Silk Road forums
Discussion => Off topic => Topic started by: Ahoyhoy on August 03, 2012, 11:42 am
-
I've just seen a documentary about the extent of belief in creationism in the USA. My god....what is going on? What kind of wooly headed fools would believe in suck idiotic hokum? Can any USA-based peeps offer some explanation? What do they teach in schools?
-
It really shouldn't be all that shocking - belief in creationism is directly related to the level of religiosity of a country.
Americans are more religious than Europeans, and as such believe in creationism more than Europeans. In America, we also have a unique form of Protestantism that takes the bible extremely literally. While in the eyes of Catholics and European Protestants, evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible, American Evangelical Protestants would consider evolution to be contradicting their faith. Evangelical children are also taught at a young age not to trust their teachers - they are considered liberal propagandists. Teachers are also oftentimes afraid to share their own views. These evangelical students will often ask their science teacher, "So do you believe in evolution?" Usually, the teacher will not answer the question, but one of my high school science teachers had a great response - she just replied, "Remember the first day of class when we talked about what science is and isn't? Science isn't based on belief, so you can't believe in evolution just like you don't believe in gravity."
Some of the statistics, though, are deliberately misleading, as they will label someone who accepts evolution, but believes it was guided by god to be a creationist.
The schools in the US teach the scientific theory. It's illegal to teach creationism or intelligent design in a public school classroom, and most states have requirements to teach evolution in high school science.
-
It really shouldn't be all that shocking - belief in creationism is directly related to the level of religiosity of a country.
Thanks for the clarification but the above statement is surely not true. I don't see much Creationism coming from Italy? Spain? Poland? Ireland? All very devout Christians......No, I think this is a USA thing....
-
See, the whole creationism thing proves to me that in America evolution is actually reversing in some places.
-
None of those countries, except Poland, is particularly religious by American standards.
Poland also has a significantly higher rate of creationists than more secular European countries like the UK and France.
European countries with a proportion of creationists comparable to the US include Turkey, Cyprus, Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, Croatia, Poland and Austria - which all happen to be among the more religious European countries.
-
Uhm of course creationism is true otherwise it wouldn't be in the Bible, do you think God made a mistake when he wrote the Bible???!
-
Creationism and Darwinism seriously need to be debunked!
Did you know that Darwin did not even coin the phrase "Survival of the Fittest"?
The English philosopher Herbert Spencer did, who first used it in his 1864 book, Principles of Biology!
I have read this book, and would suggest if this subject, interests you to read it too, it's a great read!
HUMAN EVOLUTION
Is the truth, in fact we are still evolving right now, and it's happening faster than ever!
We are generally getting stronger, taller, and living longer! That is, of course, if your in the right place in the world, but that's another debate altogether!
And despite using our cultures and technologies, as ways of adapting to our ever changing environments, we undergo "GENETIC CHANGES" as our way of natural response, or in our human case favourable traits in our genes!
No creationism, no darwinism, and no hokus pokus!
As I said, we're evolving, it's happening, right now, everyone wake up! :)
Thank-you Ahoyboy for letting me know about this doc, please make me aware of it's full name! I'll save an hour of my life by not watching it!
America, what's up? If you believe in this, your not devolving not evolving!
Fingers crossed, the ever evolving human genes, will do their work, and it will all pan out in the end!
Hopefully! :)
-
The majority of people involved on both sides of the debate have never actually read the damn book. Read the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection by Charles Darwin if you are serious. What kind of people read articles and books on the book, but not the source material? Groupthink, that's who. Similarly, most Christians have never read the damn Bible either. Which is absolutely amazing when you think about it and all the fuss over this argument.
If you rely on other people's interpretations of an idea, then you're not thinking properly. I also hate it when Communists don't bother to actually read or even glance over Das Kapital or Capitalists haven't read The Wealth of Nations.
Read.
Protip: They are both out of copyright...
-
The majority of people involved on both sides of the debate have never actually read the damn book. Read the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection by Charles Darwin if you are serious. What kind of people read articles and books on the book, but not the source material? Groupthink, that's who. Similarly, most Christians have never read the damn Bible either. Which is absolutely amazing when you think about it and all the fuss over
Read.
Protip: They are both out of copyright...
I have read Origin of Species, but felt ok with adopting a position before doing so. I haven't read Newton but l believe in gravity. I dont need to read to Bible to know its a load of arse gravy.
-
See, the whole creationism thing proves to me that in America evolution is actually reversing in some places.
I live in America, and I fully stand by this _100%_
Creationism is a load of shit.
-
See, the whole creationism thing proves to me that in America evolution is actually reversing in some places.
it seems that way, but it won't last. they got the same internet down there that we got up here...its just taking a while because the old people are incredibly racist, poor, ignorant, religious, afraid, etc. but soon they'll be dead and the young people will take over.
but it is crazy down there though....definitely not somewhere i feel comfortable being myself. if you're ever down south and someone asks you if you've "been saved" or anything like that, the answer you give them is "yes." trust me.
-
Well if belief in Creationism can give us in the Europe the kind of economic growth America is experiencing I'm all for feeding that shit to the masses!!
You either lead or are lead.
Religion: Getting taxes collected, society in control and business done since -17,000BC.
-
The other annoying thing about it is that these Bible-loving hot Southern girls have their vaginas locked up by Jesus until they get married or are packed off to college, sense freedom and end up in rehab.
I mean come on is there no in-between? Is there no middle way? Can't we have sex before we get married and not having been to rehab? As our good friend Peter Griffen would say - Come'aaaaaaaan.
-
The other annoying thing about it is that these Bible-loving hot Southern girls have their vaginas locked up by Jesus until they get married or are packed off to college, sense freedom and end up in rehab.
I mean come on is there no in-between? Is there no middle way? Can't we have sex before we get married and not having been to rehab? As our good friend Peter Griffen would say - Come'aaaaaaaan.
most of those kind of chicks will let you fuck em in the ass because they think as long as you don't go in the vagina, they're still virgins. lulz. true story.
-
The other annoying thing about it is that these Bible-loving hot Southern girls have their vaginas locked up by Jesus until they get married or are packed off to college, sense freedom and end up in rehab.
I mean come on is there no in-between? Is there no middle way? Can't we have sex before we get married and not having been to rehab? As our good friend Peter Griffen would say - Come'aaaaaaaan.
most of those kind of chicks will let you fuck em in the ass because they think as long as you don't go in the vagina, they're still virgins. lulz. true story.
Hahahahaha you are shitting me right?
