this just in: palin a communist

[ViperOverLord]

^^^
The thing is she really didn't say eh. I was using poetic license by even saying hiccup. I already wrote how the text should read dude. Go back and look at that or listen to it for yourself. Either way if you're being objective then you'll understand the text changed the context. If you're not going to be objective and distort it for your own purposes then go ahead. My life isn't going to revolve around whether you clearly understand this simple point.

[PLAYER57832]

I never attacked the theory of evolution in that post. Learn comprehension.

Actually, you did:

However, anyone who thinks evolution did not happen is someone who lacks the skills and awareness (both) necessary to be president.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Its called The Theory Of Evolution, because it's only theory. Also, you basically are saying that anyone that is Christian (at least the many that believe in creationism) lacks skills and awareness to be president. Do you have any clue how f'ing stupid that sounds?

Because, see Evolution is not "only a theory". The exact origin of life might be in the realm of "only a theory", but evolution, that animal change over time and become other species, etc.. that is no longer "just a theory". Furthermore, you misunderstand the term "theory" in science when you make such statements. To the extent that part of Evolution have been or still are a theory, its that there is not 100% absolutely infallible exact proof, not that any other possibility is OK.

Also, to further claim that its OK to consider young earth creationism because Evolution is "just a theory", is absolutely wrong and shows a failure to understand the proofs behind evolution and the kind of proof science requires. See, you cannot just say parts of evolution might be wrong, so its OK to just say creationism might be correct, you ALSO have to show that young earth creationism even could be correct. In fact, 90% (being charitable) of what is taught as "science" under the guise of "Creation science" is actually false or misleading. Again, this has nothing to do with science and very, very little to do with real Christianity, despite what a few prominent people put forward and millions of unfortunately educated kids have been led to believe.

Not to mention this attempt at "clarification":

They are hardly equal examples. The theory of gravity is only a theory b/c it has not been fully proven. But we do accept the validity of its substance and the approximate values in the theory. Whereas the theory of evolution is not a matter of practicality that has been substantially or exactly proven in any real capacity.

In fact, it has. That is the point.

And the term Evolution has NEVER applied strictly to human evolution. However, it also does not, except in some creationist type arguments, generally refer to the origin of the planet or universe, either.

Evolution refers to the process of life here on Earth. It refers specifically to the FACT, not theory, that species change over time and give rise to other species, sometimes those new species actually replace earlier species and sometimes they simply "supplement" other species.

That humans have evolved is clear, but at exactly which point be became "human" and the exact line of descent are still matters open to some dispute. However, that dispute is nowhere near wide enough to even begin to allow for young earth creationism, such as Palin really does believe (again, she backed off a tad once it became clear that she would be heavily criticized these beliefs).

You're right I came off way too Woodruffy. Sorry about that.

But yes it is only a theory. Evolution as it pertains to man's evolution is only a theory. There is nothing for you to take issue with unless you like to object to facts.

I see, lose the argument, so change to words, eh?

No, see, what Palin believes has to do with a lot more than just human evolution. Second, even that is not "just a theory". Now, again, parts of human evolution are theory. I won't get into that because it doesn't actually matter. My point is that anyone who believes the earth is as young as Palin asserts lacks both the knowledge and critical thinking skills necessary to run our country in the 21rst century.

[Baron Von PWN]

Well said player.

[DangerBoy]

No, Darwin did not invent evolution, but he was the first to put it together in a published account.

Player, he was not the first to put it together in a published account. For goodness sake, his own grandfather was published on the subject long before Origin of Species.

Further, it began as just an idea. It is in modern times that proofs have been established such that anyone who actually studies science doesn't just believe, but knows that evolution is real and accurate.

I know, you've said this before. But anybody in the scientific profession who disagrees with you on this you just label as being not a REAL scientist or someone who doesn't ACTUALLY know what they're talking about.

There were "plenty of presidents" who believed that neither blacks nor Native Americans were fully human, too.

OK then, what is your definition of plenty and please provide all the quotes which show that plenty of U.S. presidents believed that black and native americans weren't fully human. Of course, you being an expert and all, you would know that native americans actually participated in the slave trade as well.

The thing that's so offensive about your statement is that it insinuates that those who believe in the Bible are somehow linked to being racist.

