America dumbs down

[AmericanFirst]

(1) The machinations of the SC legislature with respect to naming a State Fossil are silly, and even the politicians engaged in the kerfuffle know that they are silly. But the currency of politics is votes, and if the voters want to see the biblical creation story upheld in the legislature, well...what's the harm in being silly every once in a while?

(2) While there is essentially no debating the fact of evolution, there remain many aspects of the process that are still up for grabs, scientifically speaking. The most interesting critique of Evolution that I have read was written by Ann Coulter in one of her books. Among her well-documented points is that the timelines do not work. Biology books are fond of showing a progression from one species to the next, but the actual fossil record has dating that is all over the map; species that theoretically precede other related species are found later in time, and so on. Read it, it's interesting.

(3) For those who wish to believe in Her, the proofs of God's existence are ubiquitous. It's not so long ago, historically speaking, that the existence of God was considered so obvious as not even to be the topic of debate. It was only when scientists posited the possibility of an essentially infinite timespan (billions of years) for the process of developing the earth that we experience that the possibility of "not-God" even became tenable.

(4) [Some] Republicans do not have exclusivity with respect to ignoring "science." Most Dems are convinced that nuclear power is "dangerous" in spite of the fact that the U.S. has NEVER HAD A SINGLE RADIATION-RELATED fatality (or even sickness, if you want to know the truth) in the 60+ years of commercial nuclear power in the U.S. Same goes for the "Nuclear Navy." Indeed, the cancer rate for nuclear navy retirees and retired nuclear plant workers is LOWER than the cancer rate of the analogous civilian population.

Most Dems are willing to believe any negative "facts" about activities or people they consider unseemly, regardless of the scientific basis. For example, most Dems are convinced that second-hand smoke is a killer, when there is not a single study linking increased incidence of lung-cancer or heart disease to the non-smoking spouses of smokers. The EPA (controlled by Democrat bureaucrats) is positively neurotic about obscuring this interesting fact.

And if you want to get into the soft sciences, how is it that Democrats continue to believe that taxpayers do not react to changes in the tax laws? Or that employers will not react to mandated increases in wages?

They are blind to what others consider obvious.

#3, God is not a "her".

If God exists and has a gender, it would have to be female. Males do not procreate.

^^^^^proof libtards are stupid.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Is there something now, at this very minute? Is there anything that you can see, touch, or smell? If so, where did its makeup begin? Remember, there has to be something before there can be anything. Something can NOT come from nothing. So, using basic logic, there had to be something to start with. Now, going by that very simple logic, where did it all begin?

If there was "something to start with" --- then by the same definition there was not "nothing". You can't have it both ways.

I just said this, and I'm not going to be drawn into an endless circle in a thread that's supposed to be about South Freaking Carolina -- not something deep.

I wasn't in any way implying two ways. I simply said that there had to be something to begin with. I don't believe that you nor anyone else can deny that. Right? So, if you, nor anyone else can deny it, then where did it come from? That's not implying two ways about anything. It's a simple straight forward question. Everything has to have an origin, right? So, again, simple logic, where did it all begin? Again, that is in no way implying two ways about anything. Very simple, very straight forward.

No, not right. When we speak of creation and universe mysteries we're well past the limits of science and physics. Therefore none of those assumptions can be safely assumed.

Thank you. Exactly my point. We don't know, simply do not know. No one knows. I have been trying to get that point across for what seems like hours now. This subject has been debated since the beginning of time, and it has yet to be solved.

Then what was all that song and dance about demanding "proof"???

Ai-yi-yi....

Your assumption above is that "Everything has to have an origin, right?" --- yet in the same breath you turn around and acknowledge we don't know that at all.

You owe me a laundry bill for this soiled sheet. My head just exploded.

I'm sorry about your soiled sheet. Go ahead and bill for it. Put it on my running account. I'll pay you either the second Tuesday of next week, or when my humped-back brother gets straightened out, which ever comes first. --- Now, as for as "origin" goes, yes, everything has an origin. Nothing just goes "poof" and appears, nothing. What we don't know, is where that "poof" came from, it's energy source, or where the smallest element of that "poof" originated. Even a "void" was put in place by some energy, or lack of energy. Even though it's void, it's a void inside of something. In other words, we know everything is not void, or a void, so even though voids exist, they are within something.

This conversations started due to some wording in the root post where science was mentioned as a possible argument either for or against legislation. In that wording, creation and evolution were mentioned. And, I fully understand both arguments, although I don't agree with the basis for most of it, and I have expressed those disagreements in my many comments. And, I have also mentioned several times, that there is no absolute proof one way or the other. My comments were based simply on common sense logic concerning something had to be in place before there was anything ( an origin ).

Again, sorry about the sheet. Yes, some of these conversation do cause severe head trauma and frayed nerves, believe me, I know because I've been at this a long time, many years now. I don't drink, but there have been times over the years in some forums discussing issues, that I felt like going to the glass house and getting a bottle of Jack just to calm me down. These discussion will do it to you sometimes. Have a great evening and don't forget to send me that bill for the sheet.

 

[Sonny Clark]

(1) The machinations of the SC legislature with respect to naming a State Fossil are silly, and even the politicians engaged in the kerfuffle know that they are silly. But the currency of politics is votes, and if the voters want to see the biblical creation story upheld in the legislature, well...what's the harm in being silly every once in a while?

(2) While there is essentially no debating the fact of evolution, there remain many aspects of the process that are still up for grabs, scientifically speaking. The most interesting critique of Evolution that I have read was written by Ann Coulter in one of her books. Among her well-documented points is that the timelines do not work. Biology books are fond of showing a progression from one species to the next, but the actual fossil record has dating that is all over the map; species that theoretically precede other related species are found later in time, and so on. Read it, it's interesting.

