(04-09-2021 06:03 AM)army56mike Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 11:10 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Liberty will always be under the Falwells shadow and have a perception issue The only thing they can do is deal with the cards they have: FBS independence and the A-Sun for other sports since no FBS conference or conferences like the Big East, A-10 and MVC would associate with them.

You do realize that Liberty is already a member of the Big East in one sport don’t you? Though we don’t have full membership in other conferences, we certainly don’t have an issue associating with other conferences. We regularly schedule with the ACC and SEC with no problem. We have multi-year home/away visits from many ACC teams. Independence works well for us. I don’t believe you will hear a fan or administration complain otherwise. Sure if the right conference situation came along we’d listen, but for now, we are content and thriving where we are. Independence/ASUN are a great place for us.

(04-09-2021 01:14 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 08:40 AM)SlyFox Wrote:  I 100% agree with your sentiment, Foreverandever. That is what true liberty is all about. From the Liberty camp, we are all in on the freedom of choice.

Where I disagree with you is in regard to the suggestion in your third sentence that Liberty uses "'religion' to exclude and promote the persecution of others." That is not a fair representation of Liberty's position even though it is a common misconception. I will grant you some argument on exclusion as it relates to faculty but promotion of the persecution of others is hyperbole and flat out inaccurate. But I respect your take even if I disagree.

Many students at Liberty's campus would disagree with you and I don't mean the ones who violate the "honor code" but the ones who gleefully sign up for it because it excludes those people and positions them as less than.

That's why Liberty will never be invited. Perhaps you're right and that's not what Liberty is about, but their are a lot of families who send their children there because they believe that is what the university is about.

Mathew 25:40

(04-09-2021 09:19 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(04-09-2021 06:03 AM)army56mike Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 11:10 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Liberty will always be under the Falwells shadow and have a perception issue The only thing they can do is deal with the cards they have: FBS independence and the A-Sun for other sports since no FBS conference or conferences like the Big East, A-10 and MVC would associate with them.

You do realize that Liberty is already a member of the Big East in one sport don’t you? Though we don’t have full membership in other conferences, we certainly don’t have an issue associating with other conferences. We regularly schedule with the ACC and SEC with no problem. We have multi-year home/away visits from many ACC teams. Independence works well for us. I don’t believe you will hear a fan or administration complain otherwise. Sure if the right conference situation came along we’d listen, but for now, we are content and thriving where we are. Independence/ASUN are a great place for us.

Boise State is a Pac-12 member for wrestling and we all know the Pac-12 would never admit Boise State as a full member. Kentucky and South Carolina are C-USA members for men’s soccer and no one would mistake those schools as Pac-12 and C-USA schools. Liberty might be a Big East member for one sport but make no mistake, the Big East will not invite Liberty for full membership. .

(04-09-2021 10:55 AM)army56mike Wrote:  

(04-09-2021 09:19 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(04-09-2021 06:03 AM)army56mike Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 11:10 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Liberty will always be under the Falwells shadow and have a perception issue The only thing they can do is deal with the cards they have: FBS independence and the A-Sun for other sports since no FBS conference or conferences like the Big East, A-10 and MVC would associate with them.

You do realize that Liberty is already a member of the Big East in one sport don’t you? Though we don’t have full membership in other conferences, we certainly don’t have an issue associating with other conferences. We regularly schedule with the ACC and SEC with no problem. We have multi-year home/away visits from many ACC teams. Independence works well for us. I don’t believe you will hear a fan or administration complain otherwise. Sure if the right conference situation came along we’d listen, but for now, we are content and thriving where we are. Independence/ASUN are a great place for us.

Boise State is a Pac-12 member for wrestling and we all know the Pac-12 would never admit Boise State as a full member. Kentucky and South Carolina are C-USA members for men’s soccer and no one would mistake those schools as Pac-12 and C-USA schools. Liberty might be a Big East member for one sport but make no mistake, the Big East will not invite Liberty for full membership. .

