[happyguy]

If you believe in a god, any god, the atheists here will consider you stupid and/or ignorant.

Any belief in a power greater than man is a fantasy to them.

It won't matter how educated you are or how successful you are, as a believer you are beneath them.

This persons personal beliefs don't matter a bit to me. How he intends to govern is what is important.

Regards,
Happyguy

[GAFinch]

I love how so many "conservatives" nowadays vehemently support anti-religious Marxist atheism.

[nmstew]

Originally Posted by happyguy

If you believe in a god, any god, the atheists here will consider you stupid and/or ignorant.

Any belief in a power greater than man is a fantasy to them.

It won't matter how educated you are or how successful you are, as a believer you are beneath them.

This persons personal beliefs don't matter a bit to me. How he intends to govern is what is important.

Regards,
Happyguy

No one said anything about his believing in god. God and evolution are different,non-exclusive things. Try to keep up.

[IvanVic]

Originally Posted by happyguy

If you believe in a god, any god, the atheists here will consider you stupid and/or ignorant.

Any belief in a power greater than man is a fantasy to them.

It won't matter how educated you are or how successful you are, as a believer you are beneath them.


Regards,
Happyguy

Sounds like an awfully broad generalization.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

[happyguy]

Originally Posted by IvanVic

Sounds like an awfully broad generalization.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

It is.

Regards,
Happyguy

[happyguy]

Originally Posted by nmstew

No one said anything about his believing in god. God and evolution are different,non-exclusive things. Try to keep up.

What do you think his opinion of evolution is based on?

Regards,
Happyguy

[ArtificialGrape]

Originally Posted by Big Mad Dawg

I know my ancestors were not apes but if you want to believe yours are not a problem I support that you came from ape linage.

"Apes" in the modern sense of apes, we agree, and evolution does not argue otherwise.

You do, however, share a common ancestor with apes whether or not you're comfortable with it.

-ArtificialGrape

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by The Maggy

How do people like this get elected and re-elected? More importantly, how does someone that believes the Earth is only 9,000 years old get placed on the house committee for Science, Space, and Technology? It seems like that committee assignment directly contradicts who this man is.

It's called freedom. There has been a very long debate over in GTRI about how little we really know about the origins of the universe. In fact, the big bang may not have been a bang at all, there are some really interesting ideas that maybe it was a BIG CHILL instead.

To think that we have all the answers is rather arrogant, considering the short amount of time our planet has existed when compared to the universe, and how short mankind has existed on the planet. I think it's been for a lot longer than 6,000,000 years, but that's my opinion. We haven't traveled much either. We've just recently left the solar system (maybe), but only with a probe with 35 year old sensors and processors. That is a very short distance on a cosmic scale. Lots of people have some pretty good stories, none of them witnessed. It is discomforting to some to admit that they have to have faith to believe in what they believe, even the atheists. Most of what you know was told to you by others (books count). Most of what you have learned about things outside of your lifetime and outside the limits of your own personal travel, you were told. If you'll think about it, you did not do the experimentation to verify on your own, much of what you believe.

I am a very committed agnostic. I believe the earth is very old. I believe that there are some problems with evolutionary theories that cannot explain how intermediate structures that don't work, can result in increased procreative ability. The fact is that the universe doesn't add up just yet. But I don't have to claim to know that I know how all of what is came to be. It is what it is, and from what I've been able to learn, I've realized just how little we really know. Mankind has done a lot, but can't do a lot of things too. We haven't even mastered our own bodies, let alone answered all of the mysteries of the universe.

As far as religion goes, as long as it doesn't make you want to strap bombs to your kids and send them into crowded markets, I'm OK with it. The country was founded by people that wanted religious freedom, and I think that anyone that wants to deny them that is a stinker.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Big Mad Dawg

I know my ancestors were not apes but if you want to believe yours are not a problem I support that you came from ape linage.

As I understand it, sometimes men in cages sometimes revert to flinging poop.

Coincidence?

[ArtificialGrape]

Originally Posted by happyguy

If you believe in a god, any god, the atheists here will consider you stupid and/or ignorant.

Stupid? No.

Ignorant as in lacking specific knowledge of what the theories actually say or what evidence exists? Quite possibly.

Willful ignorance is also a possibility, and pretty much a certainty for somebody that holds a Young Earth outlook such as Rep. Broun. Young Earth Creationism is as scientifically untenable as the Flat Earth Society.

In order to hold a Young Earth outlook one must reject the evidence of:

• physics/cosmology -- Big Bang and age of earth/universe
• biology -- evolution
• geology -- plate tectonics / rejection of a Great Flood / age of earth
• chemistry -- radiometric dating / age of earth
• paleontology -- fossil record / evolution
• anthropology -- evolution
• botany -- evolution

All while living surrounded by the comforts and conveniences that modern science provides.

-ArtificialGrape

[ArtificialGrape]

Forgot to add that many Christians are able to reconcile evolution and other modern science with their faith, so it is not a dealbreaker for them. The Clergy Letter Project has collected the signatures of 12,822 Christian clergy men and women as of 9/30/12. They "believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children."

[certifiedfunds]

To accept a literal interpretation of the Bible is to choose an interpretation and deny the dynamic message of holy inspiration.

To believe the Bible's account of how the world was created is just plain ignorant.

[JBnTX]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

To believe the Bible's account of how the world was created is just plain ignorant.

What if the person who wrote that account was ignorant (as in lack of knowledge), and explained it the best way he knew how?

In communications, the sender is responsible for the understanding of the message, not the receiver. The author of the creation story failed to communicate it clearly to you.

