Here Is What Louisiana Schoolchildren Learn About Evolution

[Lonbjerg]

Now it's your turn to explain to me how I was babbling when I offered to do research to answer ichy's question.

You did see how he ran from an answer before I got a chance to give him one, but I don't expect you to come to my defense on that one.

Did you come with an answer yet?
No?
Did you post babble about "context"...but gave none (and no context justifies racism!)?
Yes.


How stupid are you?
I mean we know you are stupid(religious)...but just how stupid are you?

 

[Ausm]

Oh, I have noticed the trend of rising atheists numbers...especially amongst younger people.
So now it will be only...what...2-3 generations before you are ready for politician who are ateists 😉

But sadly the most of the religious FUD trying to infect science and politics...still comes from the US.

You need to MULTIPLY faster ;p

W0RD!

 

[MovingTarget]

Lonbjerg there is no way to get though to them, they use faith in place of reason and have a predetermined goal. This is easy to see, just look at the arguments they keep on asking where something comes from, if you tell them they just ask where the new thing came from. While they do this they also say their god doesn't have to be created.

All this while having almost no understanding of the physics of this universe, and the very strange things that go on in it. If they really wanted answers to these questions they would go study physics and try and understand quantum physics.

This is simply not true overall. Many Christians do not conflate science and theology. Many are scientists, mathematicians, engineers, astronomers, chemists, etc. You confuse the theological mouth-breathers with those of us who have a better understanding of both. Take the irreducability argument already present in this thread or the evolutionary "missing link" argument. Those that do not understand science and theology simply assert that God is what exists within the current blanks of our knowledge. Saying that God is in between the atoms (or whatever other subdivision of matter/energy/space/time/etc ) is no better than saying God makes thunder and lightening to scare bad-behaving little children. That is bad theology AND bad science.

Please stop lumping religious people in with science-deniers.

 

[shira]

This is simply not true overall. Many Christians do not conflate science and theology. Many are scientists, mathematicians, engineers, astronomers, chemists, etc. You confuse the theological mouth-breathers with those of us who have a better understanding of both. Take the irreducability argument already present in this thread or the evolutionary "missing link" argument. Those that do not understand science and theology simply assert that God is what exists within the current blanks of our knowledge. Saying that God is in between the atoms (or whatever other subdivision of matter/energy/space/time/etc ) is no better than saying God makes thunder and lightening to scare bad-behaving little children. That is bad theology AND bad science.

Please stop lumping religious people in with science-deniers.

Unfortunately, there's a very large subset of fundamentalist Christians who are science deniers, and they play a prominent role in our society. And even among less extreme believers there's a some degree of science denial.

Of course, it's not religion that's the real problem. Humans create religion, and religions are a reflection of the human mind.

 

[Retro Rob]

Did you come with an answer yet?
No?
Did you post babble about "context"...but gave none (and no context justifies racism!)?
Yes.


How stupid are you?
I mean we know you are stupid(religious)...but just how stupid are you?

Guess that answer it.

Lol

 

[OutHouse]

Unfortunately, there's a very large subset of fundamentalist Christians who are science deniers, and they play a prominent role in our society. And even among less extreme believers there's a some degree of science denial.

Of course, it's not religion that's the real problem. Humans create religion, and religions are a reflection of the human mind.

i dont think so. i think you are just hearing the loudest segment of the christian faith.

 

[Lonbjerg]

This is simply not true overall. Many Christians do not conflate science and theology. Many are scientists, mathematicians, engineers, astronomers, chemists, etc. You confuse the theological mouth-breathers with those of us who have a better understanding of both. Take the irreducability argument already present in this thread or the evolutionary "missing link" argument. Those that do not understand science and theology simply assert that God is what exists within the current blanks of our knowledge. Saying that God is in between the atoms (or whatever other subdivision of matter/energy/space/time/etc ) is no better than saying God makes thunder and lightening to scare bad-behaving little children. That is bad theology AND bad science.

Please stop lumping religious people in with science-deniers.

A nice little fact:
The "greater" the sciencetist....the lesser the religion.
Stuides show this...beyond any doubt.

The better you know the world...and it's mechanics...the less religious you get.

That is a fact....like it or not.

 

[Retro Rob]

A nice little fact:
The "greater" the sciencetist....the lesser the religion.
Stuides show this...beyond any doubt.

The better you know the world...and it's mechanics...the less religious you get.

That is a fact....like it or not.

Actually, I support this is as being a good thing.

 

[randomrogue]

A nice little fact:
The "greater" the sciencetist....the lesser the religion.
Stuides show this...beyond any doubt.

The better you know the world...and it's mechanics...the less religious you get.