I understand, and most likely you are correct that we will never join those conferences as full members. But you stated that conferences will not associate with Liberty, and that clearly isn’t true based on the evidence.

(04-09-2021 09:12 AM)e-parade Wrote:  A poll was referenced but not linked (2014 Pew), I didn't find that one in my quick search, but I found a more recent one from Gallup (2019): https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx

To no one's surprise, it lines up best with people who are religious vs. people who are not. Though, oddly, there are still somehow 14% of non-religious people who believe in pure creationism. Would be great to be able to talk with some of them to see how those views came up.

But one thing that's important here on the second chart: it's not just the college presidents you'd need to convince. When combined from the two categories, 73% of college educated adults believe in evolution. While it's true that more often people who have college degrees tend to be more liberal, 73% would stretch beyond that and also include quite a number of conservatives. To say it's simply a "liberal bias" is a bit much.

(04-09-2021 12:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-09-2021 09:12 AM)e-parade Wrote:  A poll was referenced but not linked (2014 Pew), I didn't find that one in my quick search, but I found a more recent one from Gallup (2019): https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx

To no one's surprise, it lines up best with people who are religious vs. people who are not. Though, oddly, there are still somehow 14% of non-religious people who believe in pure creationism. Would be great to be able to talk with some of them to see how those views came up.

But one thing that's important here on the second chart: it's not just the college presidents you'd need to convince. When combined from the two categories, 73% of college educated adults believe in evolution. While it's true that more often people who have college degrees tend to be more liberal, 73% would stretch beyond that and also include quite a number of conservatives. To say it's simply a "liberal bias" is a bit much.

To me, the issue isn't whether believing in evolution/not believing in creationism is evidence of liberal bias. I haven't asserted that. For example, I am a Trump-supporting Republican Christian with a college degree, and I believe in evolution. And I believe I don't have an ounce of Liberal bias in me, LOL.

The issue is, what presidents or administrators at other schools are likely to make Liberty's creationism a "fatal flaw" in evaluating their suitability for conference membership, overriding the fact that they are an accredited university with a G5-level position in various ranking systems of academic quality? IMO, only strongly-liberal administrators are likely to do that, because liberals tend to be politically against creationism in a way that non-liberals, even those who do not believe in creationism, are not. When creationism is at issue, IMO this tends to rile liberals up and they swing in to action in ways that others, even non-liberals who believe in evolution, do not. For example, as I said, I believe in evolution. But in evaluating Liberty's overall academic worthiness, their creationism is a trivial thing to me, it's very small thing in a big picture of academic worthiness. In contrast, it's much more likely to be a kill-pill for liberals. So if we see Liberty being rejected on the grounds of their creationism, it is likely that liberal bias is the reason. That's not to say that it's impossible for a conservative or independent to reject Liberty on creationism grounds, or that all liberal presidents will reject Liberty on creationism grounds. It's just that active opposition to Liberty, to the point of voting against their membership in a conference, on creationism grounds is far more likely to come from those with liberal ideology. So if we see that happening, it is likely that liberal bias is in play.

And I'm frankly surprised that anyone would really argue that. Seems obvious to me. It fits with what others have said early on in this thread - Liberty is a religious-conservative institution, while university presidents are overwhelmingly liberal, and hence Liberty is likely to struggle find acceptance in a conference.




FWIW, here's the link to the Pew Poll I cited earlier, from 2014:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/03/republican-views-on-evolution-tracking-how-its-changed/

(04-09-2021 12:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-09-2021 12:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-09-2021 09:12 AM)e-parade Wrote:  A poll was referenced but not linked (2014 Pew), I didn't find that one in my quick search, but I found a more recent one from Gallup (2019): https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx

To no one's surprise, it lines up best with people who are religious vs. people who are not. Though, oddly, there are still somehow 14% of non-religious people who believe in pure creationism. Would be great to be able to talk with some of them to see how those views came up.