You are the one out to lunch on this one

You know you are winning the debate when the opposition stoops to personal attacks and/or name calling

Here - at least educate yourself a little bit on slavery.

too bad you cannot bother to investigate, though.

The majority of founders did not believe that slavery was ok. They were part of anti-slavery societies and only made a deal originally to get the southern colonies on board. They were still working to get rid of it, and planned for it to be abolished by 1808. I have investigated this, but this is very instructive to why you view your country the way you do. You probably look at U.S. history as a struggle between fairness and inequality. It was Great Britain which denied the colonies their attempts at ending the institution of slavery.

And, no, I won't "give it a rest" because the destruction to scientific knowledge that creationist represent is probably more harmful to not just this country, but the world than Al Qaeda terrorists ever could be, (except that they perpetuate similar misguided information).

Wow, I knew you harbored a lot of hatred in your heart but not at that level. If you can rationalize that creationists are more harmful than a group who has unjustly murdered thousands of people across the world then you're delusional.

[PLAYER57832]

No, Darwin did not invent evolution, but he was the first to put it together in a published account.

Player, he was not the first to put it together in a published account. For goodness sake, his own grandfather was published on the subject long before Origin of Species.

He was the first to put it all together, complete in a form people could really understand well, in a form that people accepted.

Further, it began as just an idea. It is in modern times that proofs have been established such that anyone who actually studies science doesn't just believe, but knows that evolution is real and accurate.

I know, you've said this before. But anybody in the scientific profession who disagrees with you on this you just label as being not a REAL scientist or someone who doesn't ACTUALLY know what they're talking about.

Scientists who are in utterly non-biologic or geologic fields can possibly remain ignorant of evolution (though most have had enough to know evolution is real), but those who deal with geology, biology, etc, don't disagree on this. That is the point. Those who do are only barely above those who want to say the Earth is flat, truly. They are not recognized as legitimate scientists of anything to do with evolution.

The thing that's so offensive about your statement is that it insinuates that those who believe in the Bible are somehow linked to being racist.

This is not about believing the Bible, it is about believing one particular meaning for a few words within the Bible. And the similarity is a narrowness of thinking in both racists and creationists.

too bad you cannot bother to investigate, though.

The majority of founders did not believe that slavery was ok. They were part of anti-slavery societies and only made a deal originally to get the southern colonies on board. They were still working to get rid of it, and planned for it to be abolished by 1808. I have investigated this, but this is very instructive to why you view your country the way you do. You probably look at U.S. history as a struggle between fairness and inequality. It was Great Britain which denied the colonies their attempts at ending the institution of slavery.

I never said anything about a majority believing in slavery. I said plenty of presidents believed blacks and Native Americans were not fully human. In fact, even many of those who were against slavery were not willing to accept that blacks or native Americans should or could be full citizens. However, this just gets off track. My point was that narrowness of thinking leads to many distortions. Racism is one way, creationism is equally narrow minded and poorly based. There is some overlap of those two beliefs, but not a direct link.

And, no, I won't "give it a rest" because the destruction to scientific knowledge that creationist represent is probably more harmful to not just this country, but the world than Al Qaeda terrorists ever could be, (except that they perpetuate similar misguided information).

Wow, I knew you harbored a lot of hatred in your heart but not at that level. If you can rationalize that creationists are more harmful than a group who has unjustly murdered thousands of people across the world then you're delusional.

Hatred, no. But worry, yes. Comparing them to terrorists is a bit of an exaggeration, but not as much as it might seem on the surface. The terrorists can kill bodies, destroy structures, but they cannot destroy our ability to think. Creationists do that, in spades. By destroying science, particularly biology, the destroy our ability to respond to the many ecological disasters and damage we face, they truly limit our ability to move forward as a society. So, yes, they are more harmful.

Furthermore, terrorists are easier to combat than a population of people who, in a free society are allowed to plug their fingers in their ears and ignore any reality they wish. The only issue is if they should have the right to impose that upon their children. But right now, they won't even stop there, they are trying to impose this on the rest of us, taking our tax dollars that are badly needed elsewhere just to fight these folks off.

[BigBallinStalin]

You're right I came off way too Woodruffy. Sorry about that.

But yes it is only a theory. Evolution as it pertains to man's evolution is only a theory. There is nothing for you to take issue with unless you like to object to facts.

BTW - What was the point of changing 'evolution' to 'gravity?'