-
Hahahahaha you are shitting me right?
It's actually true, particularly in Muslim countries in the Middle-East. Go to any club there and the girls will be all over you, but take them back to your hotel and they only want anal.
-
Hahahahaha you are shitting me right?
It's actually true, particularly in Muslim countries in the Middle-East. Go to any club there and the girls will be all over you, but take them back to your hotel and they only want anal.
Well, looks like I'm packing my bags for the Lebanon then to fuck Jasmine from Aladdin then!
-
yeah, and as for the southern bells, you might have to work up to anal.....but getting them to suck you off is nothing. they'll suck you off 3 times a day until they think they're losing you, at which point they will offer up the anus. its crazy.
-
yeah, and as for the southern bells, you might have to work up to anal.....but getting them to suck you off is nothing. they'll suck you off 3 times a day until they think they're losing you, at which point they will offer up the anus. its crazy.
Goddamn you Americans have it all!
-
Hahahahaha you are shitting me right?
It's actually true, particularly in Muslim countries in the Middle-East. Go to any club there and the girls will be all over you, but take them back to your hotel and they only want anal.
Well, looks like I'm packing my bags for the Lebanon then to fuck Jasmine from Aladdin then!
Lebanon isn't really a Muslim country, it's incredibly westernized, more so than Israel, everyone I know there has had plastic surgery and it's full of clubs, bars and hot women.
Jordan would be a good choice, as would any of the southern Russian "stan" states, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan.
-
Hahahahaha you are shitting me right?
It's actually true, particularly in Muslim countries in the Middle-East. Go to any club there and the girls will be all over you, but take them back to your hotel and they only want anal.
Well, looks like I'm packing my bags for the Lebanon then to fuck Jasmine from Aladdin then!
Lebanon isn't really a Muslim country, it's incredibly westernized, more so than Israel, everyone I know there has had plastic surgery and it's full of clubs, bars and hot women.
Jordan would be a good choice, as would any of the southern Russian "stan" states, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan.
Yeah but that works out best, I don't want to go to a proper Islamic country because I'll have to convert to even get half way to shagging one.
-
Yeah but that works out best, I don't want to go to a proper Islamic country because I'll have to convert to even get half way to shagging one.
Then it's a good option. The food in Lebanon is mind blowing too, I'm actually drooling just thinking about it.
-
Yeah but that works out best, I don't want to go to a proper Islamic country because I'll have to convert to even get half way to shagging one.
Then it's a good option. The food in Lebanon is mind blowing too, I'm actually drooling just thinking about it.
THEN LIMETLESS IS OFF TO THE LEBANON! HOT JASMINES, CLUBS, ANAL AND KICKING ALADDIN IN THE NUTS HERE HE COMES!
-
THEN LIMETLESS IS OFF TO THE LEBANON! HOT JASMINES, CLUBS, ANAL AND KICKING ALADDIN IN THE NUTS HERE HE COMES!
You forgot the no tax bit?
Oh wait, was this thread about morals and Creationism vs Darwinism?
LOL ;D
-
THEN LIMETLESS IS OFF TO THE LEBANON! HOT JASMINES, CLUBS, ANAL AND KICKING ALADDIN IN THE NUTS HERE HE COMES!
You forgot the no tax bit?
Oh wait, was this thread about morals and Creationism vs Darwinism?
LOL ;D
Already got the tax bit taken care off, don't worry about that. ;)
-
THEN LIMETLESS IS OFF TO THE LEBANON! HOT JASMINES, CLUBS, ANAL AND KICKING ALADDIN IN THE NUTS HERE HE COMES!
You forgot the no tax bit?
Oh wait, was this thread about morals and Creationism vs Darwinism?
LOL ;D
As the thread originator, I can confirm that I am more than happy with the digression towards the subject of anal sex in the middle east.
-
I've just seen a documentary about the extent of belief in creationism in the USA. My god....what is going on? What kind of wooly headed fools would believe in suck idiotic hokum? Can any USA-based peeps offer some explanation? What do they teach in schools?
Make sure to check out Bill Maher's Religulous (docu). Pretty funny.
The most weird stuff to me is that constant fighting. Atheists this, Theists that. This shit doesn't exist here. No one gives a crap. The whole marriage thing, no one cares here. There's this legal partnership with another guy/gal that's the same as marriage. Problem forever solved. Not a single EU-fuck given.
It's like the US doesn't have anything more important to discuss...
Yep. Religious people in the UK (and they do exist) are almost embarrassed to proclaim their faith for fear of being seen as a looney. I must admit, I like it that way....
-
This thread had an interesting journey :o
Yep. Religious people in the UK (and they do exist) are almost embarrassed to proclaim their faith for fear of being seen as a looney. I must admit, I like it that way....
Richard Dawkins said that the difference between a priest from the US and a vicar from the UK is that the priest tells you you're going to hell whilst the vicar offers you a cup of tea and never mentions God.
-
Richard Dawkins is another example of how evolution got a bit confused on the way. I read his book The God Delusion and I feel much more ashamed to be of the same species because of it.
-
Richard Dawkins is... the other end of the spectrum. He's about as annoying as the Bible thumpers. I think he's right, I just don't like him.
Would you guys really wanna stick your dick into religion?
Also, Lim, if you're Gangster No. 1, who's Gangster No. 2?
-
For many US christians, acceptance of creationsim is just a culteral convention; it's something they profess to set their own community apart from outsiders. It's an example of an intellectual isolationism that christian leaders promote to keep their congregations cohesive, and to protect them from individualist ideas that would be their church's undoing. It's the same challenge faced by fundamentalist islam. Fundamentlaists of both groups have to turn their backs on modernity and on science; either turn their backs to those things or be changed by them, and one thing fundamentalists of all types have in common is that they abhor the idea of change.
Do christian fundamentallists truly believe in creationsim? Belief can be superficial. To truly believe, one mus think deeply and unselfishly consider all available evidence. Does the fundamentalist's belief in creationism rise to this standard? Personally, I suspect it rarely does, and so for me the fact that many profess to believe in creationsim means very little.
-
Richard Dawkins is another example of how evolution got a bit confused on the way. I read his book The God Delusion and I feel much more ashamed to be of the same species because of it.
You're much better off reading The Selfish Gene Lim. It's a fantastic book. I learned a lot from it.
