(05-26-2013 12:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I don't think this thread was intended to do anything but discuss the possibility of Liberty going to the Sunbelt. There is both an abundance of ignorance and truth on both sides of the creation versus evolution debate. For those who wish to discuss that go to the Spin Room and continue your debate there. That is after all the appropriate space for such. Those who wish to discuss the merits of Liberty's realignment value, pro or con, for the Sunbelt may do so here. Let's just keep the threads and arguments in there allotted and appropriate locations. Thanks.

Yes, trying to pursue the debate over creationist vs evolutionary theory explanations for the evolution of life forms observed in the fossil record to some final online victory is not much of a conference realignment explanation as to why the Sunbelt may be disinclined to invite Liberty. So it would seem to belong in the Spin Room rather than Conference Realignment.

(05-24-2013 10:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Its obvious at this point that there is significant opposition to Liberty's inclusion by the existing members of the Sun Belt Conference. The opposition is likely related to the following:

1) Liberty's actions. They discriminate in employment against persons on the basis of religion and sexual orientation. They may have a legal right to do so, but that doesn't mean that the institutions of the Belt have to sustain such discrimination by providing Liberty with a benefit as they continue to discriminate. The school continues to retain, at very high levels within the institution (including the Dean of the Liberty University Law School), persons that engage in advocacy and rhetoric considered to be deeply offensive to wide segments of the American population and that does not comport with any IMHO mainstream understanding of Christianity.

2) Liberty's reputation. Heavily influenced by Liberty actions, as well as Liberty's long (and continuing) history of unconventional statements and academic practices, has caused Liberty to have a richly earned reputation for bigotry and bizzare academics. Liberty's reputation is so toxic that their inclusion in the Belt today would likely cause other potential members of the Belt to run for the hills. In other words, if the Belt let Liberty in, very few schools would ever join us in the future, thus eliminating candidates for future expansion (which the Belt may need in the future).

The fact that Liberty is outside the normal footprint is apparently less of a concern (they took Idaho). As is Liberty's poor record in FCS (they looked at everyone else in FCS). Really, it comes down to a fit issue. Liberty doesn't fit in the Sun Belt due to Liberty's actions, rhetoric, policies, and institutional organization (private school and dynastic leadership).

Not all members of the Liberty community support the continuing actions of the administration. However, the Belt has to look at the leadership of the school, which appears to be fully committed to furthering Liberty's richly deserved reputation for discrimination, human rights abuse advocacy/defense, adherence to unconventional academic standards, and extremely offensive rhetoric.

Wow, is this really the SBC we're talking about or the Pac 12?? I think in the Pac 12, you must be a member of that body for really prestigious academic institutions (can't think of the acronym off the top of my head, but it's the one Nebraska got booted from awhile back) and support liberalism to its fullest. (I could be wrong. After all, they did give Utah membership, and Utah is a heavily conservative state out west, but the Utes seem to be the exception and not the rule) Given the Pac 12's stances, I'm surprised they schedule any SEC teams at all OOC, considering that the SEC is much more conservative than they are, and this is probably another reason why Big Ten teams don't really schedule SEC teams either, considering that they're really just the eastern version of the Pac 12, IMO. (What?? You don't like Obama??? No Ohio State or Michigan for you!!!) Anyway, back to the SBC, I think Liberty is an alright candidate that just really needs to prove themselves in FCS & FBS, and make sure there are no really bad scandals at the institution. Methinks JMU is holding out for an AAC invite. (UDel's probably holding out for an ACC invite that they know will never come.)

(05-26-2013 02:52 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Wow, is this really the SBC we're talking about or the Pac 12?? I think in the Pac 12, you must be a member of that body for really prestigious academic institutions (can't think of the acronym off the top of my head, but it's the one Nebraska got booted from awhile back) and support liberalism to its fullest.

Oh, you don't have to have the academic snobbery of the Big Ten (which has all but one school in the AAU, and had to sneak that one school into the conference quick while it still had AAU status to avoid a university-politics backlash) ...

... to look down your nose on Liberty's academics.

I was a TA at UTK, and while Tennessee was no research powerhouse like Florida or Texas A&M, nor is its undergraduate academics as toney as an expensive private school like Duke or Vanderbilt, it would surely look down its nose at Liberty.