Gravity is also "Only a theory" yet no one disputes gravity with "It's only a theory!". That something is a theory does not necessarily mean it is in any way uncertain.

They are hardly equal examples. The theory of gravity is only a theory b/c it has not been fully proven. But we do accept the validity of its substance and the approximate values in the theory. Whereas the theory of evolution is not a matter of practicality that has been substantially or exactly proven in any real capacity.

'No one disputes gravity' b/c we understand precisely what it is and that it is a very real part of the universe. This cannot be definitively said as it relates to human evolution. We know that when you jump that you're going to come down. Conversely, we don't expect you to start a monkey family and have them evolve into humans.

Sorry to nitpick, but there's a lot about gravity that currently can't be explained. That withstanding, there's still a ton of evidence supporting it, so it allows one to be 99.9999% certain that the Theory of Gravity is correct.

Although I wouldn't rate evolution as 99.9999% true or valid, I would place it at 99.99%. I've yet to really run into anything that debunks it or makes it any less valid/true.

In the end, with anything, it's still educated or uneducated guesses with evidence in mild to strong support, alongside contrary evidence. It's like a gamble.

[ViperOverLord]

You're right I came off way too Woodruffy. Sorry about that.

But yes it is only a theory. Evolution as it pertains to man's evolution is only a theory. There is nothing for you to take issue with unless you like to object to facts.

BTW - What was the point of changing 'evolution' to 'gravity?'

Gravity is also "Only a theory" yet no one disputes gravity with "It's only a theory!". That something is a theory does not necessarily mean it is in any way uncertain.

They are hardly equal examples. The theory of gravity is only a theory b/c it has not been fully proven. But we do accept the validity of its substance and the approximate values in the theory. Whereas the theory of evolution is not a matter of practicality that has been substantially or exactly proven in any real capacity.

'No one disputes gravity' b/c we understand precisely what it is and that it is a very real part of the universe. This cannot be definitively said as it relates to human evolution. We know that when you jump that you're going to come down. Conversely, we don't expect you to start a monkey family and have them evolve into humans.

Sorry to nitpick, but there's a lot about gravity that currently can't be explained. That withstanding, there's still a ton of evidence supporting it, so it allows one to be 99.9999% certain that the Theory of Gravity is correct.

Although I wouldn't rate evolution as 99.9999% true or valid, I would place it at 99.99%. I've yet to really run into anything that debunks it or makes it any less valid/true.

In the end, with anything, it's still educated or uneducated guesses with evidence in mild to strong support, alongside contrary evidence. It's like a gamble.

Gravity is on full display every day. Evolution is a dicey theory at best. It is naive to "place it" at 99.99%. The truth is you are not that sure about the origin of man and you never will be that sure about evolution. You can state it all you want, but unlike gravity in which you see it affecting everything, you do not see constant examples of evolution in your life.

[the.killing.44]

oh jesus is he going full looney here

[PLAYER57832]

The truth is you are not that sure about the origin of man and you never will be that sure about evolution.

Why on Earth would you even begin to believe this is true? It sounds very much like the half-truths and fiction put forward by young earth creationists. Human evolution is only one piece of the whole evolutionary picture. In fact, everything believed or known to be true about human evolution could be proven utterly false without negating that other species did evolve.

(And, it sounds like you are not aware of all the evidence for human evolution, either)

You can state it all you want, but unlike gravity in which you see it affecting everything, you do not see constant examples of evolution in your life.

Not exactly true. That is, evolution is not a single-day process. However, every time you see a domesticated animal variant you see a proof that evolution could have happened ("could have" and "did" are not the same, of course). Darwin's Finches, etc showed that it did happen in nature. To carry that beyond to individual species generally means looking at the fossil record (not entirely, modern genetis offers some answers also) . But, beyond that, things are changing so very quickly in our environment that lower animals are starting to show evolutionary adaptations quickly enough for scientists to track.

So, while YOU may not observe evolution "every day", it is being observed. Again, this is stuff that young earthers deny, and that denial is part of why I say they are not Christian. Christians have no need to lie.

[natty dread]

"Just" a theory

Creationist and Intelligent design proponents often like to describe the theory of evolution as just a theory. This relies on equivocating the common usage of the term theory (meaning "idea" or "guess") with the scientific meaning. Theories are the single highest level of scientific achievement and nothing is just a theory - that would be like saying Bill Gates is just a multibillionaire. Additionally, one might say that the notion of evolution is "just a theory" in the same way that Cell Theory and the Theory of Gravitation (fundamental principles of biology and physics, respectively) are "just theories."