That's the trouble with this business, it's distracted Dawkins from doing the far more difficult task of explaining biological concepts to a layman, which in my view is arguably more important. There will always be the religious and I have no fear of them 'winning' some kind of war whatsoever. Science has never really been mainstream fullstop. Sure somebody has to stand up to the crazys once in a while and put them back in their box, but a mind of Dawkin's caliber ought to work on more difficult problems.
Anyway, you never win an argument by telling the other side that they are wrong. That only works with (some) people in Science and a couple of fairly selective fields outside it who are interested in an objective truth.
-
Richard Dawkins is... the other end of the spectrum. He's about as annoying as the Bible thumpers. I think he's right, I just don't like him.
I feel the same way. I agree with a lot of what he has to say, but I can't stand his obnoxious personality. I've noticed here in the US, his biggest followers seems to be people who grew up in conservative evangelical homes, so the bible-thumping personality comes natural to them.
I also strongly disagree with the fellow on page 1 who thinks that if you accept evolution, you need to have read Origin of Species. Origin of Species isn't like the bible of evolution - it's not scientific dogma, it isn't inerrant, and it doesn't reflect contemporary scientific understanding regarding evolution. One of the beautiful things about science is that it isn't static or dogmatic. The way science sees the world is always changing based on new information. If a scientist thinks a view commonly held by other scientists is wrong, he can conduct new experiments and new research, and if it contradicts the current understanding and is reproducible by other scientists, then that becomes the new scientific understanding. There is much more to evolution than Darwin.
-
Richard Dawkins is... the other end of the spectrum. He's about as annoying as the Bible thumpers. I think he's right, I just don't like him.
I feel the same way. I agree with a lot of what he has to say, but I can't stand his obnoxious personality. I've noticed here in the US, his biggest followers seems to be people who grew up in conservative evangelical homes, so the bible-thumping personality comes natural to them.
I also strongly disagree with the fellow on page 1 who thinks that if you accept evolution, you need to have read Origin of Species. Origin of Species isn't like the bible of evolution - it's not scientific dogma, it isn't inerrant, and it doesn't reflect contemporary scientific understanding regarding evolution. One of the beautiful things about science is that it isn't static or dogmatic. The way science sees the world is always changing based on new information. If a scientist thinks a view commonly held by other scientists is wrong, he can conduct new experiments and new research, and if it contradicts the current understanding and is reproducible by other scientists, then that becomes the new scientific understanding. There is much more to evolution than Darwin.
I didn't say it was the bible and everything else you said was a bunch of assumptions about the way I think. I know perfectly well how the Scientific Method works thank-you very much. I said you have got to read it or you have no street cred with me as somebody who understands evolution theory. It's possible you do, but it's much more likely you don't if you haven't read it. Much much more likely.
If you are serious about anything, you go to the source. That is where the original revolution happened, you won't understand the real spirit of the thing until you do. That goes for Das Kapital, The Origin of Species, The Wealth of Nations and many other influential books like that.
-
Also, Lim, if you're Gangster No. 1, who's Gangster No. 2?
Lol whoever wants to be. :P It makes me laugh when people comment on that because they think it's I'm being serious when I'm just being tongue-in-cheek. It's a line from a sitcom I like hahaha. ;D
-
Oh god, the creationism thing here in the U.S. is just ridiculous. The number of religious nuts in this country is probably greater than the actual population of most other countries. Somewhere around 50% don't believe in evolution (read: don't understand basic science), and a similar number wouldn't even consider voting for an atheist for public office, regardless of his political views. Atheists in this country are trusted less than Muslims and homosexuals, which is really saying something given the hatred towards both those groups in this country as well. Why just last week, the owner of a restaurant called Chick-Fil-A came out and said that gay marriage is bad, and a couple days ago there was a nationwide "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day" where sales records were set, all in support of prejudice. This is the kind of shit I have to deal every day in my country. I'm an atheist, drug-using, gay-supporting, socialist. In this country, about 80% of the population probably wants to lock me up.
My current girlfriend actually used to be a fundamentalist Christian. She grew up in that type of religious household that makes it hard not to be. Anyways, I got talking with her, and eventually I convinced her to try mushrooms with me. We each did 3g of the finest shit you can get on the Silk Road. During the trip, she eventually realized that Christianity made no sense and neither did belief in God for that matter. She also realized that sex was fine before marriage. So there's the secret people! Get your local fundies to try some nice psychedelic magic and let the problems fix themselves. Actually there are a number of people that I would love to sit in a room together and give them each like 200mg of MDMA, and watch the problems sort themselves out. Owner of Chick-Fil-A and a homosexual: "Hey man, you're actually a pretty cool guy, I'm not sure what I was thinking calling you a pervert and depriving you of rights." The leaders of Israel and Palestine: "Dude, you're such a cool fucking guy, like what is this whole war about? Man let's just settle it, take what land you want. Hey, you want to touch my wife's tits?" Oh how much better the world would be. Remind me if I ever become king of the world to proclaim a National Feel Amazing day, in which everyone of age and without health problems will take at least a 150mg dose of MDMA, and all will be well.
-
A little off topic, but does anybody else see a strong correlation between drug use in individuals and lack of belief in organized religion? I don't have a single friend who uses any illegal substance that has any kind of religious belief, myself included, and I see a lot of people who claim "Marijuana will kill you!" and have an adamant belief in some form of deity or higher power.
-
By logical induction it is clear, that there is 'reason' for all to be and for all to constantly change.
By reading bible I can't get rid of jewish smell. There is lot of things which troubled jews, and nothing about 'reason' I mentioned above. Just witty remarks.
If we call this 'reason' =God, Einstein said best: "Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous."
Those I fail to see fight between God and evolution. Ancient jews don't want to be relatives to monkeys.. So what?
As about US.. Well, since Soviet Union no more, and China is yet on the rise, US is only "super"country in the world, and it dumbens US masses considerably. Add to dumb mass historical relation with ancient bible, and there you have it.
Belief in itself is not knowledge. Non-knowledge. I don't believe in any stupid JHW, Allah, Ganesha, or any other hallucination whomever can come up with. I know, that reason exists, and I doubt that there is any connection between my reason to exist, and universes reason to exist.
And here is conclusion: us religious people tend more, statistically of course, to consider themselves as center and reason of universe to be. But again - so what? People did it as long, as they were. And it was never right thing... *sigh*
-
Thank God there aren't any Chick-fil-As in my state, or some people might have ended up getting shot and yours truly would be in prison.
-
A little off topic, but does anybody else see a strong correlation between drug use in individuals and lack of belief in organized religion? I don't have a single friend who uses any illegal substance that has any kind of religious belief, myself included, and I see a lot of people who claim "Marijuana will kill you!" and have an adamant belief in some form of deity or higher power.
