Religion, Evolution, and stupid Republicans

There is irrefutable evidence that genetic change over time occurs.
Click to expand...
You cannot have both irrefutable evidence and lack of 100% proof. Creationists could argue any number of notions for why the bones are there.

It is occuring right now. If you have ever had influenza you have been the 'beneficiary' of the process.
Click to expand...
Creationism doesn't depend on what's happening now.
 
So you accept that evolution is happening now, but deny it occured in the past? Do I understand your position correctly?
 
You cannot have both irrefutable evidence and lack of 100% proof.
Click to expand...

Strangely enough you can. There are all sorts of ideas that can't be refuted that lack "100% proof".......E=MC^2.......stuff like that. Evidence and 100% proof aren't quite the same thing even though they can be almost the same thing.

There is no reason to think that genetic change over time didn't occur 1000's of years ago and there is good reason to think that it did.
 
A brief PS

Creationists could argue any number of notions for why the bones are there.
Click to expand...

The evololutionary arguments have the most and the best evidence to support them. The creationist arguments are very weak and many of them are full of lies. "They are the bones of extinct species that died during the flood" is an example.

"Teaching evolution in schools is why we're behind so many countries in tests of knowledge" is another example of lies told in the name of creatonism.
 
So you accept that evolution is happening now, but deny it occured in the past? Do I understand your position correctly?
Click to expand...
Ophiolite, no, that's not what I believe but what creationists might say.

Strangely enough you can. There are all sorts of ideas that can't be refuted that lack "100% proof".......E=MC^2.......stuff like that. Evidence and 100% proof aren't quite the same thing even though they can be almost the same thing.
Click to expand...
Throckmorton, no, for human beings it's possible that some idea cannot be refuted because of lack of information. But that's different from irrefutable, which, acording to webster, means imposible to refute. Just because I cannot refute something, doesn't mean it's impossible for everyone.
 
Ohh well. Depressing, wouldn't you say? No teaching anything of reason. Just indoctrinate all of us teenagers with whatever religious paranoia is going on at the time, I mean, surely we'll ignore it and be good leaders of society anyways!
 
As I was saying. I mean, teenagers already know how to be reasonable, they'll know to avoid religious paranoia. Sarcasm off. I cannot believe it. You can't teach teenagers whatever religion deems appropriate(especially the ones I see every single day), because they will believe it if you tell them enough times. It is the reasonable few that have kept religion from controlling everything, and republicans/conservatives against teaching evolution are doing a good job of wiping out the next batch of the reasonable few. The seperation of church and state is what is supposed to prevent this from happening. Yet, we are teaching religion by not teaching evolution(either that, or you avoid the entire subject and leave it to the parents:)). What will we think of next? The seperation of reason and state? The seperation of science and state?
 
imposible to refute
Click to expand...

E=MC^2 for all practicle purposes is impossible to refute as there is a whole lot of solid evidence that shows that it occurs and no good evidence that it doesn't occur.

That doesn't mean that all the predictions of E=MC^2 can be "proven 100%".

"Irrefutable" in the way I was using it means "impossible to refute with scientific evidence" by the way.

This stuff is somewhat difficult to get across. We're discussing small but important points here aren't we?
 
Last edited:
I mean 9/10th of anyones policies.

We may have a seperation between religion and reason, but it is the reason being seperated from the religion, and religion is given free reign. They are seperated, but it appears that the religious half of the seperation is the half that's winning over the schools.
 
it appears that the religious half of the seperation is the half that's winning over the schools.
Click to expand...

In too many cases that is true. I attribute it to a minority of Christians with a strong desire to cram their religion down the throats of others. Unfortunately there are many in the media who are behind this nonsense who have their propaganda machines running at full tilt.....I'm talking about Limbaugh, Hannity, and other right wing media liars.

These right wing media morons have convinced many that anything short of religious indoctrination in schools amounts to Christian persecution.
 
everything results in christian persecution. You should know that. I haven't listened to Limbaugh since forever ago. Maybe I should try again, see how much he pisses me off. O'Reilly is(was anyways) better than those two, but not great.

What about Savage? Savage is very low on the list too. ack.
 
Okinrus, what is your opinion on the Genesis of life on earth in relation to evolution?
Click to expand...
Southstar, the early chapters of Genesis, I believe, are composed of a number of early stories, some of which predate Abraham. Not every portion of Genesis happended in as a literal fashion, but somehow or other there's a one-to-one correspondence between the figuative events in Genesis and the real world, I believe.