(3) For those who wish to believe in Her, the proofs of God's existence are ubiquitous. It's not so long ago, historically speaking, that the existence of God was considered so obvious as not even to be the topic of debate. It was only when scientists posited the possibility of an essentially infinite timespan (billions of years) for the process of developing the earth that we experience that the possibility of "not-God" even became tenable.

(4) [Some] Republicans do not have exclusivity with respect to ignoring "science." Most Dems are convinced that nuclear power is "dangerous" in spite of the fact that the U.S. has NEVER HAD A SINGLE RADIATION-RELATED fatality (or even sickness, if you want to know the truth) in the 60+ years of commercial nuclear power in the U.S. Same goes for the "Nuclear Navy." Indeed, the cancer rate for nuclear navy retirees and retired nuclear plant workers is LOWER than the cancer rate of the analogous civilian population.

Most Dems are willing to believe any negative "facts" about activities or people they consider unseemly, regardless of the scientific basis. For example, most Dems are convinced that second-hand smoke is a killer, when there is not a single study linking increased incidence of lung-cancer or heart disease to the non-smoking spouses of smokers. The EPA (controlled by Democrat bureaucrats) is positively neurotic about obscuring this interesting fact.

And if you want to get into the soft sciences, how is it that Democrats continue to believe that taxpayers do not react to changes in the tax laws? Or that employers will not react to mandated increases in wages?

They are blind to what others consider obvious.

#3, God is not a "her".

If God exists and has a gender, it would have to be female. Males do not procreate.

^^^^^proof libtards are stupid.

Anyone that accepts without proof is stupid. Never allow anyone to feed you their knowledge without "proofing" it yourself. Use your own mind and understanding to reason things out. Never accept everything you hear as gospel. Separate the wheat from the chaff yourself. Allow other to teach you, to guide you, but question everything until you are satisfied that what they're telling you is sound. Remember, opinions don't count. There are over 6 billion, almost 7 billion people on this Earth, and at least that many opinions.

 

[Sonny Clark]

The point of the OP, if it still exists after this massive deployment of tangential deflector shield, is not that "academia" or "science" has proved squat or is "settled" --- it's the reverse, i.e.that state lawmaker-zombies, living and breathing right now, are walking around sputtering about primitive Creationism myths as a pretext for denying the existence of a dinosaur that's already been found.

To wit, directly from the OP:
>> First, an objecting state senator attached three verses from Genesis to the act, outlining God’s creation of all living creatures. Then, after other lawmakers spiked the amendment as out of order for its introduction of the divinity, he took another crack, specifying that the Columbian mammoth “was created on the sixth day with the other beasts of the field.” That version passed in the senate in early April <<
I only wish I was creative enough to have made that up but it's copied directly.

It's naked denialism. That's the point. Hence all the energies directed to changing the subject.

The point of the OP was first to kick up a bunch of dust about how religious people are ridiculous. There was no middle ground, like the fact that many esteemed biologists work at Catholic universities. You would think the OP had never heard of Notre Dame or Boston College. The OP piles crap on South Carolina, the home of the Methodist-affiliated Wofford College where biology students study evolution as well as stem cells, the human genome, ecology and brain science. The OP defines South Carolina as a state where people deny that dinosaurs ever existed.

The OP ends by saying that America needs to come to "a uniformed opinion" on established scientific dogma.

The message in the linked article is clear; Obey the scientific priesthood. Don't question the judgement of pharmaceutical companies, errrr, doctors. Opposition to Obamacare is stupid, so just remain Grubered. Don't look under the hood of NOAA and NASA climate change studies. Don't think. The authorities have done that for you.

Thank you. An excellent response. That's the best explanation that I've heard yet. Well done.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Charles Darwin’s signature discovery—first published 155 years ago and validated a million different ways since—long ago ceased to be a matter for serious debate in most of the world.

Darwin's work was largely based off of Gregor Mendel, a priest.

But, of course evolutionary biology has been debated and continues to be seriously debated. The theory of gradual evolution begrudgingly gave way to staggered evolution. There was the 40 year hoax of the Piltdown man, and though it was revealed as a hoax many of the missing link conclusions derived from it survive today. Then, group selection was introduced. Now some cutting edge biologists are looking at chaos theory as it relates to evolution, much to the chagrin of other biologists who insist on causation.

Plenty of the lazy ignorant people in America are blind acceptors of academic orthodoxy.

is there any point to this, other than the not so well hidden religious dogma..

Dogma is a principle or statement of ideas considered to be authoritative or accepted uncritically. Which part of my post could be construed as dogma?

The point is that you seem to be advocating for blind acceptance of academic dogma. 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere is a fact. Climate change linked primarily to CO2 is an educated guess. I'm not sure if you've been outside lately, but there is a gigantic burning sphere up there visible to the naked eye that's 1.2 million times larger than the earth, and it has a changing life-cycle.

The theory of evolution continues to develop over the protestations of published professors who have years invested in their version of the theory. You presented it as something that has not been debated seriously for 155 years, which is ridiculous.

As far as what they think in South Carolina or Georgia, I'm not interested. If I do ever visit there though, I'm sure I would be glad to find it different from what I'm used to on the West Coast. That is the point of travel.

The point of the OP, if it still exists after this massive deployment of tangential deflector shield, is not that "academia" or "science" has proved squat or is "settled" --- it's the reverse, i.e.that state lawmaker-zombies, living and breathing right now, are walking around sputtering about primitive Creationism myths as a pretext for denying the existence of a dinosaur that's already been found.

