Tennessee's Creationism Bill: Why Are We Still Fighting Over Evolution?

Gatorman said:
religion creates a false comfort zone for weak minds. Everything will be OK, you'll go to a better place, New Orleans was destroyed because of the black people and the fags, etc.
Click to expand...

As stupid as religion can be, I know of no mainstream religious entity that said the destruction of New Orleans was due to race or homosexuality. Care to enlighten me?

I was raised and remained a christian until I thought about it. Critical thinking, anathema to christians, changes things.
Click to expand...

Critical thinking is anathema to fundamentalist Christians for sure. But I know many people who a Christian who also accept evolution. I used to be one, until I actually studied the Old Testament, but that's a different story.

You seem like a very angry person.
 
Voltaire said:
As stupid as religion can be, I know of no mainstream religious entity that said the destruction of New Orleans was due to race or homosexuality. Care to enlighten me?
Click to expand...

I think he might be referring to a comment made by Pat Robertson to that effect. It was used by a lot of anti-religion folks to substantiate how stupid religion is according to them....as if Pat Robertson speaks for all or even most christians.
 
Voltaire said:
As stupid as religion can be, I know of no mainstream religious entity that said the destruction of New Orleans was due to race or homosexuality. Care to enlighten me?
Critical thinking is anathema to fundamentalist Christians for sure. But I know many people who a Christian who also accept evolution. I used to be one, until I actually studied the Old Testament, but that's a different story.
You seem like a very angry person.
Click to expand...

A number of christian preachers blamed the destruction of New Orleans as an answer from goD as to the sinful nature of NO. Pat Robertson leading the way. Pat has a worldwide TV ministry and is a 4 time contender for president of the USA.

Angry? Sometimes but no more than average I'd say.
 
Gatorman said:
A number of christian preachers blamed the destruction of New Orleans as an answer from goD as to the sinful nature of NO. Pat Robertson leading the way. Pat has a worldwide TV ministry and is a 4 time contender for president of the USA.
Click to expand...

Cool story, bro. I'd be very surprised if even Robertson said NO was destroyed because of black people. Do you think you could back that up with a link?
 
Voltaire said:
Cool story, bro. I'd be very surprised if even Robertson said NO was destroyed because of black people. Do you think you could back that up with a link?
Click to expand...

Kuddos Voltaire on pointing out the "black people" part.....I had skimmed over that bit of bait.
 
Voltaire said:
Cool story, bro. I'd be very surprised if even Robertson said NO was destroyed because of black people. Do you think you could back that up with a link?
Click to expand...

"even Pat Robertson"? WTF do you mean by that and asking me to point out to you where he doesn't appreciate black people at all? Nonsense.
 
Gatorman said:
"even Pat Robertson"? WTF do you mean by that and asking me to point out to you where he doesn't appreciate black people at all? Nonsense.
Click to expand...

You said Christians blamed the destruction of New Orleans on gays and black people. You also mentioned Pat Robertson. I am now asking you to provide proof that Pat Robertson (or any other mainstream Christian group/individual) blamed black people for the destruction of NO. Do you understand?
 
leaningright said:
I would estimate around 80% or so.



I think I stated that pretty much in my post above, though I did call science a religion, which is the way several folks look at it. "Hate education" is not a very valid descriptor though, IMO. While many religious folks will point out sin (according to their book) and encourage people to eschew it, the vast majority do not "hate." Again, my opinion.



You are correct that science can be demonstrated .... building theories based on observance due to research....but at some point speculation does come into play. Then the researcher has to do more research in order to back up that speculation. The scientific model is great for developing speculation on how life began, how old the earth is, what went with the dinosaurs, man's effect on global warming, etc. But a great many things folks are expected to accept...on...on...on faith. Faith in the accuracy of a particular man's research....and his conclusions based on such. Also faith that no "supreme being" ever had a hand in all that has occurred.

I have had these discussions on this board before and am on record as saying that I don't want creationism taught to my kid in the classroom. I will/do teach him what I perceive to be truth at home. I just post this to show that I can see why the "debate" continues year after year. Be patient, in a few years there will be no such debate....at least in this country.
Click to expand...

do you consider gravity a theory that is taken on faith or chemistry

much of science is demonstrated by experiments that are repeatable not only by the originator but by others - how are these based on faith or do you not believe in something unless you can perform the experiment yourself
 
Onceler said:
There are huge gaps in the fossil record, but that doesn't make it flawed.
Click to expand...

no, it just takes it out of the realm of scientific method......seculars have faith that simply because there can be little changes that therefore all big changes must be the result of lots of little changes......there simply is no such "must"......
 
Don Quixote said:
do you consider gravity a theory that is taken on faith or chemistry

much of science is demonstrated by experiments that are repeatable not only by the originator but by others - how are these based on faith or do you not believe in something unless you can perform the experiment yourself
Click to expand...

Without going into it too deeply (I have a minor in Science Ed.) things like gravity are discovered constants that are most definitely repeatable with experiments. You can list DNA and several other things among those things that are demonstratable and repeatable. We have science to thank for a greater knowledge of such things.