But one thing that's important here on the second chart: it's not just the college presidents you'd need to convince. When combined from the two categories, 73% of college educated adults believe in evolution. While it's true that more often people who have college degrees tend to be more liberal, 73% would stretch beyond that and also include quite a number of conservatives. To say it's simply a "liberal bias" is a bit much.

To me, the issue isn't whether believing in evolution/not believing in creationism is evidence of liberal bias. I haven't asserted that. For example, I am a Trump-supporting Republican Christian with a college degree, and I believe in evolution. And I believe I don't have an ounce of Liberal bias in me, LOL.

The issue is, what presidents or administrators at other schools are likely to make Liberty's creationism a "fatal flaw" in evaluating their suitability for conference membership, overriding the fact that they are an accredited university with a G5-level position in various ranking systems of academic quality? IMO, only strongly-liberal administrators are likely to do that, because liberals tend to be politically against creationism in a way that non-liberals, even those who do not believe in creationism, are not. When creationism is at issue, IMO this tends to rile liberals up and they swing in to action in ways that others, even non-liberals who believe in evolution, do not. For example, as I said, I believe in evolution. But in evaluating Liberty's overall academic worthiness, their creationism is a trivial thing to me, it's very small thing in a big picture of academic worthiness. In contrast, it's much more likely to be a kill-pill for liberals. So if we see Liberty being rejected on the grounds of their creationism, it is likely that liberal bias is the reason. That's not to say that it's impossible for a conservative or independent to reject Liberty on creationism grounds, or that all liberal presidents will reject Liberty on creationism grounds. It's just that active opposition to Liberty, to the point of voting against their membership in a conference, on creationism grounds is far more likely to come from those with liberal ideology. So if we see that happening, it is likely that liberal bias is in play.

And I'm frankly surprised that anyone would really argue that. Seems obvious to me. It fits with what others have said early on in this thread - Liberty is a religious-conservative institution, while university presidents are overwhelmingly liberal, and hence Liberty is likely to struggle find acceptance in a conference.




FWIW, here's the link to the Pew Poll I cited earlier, from 2014:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/03/republican-views-on-evolution-tracking-how-its-changed/

I know this creationsim thing is pretty off topic---but Ive kinda come around to view that both evolution and creationism have such huge logic flaws that they both rely on some level of "faith". The leap of faith in creationism is obvious. The one in evolution is more hidden. It lies in the acceptance of the idea that incredibly intricate advanced biological systems could essentially create themselves via mutations.

If you look at the incredibly complex and interdependent nature of just a single human system---say something like just an eyeball---we arent even talking about all the necessary organs and complex systems outside of the eyeball that allow it to survive, function, and communicate with the rest of the body--you can see that the liklihood that the lenses, retina, muscles, pupils, cones/rod color receptors that detect the light in just the right wavelengths, nerve endings, fluids, pupil/aperture, etc--all happened to spontaneously form as a result of mutation---is kind of a leap of faith thats on the level of pretending that a complex machine like a cell phone could just spontaneously create itself from a sea of molten elements. Thus, Ive come to the conclusion that both origin theories require a pretty large leap of "faith". Once you look at the complexity of the systems involved---the idea of some sort of intelligent guiding the development process seems no less logical than saying it happened spontaneously via random uncoordinated mutations.

(04-09-2021 12:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-09-2021 12:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-09-2021 09:12 AM)e-parade Wrote:  A poll was referenced but not linked (2014 Pew), I didn't find that one in my quick search, but I found a more recent one from Gallup (2019): https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx

To no one's surprise, it lines up best with people who are religious vs. people who are not. Though, oddly, there are still somehow 14% of non-religious people who believe in pure creationism. Would be great to be able to talk with some of them to see how those views came up.

But one thing that's important here on the second chart: it's not just the college presidents you'd need to convince. When combined from the two categories, 73% of college educated adults believe in evolution. While it's true that more often people who have college degrees tend to be more liberal, 73% would stretch beyond that and also include quite a number of conservatives. To say it's simply a "liberal bias" is a bit much.

