How are people like this getting elected?

[Cerpin Taxt]

I would hope I'm not very convincing about genetic copying errors and selection building cells from nothing since I don't believe that it can do it.

Who do you think believes in "genetic copying errors and selection building cells from nothing"? I don't believe it, and it is not what the theory of evolution describes.

Not that anyone takes you seriously in the first place, but if you want to hold any hope of being taken seriously you should at least make an effort to understand what the theory you dogmatically oppose actually describes. Otherwise it's pretty obvious that you're lying when you claim you reject it for some deficiency of evidence.

Do you have anything meaningful to say or do you want to try and zing me endlessly?

Your garbage "arguments" are met with the scorn and derision they deserve. Only reasonable arguments merit reasonable responses.

 

[Retro Rob]

Arizona the New Flori-duh?

Arizona GOP taps creationist chemtrail truther to lead Senate education committee



http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/ari...l-truther-to-lead-senate-education-committee/

Sylvia Allen reminded me of GRACE!

As long as their personal beliefs don't interfere with their jobs, they can be elected.

If I recall, the first MRI machine was created by a YEC. Good example there.

Bigotry at its finest.

 

[buckshot24]

Would you like to buy a clue?

I see. Goodbye

 

[OutHouse]

How are people like this getting elected?

i ask myself the same question about Pelosi, Reid, and Feinstein

 

[realibrad]

As long as their personal beliefs don't interfere with their jobs, they can be elected.

If I recall, the first MRI machine was created by a YEC. Good example there.

Bigotry at its finest.

I think the problem is that religion acts as a hurdle to science far too often right now. Stem-cell research should be growing here in the US, but we cant because an egg is a life. Studying evolution in school is under attack because, "lies from the pit of hell".

The reason thinks like the MRI are invented by a religious person, is because most people are religious. It could very well be that we would have more progress if people were not religious, but that is not the world we live in.

 

[Retro Rob]

I think the problem is that religion acts as a hurdle to science far too often right now. Stem-cell research should be growing here in the US, but we cant because an egg is a life. Studying evolution in school is under attack because, "lies from the pit of hell".

Well, that's the opposite of what I said, then. When that happens, sure, the person(s) should not work in said field.

Still, what qualifies a person for a job is their experience and academic achievements...not whether or not a they believe the world is young.

The reason thinks like the MRI are invented by a religious person, is because most people are religious.

So what?

It could very well be that we would have more progress if people were not religious...

..or maybe not....

 

[OutHouse]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html

The studies of Neandertal mtDNA do not show that Neandertals did not or could not interbreed with modern humans. But the lack of diversity in Neandertal mtDNA sequences, combined with the large differences between Neandertal and modern human mtDNA, strongly suggests that Neandertals and modern humans developed separately,

i was taught through-out school that man most like are descendants of the neanderthal and that the neanderthals came from the apes. and that there are dedicated anthropologist out there scraping away layers of African dirt looking for the missing link to prove it.

well it seems that science has proven we do not come cave-men and the mystery of our ancestors has become more mysterious.

basically nobody know where the hell we come from.

 

[realibrad]

Well, that's the opposite of what I said, then. When that happens, sure, the person(s) should not work in said field.

Still, what qualifies a person for a job is their experience and academic achievements...not whether or not a they believe the world is young.

Agreed. If someone is the most qualified to do something, then I don't care. The point I am making is that you can teach someone to do something they do not believe is correct. I can teach someone how a cell works, but if they dont believe in biology, then they are not likely to grow their understanding.

So, back to stem cells, there are huge possibilities there, but we are having a hard time doing research on it, because of the religious who think its a type of murder. Sure, some research is being done, but not as much as could be done if the religious had not latched onto the issue. Scientists can be religious, but that belief can influence how they research.

So what?

That was to express the idea that the issue is not that religious people cannot invent, because they do, but the issue is that we are missing out on more invention.

..or maybe not....

But more likely maybe it would seem to me. I do not see a reason for a religious person to question the world which he believes is already understood. If you think a rainbow is made because god makes rainbows, then why would you research what a rainbow is?

 

[realibrad]

i was tought through out school that man most like are descendants of the neanderthal and that the neanderthals came from the apes. and that there are dedicated anthropologist out there scraping away layers of African dirt looking for the missing link to prove it.

well it seems that science has proven we do not come cave-men and the mystery of our ancestors has become more mysterious.

basically nobody know where the hell we come from.

You were not taught that neanderthals came from apes, because neanderthals are apes. Unless you are trying to say that humans are descendants of humanoids.

