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

[TheGreatGatsby]

I don't care that someone created a website, and you somehow think that it's an all encapsulating view of creationism. Probably 99.9 percent of creationists haven't even been to that website. Creationism is simply a traditional view that God created life. It doesn't mean that God isn't beholden to scientific concepts. It doesn't even mean that evolution isn't a valid concept. People like you want it to be a litmus test for enlightened vs. unenlightened because it soothes your bigotry.

I hate having to educate people who don't bother to keep up with current events. Have you not heard of the Dover trial? The Supreme Court rulings on creationism, etc? Does any of this ring a bell? Where were you when all of this was going on? Why aren't you, an apparently professed creationist taking your own people to task on the USMB forums when they go on and on about how the Earth is 6,000 years old and radiocarbon dating is a fraud as is the big bang? And how Noah's ark was real, and not a fable. And humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Where were you, gatsby?

You're all over the map, dude. And you're not making coherent arguments.
You can tell me whatever you want to tell me about the Dover trial or SC rullings. I'm not going to spend good time digging into every puzzle you throw out there in the hopes of piecing together your likely dysfunctional dossier.
I haven't seen a USMB profess the universe to be 6,000 years old. Their belief typically is that the Earth as we know it was formed 6,000 years ago. That's different. And frankly, not every creationist is committed to that number either.
Carbon dating is not a proven method. In fact, it's often been shown to be flawed.
I don't have a problem with people believing Noah's ark was real.
And the dinosaurs is an unknown in many ways to everyone frankly.
And even if creationists are wrong, they're not the terrible, stupid people that you make them out to be. Creationists formed the greatest country of the modern era if not ever; this the United States of America. And they haven't disavowed science like you claim either (well, other than some extreme ones). You on the other hand have hijacked science. You use not fully substantiated theories to purport wholesale truthfulness. That is pseudo science worthy of the hack that you are.

Thanks for proving my point. Carbon dating is not a proven method? It is the most widespread dating method on the planet, used by thousands of laboratories, and independently verified by a dozen other methods. You try to chastise me for lumping creationists together all the while proving my point for me that they are all doing the same thing, trying to use science to confirm their religious beliefs. Creationism is not a science, and never will be. There is no doubt whatsoever that creationists are wrong. If you truly believe that creationists are what makes this country great, you really should consider going to an AA meeting and sober up, because, damn.

Plenty of issues with carbon dating...do the research on it.

Do the research? You're talking to a geologist. What the hell do you think I've been doing since 1984?

When did I talk about creationsts trying to use science to confirm their beliefs? I didn't; but I wouldn't have a problem with it.

You didn't have to. Because that is what they are doing. of course you don't have a problem with it, because you don't have a clue.

Who says that creationism is a science?

Creationists do. They call it creation science. You didn't know this? Huh.

It's a belief.

That you for that astute observation, Mr. Obvious.

That doesn't mean that science can't possibly confirm it.

"God did it" is not scientific, not falsifiable, not testable. Science can never confirm it.

You can't say that creationists are wrong.

Are you blind? I just did.

Were you there at the start of the world?

OMG. I don't believe you just said that. The world around us was there. And we can read what it says about how it formed. Maybe if you took a class, you too would be able to read it.

Do you know exactly how life was formed?

Do I know every step? No. I am 99% certain that a gray-haired sky daddy didn't form it out of a magical lump of clay.

For a guy who doesn't believe in creationism, you sure want to make godly decrees about absolute truth.

Projection. Try again.

I believe that wise, spiritual men have always made great contributions to this world regardless of whether or not they believed in creationism; and I can come to this sure understanding because I'm not a bigot like you.

I know one so-called wise spiritual man who's followers have rampaged the planet for the last 2,000 years. And humanity has suffered immensely as a result.

Fine, there's creationist science. That's no skin of my sac or yours.

Yea, you use dismissive terms to diminish a deity you don't understand; that doesn't prove anything. And again, you're not the authority on the start of the world that you pretend to be. You simply do not know all that you'd like to think you know.

 

[orogenicman]

Explain to me why I should tolerate a public school board with creationist members who insist that evolution be taken out of science books and the classroom, and that creationism should be taught in the classroom instead? Explain that.

Look, it is okay to have an open mind as long as you don't let your brains fall out.