The "Openness to Experience" personality trait is also correlated with above average intellect. Liberals claim this makes them smarter than Republicans, but since Liberals have an adamant belief in a higher power called 'The State' which knows all, sees all etc, I think that's some kind of statistically anomaly and if you strictly distinguished between liberals and libertarians you'd find the liberals suffer a sharp drop. I know some smart democrats and some dumb democrats, I know some smart republicans and dumb republicans. But never in my life have I met a stupid libertarian. Argumentative libertarians, many. But no stupid ones.
-
Right, this might be a bit controversial but fuck it. Personally I think the concept of creationism is silly and backward but at the same time if people want to believe it that's up to them isn't it? As long as it's not pushed down my throat then I don't really give a shit what people want to believe in, it's not my business. I do think that creationists miss out on the realities of nature and how fascinating it is but I am not bothered if they want to believe that, let them get on with it.
Live and let live.
-
I don't mind "live and let live," but I do have a problem when creationists teach their children that garbage, and also try to get it taught in schools. I don't know a single creationist that just wants to keep it to themselves, they all want it taught everywhere. That's the problem.
-
Mr Stripe 'em All has mellowed with the past few months! :D
I think he has arrived back from the shop with his favorite yoghurts. I like the Strawberry and Cherry, but the Coconut is too intense. Of course it could be said pine is sufficiently full of nuts already, so that could be it, although strangely enough pine is not a fan of pine nuts.
-
I completely agree, limetless. Given that the Supreme Court in the US has ruled that it's illegal to teach creationism or intelligent design in a public school science classroom, it really doesn't affect my life whether people choose to believe in a myth. When I have kids and their classmates start telling them they're going to hell for their beliefs, I might feel differently, though.
-
I don't mind "live and let live," but I do have a problem when creationists teach their children that garbage, and also try to get it taught in schools. I don't know a single creationist that just wants to keep it to themselves, they all want it taught everywhere. That's the problem.
Yeah I am not arguing with that but then they probably think the same about us really. I'm not a religious nut by the way, this is just a topic that although I have my own opinions on I tend to not care about because it doesn't interfere with my own sphere of existence. Probably this is an English thing because we don't have the God Squad in quite the same way as America.
And I still give a good stripe but only on things that get on my nerves Mrs Pine. :P This is one of those that fall under the Don't Give a Fuck brackets. :)
-
Right, this might be a bit controversial but fuck it. Personally I think the concept of creationism is silly and backward but at the same time if people want to believe it that's up to them isn't it? As long as it's not pushed down my throat then I don't really give a shit what people want to believe in, it's not my business. I do think that creationists miss out on the realities of nature and how fascinating it is but I am not bothered if they want to believe that, let them get on with it.
Live and let live.
Sure, but it's part of a wider conservative-led, anti-science movement in the States which is worrying for us all - especially when it comes to things like global warming denial.
-
Right, this might be a bit controversial but fuck it. Personally I think the concept of creationism is silly and backward but at the same time if people want to believe it that's up to them isn't it? As long as it's not pushed down my throat then I don't really give a shit what people want to believe in, it's not my business. I do think that creationists miss out on the realities of nature and how fascinating it is but I am not bothered if they want to believe that, let them get on with it.
Live and let live.
Sure, but it's part of a wider conservative-led, anti-science movement in the States which is worrying for us all - especially when it comes to things like global warming denial.
Yeah this is true, that is ridiculousness on every level imaginable. Annoys me as well because politically I sit on the center right on most things, don't want to be associated with them sorts of morons.
-
Richard Dawkins is another example of how evolution got a bit confused on the way. I read his book The God Delusion and I feel much more ashamed to be of the same species because of it.
You're much better off reading The Selfish Gene Lim. It's a fantastic book. I learned a lot from it.
That's the trouble with this business, it's distracted Dawkins from doing the far more difficult task of explaining biological concepts to a layman, which in my view is arguably more important. There will always be the religious and I have no fear of them 'winning' some kind of war whatsoever. Science has never really been mainstream fullstop. Sure somebody has to stand up to the crazys once in a while and put them back in their box, but a mind of Dawkin's caliber ought to work on more difficult problems.
Anyway, you never win an argument by telling the other side that they are wrong. That only works with (some) people in Science and a couple of fairly selective fields outside it who are interested in an objective truth.
Dealing with the crazies is a difficult problem as it is, especially when they are affecting the spread of empirical science. Religious special interest groups have grown considerably in the USA. We have parents not vaccinating their children because of unproven information, politicians spouting nonsense that global warming is a hoax, or how people like Michelle Bachman want schools to teach Intelligent design, which is an insult to the intellect. Dawkins is simply illustrating, albeit arrogantly at times, the dangers that politics and religion has on science. His documentary, The Enemies of Reason, eloquently demonstrates that premise. We need people critics like Dawkins to accentuate the hypocrisy of religion, especially after the horrifying events of 9/11.
One of the reasons why people don't accept evolution is because they don't understand it, which alludes to what you were saying about the importance of explaining scientific terms to the general public. We need teachers, especially in middle and high school, who are competent in teaching science. Studies have suggested that a notable number of science teachers don't even have a background in science, particularly in schools of high need. A new age Carl Sagan wouldn't be a bad idea either.
-
Dealing with the crazies is a difficult problem as it is, especially when they are affecting the spread of empirical science. Religious special interest groups have grown considerably in the USA. We have parents not vaccinating their children because of unproven information, politicians spouting nonsense that global warming is a hoax, or how people like Michelle Bachman want schools to teach Intelligent design, which is an insult to the intellect. Dawkins is simply illustrating, albeit arrogantly at times, the dangers that politics and religion has on science. His documentary, The Enemies of Reason, eloquently demonstrates that premise. We need people critics like Dawkins to accentuate the hypocrisy of religion, especially after the horrifying events of 9/11.
One of the reasons why people don't accept evolution is because they don't understand it, which alludes to what you were saying about the importance of explaining scientific terms to the general public. We need teachers, especially in middle and high school, who are competent in teaching science. Studies have suggested that a notable number of science teachers don't even have a background in science, particularly in schools of high need. A new age Carl Sagan wouldn't be a bad idea either.
I think the hypocrisy of religion is evident to anybody who's simply ever thought about the subject, I would again emphasize that you can't get anybody onto your side by telling them that they are wrong. Education is the key. Yes. But maybe not the kind that gets taught I think.
