You have a lot to learn about US creationist politics. They know they'd be unlikely to get away with blatant religious exemptions. Instead, they make a superficially sane text that on closer reading leaves just enough room to cry foul when some kid is failed for quoting the bible in science class. It doesn't matter that the answer was wrong. You see, kid was "penalised" based on the "religious content" of the incorrect answer. It's insane, but it's how things work over there.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Belief vs Science
- Thread starter Wombat
- Start date
Let us not forget that many of the first European immigrants to what is now the US were religous whack jobs and we have had a fine and continuous tradition of religous whack jobs ever since.
If you want to know how scary these fuckers are google "Dominionists". This is a stripe that Mike Pence comes from. They are scary and evil. Our wise founders called for the separation of church and state (Establishment clause). These assholes want to make us a "Christian" country. Of course there is nothing even slightly Christian about them except that they have hijacked the name.
God Bless America.
Cheers.
Let us not forget that many of the first European immigrants to what is now the US were religous whack jobs and we have had a fine and continuous tradition of religous whack jobs ever since.
If you want to know how scary these fuckers are google "Dominionists". This is a stripe that Mike Pence comes from. They are scary and evil. Our wise founders called for the separation of church and state (Establishment clause). These assholes want to make us a "Christian" country. Of course there is nothing even slightly Christian about them except that they have hijacked the name.
Wow... I did not Google "Dominionists" but this post, and where this thread has gone, seems a good example of why I appreciate fora that do not allow discussions of religion (or politics).
Was writing my reply before seeing DonH56's post..
We may need/have to dial back the rhetorics.. I see us on a slippery slope ...
Faith and science are not incompatible. Both can be taken to extremes.
IMO - Don
IMO - Don
There comes a problem when Theories are confused with Scientific Laws.
BTW the "Progressive Secular Humanist" believers seem to embrace their own form of religion for atheist.
I am not a Christian my self, neither do I hate people due to their religious system.
Here are some thoughtful people questioning the popular Darwinist theology:
BTW the "Progressive Secular Humanist" believers seem to embrace their own form of religion for atheist.
I am not a Christian my self, neither do I hate people due to their religious system.
Here are some thoughtful people questioning the popular Darwinist theology:
Threads like this can get in a real mess real fast, proceed with caution please .
Unfortunately, there’s something missing there- an actual specialist in evolutionary biology.
He should write a paper and answer the questions raised and relegate these folks to the dustbin. Easy Peasy.
You know that saying that there are no stupid questions? Well, it's wrong. Proof above.
This is not the place to discuss scientific results outside audio engineering and related fields. However, I do agree with the opening sentiment that science is not a democracy and that opinions cannot take the place of facts. So yes, people are entitled to have their own opinions whether they like Bach or the Stones, but not to their own facts, even if there can sometimes be disagreement about those facts. And yes, therefore, I think there is a similarity between creationists and audio subjectivists who claim they are entitled to 'opinions' about what are or should be facts.
In any case, the earth really is a lot older than 6000 years or whatever, and humans did indeed develop very slowly into what they are now - and continue to change, to be sure.
As for polititical pressure on universities in some conservative states in the US, I do indeed see quite a bit of that, and it is troubling. I must admit that there is also some on the other side of the political spectrum and that is equally disconcerting.
In any case, the earth really is a lot older than 6000 years or whatever, and humans did indeed develop very slowly into what they are now - and continue to change, to be sure.
As for polititical pressure on universities in some conservative states in the US, I do indeed see quite a bit of that, and it is troubling. I must admit that there is also some on the other side of the political spectrum and that is equally disconcerting.
Science is a process, it is never complete nor solved nor final.
The fact that there are some unknown elements still to be found is a cornerstone of all science; the knowledge that our knowledge can never be perfect.
That does not mean you just get to go "well, we haven't found X, Y or Z yet, that must mean the whole thing is bunk!"
On the contrary, there’s tons of literature on these topics. Origins of life is a major research topic at many universities going back to the Miller-Urey experiments.
For science there needs to be experimental proof, not just inference. I like this definition from Feynman from almost 60 years ago.
correct, but it must be proven by observation and experiment.
Last edited:
Similar threads