To wit, directly from the OP:

>> First, an objecting state senator attached three verses from Genesis to the act, outlining God’s creation of all living creatures. Then, after other lawmakers spiked the amendment as out of order for its introduction of the divinity, he took another crack, specifying that the Columbian mammoth “was created on the sixth day with the other beasts of the field.” That version passed in the senate in early April <<​

I only wish I was creative enough to have made that up but it's copied directly.

It's naked denialism. That's the point. Hence all the energies directed to changing the subject.

For the most part, the conversations have been based on the content ( wording ) of the root article. The root post did mention science, creation, evolution, etc.

 

[daws101]

if there is no proof that a thing in this case god it's a negative..
try it this way, "you cannot disprove god because there is nothing to disprove" the reverse is also true you cannot prove god because there is nothing to prove it .
belief is not proof of god's or anything else's existence as it only proves itself..

Fair enough. Lets go with that for a minute here. Where did it all begin? By that I mean, before there was anything, what started everything into motion? What is the source from which all originated? Any idea? Care to take a stab at it? Please, go ahead and give your theory on exactly where everything originated and how it all was set into motion. Thanks.

you are under the misleading assumption that there was reason or intelligence behind "creation"
it al began where it began..

I'm not assuming anything, and I haven't been mislead nor misinformed. In my opinion, and until someone proves me wrong, yes, intelligence created the beginning of everything. That is my opinion, and nothing will ever change my mind until absolute proof is presented that counters that. Simple logic tells me that such complex matter as there is that makes up everything known to mankind, didn't come about merely by accident or chance. We have millions of things in this universe that are complex and beyond anyone's understanding. Even the human body is still a mystery to science. So, again, using simple logic, intelligence had to have been the original source of the very beginning of everything. Again, my opinion, and until I'm proven wrong, it'll remain my opinion.

your opinion is based on a false premise making any conclusions, speculations, etc. false...
yes you have been mislead and misinformed......your posts prove that.

Nope, sorry. I have not been misinformed nor mislead. Please tell me exactly where I've been misinformed or mislead. Thanks.

if you understood what a false premise was you would not have to ask.

 

[daws101]

that's false assumption..

How is it false? Please explain. Thanks.

goggle false premise than get back to me..

Google " Proof " and get back to me. Thanks.

how'd I know that you'd not have the guts ...

Hey, I never mentioned anything about "false premise". Where did that come from? Don't have the "guts" for what? Please explain. Thanks.

if you understood what a false premise was you would not have to ask.

 

[daws101]

Another great display of undeserved liberal arrogance interesting how those who think they are always right about everything rarely are.

that's a conservative trait

Anyway, for the purpose of this post, I'm going to focus on one aspect of the conservative/liberal divide: traditionalism vs non-traditionalism. In particular, I want to focus on how each side sees arrogance when the conservative is defending a traditional value or belief, and the non-traditionalist is questioning it.

Here's my guess about what the traditionalist is thinking: she's thinking it's arrogant to set aside hundreds or thousands of years of tradition and go off in a new, untested direction. She's thinking, "Who are you to question values that have been foundations of our society for generations? They've been tried and tested for ages, and believed by many people smarter than you. If we ditch them, who knows what the consequences might be? How arrogant of you to think you know better."

As I said, that's a guess, and I may be wrong. As for what the non-traditionalist thinks, I don't have to guess, because I AM one. I'm thinking: "Sure, that's the traditional view in this part of the world, but what makes you so sure it's right? This society is just one of thousands that have ever existed on Earth, and if you grew up as a traditionalist in one of the other ones, you would probably think their way of doing things was right. Just because people grow up thinking something is true doesn't mean it is. Millions of people once grew up thinking the Sun went around the Earth, and that didn't make them right. Out of all possible beliefs, how arrogant of you to think yours, however widespread and traditional in this part of the world, are the right ones."

Obviously, I have more sympathy for my point of view (otherwise I would have switched to a different one). However, if you think about it, both sides have a point. And here's the thing: neither side is necessarily trying to be arrogant. They're just looking at things from utterly different points of view. You might say the traditionalist is taking a deep view, while the non-traditionalist is taking a broad view. Both ways of thinking can have merit.

So how can they find common ground? I'm thinking a few things need to happen. First, each side should probably realize they're going to seem arrogant to the other side. This may come as a surprise--I was surprised to realize how arrogant I seemed to my friend. Second, they should both try to sound as polite and un-smug as possible, because once somebody decides you're smug or arrogant, they're going to stop listening to you.* What's the point of having a discussion if neither side is listening? Third, they both need to cut the other side some slack, and realize they're probably not as arrogant as they sound...or at least, they aren't being arrogant on purpose.** They just have a totally different perspective about what's arrogant.

_____________________________________________________



* Here's something that may just apply to the non-traditionalists--we need to realize how much traditionalists have emotionally invested in their values and believes--especially if they're religious. When I hear someone make a claim about something deeply traditional and emotionally-charged, such as religion, I just think of it as one hypothesis among many others, to be questioned and--if found wanting--rejected. I don't feel the emotions associated with it, as they do. I forget that debating such questions isn't like debating things involving less emotional investment, like whether Star Wars is a better series than Star Trek (actually, some people get pretty worked up about that, too.) I've sometimes found myself surprised when I question one of these beliefs, and people react as though I were cursing, or insulting their mother, or otherwise being rude, when I had thought I was being pretty polite. What I forget is that the very act of questioning some beliefs seems rude, and perhaps even blasphemous, to people who passionately believe them, no matter how politely you phrase it.

** Unless they are, in fact, an arrogant SOB who can't imagine being wrong about anything. That can happen, of course, in which case...why talk to them at all?
Ramblebrain Liberal Arrogance Conservative Arrogance

 

[daws101]

Charles Darwin’s signature discovery—first published 155 years ago and validated a million different ways since—long ago ceased to be a matter for serious debate in most of the world.