This argument played out with hilarious ramifications in the recent decision of the Florida State Board of Education to teach evolution as a "scientific theory." Apparently, the creationists on the Florida SBOE thought that this was a "compromise" — by making evolution a "scientific theory" at law, they thought, it would weaken the position of evolution. After all, then it would be "just a theory," right?[1] Wrong! This "compromise" actually puts evolution on the exactly right footing — at the highest tier of science — and ensures that students will be taught about what the term "scientific theory" really means, hopefully eventually drawing the sting of the colloquial meaning confusion.[2]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Theory

[notyou2]

You're right I came off way too Woodruffy. Sorry about that.

But yes it is only a theory. Evolution as it pertains to man's evolution is only a theory. There is nothing for you to take issue with unless you like to object to facts.

BTW - What was the point of changing 'evolution' to 'gravity?'

Gravity is also "Only a theory" yet no one disputes gravity with "It's only a theory!". That something is a theory does not necessarily mean it is in any way uncertain.

They are hardly equal examples. The theory of gravity is only a theory b/c it has not been fully proven. But we do accept the validity of its substance and the approximate values in the theory. Whereas the theory of evolution is not a matter of practicality that has been substantially or exactly proven in any real capacity.

'No one disputes gravity' b/c we understand precisely what it is and that it is a very real part of the universe. This cannot be definitively said as it relates to human evolution. We know that when you jump that you're going to come down. Conversely, we don't expect you to start a monkey family and have them evolve into humans.

Sorry to nitpick, but there's a lot about gravity that currently can't be explained. That withstanding, there's still a ton of evidence supporting it, so it allows one to be 99.9999% certain that the Theory of Gravity is correct.

Although I wouldn't rate evolution as 99.9999% true or valid, I would place it at 99.99%. I've yet to really run into anything that debunks it or makes it any less valid/true.

In the end, with anything, it's still educated or uneducated guesses with evidence in mild to strong support, alongside contrary evidence. It's like a gamble.

Gravity is on full display every day. Evolution is a dicey theory at best. It is naive to "place it" at 99.99%. The truth is you are not that sure about the origin of man and you never will be that sure about evolution. You can state it all you want, but unlike gravity in which you see it affecting everything, you do not see constant examples of evolution in your life.

You couldn't be more wrong.

[DangerBoy]

He was the first to put it all together, complete in a form people could really understand well, in a form that people accepted.

Fine then, you're not going to give Lamarck and Monet their due so you can hold to your view and keep revising your original statement. I'll drop it.

Scientists who are in utterly non-biologic or geologic fields can possibly remain ignorant of evolution (though most have had enough to know evolution is real), but those who deal with geology, biology, etc, don't disagree on this. That is the point. Those who do are only barely above those who want to say the Earth is flat, truly. They are not recognized as legitimate scientists of anything to do with evolution.

You're ridiculous and only shows your own bias. Fine, live in your world where you dismiss those with alternate interpretations of data as not being real or legitimate.

This is not about believing the Bible

This is about believing the Bible. The Bible says the world was created in 6 days and you say it wasn't. You give alternate explanations for it that coincides with your worldview.

it is about believing one particular meaning for a few words within the Bible. And the similarity is a narrowness of thinking in both racists and creationists.

If it were really about that then you would take the time to investigate the original Hebrew. You'll either dismiss the original language or make up some alternate explanation for it to hold on to your bigoted stance that racists & creationists are somehow linked. I used to buy into your talking point about being a Christian and evolutionist. Now I know from reading your posts that you're actually just a theist who uses the Bible to justify your view of social justice.

So in reality, you're a secular fundamentalist.

I never said anything about a majority believing in slavery. I said plenty of presidents believed blacks and Native Americans were not fully human. In fact, even many of those who were against slavery were not willing to accept that blacks or native Americans should or could be full citizens. However, this just gets off track. My point was that narrowness of thinking leads to many distortions. Racism is one way, creationism is equally narrow minded and poorly based. There is some overlap of those two beliefs, but not a direct link.