Honestly, few are saying you should keep your silence. You're a citizen who should make his voice heard on the matter. But what's disturbing is how you naively paint everyone with a large brush--likely because you see media reports and you think everyone who has spiritual beliefs wants to repress science. It's a load of crap. Try not letting your own 'brain fall out.'

No sir. I'm a published geologist who has spent his entire career having to deal directly with these charlatans. Look, if you believe that "god did it", I have no problem with that. I don't even care. You have a right to your belief. But if you believe that with your whole heart and soul to the point where nothing else is possible, or where you insist that me or my child should be forced to believe as you do, I don't need you in the lab, the field, our public schools, or even the white house for that matter, because you are useless as someone who can competently and creatively carry out scientific projects, teach science, or make national science policy. "God did it" doesn't explain anything, and never will.

Wow, you allegedly did some glorified grunt work and got published in a publication that few people read and now you presume that your meager scientific background makes you the judge and juror of all things science and even concerning political matters and spiritual matters that you know nothing about. Get a grip, dude.

Who's talking about me forcing you to believe anything? You argue bull shit that was never said. You're an irrational person, which makes you a poor scientist frankly; as a good scientist makes keen observations and follows proper rigors.

You really don't know what you are talking about or to who. Here is one of my publications, which was co-authored with two others:

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

When you get an science education and get published, then you can talk to me about the science about which you know very little. Until then, good evening.

I'll take a moment to give you props for your work, whatever your part in it may have been. But you're still full of it on a lot of these matters.

No I am spot on, and most scientists, particularly those in my field, agree with me. For instance, watch this:

 

[orogenicman]

I hate having to educate people who don't bother to keep up with current events. Have you not heard of the Dover trial? The Supreme Court rulings on creationism, etc? Does any of this ring a bell? Where were you when all of this was going on? Why aren't you, an apparently professed creationist taking your own people to task on the USMB forums when they go on and on about how the Earth is 6,000 years old and radiocarbon dating is a fraud as is the big bang? And how Noah's ark was real, and not a fable. And humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Where were you, gatsby?

You're all over the map, dude. And you're not making coherent arguments.
You can tell me whatever you want to tell me about the Dover trial or SC rullings. I'm not going to spend good time digging into every puzzle you throw out there in the hopes of piecing together your likely dysfunctional dossier.
I haven't seen a USMB profess the universe to be 6,000 years old. Their belief typically is that the Earth as we know it was formed 6,000 years ago. That's different. And frankly, not every creationist is committed to that number either.
Carbon dating is not a proven method. In fact, it's often been shown to be flawed.
I don't have a problem with people believing Noah's ark was real.
And the dinosaurs is an unknown in many ways to everyone frankly.
And even if creationists are wrong, they're not the terrible, stupid people that you make them out to be. Creationists formed the greatest country of the modern era if not ever; this the United States of America. And they haven't disavowed science like you claim either (well, other than some extreme ones). You on the other hand have hijacked science. You use not fully substantiated theories to purport wholesale truthfulness. That is pseudo science worthy of the hack that you are.

Thanks for proving my point. Carbon dating is not a proven method? It is the most widespread dating method on the planet, used by thousands of laboratories, and independently verified by a dozen other methods. You try to chastise me for lumping creationists together all the while proving my point for me that they are all doing the same thing, trying to use science to confirm their religious beliefs. Creationism is not a science, and never will be. There is no doubt whatsoever that creationists are wrong. If you truly believe that creationists are what makes this country great, you really should consider going to an AA meeting and sober up, because, damn.

Plenty of issues with carbon dating...do the research on it.

Do the research? You're talking to a geologist. What the hell do you think I've been doing since 1984?

When did I talk about creationsts trying to use science to confirm their beliefs? I didn't; but I wouldn't have a problem with it.

You didn't have to. Because that is what they are doing. of course you don't have a problem with it, because you don't have a clue.

Who says that creationism is a science?

Creationists do. They call it creation science. You didn't know this? Huh.

It's a belief.

That you for that astute observation, Mr. Obvious.

That doesn't mean that science can't possibly confirm it.

"God did it" is not scientific, not falsifiable, not testable. Science can never confirm it.

You can't say that creationists are wrong.

Are you blind? I just did.

Were you there at the start of the world?

OMG. I don't believe you just said that. The world around us was there. And we can read what it says about how it formed. Maybe if you took a class, you too would be able to read it.

Do you know exactly how life was formed?