There is simply no way to repeat or demonstrate a theory such as a big bang. There are too many missing links to make the theory of evolution blanketly acceptable. There is simply no way to repeat the events that formed the Grand Canyon (My boy and I watched a documentary on that the other day on NGC) or that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. Even something like continental drift, while seemingly plausible, cannot be repeated or demonstrated except with computer graphics. Things like these are what I am talking about when I say that a lot is accepted on theories of others, thus the faith element of some science.
 
Don Quixote said:
do you consider gravity a theory that is taken on faith or chemistry

much of science is demonstrated by experiments that are repeatable not only by the originator but by others - how are these based on faith or do you not believe in something unless you can perform the experiment yourself
Click to expand...

what does science that can be demonstrated by experiments have to do with macro-evolution which cannot be demonstrated by anything.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no, it just takes it out of the realm of scientific method......seculars have faith that simply because there can be little changes that therefore all big changes must be the result of lots of little changes......there simply is no such "must"......
Click to expand...

That's completely minimizing the nature of the evidence to support your contention that it takes it "out of the realm of scientific method." It does nothing of the sort. There are logical conclusions that can be drawn from the vast evidence we have. It is NOT just evidence of "little changes."

You have an agenda, and will marginalize whatever you have to in order to support that agenda. There is no comparison between the science behind the theory of evolution, and creationism.
 
leaningright said:
Without going into it too deeply (I have a minor in Science Ed.) things like gravity are discovered constants that are most definitely repeatable with experiments. You can list DNA and several other things among those things that are demonstratable and repeatable. We have science to thank for a greater knowledge of such things.

There is simply no way to repeat or demonstrate a theory such as a big bang. There are too many missing links to make the theory of evolution blanketly acceptable. There is simply no way to repeat the events that formed the Grand Canyon (My boy and I watched a documentary on that the other day on NGC) or that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. Even something like continental drift, while seemingly plausible, cannot be repeated or demonstrated except with computer graphics. Things like these are what I am talking about when I say that a lot is accepted on theories of others, thus the faith element of some science.
Click to expand...

carbon 14 dating is a fact

continental drift is something still happening

these are observable phenomena, as is most science

perhaps the biggest difference between faith and science is when science is demonstrated to be inaccurate, science will admit its error while faith can never make any such admission
 
Onceler said:
That's completely minimizing the nature of the evidence to support your contention that it takes it "out of the realm of scientific method." It does nothing of the sort. There are logical conclusions that can be drawn from the vast evidence we have. It is NOT just evidence of "little changes."

You have an agenda, and will marginalize whatever you have to in order to support that agenda. There is no comparison between the science behind the theory of evolution, and creationism.
Click to expand...

faith requires that the faithful take whatever is said by the relevant 'holy' book or preacher on faith a circular kind of reasoning but why the faithful can never admit to an error, because he one of the faithful admits to an error they would no longer be one of the faithful
 
leaningright said:
There are too many missing links to make the theory of evolution blanketly acceptable.
Click to expand...

What missing links?

In my view, endogenous retroviruses alone are sufficient evidence to support evolution. The chances of an ERV appearing in the exact same place in the genome across multiple species (and consistently with the phylogenetic tree, I might add) is literally a trillion to 1.
 
Onceler said:
That's completely minimizing the nature of the evidence to support your contention that it takes it "out of the realm of scientific method." It does nothing of the sort. There are logical conclusions that can be drawn from the vast evidence we have. It is NOT just evidence of "little changes."

You have an agenda, and will marginalize whatever you have to in order to support that agenda. There is no comparison between the science behind the theory of evolution, and creationism.
Click to expand...

I'm not minimizing it....I'm flat out denying it's there.....the science behind the theory of evolution explains why we have 37k different kinds of beetles.....and nothing beyond that except secular mythology.....
 
Voltaire said:
What missing links?

In my view, endogenous retroviruses alone are sufficient evidence to support evolution. The chances of an ERV appearing in the exact same place in the genome across multiple species (and consistently with the phylogenetic tree, I might add) is literally a trillion to 1.
Click to expand...

actually, it would be 100% if they were caused by an intelligent designer....retroviruses accomplish nothing as proof of evolution over creation, except perhaps to underscore the extreme unlikelihood of random chance bringing the result about....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I'm not minimizing it....I'm flat out denying it's there.....the science behind the theory of evolution explains why we have 37k different kinds of beetles.....and nothing beyond that except secular mythology.....
Click to expand...

Then you know nothing about the theory of evolution & the fossil record. That's all there is to it, really.
 
Don Quixote said:
carbon 14 dating is a fact

continental drift is something still happening

these are observable phenomena, as is most science

perhaps the biggest difference between faith and science is when science is demonstrated to be inaccurate, science will admit its error while faith can never make any such admission
Click to expand...

What is the oldest thing that one can date reliably with carbon 14?
Continental drift is still happening but what evidence (and what was the source of that evidence) that the continents were as close together as some models show?

I agree that there are a lot of things that look good in theory but seem to be supported by lack of sufficient evidence. I also agree that both sides will cling to whatever bolsters their opinion....extremes both ways. Kind of reminds me of politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top