No, but you certainly put that insinuation out there with no citations (again). You still refuse to define what plenty is or acknowledge that native americans participated in the slave trade against blacks. You were the one who got this whole discussion off track by saying people who believe in creationist thought weren't fit to be president when this was really about Sultan taking a single verbal gaffe and trying to make it look like she actually believes we're allies of North Korea.

Hatred, no. But worry, yes. Comparing them to terrorists is a bit of an exaggeration, but not as much as it might seem on the surface. The terrorists can kill bodies, destroy structures, but they cannot destroy our ability to think. Creationists do that, in spades. By destroying science, particularly biology, the destroy our ability to respond to the many ecological disasters and damage we face, they truly limit our ability to move forward as a society. So, yes, they are more harmful.

Furthermore, terrorists are easier to combat than a population of people who, in a free society are allowed to plug their fingers in their ears and ignore any reality they wish. The only issue is if they should have the right to impose that upon their children. But right now, they won't even stop there, they are trying to impose this on the rest of us, taking our tax dollars that are badly needed elsewhere just to fight these folks off.

My goodness, you can rationalize anything to your liking. You're more of a religious crusader than any evangelical, I'll tell you that. All you need is a banner of Charles Darwin that you can hold while you ride a horse charging over people.

I wrote that last part so you can go back to claiming that you are persecuted and have won the debate or something. Just try to limit it to less than 10 paragraphs.

[Timminz]

oh jesus is he going full looney here

They're multiplying!

[notyou2]

I wonder what other lies and misinformation they believe?

[BigBallinStalin]

Haha, that was weird... Never seen crazy people first hand.

PLayer pretty much covered VoL's response for me. **HIGHFIVE for PLAYER**


Up next: The Earth is only 6000 years. GO!

[PLAYER57832]

He was the first to put it all together, complete in a form people could really understand well, in a form that people accepted.

Fine then, you're not going to give Lamarck and Monet their due so you can hold to your view and keep revising your original statement. I'll drop it.

No revision. My original statement was correct and still is.

Scientists who are in utterly non-biologic or geologic fields can possibly remain ignorant of evolution (though most have had enough to know evolution is real), but those who deal with geology, biology, etc, don't disagree on this. That is the point. Those who do are only barely above those who want to say the Earth is flat, truly. They are not recognized as legitimate scientists of anything to do with evolution.

You're ridiculous and only shows your own bias. Fine, live in your world where you dismiss those with alternate interpretations of data as not being real or legitimate.

Provide what you consider to be alternate sources. Because, all I have found is pure garbage.

This is not about believing the Bible

This is about believing the Bible. The Bible says the world was created in 6 days and you say it wasn't. You give alternate explanations for it that coincides with your worldview.

A day, but not necessarily 24 hours. This gets down to two isseus.
1. how does "yom" correctly translate. I hold with those scholars who say that "yom" is exactly translated to "day". That is, 'day" in English (along withe the terms "morning" and "night") can mena a specific 24 hour period, one revolution of our Earth. However, it can also mean a more general, much longer time period, as in the phrase "this day and age". See, God doesn't make mistakes, only people do. If God wanted it to say 24 hours, he would have done so. When there is ambiguity in the Bible it is intentional.

2.You also have the debate over whether Genesis or all of Genesis was intended to be taken as an exactly literal, essentially scientific description. Most Jews say it was not. It's pretty interesting that Jews, who tend to study the Old Testament quite a bit, probably more and longer than many Christians are NOT the ones resurging this young earth bit. Could be because, unlike fundamentalist Christians, they also hold scholarship in high esteem, but that is only postulation.

it is about believing one particular meaning for a few words within the Bible. And the similarity is a narrowness of thinking in both racists and creationists.

If it were really about that then you would take the time to investigate the original Hebrew.

I have. The only modern scholars who feel "yom" should be as specific as the young earthers claim can be traced back to a couple of sources and lines of teaching.

You'll either dismiss the original language or make up some alternate explanation for it to hold on to your bigoted stance that racists & creationists are somehow linked.

I never claimed a link, except that both positions fail in critical thinking. You are the one deciding that any mention of the two mean they have to be linked. This gets into critical thinking. You have made an assumption that is not there. I even explained it, but you still persist.