Do I know every step? No. I am 99% certain that a gray-haired sky daddy didn't form it out of a magical lump of clay.

For a guy who doesn't believe in creationism, you sure want to make godly decrees about absolute truth.

Projection. Try again.

I believe that wise, spiritual men have always made great contributions to this world regardless of whether or not they believed in creationism; and I can come to this sure understanding because I'm not a bigot like you.

I know one so-called wise spiritual man who's followers have rampaged the planet for the last 2,000 years. And humanity has suffered immensely as a result.

Fine, there's creationist science. That's no skin of my sac or yours.

Yea, you use dismissive terms to diminish a deity you don't understand; that doesn't prove anything. And again, you're not the authority on the start of the world that you pretend to be. You simply do not know all that you'd like to think you know.

This is a typical tactic creationists use - claim that I don't understand the religion/deity. I was once a devout Catholic and come from a very large family of devout Catholics, so don't tell me that I don't understand. I never said I was an authority. There are no authorities in the sciences. There are, however, experts, and I am one of them. You know, I've heard creationists say the same thing - we don't know most of the universe (of course, they are referring to dark energy and dark matter which make up the bulk of the universe, and about which we know virtually nothing). And the are right. We don't know much about that stuff. But we know that they exist, and we know this because we made the discovery by applying the scientific method. We did not say "we don't know what's going on there, it must be god". And the rest of the universe, the matter and electromagnetic energy, we know a hell of a lot about. You say that we don't know as much as we think we do. I say that while there is so much more to learn, there is a lot more that we know than you are either aware of or are willing to admit.

 

[gtopa1]

So if Scott Walker is a Christian, the same religion that you lefties assured the birther movement that President Obama shares, then that alone disqualifies him? Why the double standard?

Also, the fact that you arrogantly call him a science denier as though you know for a fact that Darwin's evolution theory is correct is beyond laughable. I'm willing to bet that most of you big smart science gurus haven't actually seen the physical evidence backing the theory. I'll bet even more that none of you hold the knowledge or PHD's in biology, paleontology, archaeology, etc that would even begin to qualify you to analyze that evidence with even a modicum of accuracy. Hell, half you arrogant motherfuckers have probably never even read a book on the topic, but for the sake of argument I'll go on as though you have.

Basically, some scientists (people) you never met put together a theory based on evidence you've never seen and wouldn't know what to do with if you had, and popular cultural influences have told you that it's a "scientific concensus" (I'm guessing nobody on this post ever set up a scientific survey polling an accurate cross section of the scientific community at large?) so now you've taken at the word of these men you've never even met that Darwin's evolution is gospel. You all believe in evolution based on faith in the words of humans you've never met based on evidence you've never seen, and then you call it science and say that anyone who doesn't share your faith is intellectually inferior and unqualified to lead. Hahahaha!

Ignorant, arrogant bigots doesn't even begin to do you kids justice.

I would be happy to bet my favorite fishing lure that not one in twenty liberals has a real idea of what biochemistry is involved in Genetics, let alone what the Science of Proteins entails. Absobloodylutely ignorant. But I have a few clues about it, and frankly Evolutionary theory is incredible...but do NOT let that be mixed up with genetics. Genetics is an amazing tool that Evolution makes good use of ans so it is becoming a huge umbrella Paradigm. Some of it is bound to be updated but it is the most thorough theory about development of species out there. But to believe "in it". lol Even the Egyptians believed that the Sun would rise on the morrow. ...flaming chariots and all.

In short; I accept that Evolution is an interesting track, but hasn't even remotely "got there" yet. In fifty years they'll be looking back asking how some parts of the theory passed muster.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Just because people believe in Creationism does not mean that they believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.
Very few Christians who believe in Creation believe that.

Then they don't believe in creationism. I don't know where you people have been living these past 30 years, but it is clear that many creationists hold to a silly notion of very young Earth. We've been fighting them, actually, since Darwin published Origin of Species.

Most the people that I know don't believe in your version of creationism. Most of those that I know don't believe in creationism is a denial of science, nor do they state that they want to destroy the education system. I'm not sure,where you are getting your info but I believe it is wrong.