Lots of academics are snobs, and the more status conscious are often the ones that get themselves into positions to influence academic politics as a university. And sometimes, the fact that they aren't on top of the totem pole means that they are more determined to hold onto the status that they do have.

Like it or not, as long as we run our semi-pro Minor League football and basketball development leagues by using rules that pretend that the minor league players are students first that just happen to be playing some particular sport, then the weakness of university faculty for playing status games is going to have some influence on conference realignment.

(05-26-2013 02:52 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 10:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Its obvious at this point that there is significant opposition to Liberty's inclusion by the existing members of the Sun Belt Conference. The opposition is likely related to the following:

1) Liberty's actions. They discriminate in employment against persons on the basis of religion and sexual orientation. They may have a legal right to do so, but that doesn't mean that the institutions of the Belt have to sustain such discrimination by providing Liberty with a benefit as they continue to discriminate. The school continues to retain, at very high levels within the institution (including the Dean of the Liberty University Law School), persons that engage in advocacy and rhetoric considered to be deeply offensive to wide segments of the American population and that does not comport with any IMHO mainstream understanding of Christianity.

2) Liberty's reputation. Heavily influenced by Liberty actions, as well as Liberty's long (and continuing) history of unconventional statements and academic practices, has caused Liberty to have a richly earned reputation for bigotry and bizzare academics. Liberty's reputation is so toxic that their inclusion in the Belt today would likely cause other potential members of the Belt to run for the hills. In other words, if the Belt let Liberty in, very few schools would ever join us in the future, thus eliminating candidates for future expansion (which the Belt may need in the future).

The fact that Liberty is outside the normal footprint is apparently less of a concern (they took Idaho). As is Liberty's poor record in FCS (they looked at everyone else in FCS). Really, it comes down to a fit issue. Liberty doesn't fit in the Sun Belt due to Liberty's actions, rhetoric, policies, and institutional organization (private school and dynastic leadership).

Not all members of the Liberty community support the continuing actions of the administration. However, the Belt has to look at the leadership of the school, which appears to be fully committed to furthering Liberty's richly deserved reputation for discrimination, human rights abuse advocacy/defense, adherence to unconventional academic standards, and extremely offensive rhetoric.

Wow, is this really the SBC we're talking about or the Pac 12?? I think in the Pac 12, you must be a member of that body for really prestigious academic institutions (can't think of the acronym off the top of my head, but it's the one Nebraska got booted from awhile back) and support liberalism to its fullest. (I could be wrong. After all, they did give Utah membership, and Utah is a heavily conservative state out west, but the Utes seem to be the exception and not the rule) Given the Pac 12's stances, I'm surprised they schedule any SEC teams at all OOC, considering that the SEC is much more conservative than they are, and this is probably another reason why Big Ten teams don't really schedule SEC teams either, considering that they're really just the eastern version of the Pac 12, IMO. (What?? You don't like Obama??? No Ohio State or Michigan for you!!!) Anyway, back to the SBC, I think Liberty is an alright candidate that just really needs to prove themselves in FCS & FBS, and make sure there are no really bad scandals at the institution. Methinks JMU is holding out for an AAC invite. (UDel's probably holding out for an ACC invite that they know will never come.)

I think that football generally drives realignment, and I don't think that football is chock full of Obama-loving liberal scholars hidden away in ivory towers. That isn't the first thing that pops into my mind when I think of Urban Myer (OSU's head coach) or the likes of Notre Dame or Texas (the faces of college football).

Yes, there are other factors that influence realignment which are beyond the scope of college football, and g5 realignment stresses those factors more than G5 realignment, but to suggest that Liberty University is being denied admission to the Sun Belt Conference because of political reasons is a bit much. The future SBC consists entirely of public schools in Texas, Arkansas, LA, Kentucky, Alabama, North Carolina, and Georgia. That means that the schools are either directly controlled by, or heavily influenced by the governments of those states. Given that NONE of them are either heavily Democratic states, or bastions of "liberalism," it's safe to say that neither politics, nor Obama had anything to do with this.