I never said anything about a majority believing in slavery. I said plenty of presidents believed blacks and Native Americans were not fully human. In fact, even many of those who were against slavery were not willing to accept that blacks or native Americans should or could be full citizens. However, this just gets off track. My point was that narrowness of thinking leads to many distortions. Racism is one way, creationism is equally narrow minded and poorly based. There is some overlap of those two beliefs, but not a direct link.

No, but you certainly put that insinuation out there with no citations (again).

Insinuation? No, you added the assumption on your own. Citations? for the concept that for generations very, very few people, even amongst abolitionists and such did not think blacks or Native Americans truly the "equal" to whites? Since its common knowledge, no, I did not.

Here is a source, though:

It is important to know that many white abolitionist did not really think that black people and white people are equal - they just thought that slavery is wrong. All abolitionists did not think the same way about stopping slavery. Some thought that slaves should be freed but live away from white people. Some free states even had laws that did not allow blacks to move in their state. For example, in 1851 Iowa started a law that gave every black person three days to leave the state or go to jail. Some abolitionists believed that all people are equal and should be treated the same. They tried to help freed slaves find jobs and get education for their children. Some abolitionist only wanted to stop slavery from spreading. They wanted to leave slavery alone in slave states but did not want any more states to join America as slave states. Abraham Lincoln supported this view before he became president! Some abolitionist had very radical views. One of the most radical views was colonization movement. Thomas Jefferson supported this view.

For the citations to that, you can go to the link: http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0212661/id27.htm

OR, you could just pick up a book with the writings of any one of many prominant folks. In this case, the writings of the Presidents.

Info on the President's views of Native Americans is similarly widespread.

You still refuse to define what plenty is

Since I was quoting, no. But again, one doesn't have to provide a definition of common useage terms. The term "plenty" is an inexact term that means , an "abundant supply".

or acknowledge that native americans participated in the slave trade against blacks.

Huh? I never denied that in any way shape or form. In fact, Native American slavery pre-dates Columbus by a long stretch, but only in some tribes. However, its not relevant to the view of presidents about either blacks or Native Americans and whites.

You were the one who got this whole discussion off track by saying people who believe in creationist thought weren't fit to be president when this was really about Sultan taking a single verbal gaffe and trying to make it look like she actually believes we're allies of North Korea.

Those gaffes are just gaffes. The creationist issue, however, is quite serious.

Hatred, no. But worry, yes. Comparing them to terrorists is a bit of an exaggeration, but not as much as it might seem on the surface. The terrorists can kill bodies, destroy structures, but they cannot destroy our ability to think. Creationists do that, in spades. By destroying science, particularly biology, the destroy our ability to respond to the many ecological disasters and damage we face, they truly limit our ability to move forward as a society. So, yes, they are more harmful.

Furthermore, terrorists are easier to combat than a population of people who, in a free society are allowed to plug their fingers in their ears and ignore any reality they wish. The only issue is if they should have the right to impose that upon their children. But right now, they won't even stop there, they are trying to impose this on the rest of us, taking our tax dollars that are badly needed elsewhere just to fight these folks off.

My goodness, you can rationalize anything to your liking. You're more of a religious crusader than any evangelical, I'll tell you that. All you need is a banner of Charles Darwin that you can hold while you ride a horse charging over people.

I wrote that last part so you can go back to claiming that you are persecuted and have won the debate or something. Just try to limit it to less than 10 paragraphs.

No, just claim that belief in creationism means a very poor education, particularly in science and/or just plain poor skills in logical reasoning.

[PLAYER57832]

I wonder what other lies and misinformation they believe?

Try this website for some of it, though they change their "base arguments" frequently. http://www.icr.org

A few:
Evolution, by definition, means absence of God.

That scientists just start from different assumptions. (this is why kids are no longer advised to debate with evolutionists.. a couple decades ago, kids were told to just keep asking questions and eventually the person would realize there is no reality to what the adult believes).

Transition fossils don't exist (proofs generally given include discounted fraudulant fossils, though they neglect to mention standard science fully acknowledges them as frauds; and early misinterpretations, again with no mention of how and why scientists have changed thinking on that).

Evolution violates the second law of Thermodynamics (an older argument, less used now)

That evolution was created to dispute Christianity, and though only occasionally stated outright any more (earlier, this was a common assertion), that mainline science is actively antagonistic to Christianity. (note, this one needs attention because some scientists are, in fact, anti-Christian and/or anti-religion)

That if evolution were real, we would have seen it in humans sometime within the past 2000 years.