Then you don't know many creationists. Creationists don't believe in the biological theory of evolution, nor do they believe in an old Earth (~4.57 bya). They have argued that creationism should be taught as science in the science classes in our schools. Some of them, like Ken Ham, believe that Dinosaurs and Humans co-existed (they believe that the Flintstones is a documentary, apparently). And sir, it is not MY version of creationism. I am a geologist, and so fully subscribe to the biological theory of evolution. I am also an amateur astronomer, and so fully subscribe to the Big Bang theory of cosmology. Maybe you have come to the table after everyone has sat down, but this is the way it is and has been for decades.

I know many creationists most are very reasonable. Sort of the Muslim thing, you only hear about the radicals.

But that doesn't stop you from lumping everyone into one.

I haven't met a single one that knew what he/she was talking about. And I have talked to many. If you are concerned that I am lumping people together, then have at it. Don't be shy. Tell us what creationism, in your view, is all about and why it should be considered scientifically valid? (this should be entertaining)

Do you mean to sat that you don't even know what Creationism is and you are condemning it as "unscientific"?? The Scientific method work because it is based on refutation. So refute!!!

Greg

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You're all over the map, dude. And you're not making coherent arguments.
You can tell me whatever you want to tell me about the Dover trial or SC rullings. I'm not going to spend good time digging into every puzzle you throw out there in the hopes of piecing together your likely dysfunctional dossier.
I haven't seen a USMB profess the universe to be 6,000 years old. Their belief typically is that the Earth as we know it was formed 6,000 years ago. That's different. And frankly, not every creationist is committed to that number either.
Carbon dating is not a proven method. In fact, it's often been shown to be flawed.
I don't have a problem with people believing Noah's ark was real.
And the dinosaurs is an unknown in many ways to everyone frankly.
And even if creationists are wrong, they're not the terrible, stupid people that you make them out to be. Creationists formed the greatest country of the modern era if not ever; this the United States of America. And they haven't disavowed science like you claim either (well, other than some extreme ones). You on the other hand have hijacked science. You use not fully substantiated theories to purport wholesale truthfulness. That is pseudo science worthy of the hack that you are.

Thanks for proving my point. Carbon dating is not a proven method? It is the most widespread dating method on the planet, used by thousands of laboratories, and independently verified by a dozen other methods. You try to chastise me for lumping creationists together all the while proving my point for me that they are all doing the same thing, trying to use science to confirm their religious beliefs. Creationism is not a science, and never will be. There is no doubt whatsoever that creationists are wrong. If you truly believe that creationists are what makes this country great, you really should consider going to an AA meeting and sober up, because, damn.

Plenty of issues with carbon dating...do the research on it.

Do the research? You're talking to a geologist. What the hell do you think I've been doing since 1984?

When did I talk about creationsts trying to use science to confirm their beliefs? I didn't; but I wouldn't have a problem with it.

You didn't have to. Because that is what they are doing. of course you don't have a problem with it, because you don't have a clue.

Who says that creationism is a science?

Creationists do. They call it creation science. You didn't know this? Huh.

It's a belief.

That you for that astute observation, Mr. Obvious.

That doesn't mean that science can't possibly confirm it.

"God did it" is not scientific, not falsifiable, not testable. Science can never confirm it.

You can't say that creationists are wrong.

Are you blind? I just did.

Were you there at the start of the world?

OMG. I don't believe you just said that. The world around us was there. And we can read what it says about how it formed. Maybe if you took a class, you too would be able to read it.

Do you know exactly how life was formed?

Do I know every step? No. I am 99% certain that a gray-haired sky daddy didn't form it out of a magical lump of clay.

For a guy who doesn't believe in creationism, you sure want to make godly decrees about absolute truth.

Projection. Try again.

I believe that wise, spiritual men have always made great contributions to this world regardless of whether or not they believed in creationism; and I can come to this sure understanding because I'm not a bigot like you.

I know one so-called wise spiritual man who's followers have rampaged the planet for the last 2,000 years. And humanity has suffered immensely as a result.

Fine, there's creationist science. That's no skin of my sac or yours.

Yea, you use dismissive terms to diminish a deity you don't understand; that doesn't prove anything. And again, you're not the authority on the start of the world that you pretend to be. You simply do not know all that you'd like to think you know.