To me, the issue isn't whether believing in evolution/not believing in creationism is evidence of liberal bias. I haven't asserted that. For example, I am a Trump-supporting Republican Christian with a college degree, and I believe in evolution. And I believe I don't have an ounce of Liberal bias in me, LOL.

The issue is, what presidents or administrators at other schools are likely to make Liberty's creationism a "fatal flaw" in evaluating their suitability for conference membership, overriding the fact that they are an accredited university with a G5-level position in various ranking systems of academic quality? IMO, only strongly-liberal administrators are likely to do that, because liberals tend to be politically against creationism in a way that non-liberals, even those who do not believe in creationism, are not. When creationism is at issue, IMO this tends to rile liberals up and they swing in to action in ways that others, even non-liberals who believe in evolution, do not. For example, as I said, I believe in evolution. But in evaluating Liberty's overall academic worthiness, their creationism is a trivial thing to me, it's very small thing in a big picture of academic worthiness. In contrast, it's much more likely to be a kill-pill for liberals. So if we see Liberty being rejected on the grounds of their creationism, it is likely that liberal bias is the reason. That's not to say that it's impossible for a conservative or independent to reject Liberty on creationism grounds, or that all liberal presidents will reject Liberty on creationism grounds. It's just that active opposition to Liberty, to the point of voting against their membership in a conference, on creationism grounds is far more likely to come from those with liberal ideology. So if we see that happening, it is likely that liberal bias is in play.

And I'm frankly surprised that anyone would really argue that. Seems obvious to me. It fits with what others have said early on in this thread - Liberty is a religious-conservative institution, while university presidents are overwhelmingly liberal, and hence Liberty is likely to struggle find acceptance in a conference.




FWIW, here's the link to the Pew Poll I cited earlier, from 2014:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/03/republican-views-on-evolution-tracking-how-its-changed/

I know this creationsim thing is pretty off topic---but Ive kinda come around to view that both evolution and creationism have such huge logic flaws that they both rely on some level of "faith". The leap of faith in creationism is obvious. The one in evolution is more hidden. It lies in the acceptance of the idea that incredibly intricate advanced biological systems could essentially create themselves via mutations.

If you look at the incredibly complex and interdependent nature of just a single human system---say something like just an eyeball---we arent even talking about all the necessary organs and complex systems outside of the eyeball that allow it to survive, function, and communicate with the rest of the body--you can see that the liklihood that the lenses, retina, muscles, pupils, cones/rod color receptors that detect the light in just the right wavelengths, nerve endings, fluids, pupil/aperture, etc--all happened to spontaneously form as a result of mutation---is kind of a leap of faith thats on the level of pretending that a complex machine like a cell phone could just spontaneously create itself from a sea of molten elements. Thus, Ive come to the conclusion that both origin theories require a pretty large leap of "faith". Once you look at the complexity of the systems involved---the idea of some sort of intelligence guiding the development process seems no less logical than saying it happened spontaneously via random uncoordinated mutations.

(04-09-2021 03:12 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  When did time begin?
Where did humans come from? (and don't tell me from apes or monkeys)
Why are there so many species?
Why do males and females in every other species stay together and in their own species?
How many stars and planets are there?

(04-09-2021 03:12 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  When did time begin?
Where did humans come from? (and don't tell me from apes or monkeys)
Why are there so many species?
Why do males and females in every other species stay together and in their own species?
How many stars and planets are there?

(04-09-2021 05:51 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(04-09-2021 03:12 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  When did time begin?
Where did humans come from? (and don't tell me from apes or monkeys)
Why are there so many species?
Why do males and females in every other species stay together and in their own species?
How many stars and planets are there?