Because I didn't learn about evolution from high school. I learned it by reading the Origin of Species myself. The biology textbook was ok, but nothing inspiring. To see it through the eyes of the author at that revolutionary moment it crystallized into a greater awareness of reality, that is the key. That is true learning. If anything some of my teachers greatly retarded my educational progress by making fantastic subjects incredibly boring. Lucky I got out alive!
I also am not so sure that having teachers with a background in science is the real problem here. I think the real problem here is enthusiasm for the subject. All the good teachers I have known didn't necessarily have degrees, some did, some didn't, but the key thing that united them was a passion for the subject they taught. That's not something you can teach. You either have it or you don't. And if you don't, I don't care if you have a PhD because you'll make a crap teacher.
Similarly, I didn't need education from a TV show or documentary to make me think religion was riddled with contradictory thought and hypocrisy. That occurred to me through self learning, from reading books. It's a very rare fundamentalist today who is also an avid reader of books. If they do, they are generally the more sophisticated type of Christian or Muslim I don't have a problem with as a believer, because they wound up coming to similar conclusions about the basic order of things and support pro-western ideals and adopt a big picture view which is highly unlikely to lead to them becoming suicide bombers.
American secondary schools are shit. That's what it is. They just are. Improving biology lessons is worthless when the entire school system is corrupted from head to toe. Your innovations would be poisoned by the system's dislike of natural selection (ha! so ironic!) to promote the good teachers and expel the bad, not to mention rampant grade inflation.
--
Finally, I don't accept conventional opinion on the idea of Climate Change/Global Warming either. That doesn't make me a fool, it makes me somebody who finds it bizarrely convenient that all left wing ideals are apparently borne out by this one concept. Science is never so bipartisan. So something is up and people are right to intuit that this is highly suspect even if they don't have the apparatus to investigate by themselves.
That is not to say global warming can't be a real thing, this is a definite possibility. It is just that such a heavy bias to left wing and also very centrally controlled *solutions* to this issue naturally produces a healthy suspicion. Older people are not idiots. It is not just some fundamentalist Christians who think it's weird. Plenty of atheists and agnostics do as well, especially the older ones. Many left wingers of the more libertarian variety also are creeped out by the state oriented perspective of fantastical organizations like the IPCC.
This is because all those people, they remember how the idea of Communism spread. It was the more "scientific" method to producing economic results. It was complete bullshit and every single piece of data regarding it in the West for decades was completely doctored and misinterpreted right up until the Berlin Wall fell. Those useful idiots, those western pro-communism intellectuals ought to have been strung up onto lampposts for the lies they spread about that horrifically cancerous ideology.
I have only respect for left winger libertarian types like George Orwell who saw the true shape of it, he was a good man, the rest propagated group-think believing there was a scientific consensus behind state communism's rise instead of pure murder.
Conservatism exists for a real reason. I'm not even a conservative myself, but they are not morons for disagreeing with this "scientific consensus". The very concept of scientific consensus is a rather peculiar one. While it is true that many scientists are left wing, the best ones I know personally are libertarians or generally tilt to the right. They don't represent a majority, but they exert a unusual degree of influence over their respective fields, most especially in the hard sciences. That's the way right wing brains tend to be wired.
I say we wait until all the evidence is in, and that could be slow and take many decades. And don't throw the doctrine of the precautionary principal about, I consider that about as scientific as Pascal's Wager, which is in fact exactly what it is the logical equivalent of. People who say they appreciate science ought to lash themselves for adopting that idea.
Science works slowly in an evolutionary way to gather evidence, I'm not panicking about the melt rate of glaciers when the majority of pro global warming proponents I've talked to also think if the North Pole melted in its entirety that sea levels would rise dramatically. I mean. Wat. Scientific illiteracy and a great lack of interdisciplinary thinking abounds on both sides of the argument in my view (I essentially concur with Freeman Dyson's views).
-
Dealing with the crazies is a difficult problem as it is, especially when they are affecting the spread of empirical science. Religious special interest groups have grown considerably in the USA. We have parents not vaccinating their children because of unproven information, politicians spouting nonsense that global warming is a hoax, or how people like Michelle Bachman want schools to teach Intelligent design, which is an insult to the intellect. Dawkins is simply illustrating, albeit arrogantly at times, the dangers that politics and religion has on science. His documentary, The Enemies of Reason, eloquently demonstrates that premise. We need people critics like Dawkins to accentuate the hypocrisy of religion, especially after the horrifying events of 9/11.
One of the reasons why people don't accept evolution is because they don't understand it, which alludes to what you were saying about the importance of explaining scientific terms to the general public. We need teachers, especially in middle and high school, who are competent in teaching science. Studies have suggested that a notable number of science teachers don't even have a background in science, particularly in schools of high need. A new age Carl Sagan wouldn't be a bad idea either.
I think the hypocrisy of religion is evident to anybody who's simply ever thought about the subject, I would again emphasize that you can't get anybody onto your side by telling them that they are wrong. Education is the key. Yes. But maybe not the kind that gets taught I think.
Because I didn't learn about evolution from high school. I learned it by reading the Origin of Species myself. The biology textbook was ok, but nothing inspiring. To see it through the eyes of the author at that revolutionary moment it crystallized into a greater awareness of reality, that is the key. That is true learning. If anything some of my teachers greatly retarded my educational progress by making fantastic subjects incredibly boring. Lucky I got out alive!
I also am not so sure that having teachers with a background in science is the real problem here. I think the real problem here is enthusiasm for the subject. All the good teachers I have known didn't necessarily have degrees, some did, some didn't, but the key thing that united them was a passion for the subject they taught. That's not something you can teach. You either have it or you don't. And if you don't, I don't care if you have a PhD because you'll make a crap teacher.
Similarly, I didn't need education from a TV show or documentary to make me think religion was riddled with contradictory thought and hypocrisy. That occurred to me through self learning, from reading books. It's a very rare fundamentalist today who is also an avid reader of books. If they do, they are generally the more sophisticated type of Christian or Muslim I don't have a problem with as a believer, because they wound up coming to similar conclusions about the basic order of things and support pro-western ideals and adopt a big picture view which is highly unlikely to lead to them becoming suicide bombers.
American secondary schools are shit. That's what it is. They just are. Improving biology lessons is worthless when the entire school system is corrupted from head to toe. Your innovations would be poisoned by the system's dislike of natural selection (ha! so ironic!) to promote the good teachers and expel the bad, not to mention rampant grade inflation.