That is a fact....like it or not.

Links please

 

[shira]

i dont think so. i think you are just hearing the loudest segment of the christian faith.

If science denial is such a fringe element of Christianity, then explain how there was a sufficient number of legislators in Louisiana to pass a law allowing curricula such as that shown in the OP?

 

[Atreus21]

The problem is there is no evidence that there is a before the universe in which this infinite and eternal god can act.

No, there is no evidence. But it is still a logical conclusion. If something needs a causer to be caused, that logically points to something which set everything in motion from the start which itself cannot have been caused, which means it existed eternally and always. That, to me, logically points to something outside of time.

Of course the question you pose can be answered by saying that it did not come from anywhere and just is but without evidence to support that statement, and I doubt there ever will be evidence to support it, it is just the same as saying that god did it. The thing is when there is no evidence at all to say what actually did happen it is best to go with the most simple theory that explains what is observed.

I agree entirely. But by asking people to adhere to the most simple theory which explains merely what is observed, we are amputating that thought process which yearns to understand what is unobserved, to ultimately derive any meaning to our lives at all.

We observe the universe exists and we observe that it is expanding. We trace that back to a single point in space but that is about as far as we can go. I propose that the universe just is, it was not created in any way and it simply exists because we observe it to exist. (I do not like that as written as it breaks causality. What I mean to say is that the universe just exists and there is no reason as to why.)

It is about as far as science can go, granted. But there's nothing wrong with trying to apply logic to what might lie beyond.

Chesterton talked about this a little in Orthodoxy. We observe the sun coming up every morning and assume it will come up every morning, but we don't really know why. We know by observation the mechanics involved in the earth revolving the sun which makes the sun appear to rise, but we can't begin to explain the precise nature and origin of these laws of physics.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Sure, replace "god" with "cupcakes" and see how much further ahead you are 🙂

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I think he's saying that someone had to put those things together to make a usable product (car in this case).

You can have all the ingredients you want. Someone has to put it together to make a usable product.

Yes, and we find that those are quite distinct from things like oceans, mountains, and comets in that regard.

 

[Retro Rob]

If science denial is such a fringe element of Christianity, then explain how there was a sufficient number of legislators in Louisiana to pass a law allowing curricula such as that shown in the OP?

Whoa a sec....

Are you guys actually saying that people who support creation and not evolution are "science deniers"?

How's that seeing how broad a term "science" is?

 

[Atreus21]

A nice little fact:
The "greater" the sciencetist....the lesser the religion.
Stuides show this...beyond any doubt.

The better you know the world...and it's mechanics...the less religious you get.

That is a fact....like it or not.

Oh please.

 

[Matt1970]

There is not a shred of evidence to support religion. That's the bottom line. Period.

Each and every one of us is free to have faith in religion, mythology, and magic but that does not mean it can be presented as any kind of truth.

Stop mixing religion and science.

Actually there is some. There were a lot of people that supposedly witnessed a lot of the same thing and wrote about it. Many of them were from different religions. I certainly am not going to advocate the Bible as all factual but there is some credence to it.

One thing I have said many times I think holds true is Evolution does not disprove the existence of God and the existence God does not disprove Evolution. It is pretty apparent that the universe was not created in 7 days as described in the bible but there are a lot of pieces to the puzzle we have not discovered yet. We know more about the moon that we do about what is on the bottom of our oceans, we can only guess as to how life was started, and we have yet to send a manned vessel beyond the Earth’s own gravity.

I will also say this to the people who think the earth is only 6000 years old, go look at the Grand Canyon. You really think that was carved out in 6000 years?

 

[Matt1970]

A nice little fact:
The "greater" the sciencetist....the lesser the religion.
Stuides show this...beyond any doubt.

The better you know the world...and it's mechanics...the less religious you get.

That is a fact....like it or not.

Tell that to Stephen Hawking when he referred to knowing God's mind. I know he recanted after stirring up a hornets’ nest but he put it out there. Tell that to the Doctors who witness what they refer to as miracles on a daily basis.

 

[ichy]

Are you guys actually saying that people who support creation and not evolution are "science deniers"?

Yes. You cannot take creationism seriously and call yourself a believer in science.

 

[ichy]

We know by observation the mechanics involved in the earth revolving the sun which makes the sun appear to rise, but we can't begin to explain the precise nature and origin of these laws of physics.

You are correct. Religion also can't begin to offer a correct explanation though.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

No, there is no evidence. But it is still a logical conclusion.

Logic doesn't deal with reality. It is a mistake to think you can determine facts about reality from a priori reasoning.