Darwin's work was largely based off of Gregor Mendel, a priest.

But, of course evolutionary biology has been debated and continues to be seriously debated. The theory of gradual evolution begrudgingly gave way to staggered evolution. There was the 40 year hoax of the Piltdown man, and though it was revealed as a hoax many of the missing link conclusions derived from it survive today. Then, group selection was introduced. Now some cutting edge biologists are looking at chaos theory as it relates to evolution, much to the chagrin of other biologists who insist on causation.

Plenty of the lazy ignorant people in America are blind acceptors of academic orthodoxy.

is there any point to this, other than the not so well hidden religious dogma..

Dogma is a principle or statement of ideas considered to be authoritative or accepted uncritically. Which part of my post could be construed as dogma?

The point is that you seem to be advocating for blind acceptance of academic dogma. 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere is a fact. Climate change linked primarily to CO2 is an educated guess. I'm not sure if you've been outside lately, but there is a gigantic burning sphere up there visible to the naked eye that's 1.2 million times larger than the earth, and it has a changing life-cycle.

The theory of evolution continues to develop over the protestations of published professors who have years invested in their version of the theory. You presented it as something that has not been debated seriously for 155 years, which is ridiculous.

As far as what they think in South Carolina or Georgia, I'm not interested. If I do ever visit there though, I'm sure I would be glad to find it different from what I'm used to on the West Coast. That is the point of travel.

evolution as fact has not been debated by scientists for that long, what has been is the evolution of evolution.. note the difference..
only theists doubt it's authenticity
btw e wtf does co2 in the atmosphere with this debate.
as to blind acceptance:

 

[daws101]

Charles Darwin’s signature discovery—first published 155 years ago and validated a million different ways since—long ago ceased to be a matter for serious debate in most of the world.

Darwin's work was largely based off of Gregor Mendel, a priest.

But, of course evolutionary biology has been debated and continues to be seriously debated. The theory of gradual evolution begrudgingly gave way to staggered evolution. There was the 40 year hoax of the Piltdown man, and though it was revealed as a hoax many of the missing link conclusions derived from it survive today. Then, group selection was introduced. Now some cutting edge biologists are looking at chaos theory as it relates to evolution, much to the chagrin of other biologists who insist on causation.

Plenty of the lazy ignorant people in America are blind acceptors of academic orthodoxy.

is there any point to this, other than the not so well hidden religious dogma..

Dogma is a principle or statement of ideas considered to be authoritative or accepted uncritically. Which part of my post could be construed as dogma?

The point is that you seem to be advocating for blind acceptance of academic dogma. 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere is a fact. Climate change linked primarily to CO2 is an educated guess. I'm not sure if you've been outside lately, but there is a gigantic burning sphere up there visible to the naked eye that's 1.2 million times larger than the earth, and it has a changing life-cycle.

The theory of evolution continues to develop over the protestations of published professors who have years invested in their version of the theory. You presented it as something that has not been debated seriously for 155 years, which is ridiculous.

As far as what they think in South Carolina or Georgia, I'm not interested. If I do ever visit there though, I'm sure I would be glad to find it different from what I'm used to on the West Coast. That is the point of travel.

The point of the OP, if it still exists after this massive deployment of tangential deflector shield, is not that "academia" or "science" has proved squat or is "settled" --- it's the reverse, i.e.that state lawmaker-zombies, living and breathing right now, are walking around sputtering about primitive Creationism myths as a pretext for denying the existence of a dinosaur that's already been found.

To wit, directly from the OP:

>> First, an objecting state senator attached three verses from Genesis to the act, outlining God’s creation of all living creatures. Then, after other lawmakers spiked the amendment as out of order for its introduction of the divinity, he took another crack, specifying that the Columbian mammoth “was created on the sixth day with the other beasts of the field.” That version passed in the senate in early April <<​

I only wish I was creative enough to have made that up but it's copied directly.

It's naked denialism. That's the point. Hence all the energies directed to changing the subject.

part of my intention in posting that article was to see how fast and how hard poster would mischaracterize it.
I got my wish..

 

[daws101]

The point of the OP, if it still exists after this massive deployment of tangential deflector shield, is not that "academia" or "science" has proved squat or is "settled" --- it's the reverse, i.e.that state lawmaker-zombies, living and breathing right now, are walking around sputtering about primitive Creationism myths as a pretext for denying the existence of a dinosaur that's already been found.

To wit, directly from the OP:
>> First, an objecting state senator attached three verses from Genesis to the act, outlining God’s creation of all living creatures. Then, after other lawmakers spiked the amendment as out of order for its introduction of the divinity, he took another crack, specifying that the Columbian mammoth “was created on the sixth day with the other beasts of the field.” That version passed in the senate in early April <<
I only wish I was creative enough to have made that up but it's copied directly.

It's naked denialism. That's the point. Hence all the energies directed to changing the subject.

The point of the OP was first to kick up a bunch of dust about how religious people are ridiculous. There was no middle ground, like the fact that many esteemed biologists work at Catholic universities. You would think the OP had never heard of Notre Dame or Boston College. The OP piles crap on South Carolina, the home of the Methodist-affiliated Wofford College where biology students study evolution as well as stem cells, the human genome, ecology and brain science. The OP defines South Carolina as a state where people deny that dinosaurs ever existed.

The OP ends by saying that America needs to come to "a uniformed opinion" on established scientific dogma.