--
Finally, I don't accept conventional opinion on the idea of Climate Change/Global Warming either. That doesn't make me a fool, it makes me somebody who finds it bizarrely convenient that all left wing ideals are apparently borne out by this one concept. Science is never so bipartisan. So something is up and people are right to intuit that this is highly suspect even if they don't have the apparatus to investigate by themselves.
That is not to say global warming can't be a real thing, this is a definite possibility. It is just that such a heavy bias to left wing and also very centrally controlled *solutions* to this issue naturally produces a healthy suspicion. Older people are not idiots. It is not just some fundamentalist Christians who think it's weird. Plenty of atheists and agnostics do as well, especially the older ones. Many left wingers of the more libertarian variety also are creeped out by the state oriented perspective of fantastical organizations like the IPCC.
This is because all those people, they remember how the idea of Communism spread. It was the more "scientific" method to producing economic results. It was complete bullshit and every single piece of data regarding it in the West for decades was completely doctored and misinterpreted right up until the Berlin Wall fell. Those useful idiots, those western pro-communism intellectuals ought to have been strung up onto lampposts for the lies they spread about that horrifically cancerous ideology.
I have only respect for left winger libertarian types like George Orwell who saw the true shape of it, he was a good man, the rest propagated group-think believing there was a scientific consensus behind state communism's rise instead of pure murder.
Conservatism exists for a real reason. I'm not even a conservative myself, but they are not morons for disagreeing with this "scientific consensus". The very concept of scientific consensus is a rather peculiar one. While it is true that many scientists are left wing, the best ones I know personally are libertarians or generally tilt to the right. They don't represent a majority, but they exert a unusual degree of influence over their respective fields, most especially in the hard sciences. That's the way right wing brains tend to be wired.
I say we wait until all the evidence is in, and that could be slow and take many decades. And don't throw the doctrine of the precautionary principal about, I consider that about as scientific as Pascal's Wager, which is in fact exactly what it is the logical equivalent of. People who say they appreciate science ought to lash themselves for adopting that idea.
Science works slowly in an evolutionary way to gather evidence, I'm not panicking about the melt rate of glaciers when the majority of pro global warming proponents I've talked to also think if the North Pole melted in its entirety that sea levels would rise dramatically. I mean. Wat. Scientific illiteracy and a great lack of interdisciplinary thinking abounds on both sides of the argument in my view (I essentially concur with Freeman Dyson's views).
We started getting into real problems when science started getting drawn into political and religious debates. It shouldn't matter whether scientists are left or right leaning, Christian or atheist as the scientific process shouldn't allow for a great deal of reinterpretation. It interesting that some Christians in the States deny the evidence on evolution because it interferes with their literal interpretation of the Bible. So we have one the one hand, the evidence of modern scientific inquiry and on the other hand a Bronze-age text of dubious origins. Dear oh dear, that in 2012 we should be anchored scientifically, socially and morally to a simplistic ancient text is mind boggling. Time to cut ourselves free I feel.
-
Guess I am in the vast minority here. I believe in Creationism as written and yes, I do use illegal drugs. Hypocrisy? No way.
Most who are ignorant confuse "religion" with what the Bible says. Religion is man's attempt to reach God - and that isn't going to happen. Even Jesus wasn't a fan of organized religion. The Bible is God's attempt to reach man. Very few even today understand what it says.
Why creationism as opposed to the theory of evolution? I admit I am no scientist but have close friends who are. They encourage research, of course, but only to a point. "We'll follow the evidence no matter where is leads in a search for the truth", unless of course, that evidence points to intelligent design. Then it is summarily dismissed. I came to my one conclusions, actually out of a personal effort to "prove" the Bible wrong. Funny thing happened along the way.
To me, creationism v. evolution is simply a matter of where you want to place your faith. Neither can be proven. So I can choose to put my faith in the collective intelligence of men who continually lie, start wars, and mostly try to destroy one another - and when I die, I cease to exist. Or I can choose to put my faith in the possibility of God - and when I die I claim him at his word. Seems like a no-brainer to me. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain.
-
Guess I am in the vast minority here. I believe in Creationism as written and yes, I do use illegal drugs. Hypocrisy? No way.
Most who are ignorant confuse "religion" with what the Bible says. Religion is man's attempt to reach God - and that isn't going to happen. Even Jesus wasn't a fan of organized religion. The Bible is God's attempt to reach man. Very few even today understand what it says.
Why creationism as opposed to the theory of evolution? I admit I am no scientist but have close friends who are. They encourage research, of course, but only to a point. "We'll follow the evidence no matter where is leads in a search for the truth", unless of course, that evidence points to intelligent design. Then it is summarily dismissed. I came to my one conclusions, actually out of a personal effort to "prove" the Bible wrong. Funny thing happened along the way.
To me, creationism v. evolution is simply a matter of where you want to place your faith. Neither can be proven. So I can choose to put my faith in the collective intelligence of men who continually lie, start wars, and mostly try to destroy one another - and when I die, I cease to exist. Or I can choose to put my faith in the possibility of God - and when I die I claim him at his word. Seems like a no-brainer to me. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Yes, but the problem is that there is a vast range of peer reviewed research to support evolution by natural selection and as of 2009 (the last time I deigned it necessary to find out for sure) there was no peer reviewed research to support intelligent design. There has been research done to support ID but it is not peer reviewed and tends to be commissioned by the very dubious Discovery Institute - which is funded by conservative Christian organizations. No contest really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
-
The Bible is God's attempt to reach man. Very few even today understand what it says.
its not. its a compilation of old books put together by a panel of men in the 4th century. also, i think its rather arrogant to think that "the word of god" could be expressed in a human language.
also, why just the bible? do you find no value in any other attempt by man to express the nature of the divine?
back on topic, creationism vs. evolution? creationism is a flawed "theory" because it does not account for infinity, which is one of the basic principles of the universe. if this world was created, then the creator must have been created...so it still doesn't answer the question. evolution is obvious to anyone who takes the time to observe nature, but its not the whole story...its just an explanation for how life changes, not how it began. there is no beginning, there is no end: only infinity.
-
To me, creationism v. evolution is simply a matter of where you want to place your faith.
Do you place your faith in centuries of scholarly work backed by evidence, or do you place your faith in non-scientific literature written thousands of years ago?
I know if I have an ailment, I am probably going to read up-to-date medical literature to figure out what is wrong and what I should do instead of Shakespeare.
-
Thank God there aren't any Chick-fil-As in my state, or some people might have ended up getting shot and yours truly would be in prison.
