Scott Walker On Evolution: 'I Am Going To Punt On That One'

[orogenicman]

No one who believes in Creationism is qualified to be president - because that proves they are not rational.

So, your THEORY is that a Christian nation should not be ran by a Christian?



You should've had the balls to put that in your title, since that's what this is really about.

If the US were a Christian nation it would be a theocracy, which the Right denies. You seem confused.

The US is symbolically a Christian nation. I don't know why you're being pedantic. I'm very much a Constitutionalist.

The U.S. is a country with a predominantly Christian culture. The country/government itself is secular, not Christian.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Oh, can it. It's called the theory of evolution. Don't try to justify your bigotry. Period.

Erm, how does your response relate to my post?

You say that anyone that is a creationist is not qualified for the presidency. That's just hardcore bigotry. Nothing less. Most of our presidents if not all of them have been creationists by the way.

First of all, it is not bigotry to acknowledge the ignorance of another any more than it is bigotry to acknowledge that a dead man is dead. Secondly, you have no idea whether or not all of our presidents have been creationists. Obama certainly is not. Many politicians claim religious belief whether or not they actually believe, because despite the fact that it is unconstitutional to prevent people from holding office because of their religious beliefs, or lack thereof (good luck trying to get elected if you don't express a belief in the almighty). Be that as it may, I have no issues with what people believe. Believe what your conscience allows. But if "god did it" is the only explanation a candidate can come up with for all the natural phenomenon we see in the universe, we don't need or want him in the white house because he is useless in advancing science in this country, and hence the economy, when some of the highest paying jobs are in science and advanced technology, and that require people with advanced science education.

1. I'm sorry, but is it called 'evolution' or 'the theory of evolution?' You're trying to then say that those (Christians) whom have not accepted a theory as fact are not qualified to be president (over a matter that pales to most matters, too). Sorry, dude; but that's hardcore bigotry. You may think you're being sly about it; but you ain't.

I am saying that creationists (and make no mistake, every creationist organization in the country holds to this tenet) want to force their religious beliefs on our children in the schools, and would love nothing more than to cut every science budget in the country to the bone. I am saying that creationists are as ignorant and just as dangerous to this country as the morons who refuse to vaccinate their children. And just like people who refuse to vaccinate their children have no place being on the board of any health department, people who deny the very fundamental principles of modern science have no business making decisions regard our economy or the education of our children. That is not ignorance. That is common sense.

2. Yes, I have a very good idea that most or all our presidents were creationists. And now you want to say that only those who deny creationism are qualified to be president?

Good luck proving that. I won't wait up, but you are welcome to try.

3. But if "god did it" is the only explanation a candidate can come up with for all the natural phenomenon we see in the universe, we don't need or want him in the white house because he is useless in advancing science in this country,

Creationism is not a denial of science. It's not even a denial of evolution as a scientific concept. A belief in God does not exclude a recognition of the merits of science. Your bottom line is bigoted. You are a bigot.

Creationism is not merely a belief in god, bubba. It absolutely IS a denial of basic science (evolutionary biology, geology, paleontology, and even cosmology and more). These people have spent thousands of hours and millions of dollars trying to revise science education in this country to accommodate their narrow evangelical dominionist religious beliefs. I won't stand for it, and neither will millions of Americans. You really should educate yourself on the subject before you post your accusations. Anyone who believes the universe is only 6,000 years old is not fit to lead this country. End of story.

1. You're trying to move the goalposts. Don't make this about what the so-called dastardly motives of what you want to call creationist groups are. You made a sweeping statement that an individual who believe in creationism is not qualified to be president. That's your bigoted standard for individuals. The groups isn't even a factor in that bottom line you presented.

2. Creationism is not a denial of science. Your logic in that regard is fallacious. And your sweeping statement that those who believe in creationism is bigoted and offensive. If you had 'common sense' or rather if you drained yourself of your hateful bigotry, you'd not being spouting your dogma.

3. I don't think that a history of the presidents' religions and beliefs in creationism are a serious topic of dispute. If anyone has anything to prove on that front it would be you.

 

[Political Junky]

Gov. Scott Walker refuses to take down religious tweet

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker believes he can do all things through Christ, but an atheist group charges that he cannot do all things through Christ on his official social media platforms.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has demanded Walker remove posts from his official Facebook and Twitter feeds that read, “Philippians 4:13.”

“I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me,” the verse reads.

More: Gov. Scott Walker refuses to take down religious tweet - Fox News

Well, that's some scary shit.