God did NOT create the Earth in seven days. What he created in seven days was the present surface of the Earth.

The very first sentence of the Bible contains Billions of years and accounts for the creation of heaven and Earth.

God has re-worked the surface of the Earth countless times since the Earth was created billions of years ago.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by JBnTX

What if the person who wrote that account was ignorant (as in lack of knowledge), and explained it the best way he knew how?

In communications, the sender is responsible for the understanding of the message, not the receiver. The author of the creation story failed to communicate it clearly to you.

God did NOT create the Earth in seven days. What he created in seven days was the present surface of the Earth.

The very first sentence of the Bible contains Billions of years and accounts for the creation of heaven and Earth.

God has re-worked the surface of the Earth countless times since the Earth was created billions of years ago.

LOL whut?

[IvanVic]

Originally Posted by happyguy

It is.

Regards,
Happyguy

So you're complaining about people of faith being generalized, and at the same time you're guilty of generalizing atheists.

[happyguy]

Originally Posted by IvanVic

So you're complaining about people of faith being generalized, and at the same time you're guilty of generalizing atheists.

I don't recall complaining about people of faith being generalized. Perhaps you could point to where I did.

Regards,
Happyguy

[happyguy]

Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape

Stupid? No.

Ignorant as in lacking specific knowledge of what the theories actually say or what evidence exists? Quite possibly.

Willful ignorance is also a possibility, and pretty much a certainty for somebody that holds a Young Earth outlook such as Rep. Broun. Young Earth Creationism is as scientifically untenable as the Flat Earth Society.

In order to hold a Young Earth outlook one must reject the evidence of:

• physics/cosmology -- Big Bang and age of earth/universe
• biology -- evolution
• geology -- plate tectonics / rejection of a Great Flood / age of earth
• chemistry -- radiometric dating / age of earth
• paleontology -- fossil record / evolution
• anthropology -- evolution
• botany -- evolution

All while living surrounded by the comforts and conveniences that modern science provides.

-ArtificialGrape

Thanks

Regards,
Happyguy

[countrygun]

Just thought I'd mention that the OP posted this yesterday and hasn't returned. Kind of a hit and run trolling if you ask me.

And

It would seem that the issue has become a topic for another forum. I mean the political implications that the OP threw out on the water are of academic interest at least, the details of an individuals personal beliefs, not so much.

[Stubudd]

Originally Posted by JBnTX

What if the person who wrote that account was ignorant (as in lack of knowledge), and explained it the best way he knew how?

In communications, the sender is responsible for the understanding of the message, not the receiver. The author of the creation story failed to communicate it clearly to you.

God did NOT create the Earth in seven days. What he created in seven days was the present surface of the Earth.

The very first sentence of the Bible contains Billions of years and accounts for the creation of heaven and Earth.

God has re-worked the surface of the Earth countless times since the Earth was created billions of years ago.

reworked the surface countless times

[John Rambo]

Originally Posted by The Maggy

How do people like this get elected and re-elected? More importantly, how does someone that believes the Earth is only 9,000 years old get placed on the house committee for Science, Space, and Technology? It seems like that committee assignment directly contradicts who this man is.

Have you ever ventured into the Religious Forum on Glocktalk?

[Chronos]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

There has been a very long debate over in GTRI about how little we really know about the origins of the universe. In fact, the big bang may not have been a bang at all, there are some really interesting ideas that maybe it was a BIG CHILL instead.

I'm not sure what to call it, but half the thread participants presenting the current state of scientific knowledge, and half proclaiming their personal state of ignorance and incredulity is not a "debate."

Regarding the big bang -- the cosmological solutions to general relativity which fit observational data simply look like a "big bang" over the scale of billions of years. That has not changed. The "big chill" business you refer to is one potential quantum theory of gravity that would describe unimaginably tiny quantum corrections to the big picture given by general relativity. It is not an idea in competition with the basic, large-scale features of big bang cosmology, which become better and better established every year, with each new experiment.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Chronos

I'm not sure what to call it, but half the thread participants presenting the current state of scientific knowledge, and half proclaiming their personal state of ignorance and incredulity is not a "debate."

Regarding the big bang -- the cosmological solutions to general relativity which fit observational data simply look like a "big bang" over the scale of billions of years. That has not changed. The "big chill" business you refer to is one potential quantum theory of gravity that would describe unimaginably tiny quantum corrections to the big picture given by general relativity. It is not an idea in competition with the basic, large-scale features of big bang cosmology, which become better and better established every year, with each new experiment.

A lot of those proclaiming knowledge, don't really know. Most have not done the research themselves and are blindly trusting what they have been told, and while science has concluded the universe is expanding, and it has postulated that it is expanding at different speeds, doesn't mean a bang caused the expansion. I'd describe the discussion as a few people willing to point out missing pieces of the puzzle and the limits of human knowledge, and those that don't know enough to know what they don't know.

Just because one explanaition fits, doesn't make it so. We, as a species, continue to learn. We've got a long way to go to come close to saying we've got it all figured out. I guess the old saying is true about the more you know, the more you realize what you still have to learn.

[Fed Five Oh]

Big Bang Theory.

Theory of Evolution.

Both still theories, right?

[ArtificialGrape]

Originally Posted by Fed Five Oh

Big Bang Theory.

Theory of Evolution.

Both still theories, right?

All that you've done here is to boast that you don't understand how the word theory is used among scientists.

Perhaps this will help.

Only a Theory?

Only a Theory?

[ArtificialGrape]

Here is a a pretty good summary of some of the evidence supporting the big bang theory (complete with pretty pictures) for anybody actually interested.

-ArtificialGrape