LU simply sends a message that it is controversial. Yes, many follow it, but there are many who feel strongly about not following it, and the schools who make up the SBC apparently feel that, at this point in time, more harm would be done to their image by associating with LU than good. Only time will tell whether or not they made the right call.

EDIT
I fixed some especially bad spelling/grammar typos

(05-26-2013 04:48 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-26-2013 02:52 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 10:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Its obvious at this point that there is significant opposition to Liberty's inclusion by the existing members of the Sun Belt Conference. The opposition is likely related to the following:

1) Liberty's actions. They discriminate in employment against persons on the basis of religion and sexual orientation. They may have a legal right to do so, but that doesn't mean that the institutions of the Belt have to sustain such discrimination by providing Liberty with a benefit as they continue to discriminate. The school continues to retain, at very high levels within the institution (including the Dean of the Liberty University Law School), persons that engage in advocacy and rhetoric considered to be deeply offensive to wide segments of the American population and that does not comport with any IMHO mainstream understanding of Christianity.

2) Liberty's reputation. Heavily influenced by Liberty actions, as well as Liberty's long (and continuing) history of unconventional statements and academic practices, has caused Liberty to have a richly earned reputation for bigotry and bizzare academics. Liberty's reputation is so toxic that their inclusion in the Belt today would likely cause other potential members of the Belt to run for the hills. In other words, if the Belt let Liberty in, very few schools would ever join us in the future, thus eliminating candidates for future expansion (which the Belt may need in the future).

The fact that Liberty is outside the normal footprint is apparently less of a concern (they took Idaho). As is Liberty's poor record in FCS (they looked at everyone else in FCS). Really, it comes down to a fit issue. Liberty doesn't fit in the Sun Belt due to Liberty's actions, rhetoric, policies, and institutional organization (private school and dynastic leadership).

Not all members of the Liberty community support the continuing actions of the administration. However, the Belt has to look at the leadership of the school, which appears to be fully committed to furthering Liberty's richly deserved reputation for discrimination, human rights abuse advocacy/defense, adherence to unconventional academic standards, and extremely offensive rhetoric.

Wow, is this really the SBC we're talking about or the Pac 12?? I think in the Pac 12, you must be a member of that body for really prestigious academic institutions (can't think of the acronym off the top of my head, but it's the one Nebraska got booted from awhile back) and support liberalism to its fullest. (I could be wrong. After all, they did give Utah membership, and Utah is a heavily conservative state out west, but the Utes seem to be the exception and not the rule) Given the Pac 12's stances, I'm surprised they schedule any SEC teams at all OOC, considering that the SEC is much more conservative than they are, and this is probably another reason why Big Ten teams don't really schedule SEC teams either, considering that they're really just the eastern version of the Pac 12, IMO. (What?? You don't like Obama??? No Ohio State or Michigan for you!!!) Anyway, back to the SBC, I think Liberty is an alright candidate that just really needs to prove themselves in FCS & FBS, and make sure there are no really bad scandals at the institution. Methinks JMU is holding out for an AAC invite. (UDel's probably holding out for an ACC invite that they know will never come.)

I think that football generally drives realignment, and I don't think that football is chock full of Obama-loving liberal scholars hidden away in ivory towers. That isn't the first thing that pops into my mind when I think of Urban Myer (OSU's head coach) or the likes of Notre Dame or Texas (the faces of college football).

Yes, there are other factors that influence realignment which are beyond the scope of college football, and g5 realignment stresses those factors more than G5 realignment, but to suggest that Liberty University is being denied admission to the Sun Belt Conference because of political reasons is a bit much. The future SBC consists entirely of public schools in Texas, Arkansas, LA, Kentucky, Alabama, North Carolina, and Georgia. That means that the schools are either directly controlled by, or heavily influenced by the governments of those states. Given that NONE of them are either heavily Democratic states, or bastions of "liberalism," it's safe to say that neither politics, nor Obama had anything to do with this.

LU simply sends a message that it is contraversial. Yes, many follow it, but there are many who feel strongly about not following it, and the schools who make up the SBC apparently feel that, at this point in time, more harm would be done to their image by associating with LU than good. Only tim ewill tell whether or not they maded the right call.