Also, there is no such thing as a missing link. We have many links. They are not trying to prove it, because its already been proven. I do hope you simply misunderstood your teachings, and you were not actually taught what you just said.

 

[Retro Rob]

Agreed. If someone is the most qualified to do something, then I don't care. The point I am making is that you can teach someone to do something they do not believe is correct.

Its a shame that people like Thebobo cannot see the bigotry in their own statements of that nature.

Suggesting someone isn't qualified to head education because of their personal beliefs is the exact same thing as saying you have to believe in God to be President.

So, back to stem cells, there are huge possibilities there, but we are having a hard time doing research on it, because of the religious who think its a type of murder. Sure, some research is being done, but not as much as could be done if the religious had not latched onto the issue. Scientists can be religious, but that belief can influence how they research

That's just something we have to deal with. Morality is woven into the fabric of American Laws and culture and life. You cannot reasonably expect people to throw them away for the sake of "advancing" science.

But more likely maybe it would seem to me. I do not see a reason for a religious person to question the world which he believes is already understood. If you think a rainbow is made because god makes rainbows, then why would you research what a rainbow is?

I cannot see how you equate somethings as complex and incomplete as "understanding the world" with understanding something as relatively simple as a rainbow.

Honestly, when people unquestionably and blindly follow science, this is the kind of stuff they say.

 

[realibrad]

Its a shame that people like Thebobo cannot see the bigotry in their own statements of that nature.

Suggesting someone isn't qualified to head education because of their personal beliefs is the exact same thing as saying you have to believe in God to be President.

Well, I understand why he says that. Someone who does not believe in say the holocaust is vastly more likely to misrepresent the history of it if they were to teach it. I would much rather a non holocaust denier to teach kids than a holocaust denier. This is where I think his point is, and there is more to things than my analogy, but I think I understand his worry.

That's just something we have to deal with. Morality is woven into the fabric of American Laws and culture and life. You cannot reasonably expect people to throw them away for the sake of "advancing" science.

That is the problem though. You see it as an issue with morality, but the same argument was made for not letting gays get married. Its the church(s) that have framed the issue as murder, and you cannot use science and logic to explain why its not at that point. Religions have said x is moral/immoral and that is the end of it.

I cannot see how you equate somethings as complex and incomplete as "understanding the world" with understanding something as relatively simple as a rainbow.

Because understanding the world starts with understanding the parts that make up the world. Its not about going from complete non-understanding to complete understanding. We gain knowledge incrementally. It may be learning about a rainbow today, and gravity tomorrow. In fact, understanding a rainbow is quite complex and really we dont fully understand a rainbow because we dont fully understand light. Its actually a great analogy.

Honestly, when people unquestionably and blindly follow science, this is the kind of stuff they say.

That is an oxymoron though. Science by its very nature says to never believe something blindly. You only believe something when there is evidence. If there is not evidence, you are supposed to question it. I find the the statement you made very confusing. It would be like saying "there is a problem when people only have faith when there is evidence".

 

[Retro Rob]

Well, I understand why he says that. Someone who does not believe in say the holocaust is vastly more likely to misrepresent the history of it if they were to teach it. I would much rather a non holocaust denier to teach kids than a holocaust denier. This is where I think his point is, and there is more to things than my analogy, but I think I understand his worry.

Losing an argument? Play the Nazi card...

 

[realibrad]

Losing an argument? Play the Nazi card...

Losing an argument? I'm trying to explain why he has his position.

If you want, I can give another example. I did not call anyone a Nazi, so I dont see why it would matter.

 

[Moonbeam]

Retro Rob: It's not fair to judge a person's professional actions by his personal beliefs. That is, stereotypes don't always apply.

realbrad: My experience tells me that a person's professional actions generally flow form his personal beliefs. That is, stereotypes usually apply.

M: Maybe we should profile, but with an open mind.

 

[Moonbeam]

Losing an argument? I'm trying to explain why he has his position.

If you want, I can give another example. I did not call anyone a Nazi, so I dont see why it would matter.

Maybe he was talking about his use of the Nazi card.

 

[Retro Rob]

Losing an argument? I'm trying to explain why he has his position.

If you want, I can give another example. I did not call anyone a Nazi, so I dont see why it would matter.

You're trying to explain why he's a bigot, but there is no explanation, so you compared believing the earth is young with denying the holocaust.

You can't explain his position no more than I can explain why one needs to believe in God to serve as President.

Its bigotry, plain and simple.

EDIT: Better still, you're comparing them to Holocaust denailism.

