Conservatives, why do you vote against intelligence in party leaders?

[ProfJohn]

Creationism should not be taught in schools. It is a faith based issue. Evolution is science based thus should be taught in schools. Just as i would not expect to see evolution taught in churches, nor should it be.

There is a question about whether creationism is actually being taught in Texas schools since the court ruled it could not due to separation of church and state.

It can be taught in social studies as comparative religion, but not in science class.

 

[Craig234]

Just as i would not expect to see evolution taught in churches, nor should it be.

Actually, there is nothing wrong with that.

Churches can talk about gravity, too.

 

[ProfJohn]

Mom using son as a prop is a legitimate criticism of the mom, but doesn't change anything about what Perry said. He's expressing doubt about a generally accepted scientific theory using the cliched "it's just a theory" creationist line, and by the easily debunked notion that "gaps" may disprove the theory.

The major problem I have with this sort of thing is when science is disregarded or maligned to support someone's religious or political agenda. I don't want a POTUS who accepts or rejects what the scientific community is saying according to an agenda that has nothing to do with science. We can't just pick and choose the science we like. It doesn't work that way.

- wolf

It IS called the "theory of evolution" right?

And Perry said "it is a theory" not "it's just a theory"

From what I have found so far Perry believe in "intelligent design" which is to say that he believes that god is behind everything.

Not sure that he has completely ruled out evolution, at least I haven't found proof of it yet. Would like to hear a straight forward answer from him on that question.

BTW I think people make too much out of this. The origin of life is a very faith based question any religious people aren't going to allow evolution to trump their belief that life was created by god thus they use intelligent design to say that god did create life (at least in the beginning) but after that who knows what happened.

 

[First]

Intelligent people have moved past this argument that evolution nullifies the idea of a creator and a creator nullifies the idea of evolution.

Some people have a tendency to want to generalize and polarize arguments, this thread being evidence of that.

Why does evolution have to preclude a creator though and vice versa? Dawkins shows as much blind faith in his beliefs as any religious nut i've ever seen. In the meantime, let's just teach science class properly , expose kids to evolution, and teach history properly, which exposes kids to religion, and stop trying to censor information on either part of human history.

Because there's no evidence for a creator. None. To claim it doesn't preclude is pure asshatery and irrelevant, since the overwhelming likelihood is that no such "creator" exists, at least in the sense that there is a magical God. Perhaps aliens seeded the original life on this planet, that could be considered a "creator". More than likely, it was the simple chemistry of water and/or the physics of gravity that brought life to earth from space.

A true conservative on this topic. Not these crap-ass politicians that like to drown us in meaningless minutia and keep our eyes off the corruption.

More confirmation that Ron Paul is a ideologically rigid tool.

 

[First]

It IS called the "theory of evolution" right?

And Perry said "it is a theory" not "it's just a theory"

From what I have found so far Perry believe in "intelligent design" which is to say that he believes that god is behind everything.

Not sure that he has completely ruled out evolution, at least I haven't found proof of it yet. Would like to hear a straight forward answer from him on that question.

BTW I think people make too much out of this. The origin of life is a very faith based question any religious people aren't going to allow evolution to trump their belief that life was created by god thus they use intelligent design to say that god did create life (at least in the beginning) but after that who knows what happened.

Perry doesn't know the scientific definition of theory, it's not the same as the English dictionary definition. They're entirely different: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

"In modern contexts, while theories in the arts and philosophy may address ideas and empirical phenomena which are not easily measurable, in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. "

 

[Atreus21]

Because there's no evidence for a creator. None.

To claim that the entire universe is the result of no creator requires greater faith than most theists have.

 

[soulcougher73]

Actually, there is nothing wrong with that.

Churches can talk about gravity, too.

Im sure they could but it would be doing a huge diservice to what they are trying to accomplish. Im not saying they cant do it, but i highly doubt they would. Creationism isnt a school subject. It is a religious faith based subject to be discussed in its appropriate place..aka church.

The day athiest demand evolution must be taught in church is the day ill have an issue with it as well.

 

[ProfJohn]

Because there's no evidence for a creator. None. To claim it doesn't preclude is pure asshatery and irrelevant, since the overwhelming likelihood is that no such "creator" exists, at least in the sense that there is a magical God.

Talk about a stretch...

Evolution explains how life went from a bunch of chemicals in a pond to humans.

It does not explain how those chemicals got there or who created the pond or the planet or the universe.

 

[ProfJohn]

BTW

Texas does NOT teach creationism in class.