I know how they feel. I feel the same way about the SBC teams coming to C-USA. I feel they would do more harm than good to our image, because they presently add no value to C-USA.

(05-26-2013 12:40 PM)indydoug Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:27 PM)Green Bull Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:16 PM)indydoug Wrote:  

(05-23-2013 11:48 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  They'll get an invite when they become a real academic institution. As long as they continue to "teach" creationism, they'll be left behind.

Creationism like evolution are theories. Both should be taught at all universities

Creationism is not derived from science. It belongs only in religion courses and cultural studies.

There is plenty of science to back up the Biblical creation. Just because a theory is "scientific" doesn't make it true by the way.

Of course there are truths in the Bible, it is an interpretation of the historical record that was chosen by a bunch of church politicians/theologians. For instance a natural disaster destroys a city. People ask why. You could just say it happened or you can give it an interpretation and say it was God's will. How do we know it is God's will? We do because the guy that wrote the interpretation says he was told by some divine agency. Regardless of whether God was directly involved the city was destroyed, and there was no contention against that, but there will always be an argument whether the interpretation is true and of course no one can prove it is (or not though historians don't bother trying since it does not matter).

Should we teach that when that disaster occurred that it was an act of God (literally) or should we just teach what we can observe in the historical record with no interpretation involving a figure that we cannot directly perceive? Oddly I don't see even the religious right pushing for this much. Even in the case of Noah's Ark you will find historians that think the story has a basis in truth in that there was a flood and a man saved his family and others in a large boat. They may not believe in some of the details (2 of every animal etc maybe not) and of course leave out the interpretation that God was directly involved (once again not something you can prove).

Yet with science they expect differently. Somehow that one area we expect to take literally (by the way how crazy would the world think of the guy that wrote down evolution if God told him that? Would anybody believe him at the time and could the man even understand it? Would that be an effective way of delivering your word to the masses? Something to think about).

Theories are not known for sure to be true but what we can say with this theory (and so many others we do teach such the nature of gravity, or how light works) is that it is currently the best model we have and thus far has stood the test of time. Don't think that they have not tried to disprove it either few as few theories have been put through as much as evolution which is one reason why it is taken so seriously now. Research is still ongoing and the scientific community has shown it will change course when proof is found. Hawking had a popular theory on black holes that is now been found to be wrong (notice that Hawking is still looked on fondly in the community despite this setback). Einstein was just put under scrutiny for his Theory of Relativity and it help up which surprised a number of prominent scientists. Bringing down evolution is a goal for many scientists (even ones with no religious bias) due to the fact it is one of the key ways of making yourself famous.

We barely have time to teach all the major theories in school we don't have time to teach all the minor, less researched and vetted theories. If creationism did not have the backing of a strong social political entity then it would never be taught in schools because the evidence for it specifically would not be strong enough to warrant inclusion. I don't know if it would have enough to warrant inclusion in an undergraduate course in biology.

Interesting, Brian Greene Columbia University talks about God, the multiverse and the theory of everything. Not sure if it has anything to do with the Sun Belt though?

Quote:Has this research led you to reject the idea of "God"?

My view is that science only has something to say about a very particular notion of God, which goes by the name of "God of the gaps": if you are trying to understand the world around you and science has not yet given an explanation for some phenomenon, you could step back and say, "Oh, that is God." Then, when science does explain that phenomena -- as it eventually does -- God gets squeezed out because he is no longer needed to explain that phenomena.

But that is a very particular and simplistic notion of God. No matter what physics does, you can always say there is God behind it: God set up the rules the physics, God set the environment within which those rules play themselves out. Do I feel that we need that? No. Do I subscribe to it? I do not. But does physics rule that picture out? No it doesn't.

I think the appropriate response for a physicist to is to say: "I do not find the concept of God very interesting because I cannot test it -- I cannot rule it out in the traditional ways." And what excites me and makes me want to go to my office is to work on things that I can test. For me, God is not that interesting but I do not think God is ruled out. That is a statement that's unjustifiable.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/helen-...s-universe

(05-26-2013 07:18 PM)Liberty Fan Wrote:  Interesting, Brian Greene Columbia University talks about God, the multiverse and the theory of everything. Not sure if it has anything to do with the Sun Belt though?