Still, its desperate.

 

[realibrad]

Maybe he was talking about his use of the Nazi card.

Why do you play with me so Moonie? You say some batshit crazy stuff, but you are sometimes damn logical.

 

[realibrad]

You're trying to explain why he's a bigot, but there is no explanation, so you compared believing the earth is young with denying the holocaust.

That's playing the Nazi card.

You can't explain his position no more than I can explain why one needs to believe in God to serve as President.

Its bigotry, plain and simple.

Yes, I did. Even Moonie understood it.

Your beliefs are going to influence you. When your beliefs are in direct opposition to the thing you are supposed to teach, then its logical to see that as a conflict of interest.

Also, I am not arguing, just trying to explain his probable position.

 

[Retro Rob]

Also, I am not arguing, just trying to explain his probable position.

You can't. One reason is that you cannot be denied employment because of your religious beliefs.

On another note, most scientists in history believed in God. Some believed that studying biology and the cosmos was the same as studying the "mind of God".

What hinders advancement is not following the methods of discovery, which does NOT include your personal beliefs.

 

[realibrad]

You can't. One reason is that you cannot be denied employment because of your religious beliefs.

There are federal laws against it, but many states and cities have laws that say that an atheist cannot be elected to positions.

Again, I am not saying you should not limit someone based on their belief, I am explaining his likely position and saying its not so illogical. You seem to be getting worked up about an assumption of my position.

On another note, most scientists in history believed in God. Some believed that studying biology and the cosmos was the same as studying the "mind of God".

Yes, but again, the issue is not that some might be driven by that. The vast majority are held back by it. Its the reason why Galileo got into so much trouble even though he was a devout Christian. If the majority of people think science should be held back because of religion, then it holds science back.

What hinders advancement is not following the methods of discovery, which does NOT include your personal beliefs.

That is not the only thing that can hold it back. If there is no desire to discover then there is no need for its method we call science. This goes back to, why learn about a rainbow if you already know all there is to know about it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Why do you play with me so Moonie? You say some batshit crazy stuff, but you are sometimes damn logical.

Because logic can carry you only so far. You are a gentle and kind and highly rational person, full of hope for the good. In other words, you are quite spiritual and motived by love but you don't see the source of that love or that it is everywhere and infinite.

Take a look at the sculpture of Rodin's The Thinker then look at one of the Buddha and see if you can feel the difference.

 

[buckshot24]

i was tought through out school that man most like are descendants of the neanderthal and that the neanderthals came from the apes. and that there are dedicated anthropologist out there scraping away layers of African dirt looking for the missing link to prove it.

well it seems that science has proven we do not come cave-men and the mystery of our ancestors has become more mysterious.

basically nobody know where the hell we come from.

Their fairytale is so full of holes yet that it happened is so obvious you're considered a nut case for not believing it.

 

[buckshot24]

As long as their personal beliefs don't interfere with their jobs, they can be elected.

If I recall, the first MRI machine was created by a YEC. Good example there.

Bigotry at its finest.

That hack Bill Nye said that if you don't believe in evolution you can't do real science. Well Bill, this guy has done way more than you ever have and he also refutes your assertions about needing to believe we evolved from bugs in order to accomplish innovation.

 

[Retro Rob]

There are federal laws against it, but many states and cities have laws that say that an atheist cannot be elected to positions.

I don't support any laws that discriminate.

Again, I am not saying you should not limit someone based on their belief, I am explaining his likely position and saying its not so illogical. You seem to be getting worked up about an assumption of my position.

I'm worked up over an illegal and bigoted position, and your shameless defending of it.

Yes, but again, the issue is not that some might be driven by that. The vast majority are held back by it. Its the reason why Galileo got into so much trouble even though he was a devout Christian. If the majority of people think science should be held back because of religion, then it holds science back.

No ones denying what happened back then, but Galileo proved that deeply religious people advance science.

You kind of helped my point by bringing this up.

That is not the only thing that can hold it back. If there is no desire to discover then there is no need for its method we call science. This goes back to, why learn about a rainbow if you already know all there is to know about it.

Ummm...what?

If you know all there is to know about something, there is no reason to study it for the purpose of "discovery" anymore.

All you'd be doing is getting better acquainted with the "known".

 

[Retro Rob]

That hack Bill Nye said that if you don't believe in evolution you can't do real science.

I saw that.

Anyone can do science, period. Ask Nye how scientists over the centuries did science before evolution was anywhere near at the level of acceptance that it is today, or before it even became known?

He'd probably say we're taking his statement out of context.