Examples of "transition species" like the Ceolocanth are just odd creatures that scientists try to make into something else. Note: this involves a complex formula of utterly misinterpreting what evolution means ..usually the impression or assumption is that one species must replace another; AND misinformation about the proof that something is possible .. that is, in truth, a Ceolocanth shows that the fossils believed to represent transition species do translate to real species, with various characteristics but creationists want to claim that because it doesn't have a specific set of combined characteristics, it is not evidence; and the overall idea that a "transition species" has to have full characteristics that are similar to the end product. they also tend to ignore any "lost branches" or offshoots that died off (or, if they acknowledge them, say they are proof against evolution because evolution must mean constant improvement).

In fact, some of the arguments are very subtle and almost sound like truth. That "close, but definitely no there" bit is a big part of why I say this is a very intentional effort to distort science and not just an attempt to teach what they believe to be true. Also, you find that there is no single "truth" among creationist scientists, just a lot of scattered information and criticism of scientific thinking. (As an example, I was told that Mt St Helens "proved" that the Grand Canyon was created in a day. I quietly asserted that we knew of even more cataclysmic events from Pompeii to Crete, etc and that whether such a large event was possible was not the issue, it was the proof of what did actually happen).

The bottom line is that disputing young earth creationism means giving an entire generation a full science education. Today, just educating the next crop of kids in science is difficult enough. The time wasted disproving what has long since been proven is tragic when schools are already short of funding. This is why the issue can no longer be just a side line issue of a few crazy individuals. It has to be a concern of anyone who wants kids to learn science, who wants our country to be educated and not drawn back into the dark ages.

[Timminz]

Psshtt!! Education is only for those who don't have the "truth" already. If you really need to learn something, there's a book that covers what you need to know. It's called the Bible.

[PLAYER57832]

Psshtt!! Education is only for those who don't have the "truth" already. If you really need to learn something, there's a book that covers what you need to know. It's called the Bible.

But this is the trap, the false argument from the "other side" and why they "win".

See, I agree that the Bible contains all that is important. I just disagree on what it means. And, yes, I believe in looking beyond the Bible, but in truth, so do they.

[Timminz]

Psshtt!! Education is only for those who don't have the "truth" already. If you really need to learn something, there's a book that covers what you need to know. It's called the Bible.

But this is the trap, the false argument from the "other side" and why they "win".

See, I agree that the Bible contains all that is important. I just disagree on what it means. And, yes, I believe in looking beyond the Bible, but in truth, so do they.

But, numerous times, I've seen other "believers" claim that you don't believe in the Bible, because you profess science, and education. "The Bible says X, and you say Y" has been used against you in this very thread. Not really a false argument, when I see people using it almost daily around here.

[silvanricky]

And, no, I won't "give it a rest" because the destruction to scientific knowledge that creationist represent is probably more harmful to not just this country, but the world than Al Qaeda terrorists ever could be, (except that they perpetuate similar misguided information).

That's a pretty shitty thing to say player and was totally unnecessary

Seriously, that's messed up. Creationists are as bad as Al Qaeda?!! WTF

[PLAYER57832]

Psshtt!! Education is only for those who don't have the "truth" already. If you really need to learn something, there's a book that covers what you need to know. It's called the Bible.

But this is the trap, the false argument from the "other side" and why they "win".

See, I agree that the Bible contains all that is important. I just disagree on what it means. And, yes, I believe in looking beyond the Bible, but in truth, so do they.

But, numerous times, I've seen other "believers" claim that you don't believe in the Bible, because you profess science, and education.

It's not that I profess science and education, its that they see me as choosing some aspects of science over their Bible views. Jay, etc will firmly assert that they "accept science". They just believe me to be misguided about it, to be swayed by a biased science.

Also, that is just those believers, their own personnal view. Some Christian churches absolutely are anti-science, etc. However, the overwhelming majority of Christians do accept Evolution. Some draw a distinction between general Evolution and human evolution, either the physical aspects of simply in how we define human (at what point did we get a "soul", more or less). When you condemn Christianity, or worse, the Bible or even all religion as being the "opposition", then you create more fracture, not less. I will firmly side on the side of evolution, but I won't side against belief in the Bible.

"The Bible says X, and you say Y" has been used against you in this very thread. Not really a false argument, when I see people using it almost daily around here.

