Mitt Romney wrote a very, very uninformed, and downright stupid essay in the Washington Post criticizing the nuclear treaty. At one point he is talking about how we pay no attention to Russian bombers because the Russians can load ICMS onto them. That's a mind-blowingly stupid comment that almost makes Sarah Palin sound like she briefly considered attending a foreign relations briefing once. You don't drop ICBMs from a bomber, you drop bombs from a bomber (WHICH IS WHY IT'S CALLED A f***ING BOMBER, EARTH TO MITT). We may as well start checking Russian submarines so those can't drop bombs, either.

Anyone feel like facepalming? This link was posted by someone in my Facebook news feed earlier: http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=e...21f873cc42b9fe9

 

All well and good but then here's her comment that was the kicker (she is a black, female, hardcore liberal btw):

WOW! Now, this is conversation that should be taking place in EVERY classroom across this great nation! I personally do NOT believe in a separation of Church and State! TEACHING goes on in the classroom and when you have there are subjects being taught to our children that goes directly against the grain of their religious beliefs and upbringing, those ideas should be able to be included in on the discussion. How can a CHRISTian be taught the Theory of Evolution without being able to debate the Book of Genesis and how it is said the world was created. IT'S THIS WAY OR NO WAY, END OF CONVERSATION! I DON'T THINK SO!

 

I didn't know where to start so I said "I don't understand this post" and then someone commented this:

History reveals that when this Great nation was being established; settlers could NOT register a city and that settlement was NOT acknowledged if it didn't have a CHURCH. The school house was also the CHURCH or it wasn't a school.

Tell me then: when did the science that God knows better than man; become more powerful than God???? I am a forever student and I need understanding on this.

"IN GOD WE TRUST" is at the very core and foundation of this GREAT nation; and God is revealing His pressence at it's core.

That's why these kids are jacked up today. They have books in the school libraries: I HAVE TWO MOMMIES or I HAVE TWO DADDIES. But Holy Bible is not allowed. We trusted God for a new life of freedom then took God out of God's business.

 

That wasn't nearly as bad as the first comment, but I realized I wasn't in the mood to argue this so I deleted my comment and gave up.

Edited July 8, 201015 yr by lostfan

Anyone feel like facepalming? This link was posted by someone in my Facebook news feed earlier: http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=e...21f873cc42b9fe9

 

All well and good but then here's her comment that was the kicker (she is a black, female, hardcore liberal btw):

 

 

I didn't know where to start so I said "I don't understand this post" and then someone commented this:

 

 

That wasn't nearly as bad as the first comment, but I realized I wasn't in the mood to argue this so I deleted my comment and gave up.

 

 

You should tell her not to worry, because she obviously doesn't know anything about the theory of evolution as it has nothing to do with how the world or even life was "created" only what happened after life was here on a planet that already existed. Plus throw this one at her, there are plenty of Christians who agree with the theory of evolution, including myself.

At the end of it all, doesn't creationism and evolution end up being the same?

At the end of it all, doesn't creationism and evolution end up being the same?

 

How do you figure that?

At the end of it all, doesn't creationism and evolution end up being the same?

Juggernaut! Welcome back!

If your faith in God is threatened by science, then your faith is probably pretty weak, which is a personal problem if you ask me.

If your faith in God is threatened by science, then your faith is probably pretty weak, which is a personal problem if you ask me.

 

that's a pretty good statement.

At the end of it all, doesn't creationism and evolution end up being the same?

 

Very simple, very clear answer: no.

Very simple, very clear answer: no.

I understand what Kap is getting at. For open minded people, there is usually a recognition that evolution exists, and God exists, and if you work them back far enough, they meet.

 

Problem is, many people aren't that open minded, so its either "creation doesn't exist because God did everything" or "God doesn't exist because nature did everything".

 

I understand what Kap is getting at. For open minded people, there is usually a recognition that evolution exists, and God exists, and if you work them back far enough, they meet.

 

Problem is, many people aren't that open minded, so its either "creation doesn't exist because God did everything" or "God doesn't exist because nature did everything".

 

Theistic evolution =/= creationism, though.

Theistic evolution =/= creationism, though.

I didn't say they were equal. I said, most people believe in God in some form, most people agree that evolution is real, therefore most people believe both exist. That being the case, they have to be related, at some very basic level. And I think that is what Kap was getting at (though him saying they were the same is a stretch).

 

The only way to make that point is to ignore decades of what creationism has stood for. It means individual species specially created, perhaps within the last 6000-10000 years, no macroevolution, things created pretty much as they are now. That's a very far leap from theistic evolution, which posits evolution as scientists understand it as a 'tool' for God.