David Bradley, a conservative member of the Texas Board of Education, told the Tribune that nothing prevents a teacher from talking about creationism but "it is not specifically in the Texas curriculum."

Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, is quoted in the same story as saying, "Texas science standards do not call for teaching creationism in the classroom."

 

[soulcougher73]

To claim that the entire universe is the result of no creator requires greater faith than most theists have.

May i ask who created your creater that you believe in?

 

[First]

To claim that the entire universe is the result of no creator requires greater faith than most theists have.

No actually, it requires a lot less. The Big Bang isn't particularly controversial in academic circles. We know exactly how the universe was created up to the micro-second. We don't know quite what happened before that micro-second. If there were a creator, why does he keep himself clouded in secret? lol.

 

[First]

Talk about a stretch...

Evolution explains how life went from a bunch of chemicals in a pond to humans.

It does not explain how those chemicals got there or who created the pond or the planet or the universe.

I never said evolution did, troll.

 

[Craig234]

Im sure they could but it would be doing a huge diservice to what they are trying to accomplish.

I disagree.

Most religions will support, for example, their members getting vaccinations; a few fringe ones don't.

The day athiest demand evolution must be taught in church is the day ill have an issue with it as well.

Of course that I agree with.

 

[momeNt]

Because there's no evidence for a creator. None. To claim it doesn't preclude is pure asshatery and irrelevant, since the overwhelming likelihood is that no such "creator" exists, at least in the sense that there is a magical God. Perhaps aliens seeded the original life on this planet, that could be considered a "creator". More than likely, it was the simple chemistry of water and/or the physics of gravity that brought life to earth from space.



More confirmation that Ron Paul is a ideologically rigid tool.

You're ridiculous. You're belief that there is no creator without the lack of proof is just as blind as those who believe there is a creator that also lack proof. How can you not see this?

You brought up aliens so lets consider that for a second, do you not believe in aliens because you haven't seen one, or do you believe in them because the universe is too large for it to be just us? Neither have been proven but yet you would feel more comfortable on the discussion of aliens to simply say "I don't know" than you would when discussing a creator? Why?

You seem like just a troll but you may not be so I am dignifying your post with a response, but in the future I'm not so sure there is a point.

 

[AbAbber2k]

You're ridiculous. You're belief that there is no creator without the lack of proof is just as blind as those who believe there is a creator that also lack proof. How can you not see this?

You brought up aliens so lets consider that for a second, do you not believe in aliens because you haven't seen one, or do you believe in them because the universe is too large for it to be just us? Neither have been proven but yet you would feel more comfortable on the discussion of aliens to simply say "I don't know" than you would when discussing a creator? Why?

You seem like just a troll but you may not be so I am dignifying your post with a response, but in the future I'm not so sure there is a point.

To be fair, our genesis here on earth is more evidence in the possibility of aliens in other parts of the universe than it is for a divine creator.

We know there are factors conducive to the creation of life. We know those factors exist in other places. We have found places where perhaps more than one such factor exists. Eventually we will find a place where all necessary factors come together, and, should we visit said place, would most likely discover life in some form. There is also the notion that life could potentially exist in significantly different forms than our own (non-carbon based), but that might be more of a stretch.

 

[First]

You're ridiculous. You're belief that there is no creator without the lack of proof is just as blind as those who believe there is a creator that also lack proof. How can you not see this?

There is plenty of proof there is no creator, in that the building blocks for life are very well understood, the accident of our existence, the fact we know how the universe was originally created up to the millisecond, etc. All far more convincing evidence of no creator than the entirely faith-based assertion that a creator exists. None of this particularly difficult to understand.

You brought up aliens so lets consider that for a second, do you not believe in aliens because you haven't seen one, or do you believe in them because the universe is too large for it to be just us? Neither have been proven but yet you would feel more comfortable on the discussion of aliens to simply say "I don't know" than you would when discussing a creator? Why?

Except, again, there is no evidence for a creator, none. We know life exists in the universe outside of earth and that the vastness of the universe makes it considerably likely there is life somewhere else in the universe, so the notion of aliens isn't as far-fetched as, say, your spaghetti monster creator in the clouds deciding to create the universe from thin air and then of course failing to answer who created this God in the clouds. To say I don't know is all fine and dandy, it's just that there's a difference in the magnitudes of "I don't know". Most informed people will say the likelihood of a God having done it is, well, basically zero.

You seem like just a troll but you may not be so I am dignifying your post with a response, but in the future I'm not so sure there is a point.

Irony at its finest.