Their argument is wrong and so that response is wrong. Any time this gets painted as being the Bible versus non-belief, then you will inherently turn away any believer. It is true that for some, simply being for evolution is, to them equivalent to being anti-Bible, but like I said, that is an utterly false argument. Young Earth Creationism "wins" by putting forward such false arguments. We don't need to give them additional fodder. Furthermore, the truth is that a lot of people who will say "sure, I believe evolution", don't actually understand what is meant by that. Or, they may truly believe they have to make a choice. Then they come to belief in Christ or simply hear young earth Creationist with their nifty arguments, it is all too easy for them to say "OK, I guess I was just misguided". Make no mistake, this is an all-out encompassing attack and it is growing phenomenally.

It is absolutely no mistake that Palin and her young earth ideas have been tied into the Tea Party. Those far right Christians represent a very large group of people already and their numbers keep growing.

[bradleybadly]

However, anyone who thinks evolution did not happen is someone who lacks the skills and awareness (both) necessary to be president.And any party that champions "death panels" as if they were something cruel and inhumane,

And, no, I won't "give it a rest" because the destruction to scientific knowledge that creationist represent is probably more harmful to not just this country, but the world than Al Qaeda terrorists ever could be, (except that they perpetuate similar misguided information).

MOST Christians do not accept young earth Creationism, because most Christians have had a real education, not the home-schooling "deny reality" that so much of fundamentlist groups try to perpetuate. REAL truth stands against all, it does not need to hide or decieve.

Hatred, no. But worry, yes. Comparing them to terrorists is a bit of an exaggeration, but not as much as it might seem on the surface. The terrorists can kill bodies, destroy structures, but they cannot destroy our ability to think. Creationists do that, in spades. By destroying science, particularly biology, the destroy our ability to respond to the many ecological disasters and damage we face, they truly limit our ability to move forward as a society. So, yes, they are more harmful.

Furthermore, terrorists are easier to combat than a population of people who, in a free society are allowed to plug their fingers in their ears and ignore any reality they wish. The only issue is if they should have the right to impose that upon their children. But right now, they won't even stop there, they are trying to impose this on the rest of us, taking our tax dollars that are badly needed elsewhere just to fight these folks off.

Your bitter obsession on this is unsettling, to say the least. There are plenty of smart people who don't buy into the evolutionary model. My parents and wife are some of them. I grew up being told that the creation story was accurate, but was later able to make up my own mind. Students are a lot smarter than you give them credit for and we can have the confidence that if both views are taught, people can decide for themselves. Creationists could be your bank managers, teachers, firemen, doctors, child care workers, or anyone else in your community.

Creationists, although wrong, are no more under qualified to do or run anything in life than you. It's the height of arrogance for you to suggest that unless someone believes the way you do, that the disagreement disqualifies them from being anything. The constitution mandates no "evolution belief" requirement to be president. There's a guy at my work who runs the IT department for multiple sites throughout the United States. He's got multiple certifications and some degrees. He believes that this world wasn't just created once but multiple times and that he himself is a little bit of god and become more like a deity every day. He's wrong but that doesn't make him crazy or extreme. This is the problem you've created (love using that term in this context): anyone who isn't a strict adherent to your evolutionary beliefs becomes one of the "bad people". Then you set yourself up as some type of evolutionary superhero that will save us all from evil.

You probably interact with creationists or people who believe in creationism more than you even know through the course of a week. Most people don't even make it an issue to get riled up over, it's just something they believe as they live their lives. Unfortunately, you're going to limit yourself in being able to be friends and enjoy life more because you've already labeled them as your enemy.

Seriously player, get off your high horse and looking down on people who don't believe like you on this. I had to learn the hard way not to rub their faces in it and it cost me a few years of interacting with some really neat people. If you continue on this crusade of yours you'll end up alienating and marginalizing yourself.

[notyou2]

I'm with player on this.

Creationists are either out right liars, or are being duped.

If you believe in creationism then you fall into one or both of the above.

The amount of information pointing to the truth of evolution is massively overwhelming which is tantamount to proof of the theory. There is not one bit of credible evidence discounting evolution or it would no longer be a theory.

[Gypsys Kiss]

Player, you stick to your guns, girl.

And all you lot who have used the word 'bias' against her.............LOOK IN THE MIRROR