 

eg Ken Miller vs. Ken Ham.

The only way to make that point is to ignore decades of what creationism has stood for. It means individual species specially created, perhaps within the last 6000-10000 years, no macroevolution, things created pretty much as they are now. That's a very far leap from theistic evolution, which posits evolution as scientists understand it as a 'tool' for God.

 

eg Ken Miller vs. Ken Ham.

I don't think that is what Kap was trying to say, but I'll leave it to him to respond.

 

Unless he's playing humpty dumpty from Through the Looking Glass again, there's only one way to take that. Words have meaning, and his statement is unequivocally false given standard definitions.

 

Creationism actively denies evolution. Theistic evolution is the position of integrating science with a personal faith. TE is much closer to philosophical naturalism/ evolution without gods than it is to creationism.

 

I'll point to Ken Miller again. He was a key witness at the Dover, PA trials as well as several other court cases around the country. He's a devout Catholic, but he's also a biologist who accepts evolution. He's much closer to PZ Meyers, atheist/biologist/douchebag than he is to Ken Ham or the people at the Discovery Institute.

Edited July 9, 201015 yr by StrangeSox

If your faith in science is threatened by God, then your faith is probably pretty weak, which is a personal problem if you ask me.

 

Science is a process or a method, not something to have "faith" in.

The only way to make that point is to ignore decades of what creationism has stood for. It means individual species specially created, perhaps within the last 6000-10000 years, no macroevolution, things created pretty much as they are now. That's a very far leap from theistic evolution, which posits evolution as scientists understand it as a 'tool' for God.

 

eg Ken Miller vs. Ken Ham.

 

I think you're only using one definition of creationism. Perhaps some believe that the elements of life were created (and didn't just exist out of thin nothingness) and evolution took over from there. The Lisa Simpson Little House of Horrors theory of life if you will.

Science is a process or a method, not something to have "faith" in.

 

what? a scientist has "faith" that his/her hypothesis is correct, despite the fact that it could be proven incorrect. Science might be more "factual" than spiritual belief, but at least with some aspects of sciene, it's still believing in something that cannot be proven.

what? a scientist has "faith" that his/her hypothesis is correct,

huh!?!

huh!?!

 

i'm saying certain aspects of science require "belief." I agree there's a method, but sometimes the method just gets you to hypothesis that you believe to be true, despite not being 100% sure.

what? a scientist has "faith" that his/her hypothesis is correct, despite the fact that it could be proven incorrect. Science might be more "factual" than spiritual belief, but at least with some aspects of sciene, it's still believing in something that cannot be proven.

Entirely true.

 

The issue then becomes to prove it wrong, or to throw every test you can come up with to prove it wrong.

 

That's science.

I think you're only using one definition of creationism. Perhaps some believe that the elements of life were created (and didn't just exist out of thin nothingness) and evolution took over from there. The Lisa Simpson Little House of Horrors theory of life if you will.

 

That's not creationism as it's typically used or promoted by places like AiG or DI. I've already hit on the idea of theistic evolution and how it is not anywhere near Bible-as-literal-truth Creationism.

what? a scientist has "faith" that his/her hypothesis is correct, despite the fact that it could be proven incorrect. Science might be more "factual" than spiritual belief, but at least with some aspects of sciene, it's still believing in something that cannot be proven.

 

Not unless you go about redefining words and bastardizing the word "faith" into something meaningless. You come up with a hypothesis and you test it; you don't just write a pretty argument and assume it's true. And scientists are very much aware of the idea of provisional truths and changing paradigms. No one thinks they've got it all figured out; it's all just working models that approximate reality reasonably well, all subject to replacement by something new or modification by some novel, unexplainable aspect of nature.

 

This is not, in any way, comparable to faith. IMO you weaken the idea of faith by trying to tie it to a methodology like science. Faith isn't about hypothesis testing.

 

edit:

This is not "faith", nor does it go back to creationism at the end of it all.

Edited July 10, 201015 yr by StrangeSox

Not unless you go about redefining words and bastardizing the word "faith" into something meaningless. You come up with a hypothesis and you test it; you don't just write a pretty argument and assume it's true. And scientists are very much aware of the idea of provisional truths and changing paradigms. No one thinks they've got it all figured out; it's all just working models that approximate reality reasonably well, all subject to replacement by something new or modification by some novel, unexplainable aspect of nature.

 

This is not, in any way, comparable to faith. IMO you weaken the idea of faith by trying to tie it to a methodology like science. Faith isn't about hypothesis testing.

 

Very well said.