This is a typical tactic creationists use - claim that I don't understand the religion/deity. I was once a devout Catholic and come from a very large family of devout Catholics, so don't tell me that I don't understand. I never said I was an authority. There are no authorities in the sciences. There are, however, experts, and I am one of them. You know, I've heard creationists say the same thing - we don't know most of the universe (of course, they are referring to dark energy and dark matter which make up the bulk of the universe, and about which we know virtually nothing). And the are right. We don't know much about that stuff. But we know that they exist, and we know this because we made the discovery by applying the scientific method. We did not say "we don't know what's going on there, it must be god". And the rest of the universe, the matter and electromagnetic energy, we know a hell of a lot about. You say that we don't know as much as we think we do. I say that while there is so much more to learn, there is a lot more that we know than you are either aware of or are willing to admit.

Your dark matter analogy is inept. It doesn't prove or disprove God's existence. Nor do so-called creationists hear about dark matter and automatically think that it's God in disguise. See, you faultily think that I don't put the same value on science that you do. The difference is that I don't use science as a crutch to dismiss things that I don't understand or am otherwise bitter about.

 

[orogenicman]

Then they don't believe in creationism. I don't know where you people have been living these past 30 years, but it is clear that many creationists hold to a silly notion of very young Earth. We've been fighting them, actually, since Darwin published Origin of Species.

Most the people that I know don't believe in your version of creationism. Most of those that I know don't believe in creationism is a denial of science, nor do they state that they want to destroy the education system. I'm not sure,where you are getting your info but I believe it is wrong.

Then you don't know many creationists. Creationists don't believe in the biological theory of evolution, nor do they believe in an old Earth (~4.57 bya). They have argued that creationism should be taught as science in the science classes in our schools. Some of them, like Ken Ham, believe that Dinosaurs and Humans co-existed (they believe that the Flintstones is a documentary, apparently). And sir, it is not MY version of creationism. I am a geologist, and so fully subscribe to the biological theory of evolution. I am also an amateur astronomer, and so fully subscribe to the Big Bang theory of cosmology. Maybe you have come to the table after everyone has sat down, but this is the way it is and has been for decades.

I know many creationists most are very reasonable. Sort of the Muslim thing, you only hear about the radicals.

But that doesn't stop you from lumping everyone into one.

I haven't met a single one that knew what he/she was talking about. And I have talked to many. If you are concerned that I am lumping people together, then have at it. Don't be shy. Tell us what creationism, in your view, is all about and why it should be considered scientifically valid? (this should be entertaining)

Do you mean to sat that you don't even know what Creationism is and you are condemning it as "unscientific"?? The Scientific method work because it is based on refutation. So refute!!!

Greg

No that is not what I asked. He is saying that he disagrees with me about what creationism is. I know what it is, and have argued against it for decades. He apparently believes it is something different so I asked him to tell me what he thinks it is. As for the scientific method, you get an F with your attempt. It is not about refutation. It is about falsification, testing, observation, repetition, verification, and peer review.

 

[orogenicman]

Thanks for proving my point. Carbon dating is not a proven method? It is the most widespread dating method on the planet, used by thousands of laboratories, and independently verified by a dozen other methods. You try to chastise me for lumping creationists together all the while proving my point for me that they are all doing the same thing, trying to use science to confirm their religious beliefs. Creationism is not a science, and never will be. There is no doubt whatsoever that creationists are wrong. If you truly believe that creationists are what makes this country great, you really should consider going to an AA meeting and sober up, because, damn.

Plenty of issues with carbon dating...do the research on it.

Do the research? You're talking to a geologist. What the hell do you think I've been doing since 1984?

When did I talk about creationsts trying to use science to confirm their beliefs? I didn't; but I wouldn't have a problem with it.

You didn't have to. Because that is what they are doing. of course you don't have a problem with it, because you don't have a clue.

Who says that creationism is a science?

Creationists do. They call it creation science. You didn't know this? Huh.

It's a belief.

That you for that astute observation, Mr. Obvious.

That doesn't mean that science can't possibly confirm it.

"God did it" is not scientific, not falsifiable, not testable. Science can never confirm it.

You can't say that creationists are wrong.

Are you blind? I just did.

Were you there at the start of the world?

OMG. I don't believe you just said that. The world around us was there. And we can read what it says about how it formed. Maybe if you took a class, you too would be able to read it.

Do you know exactly how life was formed?

Do I know every step? No. I am 99% certain that a gray-haired sky daddy didn't form it out of a magical lump of clay.

For a guy who doesn't believe in creationism, you sure want to make godly decrees about absolute truth.

Projection. Try again.