That's another interesting thing, a few weeks ago I had no idea what Chick-fil-a is or that such places even exist. They used the Atheists as PR-machine. Everyone was crying how lame chick-fil-a is, but no one seemed to get that that was exactly what they wanted. Murricans are so easily manipulated. Don't blame them, if you turn on the TV in the states you get brainwashed 24/7.
no one seems to have a problem with the private fed (probably too few understand it), the ghost towns of foreclosed homes on one end of town and the tent city on the other end, people complain about obamacare but happily abuse the ER when something hurts, they complain if they can't get a ton of soda at once (those supersized cups dont exist in EU, we still survived somehow), no one ever questions 911 (this is my favorite) but again the media is at fault here - they burnt that image into everyones brain, zadroga bill comes to mind, congress generally being completely ridiculous, that weird two party system where both parties are pretty much the same except gay gun control marriage, all the wars (ok I get it, they are needed to keep the economy going, US' only product), list goes on and on. What I'm trying to say is: Murrica is weird. What does it take for those guys to forget the gay/gun/obamacare shit for a while and get together for the important stuff? Occupy was just ridiculed, but at least they did something.
Sorry for offtopic rant :) USA is a cool themepark/shoppingmall, but would have so much more potential. I just refuse to believe that all people are that stupid.
-
The Bible is God's attempt to reach man. Very few even today understand what it says.
its not. its a compilation of old books put together by a panel of men in the 4th century. also, i think its rather arrogant to think that "the word of god" could be expressed in a human language.
also, why just the bible? do you find no value in any other attempt by man to express the nature of the divine?
back on topic, creationism vs. evolution? creationism is a flawed "theory" because it does not account for infinity, which is one of the basic principles of the universe. if this world was created, then the creator must have been created...so it still doesn't answer the question. evolution is obvious to anyone who takes the time to observe nature, but its not the whole story...its just an explanation for how life changes, not how it began. there is no beginning, there is no end: only infinity.
There are some plausible theories about how life began. Complex crystaline structures exists which have the ability to mutate. These structures (complex by chemical standards, simple by biological standards) are not 'life', but the ability to mutate and add complexity is key to the concept of life. The theory holds that if a powerful agent such as electricity via a bolt of lightning acted upon them the result has the potential to add further complexity and that one of these reactions jump started life. The first life would have been little more than a complex chemical structure with the power to mutate and add to its own complexity.
Essentially, the theory holds that life started when lightning struck a bunch of chemicals.
-
LOL Creationism vs Darwinism.
The whole system of belief in Creationism hinges on the idea that bronze age and iron age men knew more about the workings of the universe than we do now.
Evolution is just a theory, but its a theory thats supported by a lot of evidence that is continually reviewed.
This is really just an American phenomenon.
Earlier in the thread someone gave a list of countries and someone else said that they were in no way as religious as the US. One of those countries was Italy. Italy completely surrounds and is heavily influenced by the Vatican (the most religious place on earth!!!) yet even the Vatican isn't trying to push the idea of creationism as its so obviously wrong.
-
LOL Creationism vs Darwinism.
The whole system of belief in Creationism hinges on the idea that bronze age and iron age men knew more about the workings of the universe than we do now.
Evolution is just a theory, but its a theory thats supported by a lot of evidence that is continually reviewed.
This is really just an American phenomenon.
Earlier in the thread someone gave a list of countries and someone else said that they were in no way as religious as the US. One of those countries was Italy. Italy completely surrounds and is heavily influenced by the Vatican (the most religious place on earth!!!) yet even the Vatican isn't trying to push the idea of creationism as its so obviously wrong.
There are simple minded people in every country. What surprised me about the documentary I saw was the extent of the belief in creationism in the USA. It's almost 40% of the population and includes politicians. It scared me a bit. That the most powerful and one of the most advanced nations on earth should engage in such anti-scientific, mass self delusion was a bit chilling.
-
Even Jesus wasn't a fan of organized religion.
Thats not entirely true.
Matthew 16:18-19 directs St Peter to go and begin an organized religion and that whatever decisions are made by Peter will be honored in heaven and vise versa.
"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
The Bible is God's attempt to reach man. Very few even today understand what it says.
As was said previously, it was compiled in the 4th century and was revised until around the 1500's In fact the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible are different, the Catholic version contains more books. I cannot see an omnipotent being attempting to reach man via a book and then allowing either the Catholics to have extra books that weren't needed or allowing the protestants to water down his message by removing certain books.
-
I agree with the OP on his points - watching documentaries where devoutly religious americans are challenged about creationism - or any aspect of the bible - is very frustrating!
I think that when someone stops arguing logically, backing up their argument with provable evidence, and instead uses the concept of blind faith - is the point when their argument becomes null, void and ridiculous.
According to the bible, planet earth - in fact the whole universe - is only 10,000 years old... despite unarguable and globally accepted evidence to the contrary...
It boggles my mind that in 2012 devoutly religious people still fall back on the "blind faith" argument despite an uncountable amount of scientific evidenve that requires no faith at all! Proof is proof! why can't they get that? It's like tryin to get a mischevious 7 year old to admit they stole a cookie out of the jar when they have crumbs round their mouth...
-
The bible should not be taken too literally, it is simply a collection of stories that act as a moral guide, it is not a history of the universe.
I can prove this using only the bible and some logic.
In Genesis, Cain and Abel are the sons of Adam and Eve.
Cain kills Abel. God appears and punishes Abel by giving him "the mark of Cain". Now what you have to remember here is that at no point has God set out any system of rules, so when Cain kills Abel it establishes the concept of sin being an absolute. That means that even before you are told a sin is a sin, its still a sin.
Now later in the bible (Leviticus and Corinthians) God decrees that incest is a sin, but Cain killing Abel establishes that sin is an absolute, meaning, its a sin even before your told.
Back to Genesis, God creates Adam and Eve and they have 2 sons Cain and Abel and no daughters as no daughters are mentioned.
This means that not only did incest occur, it occurred with their own mother!
God is considered to be an all knowing all powerful being who wants us to live by a strict moral code, he classes incest as a sin yet puts the first people on the planet in a position where they are forced to commit sin, that doesn't sound all knowing and powerful does it.
.. But wait... we all know the story of Noah.... he only goes and does it again, wiping out all life on earth with a flood, and saving only one family to repopulate the world.
Now this either means that God really hasn't got his act together or that the bible is not written accurately enough to be taken literally and therefore Creationism cannot be taken literally either.