The message in the linked article is clear; Obey the scientific priesthood. Don't question the judgement of pharmaceutical companies, errrr, doctors. Opposition to Obamacare is stupid, so just remain Grubered. Don't look under the hood of NOAA and NASA climate change studies. Don't think. The authorities have done that for you.

you are making two large assumptions.
1.you have no idea what I know or don't KNOW.
on the other hand I have learned a lot what you believe and what you thinks passes for knowledge.
2. just because esteemed biologists work at Catholic universities like Notre Dame or Boston College.
is no proof that they are believers.

Does It Matter That Many Scientists Are Atheists?
Trent Horn
June 26, 2013 |



One fact that concerns some Christians and elates some atheists is that 93 percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, one of the most elite scientific organizations in the United States, do not believe in God. Atheist Sam Harris says that, “This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.”

Should Christians be concerned that so many of these intelligent people don’t believe in God? I don’t think so, and here’s why.

Check the numbers

First, the National Academy of Sciences represents a small number of scientists. The Academy itself comprises only about 2,000 members, while there are more than 2 million scientists employed in the United States as a whole. This means that the NAS only represents about one-tenth of one percent of all scientists in the nation. Using this statistic alone to prove scientists are overwhelmingly atheists would be inaccurate.

A more accurate description comes from the Pew Research Center, which reported in 2009 that 51 percent of scientists believe that God or some higher power exists, while 41 percent of scientists reject both of those concepts. In addition, while only 2 percent of the general population identifies as atheist, 17 percent of scientists identify themselves with that term.

But now we have to consider another important set of factors: Is it science that turns people into atheists? Or is it atheism that turns people into scientists?

Elaine Ecklund’s recent book Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think shows that scientists are more religious than we realize. In the course of her interviews she found that many scientists reject religion for personal reasons prior to becoming scientists (as opposed to rejecting religion solely on scientific grounds).

It is unfortunate that secular people feel more compelled to study the natural sciences than religious people, because some of our greatest scientific discoveries have come from people of faith (Gregor Mendel and Fr. Georges Lemaitre instantly come to mind).

Indeed, I have the pleasure of having a father-in-law who is a devout Catholic and a literal rocket scientist.

Who cares?

While it may dishearten believers to see that so many intelligent people reject the existence of God, we should ask a very frank question in light of this fact: Who cares?

The existence of God is not a scientific question, because science restricts itself to searching for natural explanations of observed phenomena. Since God is a transcendent being who exists beyond space and time, the search for God must primarily use philosophy, or careful reasoning, and not science (even though science provides facts which can be used in philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God).
Does It Matter That Many Scientists Are Atheists Catholic Answers

 

[Sonny Clark]

Fair enough. Lets go with that for a minute here. Where did it all begin? By that I mean, before there was anything, what started everything into motion? What is the source from which all originated? Any idea? Care to take a stab at it? Please, go ahead and give your theory on exactly where everything originated and how it all was set into motion. Thanks.

you are under the misleading assumption that there was reason or intelligence behind "creation"
it al began where it began..

I'm not assuming anything, and I haven't been mislead nor misinformed. In my opinion, and until someone proves me wrong, yes, intelligence created the beginning of everything. That is my opinion, and nothing will ever change my mind until absolute proof is presented that counters that. Simple logic tells me that such complex matter as there is that makes up everything known to mankind, didn't come about merely by accident or chance. We have millions of things in this universe that are complex and beyond anyone's understanding. Even the human body is still a mystery to science. So, again, using simple logic, intelligence had to have been the original source of the very beginning of everything. Again, my opinion, and until I'm proven wrong, it'll remain my opinion.

your opinion is based on a false premise making any conclusions, speculations, etc. false...
yes you have been mislead and misinformed......your posts prove that.

Nope, sorry. I have not been misinformed nor mislead. Please tell me exactly where I've been misinformed or mislead. Thanks.

if you understood what a false premise was you would not have to ask.

OK. Fair enough. We'll do this your way. What "false premise" am I believing? What is it that I don't understand? And, what exactly do my posts prove? Please give details instead of general slurs or slams. And, if it all "began where it began", as you say, and have said, where exactly was that, and who or what set it in motion? I would greatly appreciated it if you would make an effort to answer those question. Thanks.

A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.

 

[Pogo]

(1) The machinations of the SC legislature with respect to naming a State Fossil are silly, and even the politicians engaged in the kerfuffle know that they are silly. But the currency of politics is votes, and if the voters want to see the biblical creation story upheld in the legislature, well...what's the harm in being silly every once in a while?

(2) While there is essentially no debating the fact of evolution, there remain many aspects of the process that are still up for grabs, scientifically speaking. The most interesting critique of Evolution that I have read was written by Ann Coulter in one of her books. Among her well-documented points is that the timelines do not work. Biology books are fond of showing a progression from one species to the next, but the actual fossil record has dating that is all over the map; species that theoretically precede other related species are found later in time, and so on. Read it, it's interesting.

(3) For those who wish to believe in Her, the proofs of God's existence are ubiquitous. It's not so long ago, historically speaking, that the existence of God was considered so obvious as not even to be the topic of debate. It was only when scientists posited the possibility of an essentially infinite timespan (billions of years) for the process of developing the earth that we experience that the possibility of "not-God" even became tenable.

(4) [Some] Republicans do not have exclusivity with respect to ignoring "science." Most Dems are convinced that nuclear power is "dangerous" in spite of the fact that the U.S. has NEVER HAD A SINGLE RADIATION-RELATED fatality (or even sickness, if you want to know the truth) in the 60+ years of commercial nuclear power in the U.S. Same goes for the "Nuclear Navy." Indeed, the cancer rate for nuclear navy retirees and retired nuclear plant workers is LOWER than the cancer rate of the analogous civilian population.

