anyone have to be right or wrong? It seems that no matter the issue if humans are involved we can loose perspective and turn things into something it should have never been to begin with.

I think some kids at LU drink beer, do the hoo-chi coo-chi, 420 and go to movies, and may even go to church. While there probably plenty of biblically conservative kids I think most are having a pretty normal college life. So they very well may begin to go after the same recruits we do BUT they aren't Appalachian State University

I don't care, within some very broad limits, what they teach as long as they just label it correctly. They need to call their creationism class a religion class and not a science type course. I have never posted about other colleges and universities be they "Bible Colleges", seminary schools, or public or private universities that are honest in their approach. LU is not being honest here in what science is to the vast, vast majority of people that study science around the world.

Anyone has every right to call out ignorance and in this case intentional spreading of ignorance exactly what it is. That does not make me or anyone calling this out intolerant. If someone said that 2+2=5 I would call them out on it. That does not make me intolerant of someone's views on math.

The issue with their view of creationism, besides the fact it goes contrary to so much evidence based science, in so many fields of science, is their view that by creationism they really mean Genesis based creationism. It they were trying to approach this as a science they would equally explore the World Turtle/Serpent/Elephant theories of various groups around the world, and so many other creation stories and myths. Instead they already have the answer and they have to fit everything into that belief system. That is NOT science, and it is NOT intolerant to say as such. It is religion, just call it that.

What qualifies something as science? I've heard golf referred to as a science. I don't spend time researching what LU calls science or religion.But so far I don't think science has proved origin of life. And without proof it's only theory and to continue pursuing a theory is belief that the theory will prove itself. A belief system. Biblical creation doesn't need science to prove it. There are people busting their butts everyday to prove one or the other and to what end? again my belief is not in evolution. But yes your are intolerant because you can't just agree to disagree with them. Since you used bold. The best argument so far, against LU's teaching is by Appstate77 is that their evangelical theology is be all end all and if not their follower then you are less of a Christian. And if that is true I don't dig that.

[WVAPPeer]

What if your belief was races must be segregated based on the way it always was? - Would McLeans and myself be wrong to call you intolerant on that? ---

[EastHallApp]

What qualifies something as science? I've heard golf referred to as a science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

I don't get all the hate for LU. I guess they teach stuff like any other university to be accredited. Their belief of how we got here may or may not be the same belief as others. If you want to believe we slithered out of the mud that's you. I don't. That's me. But when our tolerance for each other hinges on "I will be tolerant if you agree with me" that's not tolerance it's I'm right you're wrong. So far my view is based in faith and a belief, the other is based in theory that its practitioners are working tirelessly to prove. In the midst of all this who is right who is wrong? Does anyone have to be right or wrong? It seems that no matter the issue if humans are involved we can loose perspective and turn things into something it should have never been to begin with.

I think some kids at LU drink beer, do the hoo-chi coo-chi, 420 and go to movies, and may even go to church. While there probably plenty of biblically conservative kids I think most are having a pretty normal college life. So they very well may begin to go after the same recruits we do BUT they aren't Appalachian State University

I don't care, within some very broad limits, what they teach as long as they just label it correctly. They need to call their creationism class a religion class and not a science type course. I have never posted about other colleges and universities be they "Bible Colleges", seminary schools, or public or private universities that are honest in their approach. LU is not being honest here in what science is to the vast, vast majority of people that study science around the world.

Anyone has every right to call out ignorance and in this case intentional spreading of ignorance exactly what it is. That does not make me or anyone calling this out intolerant. If someone said that 2+2=5 I would call them out on it. That does not make me intolerant of someone's views on math.

The issue with their view of creationism, besides the fact it goes contrary to so much evidence based science, in so many fields of science, is their view that by creationism they really mean Genesis based creationism. It they were trying to approach this as a science they would equally explore the World Turtle/Serpent/Elephant theories of various groups around the world, and so many other creation stories and myths. Instead they already have the answer and they have to fit everything into that belief system. That is NOT science, and it is NOT intolerant to say as such. It is religion, just call it that.

What qualifies something as science? I've heard golf referred to as a science. I don't spend time researching what LU calls science or religion.But so far I don't think science has proved origin of life. And without proof it's only theory and to continue pursuing a theory is belief that the theory will prove itself. A belief system. Biblical creation doesn't need science to prove it. There are people busting their butts everyday to prove one or the other and to what end? again my belief is not in evolution. But yes your are intolerant because you can't just agree to disagree with them. Since you used bold. The best argument so far, against LU's teaching is by Appstate77 is that their evangelical theology is be all end all and if not their follower then you are less of a Christian. And if that is true I don't dig that.

Just now having time to sit down to reply to your great question about what is science.

First, I am not an expert on this topic at the level of the professors in Garwood or Rankin, and I am far from some eloquent writer as some writers can be, but I will give this a short go with a bullet list. If I miss anything let me know. I am in and out of the house and at present cooling off before I head back out in the heat.