-
The bible should not be taken too literally, it is simply a collection of stories that act as a moral guide, it is not a history of the universe.
I can prove this using only the bible and some logic.
In Genesis, Cain and Abel are the sons of Adam and Eve.
Cain kills Abel. God appears and punishes Abel by giving him "the mark of Cain". Now what you have to remember here is that at no point has God set out any system of rules, so when Cain kills Abel it establishes the concept of sin being an absolute. That means that even before you are told a sin is a sin, its still a sin.
Now later in the bible (Leviticus and Corinthians) God decrees that incest is a sin, but Cain killing Abel establishes that sin is an absolute, meaning, its a sin even before your told.
Back to Genesis, God creates Adam and Eve and they have 2 sons Cain and Abel and no daughters as no daughters are mentioned.
This means that not only did incest occur, it occurred with their own mother!
God is considered to be an all knowing all powerful being who wants us to live by a strict moral code, he classes incest as a sin yet puts the first people on the planet in a position where they are forced to commit sin, that doesn't sound all knowing and powerful does it.
.. But wait... we all know the story of Noah.... he only goes and does it again, wiping out all life on earth with a flood, and saving only one family to repopulate the world.
Now this either means that God really hasn't got his act together or that the bible is not written accurately enough to be taken literally and therefore Creationism cannot be taken literally either.
I do love that Noah story. Great how they managed to fit 2 of each of the 6 MILLION species on earth onto their boat. Big boat then.
With all the oceans merged into one all encompassing sea, I wonder how they saved the freshwater fish?
-
I do love that Noah story. Great how they managed to fit 2 of each of the 6 MILLION species on earth onto their boat. Big boat then.
With all the oceans merged into one all encompassing sea, I wonder how they saved the freshwater fish?
If they are the type of Christian to worry about such things, then they explain it by saying 'microevolution' occurs, but not 'macroevolution'.
Such an explanation is not a logic failure, quite contrary to what most atheists think, but a (diabolical) failure of the imagination instead. Darwin said as much when he was talking about the chalk hills of England being originally composed of living animals (he was an amateur geologist too), it takes a certain frame of mind to appreciate the vast scope and implications of such a slow and powerful process.
That is partly why some scientists deliberately use psychedelics or amphetamines to further their inspiration. But for Thomas Malthus's Essay on Population Growth and Charles Lyell's (I think) book on geology, "Principles of Geology" (he discovered the earth was billions of years old vs tens of thousands as commonly thought by even many scientists of the day), we would have never had the formation of the Theory of Evolution by means of Natural Selection that was Darwin's contribution to Science. At least not from Charles Darwin anyway. I would say biology only became a science from this point onwards, similar to how Adam Smith's discovery of the Division of Labor turned economics into a science. The modern world owes an exceptionally disproportionate debt to the Scottish race, which is why I'm a big fan of them and their nuttiness :-)
Organized religion is today after all, a form of learned imagination, it does all the work for you. Once upon a time the Church (both groups) was the main supporter of Natural Philosophy as it was called then, and many Christians were fantastic scientists or natural philosophers, believing it was very spiritual to investigate the natural world.
Unfortunately, this is now the position of a tiny majority of Christians in today's world. I can respect any truthseeker, any thinking person, whether Christian or Atheist who believes in an objective truth and strives after the shape of it, even if it is hard to understand. But deliberately cultivated ignorance and unquestioning respect to authority I cannot stand. This is why I hate any groupthink, irrespective of what ideology it is coming from.
In my view, you could have a high I.Q, and yet be a mental midget if you aren't an independent thinker. Richard Feynman was a genius, but wasn't as quick as his peers (remember the average I.Q of almost any physicist is extremely high vs the average, I think 150+). Yet he was extremely effective and productive in his field, he dominated it. Actually if you read about Feynman, you quickly find that his character is exceptionally familiar, he was very much the classic /b/tard, like one of the smarter anons. Lulz is a concept Feynman would have had no trouble with. This is also why I favor 4chan users over facebook users, they might be composed of spectra from banal to genius, but at least they form their own thoughts. You could trawl Facebook for years worth of communications without crossing a stray original thought.
-
The majority of people involved on both sides of the debate have never actually read the damn book. Read the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection by Charles Darwin if you are serious. What kind of people read articles and books on the book, but not the source material? Groupthink, that's who. Similarly, most Christians have never read the damn Bible either. Which is absolutely amazing when you think about it and all the fuss over this argument.
If you rely on other people's interpretations of an idea, then you're not thinking properly. I also hate it when Communists don't bother to actually read or even glance over Das Kapital or Capitalists haven't read The Wealth of Nations.
Read.
Protip: They are both out of copyright...
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance" Albert Einstein
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." Stephen Hawking
Creationism draws on a great deal of 'mystery' and 'faith'. Evolution draws on scientific understanding. I used to believe in religion as a important part of development and spiritual growth. I spent years as a pastor in a church teaching people to trust in fluffy clouds that have no substance. I wish I could go back and apologize for misleading them. I felt like Casey in "The Grapes of Wrath". Today I stand opposed to religion, creationism, and the passivity it creates and the hope it steals. Life is what you have. Here, now. We are duuuust in the wind. Everything is dust in the wind. 8)
But seriously religion is shit. god is the creation of the minds of warped men that were weak and prone to delusions of grandeur.
-
I do love that Noah story. Great how they managed to fit 2 of each of the 6 MILLION species on earth onto their boat. Big boat then.
With all the oceans merged into one all encompassing sea, I wonder how they saved the freshwater fish?
If they are the type of Christian to worry about such things, then they explain it by saying 'microevolution' occurs, but not 'macroevolution'.
Over what period of time? Remember the earth is but 5000 years old.
-
I do love that Noah story. Great how they managed to fit 2 of each of the 6 MILLION species on earth onto their boat. Big boat then.
With all the oceans merged into one all encompassing sea, I wonder how they saved the freshwater fish?
If they are the type of Christian to worry about such things, then they explain it by saying 'microevolution' occurs, but not 'macroevolution'.
Over what period of time? Remember the earth is but 5000 years old.
Young Earth Creationists are a tiny tiny minority of Christians. It is not fair to assume they all believe in the same far out interpretation of the creed, any more than saying that atheists would prefer to use eugenics and 'education' to wipe out religion given half a chance. It is true that some might, but every ideology has its lunatics. Pine for example, is a jelly bean eugenicist for some time now, but not all members of the jelly bean club are so motivated.