Most Dems are willing to believe any negative "facts" about activities or people they consider unseemly, regardless of the scientific basis. For example, most Dems are convinced that second-hand smoke is a killer, when there is not a single study linking increased incidence of lung-cancer or heart disease to the non-smoking spouses of smokers. The EPA (controlled by Democrat bureaucrats) is positively neurotic about obscuring this interesting fact.

And if you want to get into the soft sciences, how is it that Democrats continue to believe that taxpayers do not react to changes in the tax laws? Or that employers will not react to mandated increases in wages?

They are blind to what others consider obvious.

#3, God is not a "her".

If God exists and has a gender, it would have to be female. Males do not procreate.

^^^^^proof libtards are stupid.

Hasty Generalization ad hom double fallacy.

The fact is males do not procreate; only females do. That's why God, if such exists and has gender, must be by definition, female.

Not that God would need gender anyway, because then it would need a mate. There is no "male" without a female to make it so. So if God be a "He" -- there has to be a She. Or else he's powerless.

This is all over your head, isn't it...

 

[Pogo]

If there was "something to start with" --- then by the same definition there was not "nothing". You can't have it both ways.

I just said this, and I'm not going to be drawn into an endless circle in a thread that's supposed to be about South Freaking Carolina -- not something deep.

I wasn't in any way implying two ways. I simply said that there had to be something to begin with. I don't believe that you nor anyone else can deny that. Right? So, if you, nor anyone else can deny it, then where did it come from? That's not implying two ways about anything. It's a simple straight forward question. Everything has to have an origin, right? So, again, simple logic, where did it all begin? Again, that is in no way implying two ways about anything. Very simple, very straight forward.

No, not right. When we speak of creation and universe mysteries we're well past the limits of science and physics. Therefore none of those assumptions can be safely assumed.

Thank you. Exactly my point. We don't know, simply do not know. No one knows. I have been trying to get that point across for what seems like hours now. This subject has been debated since the beginning of time, and it has yet to be solved.

Then what was all that song and dance about demanding "proof"???

Ai-yi-yi....

Your assumption above is that "Everything has to have an origin, right?" --- yet in the same breath you turn around and acknowledge we don't know that at all.

You owe me a laundry bill for this soiled sheet. My head just exploded.

I'm sorry about your soiled sheet. Go ahead and bill for it. Put it on my running account. I'll pay you either the second Tuesday of next week, or when my humped-back brother gets straightened out, which ever comes first. --- Now, as for as "origin" goes, yes, everything has an origin. Nothing just goes "poof" and appears, nothing.

And there you go starting the same circle all over again.

First you agree that there are mysteries we don't know and can't prove.
Then a moment later you do a 180 and claim to "know" that "nothing just goes 'poof' and appears".

When you decide which one of those you wanna go with, maybe we'll pick it up. In the Religion forum. This thread is about wacko state legislators in South Carolina making a mockery of their job.

Having it both ways: Priceless.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Charles Darwin’s signature discovery—first published 155 years ago and validated a million different ways since—long ago ceased to be a matter for serious debate in most of the world.

Darwin's work was largely based off of Gregor Mendel, a priest.

But, of course evolutionary biology has been debated and continues to be seriously debated. The theory of gradual evolution begrudgingly gave way to staggered evolution. There was the 40 year hoax of the Piltdown man, and though it was revealed as a hoax many of the missing link conclusions derived from it survive today. Then, group selection was introduced. Now some cutting edge biologists are looking at chaos theory as it relates to evolution, much to the chagrin of other biologists who insist on causation.

Plenty of the lazy ignorant people in America are blind acceptors of academic orthodoxy.

is there any point to this, other than the not so well hidden religious dogma..

Dogma is a principle or statement of ideas considered to be authoritative or accepted uncritically. Which part of my post could be construed as dogma?

The point is that you seem to be advocating for blind acceptance of academic dogma. 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere is a fact. Climate change linked primarily to CO2 is an educated guess. I'm not sure if you've been outside lately, but there is a gigantic burning sphere up there visible to the naked eye that's 1.2 million times larger than the earth, and it has a changing life-cycle.

The theory of evolution continues to develop over the protestations of published professors who have years invested in their version of the theory. You presented it as something that has not been debated seriously for 155 years, which is ridiculous.

As far as what they think in South Carolina or Georgia, I'm not interested. If I do ever visit there though, I'm sure I would be glad to find it different from what I'm used to on the West Coast. That is the point of travel.

The point of the OP, if it still exists after this massive deployment of tangential deflector shield, is not that "academia" or "science" has proved squat or is "settled" --- it's the reverse, i.e.that state lawmaker-zombies, living and breathing right now, are walking around sputtering about primitive Creationism myths as a pretext for denying the existence of a dinosaur that's already been found.

To wit, directly from the OP:

>> First, an objecting state senator attached three verses from Genesis to the act, outlining God’s creation of all living creatures. Then, after other lawmakers spiked the amendment as out of order for its introduction of the divinity, he took another crack, specifying that the Columbian mammoth “was created on the sixth day with the other beasts of the field.” That version passed in the senate in early April <<​

I only wish I was creative enough to have made that up but it's copied directly.

It's naked denialism. That's the point. Hence all the energies directed to changing the subject.

part of my intention in posting that article was to see how fast and how hard poster would mischaracterize it.
I got my wish..

How was it mischaracterized?

 

[Pogo]

Charles Darwin’s signature discovery—first published 155 years ago and validated a million different ways since—long ago ceased to be a matter for serious debate in most of the world.

Darwin's work was largely based off of Gregor Mendel, a priest.

But, of course evolutionary biology has been debated and continues to be seriously debated. The theory of gradual evolution begrudgingly gave way to staggered evolution. There was the 40 year hoax of the Piltdown man, and though it was revealed as a hoax many of the missing link conclusions derived from it survive today. Then, group selection was introduced. Now some cutting edge biologists are looking at chaos theory as it relates to evolution, much to the chagrin of other biologists who insist on causation.