I believe that wise, spiritual men have always made great contributions to this world regardless of whether or not they believed in creationism; and I can come to this sure understanding because I'm not a bigot like you.

I know one so-called wise spiritual man who's followers have rampaged the planet for the last 2,000 years. And humanity has suffered immensely as a result.

Fine, there's creationist science. That's no skin of my sac or yours.

Yea, you use dismissive terms to diminish a deity you don't understand; that doesn't prove anything. And again, you're not the authority on the start of the world that you pretend to be. You simply do not know all that you'd like to think you know.

This is a typical tactic creationists use - claim that I don't understand the religion/deity. I was once a devout Catholic and come from a very large family of devout Catholics, so don't tell me that I don't understand. I never said I was an authority. There are no authorities in the sciences. There are, however, experts, and I am one of them. You know, I've heard creationists say the same thing - we don't know most of the universe (of course, they are referring to dark energy and dark matter which make up the bulk of the universe, and about which we know virtually nothing). And the are right. We don't know much about that stuff. But we know that they exist, and we know this because we made the discovery by applying the scientific method. We did not say "we don't know what's going on there, it must be god". And the rest of the universe, the matter and electromagnetic energy, we know a hell of a lot about. You say that we don't know as much as we think we do. I say that while there is so much more to learn, there is a lot more that we know than you are either aware of or are willing to admit.

Your dark matter analogy is inept. It doesn't prove or disprove God's existence. Nor do so-called creationists hear about dark matter and automatically think that it's God in disguise. See, you faultily think that I don't put the same value on science that you do. The difference is that I don't use science as a crutch to dismiss things that I don't understand or am otherwise bitter about.

Actually, what they do is use our ignorance of dark matter and dark energy to make a god of the gaps argument. Many have tried to do this. There are many web pages dedicated to this exact argument. Look it up. Google is your friend. No you obviously don't use science for much of anything except use it to access the world wide web to belittle my knowledge of it. Science is not a crutch. However, religion certainly is.

 

[orogenicman]

Your dark matter analogy is inept. It doesn't prove or disprove God's existence. Nor do so-called creationists hear about dark matter and automatically think that it's God in disguise. See, you faultily think that I don't put the same value on science that you do. The difference is that I don't use science as a crutch to dismiss things that I don't understand or am otherwise bitter about.

Actually, what they do is use our ignorance of dark matter and dark energy to make a god of the gaps argument. Many have tried to do this. There are many web pages dedicated to this exact argument. Look it up. Google is your friend. No you obviously don't use science for much of anything except use it to access the world wide web to belittle my knowledge of it. Science is not a crutch. However, religion certainly is. That is your crutch.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'Creationism' is religion, not science, which is why the First Amendment prohibits its teaching in public schools.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Couldn't agree more. Personally, from my humble lifetime's observations, I view evolution theory as the most compelling explanation I've heard, but to discount anyone who doesn't agree with something one can't fully prove for oneself as intellectually inferior is beyond arrogant.

 

[NYcarbineer]

OMG! You are willfully ignorant and don't even know it.

THIS is creationism in all its shameful glory:

www.creationism.org

I don't care that someone created a website, and you somehow think that it's an all encapsulating view of creationism. Probably 99.9 percent of creationists haven't even been to that website. Creationism is simply a traditional view that God created life. It doesn't mean that God isn't beholden to scientific concepts. It doesn't even mean that evolution isn't a valid concept. People like you want it to be a litmus test for enlightened vs. unenlightened because it soothes your bigotry.

I hate having to educate people who don't bother to keep up with current events. Have you not heard of the Dover trial? The Supreme Court rulings on creationism, etc? Does any of this ring a bell? Where were you when all of this was going on? Why aren't you, an apparently professed creationist taking your own people to task on the USMB forums when they go on and on about how the Earth is 6,000 years old and radiocarbon dating is a fraud as is the big bang? And how Noah's ark was real, and not a fable. And humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Where were you, gatsby?