 

[momeNt]

There is plenty of proof there is no creator, in that the building blocks for life are very well understood, the accident of our existence, the fact we know how the universe was originally created up to the millisecond, etc. All far more convincing evidence of no creator than the entirely faith-based assertion that a creator exists. None of this particularly difficult to understand.



Except, again, there is no evidence for a creator, none. We know life exists in the universe outside of earth and that the vastness of the universe makes it considerably likely there is life somewhere else in the universe, so the notion of aliens isn't as far-fetched as, say, your spaghetti monster creator in the clouds deciding to create the universe from thin air and then of course failing to answer who created this God in the clouds. To say I don't know is all fine and dandy, it's just that there's a difference in the magnitudes of "I don't know", and most informed people will say they don't know for sure but that the likelihood of a God having done it is, well, basically zero.



Irony at its finest.

But a mathematician would tell you that basically zero isn't zero wouldn't he? So I just showed you how blind your acceptance is to unproven ideas.

 

[soulcougher73]

You're ridiculous. You're belief that there is no creator without the lack of proof is just as blind as those who believe there is a creator that also lack proof. How can you not see this?

The burdon of proof lies upon the ones who claim something exists. It does not lie with the person who does not believe it. How can you not see this?

Why the fuck anyone would 100% believe in something without proof is beyond me. That is what is great about scientific theories. Is you can believe in one but you still cant be 100% sure its correct. It is just the one that makes the most logical scientific sense with the information presented before you. And you can always change your theory as more knowledge is learned and gathered.

 

[ProfJohn]

No actually, it requires a lot less. The Big Bang isn't particularly controversial in academic circles. We know exactly how the universe was created up to the micro-second. We don't know quite what happened before that micro-second.

Could it be that unknown micro-second is when god created the universe?

If there were a creator, why does he keep himself clouded in secret? lol.

You are going to have to do better than that.

Here are the FACTS:
You can NOT disprove the existence of god. By definition and concept is is something that you can not do.

However, god could prove his existence by showing up on FOX news and turning water into wine etc etc.

At the end of the day it is about faith. Either you believe in god or you do not, but either way you can't prove that you are 100% right or wrong in your decision. That is why it is called faith.

 

[First]

But a mathematician would tell you that basically zero isn't zero wouldn't he? So I just showed you how blind your acceptance is to unproven ideas.

If you want to wimp out of the discussion just say so. Your half-baked math proof analogy doesn't apply, neither situation is simple arithmetic.

 

[ProfJohn]

The burdon of proof lies upon the ones who claim something exists. It does not lie with the person who does not believe it. How can you not see this?

As I just said, you can not disprove god.

Just like you can not prove that aliens do NOT exist.


It is a mater of faith. Either you believe or you don't. There is no need for proof.

 

[brandonb]

I am catholic and I believe in evolution.

On the other hand, I believe God created the universe, and created our physical laws, and conscience.

 

[First]

Could it be that unknown micro-second is when god created the universe?

It could be that a Volkswagon Beetle on meth created the universe too, we just don't know before the microsecond. Of course, we know everything else up to the ms, and we certainly know there is zero evidence of a creator after that ms, so to make the very reasonable "leap" that a creator probably doesn't exist isn't particularly controversial. We're simply dealing in probabilities and deductive logic.

You are going to have to do better than that.

Here are the FACTS:
You can NOT disprove the existence of god. By definition and concept is is something that you can not do.

It's an irrelevant point. No one can disprove the existence of spaghetti monsters in the sky either. Come on, this is grade school logic.

However, god could prove his existence by showing up on FOX news and turning water into wine etc etc.

At the end of the day it is about faith. Either you believe in god or you do not, but either way you can't prove that you are 100% right or wrong in your decision. That is why it is called faith.

I never said 100%. What I said, and will further clarify since you're woefully confused, troll, is that it's overwhelmingly likely He does not exist in reality (He certainly exists in the minds of believers though) and that the notion of the creator has zero evidence while the notion of no creator has quite a bit of good (I suppose "circumstantial") evidence like Big Bang, inflation, evolution, et al.

 

[Throckmorton]

A true conservative on this topic. Not these crap-ass politicians that like to drown us in meaningless minutia and keep our eyes off the corruption.

And he's a doctor. What does that tell you about the medical establishment in this country?

 

[First]

As I just said, you can not disprove god.

Just like you can not prove that aliens do NOT exist.


It is a mater of faith. Either you believe or you don't. There is no need for proof.

You are right there is no need for proof of God when the context is faith/religion. When the context is the origins of the universe as studied through scientific methods, the notion of a deity-type creator gets thrown right out the window for lack of any verifiable data.