"Irrefutable" in the way I was using it means "impossible to refute with scientific evidence" by the way.
Click to expand...
Throckmorton, you said, however, that evolution was impossible to refute. But so is creationism. Who knows? Maybe carbon's half-life over millions of years is different from it's observed half-life. Maybe the Devil really did plant bones and other evidence to create the illusion of evolution. In any case, evolution, while from a scientific perspective is likely irrefutable, is not necessarily irrefutable from all perspectives. After all, if someone accepts the Bible as literally true, and accepts it as a premise, then whatever the scientific evidence says, they will still believe evolution is disproved by the Bible.

In too many cases that is true. I attribute it to a minority of Christians with a strong desire to cram their religion down the throats of others. Unfortunately there are many in the media who are behind this nonsense who have their propaganda machines running at full tilt.....I'm talking about Limbaugh, Hannity, and other right wing media liars.
Click to expand...
I occasionally listen to Limbaugh and Hannity. I rarely hear them talk about evolution or creationism. Overall, though, I'd approach the issue on terms of whether the student's religious rights have been violated.
 
Religious rights? WE ARE STUDENTS(we have rights?)!! Also. Religious rights? It violates our rights to teach us evolution? It violates our rights to teach us FACT over FICTION? The question of schools isn't about our rights being violated, it's about whether they teach us the truth or not. It may violate someones religious right for them to teach that you don't get sent to jail(in social studies/law class)for having sex before you get married. It's not about rights, it's about facts. You can't bend reason/nature/logic to fit the dominant religious views.
 
Garry Denke said:
Greetings Ophiolite,

What would you like to communicate about?

YHWH
Click to expand...
It was an appeal that you include discernible meaning in your posts, as you have on this occasion. All your earlier posts made no sense at all to me. I am assuming that you are posting in order to inform or entertain. Your earlier posts, in my view, failed to do either (or much of anything.) I would be interested in knowing what you were trying to say so that I can agree, or disagree, or be informed, or entertained.
 
Savage is very low on the list too. ack.
Click to expand...

I don't listen to him much. I heard him screaming over and over that "THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AL QAEDA AND THE ACLU" on one show. The guy is extremely stupid.
 
But so is creationism.
Click to expand...

Many of the tenents of creationism are extremely easy to refute. There isn't any evidence that the earth is 6,000 years old or that there was a global flood the covered "all the high mountains of the earth".

while from a scientific perspective is likely irrefutable, is not necessarily irrefutable from all perspectives.
Click to expand...

In a science class these "other perspectives" have no relevance.

they will still believe evolution is disproved by the Bible.
Click to expand...

A fair amount of stupidity is required in order to assume that the Bible is a source of scientific evidence.

I'd approach the issue on terms of whether the student's religious rights have been violated.
Click to expand...

I approach the issue in terms of one's choice of religion being no business of the government's. Religious indoctrination shouldn't on the curiculuum in public schools as it's not the government's business.
 
He was talking about how everyone has religion once. What was he saying... Ohh yeah. He said-All primitive nations have a religion. People in(insert phillipine island name)are very indigenous, and although they let the children "play"(he intended you to draw the assumptions. He may have said it clearer, I cannot remmeber)with each other, but the adults would never think of touching the children.

GREAT! Let's base our morals on some indigenous tribe living on some island or another! Sounds brilliant. Maybe we could even draft a new gov. after them!

Yes, God was used to explain morals in ancient times, but the Greeks changed that. They did not have a heaven or hell, just a place you winded up when you died, lasted forever, not particularly exciting. therefore, they realized they must do stuff while they were living(a rather short period of time back then), so they set up morals based upon man making the most out of his life. No Gods helping. And, after a thousand+ years of there fall, religion ruled EVERYTHING, and see where it got them(I am reffering to the dark/middle ages). Then, we ahd a couple of awakenings, revolutions, and we set up an American gov. Without God. Now, we're putting Him back in. Look what happened the last time people put Gods as the establishers of morals.

Okay, I realize that was all rather pointless to the thread, but I posted it anyways. Just wanted to rant and bash Savage at the same time. His talk show has a very creative name. The savage nation. Whoa, the creativity. It aptly describes the way he depicts our nation though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top