Walker is really playig to the Far Right with that quote.
I wonder how often he attends church?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

No one who believes in Creationism is qualified to be president - because that proves they are not rational.

So, your THEORY is that a Christian nation should not be ran by a Christian?



You should've had the balls to put that in your title, since that's what this is really about.

If the US were a Christian nation it would be a theocracy, which the Right denies. You seem confused.

The US is symbolically a Christian nation. I don't know why you're being pedantic. I'm very much a Constitutionalist.

The U.S. is a country with a predominantly Christian culture. The country/government itself is secular, not Christian.

It's not institutionally Christian in a theocratic sense. This does not deny the role of Christian values in government.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Walker is really playig to the Far Right with that quote.
I wonder how often he attends church?

Do you really? I don't think whether its 11 percent or 88 percent makes a hill of beans to you. You'd find a reason to hate him for it. And having Christian religion is far right? Yea, I guess Obama is far right then; he just doesn't like to play to his fellow far righters.

 

[gtopa1]

It's a big tactical mistake on Walker's part. He's never going to out-fundy the GOP candidates who are pandering to the religious right, so if he dances around the evolution question he gains nothing and hurts himself with the 'sane' voters in the Republican party (or what passes for sane over there).

If you're stuck for an answer, you give something like this one...

...I believe in evolution, but I see the God's hand in nature...

That was McCain's answer, and as you might recall, he won the nomination.

Why does one make a Scientific Theory into a faith based religion?? It's like saying that one believes in the Bohr Atom, or one believes in String Theory!!! Will you religion substituters understand that Science is not a RELIGION!! It is a Great Theory but to "believe in" it is just well a nonsense.

My own answer? Evolution is (every superlative one can muster) Theory AND God loves you and me!!

Stephen Hawking says Higgs boson has potential to destroy entire universe

Do you believe in the Higgs Boson Particle??

Or the Techni-Higgs

Now, though, researchers at the University of Southern Denmark's Center for Cosmology and Particle Physics Phenomenology suggest that while the CERN scientists did discover a unique new particle, there's no conclusive evidence of it being the Higgs boson.

The Higgs could explain data obtained by CERN scientists using the Large Hadron Collider, but other particles could have created the data, suggesting there might be alternate explanations for it, they say in a paper published in the journal Physical Review D.

"The current data is not precise enough to determine exactly what the particle is," says university researcher Mads Toudal Frandsen. "It could be a number of other known particles."

One possibility is that the CERN team was seeing a theoretical particle dubbed the techni-higgs, he says.

Shocking CERN may not have discovered elusive Higgs Boson particle after all SCIENCE Tech Times

Why is it shocking though?? lmao

I think it's great...Science bubbling along looking at all the possibilities. Put up; refute; adjust; put up again...until there is progress. Fantastic stuff!!

And no; I don't believe in any of this but gee it's fun. It's the best theory and experimentation we can come up with. ....for now.

Greg

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How can any sane person believe inorganic, non-living molecules gave rise to Life?

Whence came God?

beyond human comprehension, like an ant walking on the Giza Pyramid

Fail.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The right's defense of Walker is pathetic and pointless; Democrats elect presidents, and Democrats won't vote for Walker.

 

[gtopa1]

The right's defense of Walker is pathetic and pointless; Democrats elect presidents, and Democrats won't vote for Walker.

I KNEW IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUSH WAS THE DEMOKKKRATS FAULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lmao

Greg

 

[orogenicman]

1. You're trying to move the goalposts. Don't make this about what the so-called dastardly motives of what you want to call creationist groups are. You made a sweeping statement that an individual who believe in creationism is not qualified to be president. That's your bigoted standard for individuals. The groups isn't even a factor in that bottom line you presented.

No sir, I am not moving any goalposts. Creationists are not qualified to be president for the simple fact that they have repeatedly stated that they stated intend is to destroy our education system, which will also destroy our economy. anyone who believes they have a right to force their religious beliefs on others is not fit to govern in a free society. This has nothing to do with bigotry. Obviously you don't even know what the word means.

2. Creationism is not a denial of science. Your logic in that regard is fallacious. And your sweeping statement that those who believe in creationism is bigoted and offensive. If you had 'common sense' or rather if you drained yourself of your hateful bigotry, you'd not being spouting your dogma.

Absolutely, it is a denial of science. Don't be naive. Anyone who believes the universe is 6,000 years old is not fit to govern an advanced technological society such as ours. Anyone who believes that the Flintstones is a documentary is not fit to govern. Period.

3. I don't think that a history of the presidents' religions and beliefs in creationism are a serious topic of dispute. If anyone has anything to prove on that front it would be you.