Quote:Has this research led you to reject the idea of "God"?

My view is that science only has something to say about a very particular notion of God, which goes by the name of "God of the gaps": if you are trying to understand the world around you and science has not yet given an explanation for some phenomenon, you could step back and say, "Oh, that is God." Then, when science does explain that phenomena -- as it eventually does -- God gets squeezed out because he is no longer needed to explain that phenomena.

But that is a very particular and simplistic notion of God. No matter what physics does, you can always say there is God behind it: God set up the rules the physics, God set the environment within which those rules play themselves out. Do I feel that we need that? No. Do I subscribe to it? I do not. But does physics rule that picture out? No it doesn't.

I think the appropriate response for a physicist to is to say: "I do not find the concept of God very interesting because I cannot test it -- I cannot rule it out in the traditional ways." And what excites me and makes me want to go to my office is to work on things that I can test. For me, God is not that interesting but I do not think God is ruled out. That is a statement that's unjustifiable.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/helen-...s-universe

Basically he is saying what I said but in a nicer way. The crazy thing is that people seem to think that science is trying to "attack" God which is not the case. Science is just trying to figure out how the world works. Even if God is the reason physics (and other sciences) work as he says that is not interesting. He wants to figure out how the world works regardless of the existence (or lack thereof) of God.

This quote actually helps show part of the reason why many scientists refuse to accept Creationism even if they are devout, because they want to know how it works and how it happened. The hand wave of "God did it" isn't good enough.

Liberty wins or shares this school year's Big South Conference in Football, basketball, & Baseball.

(05-26-2013 12:40 PM)indydoug Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:27 PM)Green Bull Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:16 PM)indydoug Wrote:  

(05-23-2013 11:48 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  They'll get an invite when they become a real academic institution. As long as they continue to "teach" creationism, they'll be left behind.

Creationism like evolution are theories. Both should be taught at all universities

Creationism is not derived from science. It belongs only in religion courses and cultural studies.

There is plenty of science to back up the Biblical creation. Just because a theory is "scientific" doesn't make it true by the way.

It was requested we stop debating Creationism and Evolution on this board, so I cannot provide a counter-argument unless your post is moved to or repeated in the Spin Board.

(05-26-2013 04:06 AM)liberty1959 Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 10:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Its obvious at this point that there is significant opposition to Liberty's inclusion by the existing members of the Sun Belt Conference. The opposition is likely related to the following:

1) Liberty's actions. They discriminate in employment against persons on the basis of religion and sexual orientation. They may have a legal right to do so, but that doesn't mean that the institutions of the Belt have to sustain such discrimination by providing Liberty with a benefit as they continue to discriminate. The school continues to retain, at very high levels within the institution (including the Dean of the Liberty University Law School), persons that engage in advocacy and rhetoric considered to be deeply offensive to wide segments of the American population and that does not comport with any IMHO mainstream understanding of Christianity.

2) Liberty's reputation. Heavily influenced by Liberty actions, as well as Liberty's long (and continuing) history of unconventional statements and academic practices, has caused Liberty to have a richly earned reputation for bigotry and bizzare academics. Liberty's reputation is so toxic that their inclusion in the Belt today would likely cause other potential members of the Belt to run for the hills. In other words, if the Belt let Liberty in, very few schools would ever join us in the future, thus eliminating candidates for future expansion (which the Belt may need in the future).

The fact that Liberty is outside the normal footprint is apparently less of a concern (they took Idaho). As is Liberty's poor record in FCS (they looked at everyone else in FCS). Really, it comes down to a fit issue. Liberty doesn't fit in the Sun Belt due to Liberty's actions, rhetoric, policies, and institutional organization (private school and dynastic leadership).

Not all members of the Liberty community support the continuing actions of the administration. However, the Belt has to look at the leadership of the school, which appears to be fully committed to furthering Liberty's richly deserved reputation for discrimination, human rights abuse advocacy/defense, adherence to unconventional academic standards, and extremely offensive rhetoric.

Tom get a life you Libtard

Who wouldn't want to associate with the scholars at Liberty?

Okay, this has gone on long enough...