1. Golf could be a science if people studied it and was willing to collect data, make models of the data, make predictions from those models and see if the predictions are correct within measurement error, or modify the models to better fit predictions. Rinse and repeat. I talk about golf and other bat and ball sports all the time in my physics classes. The swing is energy conservation, the club/ball impact involves conservation of momentum and collisions. The path the golf ball takes is projectile motion, which can be studied at a basic level without considering air resistance with simple algebra or one can delve into differential equations and take into acount the many variables that effect air resistance. The dimples on the golf ball is a topic all onto itself. Yes, golf does and can be studied in a very scientific manner and I would call that a science. It is not that far removed from launching a rocket really. (And golf is also an art that is harder to quantify.) The key here is that science is based on observable evidence. Is is something that has data that can be measured and refuted.

2. A theory has very strong support in the science community. Sadly some things in science that are called laws are really theories and some theories could be called laws. The one thing science does is not write stuff in stone, and this is exactly what LU is doing with creationism. They are studying this as a way to force the answers they want. That is not science. Science examines the evidence and is willing to make changes to the models/laws/theories when new evidence supports those changes. If you are taking the First Book of Moses as inerrant fact, then by definition you are not going to allow modifications if needed and therefore you are not "doing" science. Sometimes this neew evidence brings on a whole new way of looking at things and we throw out the old ideas. It seems more often than not we end up having to tweak things and there are not complete wholesale changes in the underlying science. But big or small science can and does change what we accept as "correct."

3. I still am not buying your point that my challenging LU in their use of the ideas that their study of creationism is science makes me intolerant. I am not trying to shut them down. I would prefer a world where they are not as influential as they are, and I would prefer they not have SACS accreditation but I don't object to their having some other accreditation with religious connections. Having them call their courses around creationism religious studies is all I want. To pass what they do off as science as it relates to how they handle the origins or the universe is dishonest, counter to what higher ed or even lower ed for that matter should be about.


4. I do agree with you and Appstate77 in that their view of Christianity and how it relates to other Christian groups is something not to my liken either. That is separate from their creationism views.

5. I would encourage you to read some from scientists that claim to be Christians. There are plenty of them (us) out there. Some publish and some do not write much. Some talk about their faith and others separate the two parts of their lives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... century.29

and of course there are other scientists that are religious and believe in other faiths.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

Not to make light of this serious discussion, but I just can not pass up a Simpsons clip or two.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg0a7aXUXvw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E9DmIy1voU

[bcoach]

I don't get all the hate for LU. I guess they teach stuff like any other university to be accredited. Their belief of how we got here may or may not be the same belief as others. If you want to believe we slithered out of the mud that's you. I don't. That's me. But when our tolerance for each other hinges on "I will be tolerant if you agree with me" that's not tolerance it's I'm right you're wrong. So far my view is based in faith and a belief, the other is based in theory that its practitioners are working tirelessly to prove. In the midst of all this who is right who is wrong? Does anyone have to be right or wrong? It seems that no matter the issue if humans are involved we can loose perspective and turn things into something it should have never been to begin with.

I think some kids at LU drink beer, do the hoo-chi coo-chi, 420 and go to movies, and may even go to church. While there probably plenty of biblically conservative kids I think most are having a pretty normal college life. So they very well may begin to go after the same recruits we do BUT they aren't Appalachian State University

I don't care, within some very broad limits, what they teach as long as they just label it correctly. They need to call their creationism class a religion class and not a science type course. I have never posted about other colleges and universities be they "Bible Colleges", seminary schools, or public or private universities that are honest in their approach. LU is not being honest here in what science is to the vast, vast majority of people that study science around the world.

Anyone has every right to call out ignorance and in this case intentional spreading of ignorance exactly what it is. That does not make me or anyone calling this out intolerant. If someone said that 2+2=5 I would call them out on it. That does not make me intolerant of someone's views on math.

The issue with their view of creationism, besides the fact it goes contrary to so much evidence based science, in so many fields of science, is their view that by creationism they really mean Genesis based creationism. It they were trying to approach this as a science they would equally explore the World Turtle/Serpent/Elephant theories of various groups around the world, and so many other creation stories and myths. Instead they already have the answer and they have to fit everything into that belief system. That is NOT science, and it is NOT intolerant to say as such. It is religion, just call it that.

Honest question not an argument. Why should anyone care? That is what they believe. Now with that said I don't know what they teach. Is there some reason I should care? I am being serious.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

Life goes on either way. That is the think about science, people do not have to understand or accept science and how nature works for science and nature to keep on.

In the context of App State, I would prefer we as a school associate with other institutions of higher learning that match us as much as possible. That does not preclude us from being joined with religious schools even, as long as their is some honesty and truth in their course offerings. LU is not doing that.

In a more general sense I wold say about the same thing. I do think searching for the truth is important, and this can be done with religion to satisfy one's own search for this truth, just call it that. If you can't get this right it does call into question, at least for me, other subjects and what is being taught and expected of students.