You are the one who claimed that most of our presidents are creationists. It's your claim to prove. have at it.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The right's defense of Walker is pathetic and pointless; Democrats elect presidents, and Democrats won't vote for Walker.

No, Democrats elect community agitators with zero experience at anything.

Spare us your condescending bullshit... you people will elect anybody promising "free-shit" and to soak the "evil one-per centers" or whatever such idiocy.

 

[orogenicman]

The right's defense of Walker is pathetic and pointless; Democrats elect presidents, and Democrats won't vote for Walker.

No, Democrats elect community agitators with zero experience at anything.

Spare us your condescending bullshit... you people will elect anybody promising "free-shit" and to soak the "evil one-per centers" or whatever such idiocy.

Right. Our current president is so inexperienced that he managed to get much of his agenda through Congress despite a do nothing opposition. If he is so inexperienced, what does that make your pals? Right. Incompetent.

 

[gtopa1]

In the words of that little hymn that says so much in a few simple words..

"The man whose joy it is to discover the world.
And meet the eyes of God in the beauty that is his.
Will sing of peace."

Could be the Anthem of all Scientists quite frankly!!

And who says one MUST be religious to see that beauty that God has created??

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

The right's defense of Walker is pathetic and pointless; Democrats elect presidents, and Democrats won't vote for Walker.

No, Democrats elect community agitators with zero experience at anything.

Spare us your condescending bullshit... you people will elect anybody promising "free-shit" and to soak the "evil one-per centers" or whatever such idiocy.

Right. Our current president is so inexperienced that he managed to get much of his agenda through Congress despite a do nothing opposition. If he is so inexperienced, what does that make your pals? Right. Incompetent.

No: outvoted.

Greg

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The right's defense of Walker is pathetic and pointless; Democrats elect presidents, and Democrats won't vote for Walker.

No, Democrats elect community agitators with zero experience at anything.

Spare us your condescending bullshit... you people will elect anybody promising "free-shit" and to soak the "evil one-per centers" or whatever such idiocy.

Right. Our current president is so inexperienced that he managed to get much of his agenda through Congress despite a do nothing opposition. If he is so inexperienced, what does that make your pals? Right. Incompetent.

It doesn't take a great deal of competency to shove legislation through when you have the Senate or, through EO's. But, on a more objective scale, look at he economy... it is a disaster. As for foreign policy, he's pretty much gotten everything wrong. The ACA is a disaster, he's bargaining with Iran, we have record numbers on public assistance, he's still pushing the CRA, free 2 year degrees, the middles class has all but ben destroyed under Obama while the evil rich are making money in record numbers.

Is he a competent politician? Sure,, no argument. Is he a competent manager.. hardly. He couldn't run an ice-cream truck.

 

[orogenicman]

In the words of that little hymn that says so much in a few simple words..

"The man whose joy it is to discover the world.
And meet the eyes of God in the beauty that is his.
Will sing of peace."

Could be the Anthem of all Scientists quite frankly!!

And who says one MUST be religious to see that beauty that God has created??

Greg

Hmm. 85% of all members of the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) do not hold to any religious belief. How many of these do you believe would sing such a silly anthem?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

In the words of that little hymn that says so much in a few simple words..

"The man whose joy it is to discover the world.
And meet the eyes of God in the beauty that is his.
Will sing of peace."

Could be the Anthem of all Scientists quite frankly!!

And who says one MUST be religious to see that beauty that God has created??

Greg

Hmm. 85% of all members of the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) do not hold to any religious belief. How many of these do you believe would sing such a silly anthem?

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view.

Scientists and Belief Pew Research Center s Religion Public Life Project

Not sure where your 85 percent came from.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

No, Democrats elect community agitators with zero experience at anything.

Spare us your condescending bullshit... you people will elect anybody promising "free-shit" and to soak the "evil one-per centers" or whatever such idiocy.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Limbaugh: Scott Walker Should Say He Quit College Because He 'Didn't Want To Be Accused Of Rape'
So Scotty does not end up like Jerry Sandusky at Penn State

 

[peach174]

In the words of that little hymn that says so much in a few simple words..

"The man whose joy it is to discover the world.
And meet the eyes of God in the beauty that is his.
Will sing of peace."

Could be the Anthem of all Scientists quite frankly!!

And who says one MUST be religious to see that beauty that God has created??

Greg

Hmm. 85% of all members of the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) do not hold to any religious belief. How many of these do you believe would sing such a silly anthem?

Talk about discrimination and unfair hiring practices.
Especially since 75% of the Nation is Religious.