Plenty of the lazy ignorant people in America are blind acceptors of academic orthodoxy.

is there any point to this, other than the not so well hidden religious dogma..

Dogma is a principle or statement of ideas considered to be authoritative or accepted uncritically. Which part of my post could be construed as dogma?

The point is that you seem to be advocating for blind acceptance of academic dogma. 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere is a fact. Climate change linked primarily to CO2 is an educated guess. I'm not sure if you've been outside lately, but there is a gigantic burning sphere up there visible to the naked eye that's 1.2 million times larger than the earth, and it has a changing life-cycle.

The theory of evolution continues to develop over the protestations of published professors who have years invested in their version of the theory. You presented it as something that has not been debated seriously for 155 years, which is ridiculous.

As far as what they think in South Carolina or Georgia, I'm not interested. If I do ever visit there though, I'm sure I would be glad to find it different from what I'm used to on the West Coast. That is the point of travel.

The point of the OP, if it still exists after this massive deployment of tangential deflector shield, is not that "academia" or "science" has proved squat or is "settled" --- it's the reverse, i.e.that state lawmaker-zombies, living and breathing right now, are walking around sputtering about primitive Creationism myths as a pretext for denying the existence of a dinosaur that's already been found.

To wit, directly from the OP:

>> First, an objecting state senator attached three verses from Genesis to the act, outlining God’s creation of all living creatures. Then, after other lawmakers spiked the amendment as out of order for its introduction of the divinity, he took another crack, specifying that the Columbian mammoth “was created on the sixth day with the other beasts of the field.” That version passed in the senate in early April <<​

I only wish I was creative enough to have made that up but it's copied directly.

It's naked denialism. That's the point. Hence all the energies directed to changing the subject.

part of my intention in posting that article was to see how fast and how hard poster would mischaracterize it.
I got my wish..

True but I didn't really expect this degree of angst poured into defending a clear case of state legislator idiocy.

 

[Sonny Clark]

I wasn't in any way implying two ways. I simply said that there had to be something to begin with. I don't believe that you nor anyone else can deny that. Right? So, if you, nor anyone else can deny it, then where did it come from? That's not implying two ways about anything. It's a simple straight forward question. Everything has to have an origin, right? So, again, simple logic, where did it all begin? Again, that is in no way implying two ways about anything. Very simple, very straight forward.

No, not right. When we speak of creation and universe mysteries we're well past the limits of science and physics. Therefore none of those assumptions can be safely assumed.

Thank you. Exactly my point. We don't know, simply do not know. No one knows. I have been trying to get that point across for what seems like hours now. This subject has been debated since the beginning of time, and it has yet to be solved.

Then what was all that song and dance about demanding "proof"???

Ai-yi-yi....

Your assumption above is that "Everything has to have an origin, right?" --- yet in the same breath you turn around and acknowledge we don't know that at all.

You owe me a laundry bill for this soiled sheet. My head just exploded.

I'm sorry about your soiled sheet. Go ahead and bill for it. Put it on my running account. I'll pay you either the second Tuesday of next week, or when my humped-back brother gets straightened out, which ever comes first. --- Now, as for as "origin" goes, yes, everything has an origin. Nothing just goes "poof" and appears, nothing.

And there you go starting the same circle all over again.

First you agree that there are mysteries we don't know and can't prove.
Then a moment later you do a 180 and claim to "know" that "nothing just goes 'poof' and appears".

When you decide which one of those you wanna go with, maybe we'll pick it up. In the Religion forum. This thread is about wacko state legislators in South Carolina making a mockery of their job.

Having it both ways: Priceless.

I'm not trying to have it both ways, not at all. I'm merely stating that logic tells us that something can not come from nothing, and it can't. Something has to start the ball rolling. Where did matter come from? where did what makes up matter come from? It all has to start somewhere. So, I ask, for someone to please explain to me where it all started, or explain why there can not be a GOD, or that GOD doesn't exist. It's very straight forward. There're no two ways. Either it all started from something, or all of it just magically appeared from nothing. It has to be one or the other. And, if you believe that it all just started from nothing, what is the basis for that line of reasoning, and how does it explain the complexity of everything that we now know to exist?

I'm not going in circles here. I am asking very straight forward simple questions, nothing more. Either an intelligent being, GOD, or a GOD, started all of it, or there's another explanation that no one is will to submit. It "just started" is not an explanation. If everything evolved, what did it evolve from? If not creation, then how did everything come about? Again, no circle. Just simple plain English questions, asking for simple plain English answers. Nothing more.

By the way, these same questions have been asked by believers, addressed to non-believers for centuries, and as of yet, no non-believers have been able to answer them with anything other than, "it just happened". Science has never been able to answer these questions. So, good luck with your answers. And, if you can't answer them, then why say that GOD doesn't exist? Why say that GOD is not the creator of all we know to exist?

 

[daws101]

you are under the misleading assumption that there was reason or intelligence behind "creation"
it al began where it began..

I'm not assuming anything, and I haven't been mislead nor misinformed. In my opinion, and until someone proves me wrong, yes, intelligence created the beginning of everything. That is my opinion, and nothing will ever change my mind until absolute proof is presented that counters that. Simple logic tells me that such complex matter as there is that makes up everything known to mankind, didn't come about merely by accident or chance. We have millions of things in this universe that are complex and beyond anyone's understanding. Even the human body is still a mystery to science. So, again, using simple logic, intelligence had to have been the original source of the very beginning of everything. Again, my opinion, and until I'm proven wrong, it'll remain my opinion.

your opinion is based on a false premise making any conclusions, speculations, etc. false...
yes you have been mislead and misinformed......your posts prove that.