If something needs a causer to be caused, that logically points to something which set everything in motion from the start which itself cannot have been caused, which means it existed eternally and always. That, to me, logically points to something outside of time.

Obviously you've gotten ahead of yourself. You haven't demonstrated the truth of your premise yet, so we can dismiss your attempted conclusion.

I agree entirely. But by asking people to adhere to the most simple theory which explains merely what is observed, we are amputating that thought process which yearns to understand what is unobserved, to ultimately derive any meaning to our lives at all.

Suit yourself, but I'd rather have fewer reliably true beliefs than a bunch of beliefs based on speculation, nonsense and outright falsehoods.

It is about as far as science can go, granted. But there's nothing wrong with trying to apply logic to what might lie beyond.

Except for the fact that logic has nothing to do with reality.

Chesterton talked about this a little in Orthodoxy. We observe the sun coming up every morning and assume it will come up every morning, but we don't really know why. We know by observation the mechanics involved in the earth revolving the sun which makes the sun appear to rise, but we can't begin to explain the precise nature and origin of these laws of physics.

What origin? Why should we believe that there is an origin?

 

[ichy]

Tell that to the Doctors who witness what they refer to as miracles on a daily basis.

Please don't tell us that you expect us to take that horseshit seriously. Most doctors roll their eyes at the mention of the term "miracle."

Edit: A good article on how stupid the whole notion of miracles is: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertai...ig-lie-of-flight-miracles-land-planes/264381/

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Whoa a sec....

Are you guys actually saying that people who support creation and not evolution are "science deniers"?

Yes, wholeheartedly.

How's that seeing how broad a term "science" is?

It isn't. Science is a very particular method, actually -- one which is not utilized by creationists.

It appears you simply do not know what science is.

 

[MovingTarget]

A nice little fact:
The "greater" the sciencetist....the lesser the religion.
Stuides show this...beyond any doubt.

The better you know the world...and it's mechanics...the less religious you get.

That is a fact....like it or not.

Correllation does not necessarily imply causation. I myself am a mathematician, yet, also a Catholic. I have yet to see in my colleagues even one person that has turned against their faith due to their studies in the sciences. Yet, a plurality are atheist. As I spoke to them about this, they have told me that they were either not raised as a believer, or had their "deconversion" much earlier in life. Merely stating this "fact" does not make your conclusion true.

If you look at the historical context, your argument falls apart. Many famous scientists, philosophers, etc. were religious....even drawing inspiration from their faith and resources from their church to pursue their studies of creation as a whole. I suspect (but do not have the hard data to prove) that the majority of groundbreaking scientists have historically been religious in one way or another. But then again, as many theologians have not studied the sciences in too great a detail, most scientists have not had extensive dealings with theology either.

 

[Timorous]

No, there is no evidence. But it is still a logical conclusion. If something needs a causer to be caused, that logically points to something which set everything in motion from the start which itself cannot have been caused, which means it existed eternally and always. That, to me, logically points to something outside of time.

Why does the universe needs a causer? Why must their be a first cause? We cannot answer those questions. Anything outside of the universe, if such a thing can even exist, is complete unknowable.

I agree entirely. But by asking people to adhere to the most simple theory which explains merely what is observed, we are amputating that thought process which yearns to understand what is unobserved, to ultimately derive any meaning to our lives at all.

Well we are not amputating it because we always want to find new observations so we can hone an idea into an hypothesis, which we can then test by making predictions and if we can use that hypothesis to make predictions which come true we eventually get a body of evidence great enough to make a theory.

It is about as far as science can go, granted. But there's nothing wrong with trying to apply logic to what might lie beyond.

Chesterton talked about this a little in Orthodoxy. We observe the sun coming up every morning and assume it will come up every morning, but we don't really know why. We know by observation the mechanics involved in the earth revolving the sun which makes the sun appear to rise, but we can't begin to explain the precise nature and origin of these laws of physics.

You cannot apply logic to anything that exists outside of time because for logic to function cause and effect must be true.

 

[Paul98]

This is simply not true overall. Many Christians do not conflate science and theology. Many are scientists, mathematicians, engineers, astronomers, chemists, etc. You confuse the theological mouth-breathers with those of us who have a better understanding of both. Take the irreducability argument already present in this thread or the evolutionary "missing link" argument. Those that do not understand science and theology simply assert that God is what exists within the current blanks of our knowledge. Saying that God is in between the atoms (or whatever other subdivision of matter/energy/space/time/etc ) is no better than saying God makes thunder and lightening to scare bad-behaving little children. That is bad theology AND bad science.

Please stop lumping religious people in with science-deniers.

I have no problem with people who don't substitute their faith for reality. I was specifically talking about the people in this thread who he was arguing with.