As three-year-old children, each of us knows for sure that that humans originated in the Garden of Eden. First Adam, and then Eve, who somehow morphed out of one of Adam's ribs. And then, as we get older, we begin to realize that Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden are the stuff of mythology. Most of us, anyway. But there will always be folks who think the world is flat, and that it's the center of the universe.

A trip to Walmart should convince just about anyone with powers of observation that some of us descended from the apes. But not from monkeys. Monkeys have tails. Or maybe humans and apes descended from a common ancestor. Something like that, anyway. Nobody knows. Yet.

But we're working on it.

Now, where was the Garden of Eden?

(04-09-2021 05:56 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  ...and here I was expecting realignment talk instead of Bible study. I actually think I like Bible study more in this instance.

(04-09-2021 02:18 PM)colohank Wrote:  Big numbers confound us. It's a lot easier in these days of monstrous budgets to say "billion" or "trillion" than it is to comprehend just how large those numbers really are. For example, a stack of one trillion dimes, each only about one millimeter thick, would be tall enough to reach the Moon and back, with enough left over for about 5.5 laps around Earth's equator.

(04-09-2021 12:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-09-2021 12:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-09-2021 09:12 AM)e-parade Wrote:  A poll was referenced but not linked (2014 Pew), I didn't find that one in my quick search, but I found a more recent one from Gallup (2019): https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx

To no one's surprise, it lines up best with people who are religious vs. people who are not. Though, oddly, there are still somehow 14% of non-religious people who believe in pure creationism. Would be great to be able to talk with some of them to see how those views came up.

But one thing that's important here on the second chart: it's not just the college presidents you'd need to convince. When combined from the two categories, 73% of college educated adults believe in evolution. While it's true that more often people who have college degrees tend to be more liberal, 73% would stretch beyond that and also include quite a number of conservatives. To say it's simply a "liberal bias" is a bit much.

To me, the issue isn't whether believing in evolution/not believing in creationism is evidence of liberal bias. I haven't asserted that. For example, I am a Trump-supporting Republican Christian with a college degree, and I believe in evolution. And I believe I don't have an ounce of Liberal bias in me, LOL.

The issue is, what presidents or administrators at other schools are likely to make Liberty's creationism a "fatal flaw" in evaluating their suitability for conference membership, overriding the fact that they are an accredited university with a G5-level position in various ranking systems of academic quality? IMO, only strongly-liberal administrators are likely to do that, because liberals tend to be politically against creationism in a way that non-liberals, even those who do not believe in creationism, are not. When creationism is at issue, IMO this tends to rile liberals up and they swing in to action in ways that others, even non-liberals who believe in evolution, do not. For example, as I said, I believe in evolution. But in evaluating Liberty's overall academic worthiness, their creationism is a trivial thing to me, it's very small thing in a big picture of academic worthiness. In contrast, it's much more likely to be a kill-pill for liberals. So if we see Liberty being rejected on the grounds of their creationism, it is likely that liberal bias is the reason. That's not to say that it's impossible for a conservative or independent to reject Liberty on creationism grounds, or that all liberal presidents will reject Liberty on creationism grounds. It's just that active opposition to Liberty, to the point of voting against their membership in a conference, on creationism grounds is far more likely to come from those with liberal ideology. So if we see that happening, it is likely that liberal bias is in play.

And I'm frankly surprised that anyone would really argue that. Seems obvious to me. It fits with what others have said early on in this thread - Liberty is a religious-conservative institution, while university presidents are overwhelmingly liberal, and hence Liberty is likely to struggle find acceptance in a conference.




FWIW, here's the link to the Pew Poll I cited earlier, from 2014:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/03/republican-views-on-evolution-tracking-how-its-changed/

I know this creationsim thing is pretty off topic---but Ive kinda come around to view that both evolution and creationism have such huge logic flaws that they both rely on some level of "faith". The leap of faith in creationism is obvious. The one in evolution is more hidden. It lies in the acceptance of the idea that incredibly intricate advanced biological systems could essentially create themselves via mutations.