Nope, sorry. I have not been misinformed nor mislead. Please tell me exactly where I've been misinformed or mislead. Thanks.

if you understood what a false premise was you would not have to ask.

OK. Fair enough. We'll do this your way. What "false premise" am I believing? What is it that I don't understand? And, what exactly do my posts prove? Please give details instead of general slurs or slams. And, if it all "began where it began", as you say, and have said, where exactly was that, and who or what set it in motion? I would greatly appreciated it if you would make an effort to answer those question. Thanks.

A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.

the false premise you are buying is god exists as there is no proof of it....(can we do this without needing to explain again what no evidence either way means ) that makes it and every conclusion, idea, opinion, etc. false .
is that clear enough?
as to the rest of your "questions" if you understand these false premise and logical fallacy
fallacy
noun fal·la·cy \ˈfa-lə-sē\
: a wrong belief : a false or mistaken idea

: the quality of being false or wrong

those questions become irrelevant.

 

[daws101]

Darwin's work was largely based off of Gregor Mendel, a priest.

But, of course evolutionary biology has been debated and continues to be seriously debated. The theory of gradual evolution begrudgingly gave way to staggered evolution. There was the 40 year hoax of the Piltdown man, and though it was revealed as a hoax many of the missing link conclusions derived from it survive today. Then, group selection was introduced. Now some cutting edge biologists are looking at chaos theory as it relates to evolution, much to the chagrin of other biologists who insist on causation.

Plenty of the lazy ignorant people in America are blind acceptors of academic orthodoxy.

is there any point to this, other than the not so well hidden religious dogma..

Dogma is a principle or statement of ideas considered to be authoritative or accepted uncritically. Which part of my post could be construed as dogma?

The point is that you seem to be advocating for blind acceptance of academic dogma. 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere is a fact. Climate change linked primarily to CO2 is an educated guess. I'm not sure if you've been outside lately, but there is a gigantic burning sphere up there visible to the naked eye that's 1.2 million times larger than the earth, and it has a changing life-cycle.

The theory of evolution continues to develop over the protestations of published professors who have years invested in their version of the theory. You presented it as something that has not been debated seriously for 155 years, which is ridiculous.

As far as what they think in South Carolina or Georgia, I'm not interested. If I do ever visit there though, I'm sure I would be glad to find it different from what I'm used to on the West Coast. That is the point of travel.

The point of the OP, if it still exists after this massive deployment of tangential deflector shield, is not that "academia" or "science" has proved squat or is "settled" --- it's the reverse, i.e.that state lawmaker-zombies, living and breathing right now, are walking around sputtering about primitive Creationism myths as a pretext for denying the existence of a dinosaur that's already been found.

To wit, directly from the OP:

>> First, an objecting state senator attached three verses from Genesis to the act, outlining God’s creation of all living creatures. Then, after other lawmakers spiked the amendment as out of order for its introduction of the divinity, he took another crack, specifying that the Columbian mammoth “was created on the sixth day with the other beasts of the field.” That version passed in the senate in early April <<​

I only wish I was creative enough to have made that up but it's copied directly.

It's naked denialism. That's the point. Hence all the energies directed to changing the subject.

part of my intention in posting that article was to see how fast and how hard poster would mischaracterize it.
I got my wish..

True but I didn't really expect this degree of angst poured into defending a clear case of state legislator idiocy.

I didn't expect this sort of Spanish inquisition !

 

[Pogo]

is there any point to this, other than the not so well hidden religious dogma..

Dogma is a principle or statement of ideas considered to be authoritative or accepted uncritically. Which part of my post could be construed as dogma?

The point is that you seem to be advocating for blind acceptance of academic dogma. 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere is a fact. Climate change linked primarily to CO2 is an educated guess. I'm not sure if you've been outside lately, but there is a gigantic burning sphere up there visible to the naked eye that's 1.2 million times larger than the earth, and it has a changing life-cycle.

The theory of evolution continues to develop over the protestations of published professors who have years invested in their version of the theory. You presented it as something that has not been debated seriously for 155 years, which is ridiculous.

As far as what they think in South Carolina or Georgia, I'm not interested. If I do ever visit there though, I'm sure I would be glad to find it different from what I'm used to on the West Coast. That is the point of travel.

The point of the OP, if it still exists after this massive deployment of tangential deflector shield, is not that "academia" or "science" has proved squat or is "settled" --- it's the reverse, i.e.that state lawmaker-zombies, living and breathing right now, are walking around sputtering about primitive Creationism myths as a pretext for denying the existence of a dinosaur that's already been found.

To wit, directly from the OP:

>> First, an objecting state senator attached three verses from Genesis to the act, outlining God’s creation of all living creatures. Then, after other lawmakers spiked the amendment as out of order for its introduction of the divinity, he took another crack, specifying that the Columbian mammoth “was created on the sixth day with the other beasts of the field.” That version passed in the senate in early April <<​

I only wish I was creative enough to have made that up but it's copied directly.

It's naked denialism. That's the point. Hence all the energies directed to changing the subject.

part of my intention in posting that article was to see how fast and how hard poster would mischaracterize it.
I got my wish..

True but I didn't really expect this degree of angst poured into defending a clear case of state legislator idiocy.

I didn't expect this sort of Spanish inquisition !

Nobody does.
Their weapon is deflection, bringing in discussions of theism and Obamacare... their two weapons are deflecting with theism, Obamacare, climate change.... their THREE weapons aagggh......

Amongst their weapons are deflection, ad hom...

Amongst their weaponry are such diverse elements as deflection with theism
I'll come in again.