You're all over the map, dude. And you're not making coherent arguments.
You can tell me whatever you want to tell me about the Dover trial or SC rullings. I'm not going to spend good time digging into every puzzle you throw out there in the hopes of piecing together your likely dysfunctional dossier.
I haven't seen a USMB profess the universe to be 6,000 years old. Their belief typically is that the Earth as we know it was formed 6,000 years ago. That's different. And frankly, not every creationist is committed to that number either.
Carbon dating is not a proven method. In fact, it's often been shown to be flawed.
I don't have a problem with people believing Noah's ark was real.
And the dinosaurs is an unknown in many ways to everyone frankly.
And even if creationists are wrong, they're not the terrible, stupid people that you make them out to be. Creationists formed the greatest country of the modern era if not ever; this the United States of America. And they haven't disavowed science like you claim either (well, other than some extreme ones). You on the other hand have hijacked science. You use not fully substantiated theories to purport wholesale truthfulness. That is pseudo science worthy of the hack that you are.

Thanks for proving my point. Carbon dating is not a proven method? It is the most widespread dating method on the planet, used by thousands of laboratories, and independently verified by a dozen other methods. You try to chastise me for lumping creationists together all the while proving my point for me that they are all doing the same thing, trying to use science to confirm their religious beliefs. Creationism is not a science, and never will be. There is no doubt whatsoever that creationists are wrong. If you truly believe that creationists are what makes this country great, you really should consider going to an AA meeting and sober up, because, damn.

Plenty of issues with carbon dating...do the research on it.
When did I talk about creationsts trying to use science to confirm their beliefs? I didn't; but I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Who says that creationism is a science? It's a belief. That doesn't mean that science can't possibly confirm it.
You can't say that creationists are wrong. Were you there at the start of the world? Do you know exactly how life was formed? For a guy who doesn't believe in creationism, you sure want to make godly decrees about absolute truth.
I believe that wise, spiritual men have always made great contributions to this world regardless of whether or not they believed in creationism; and I can come to this sure understanding because I'm not a bigot like you.

Science has theories. Theories represent the best available explanation for subjects where is no absolute proof.

Every 'theory' put forward by Creationists, when put to the tests of science, has failed to be the best explanation for the process of how life came to be at it is currently on this planet.

To demand in any way that Creationism, or Intelligent Design, or anything similar by any other name, be given equal standing to the theory of Evolution

is to simply reject science altogether.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Your dark matter analogy is inept. It doesn't prove or disprove God's existence. Nor do so-called creationists hear about dark matter and automatically think that it's God in disguise. See, you faultily think that I don't put the same value on science that you do. The difference is that I don't use science as a crutch to dismiss things that I don't understand or am otherwise bitter about.

Actually, what they do is use our ignorance of dark matter and dark energy to make a god of the gaps argument. Many have tried to do this. There are many web pages dedicated to this exact argument. Look it up. Google is your friend. No you obviously don't use science for much of anything except use it to access the world wide web to belittle my knowledge of it. Science is not a crutch. However, religion certainly is. That is your crutch.

You can find a webpage on practically any notion. Your argument is lame. And even if people are theorizing, then it is what it is. At least we don't have to hear their theories used as asinine litmus test of who's qualified for the presidency like you do with the theory of evolution. And I didn't say science is a crutch. I said you use it as a crutch; big difference.

 

[orogenicman]

Your dark matter analogy is inept. It doesn't prove or disprove God's existence. Nor do so-called creationists hear about dark matter and automatically think that it's God in disguise. See, you faultily think that I don't put the same value on science that you do. The difference is that I don't use science as a crutch to dismiss things that I don't understand or am otherwise bitter about.

Actually, what they do is use our ignorance of dark matter and dark energy to make a god of the gaps argument. Many have tried to do this. There are many web pages dedicated to this exact argument. Look it up. Google is your friend. No you obviously don't use science for much of anything except use it to access the world wide web to belittle my knowledge of it. Science is not a crutch. However, religion certainly is. That is your crutch.

You can find a webpage on practically any notion. Your argument is lame. And even if people are theorizing, then it is what it is. At least we don't have to hear their theories used as asinine litmus test of who's qualified for the presidency like you do with the theory of evolution. And I didn't say science is a crutch. I said you use it as a crutch; big difference.

I use it as a tool to come to an understanding of the natural world. Maybe you should try it sometime. You might learn something worthwhile for a change.

 

[orogenicman]

Couldn't agree more. Personally, from my humble lifetime's observations, I view evolution theory as the most compelling explanation I've heard, but to discount anyone who doesn't agree with something one can't fully prove for oneself as intellectually inferior is beyond arrogant.

If I can understand it, another can too. It has nothing to do with creationists being intellectually inferior. It has to do with them being intellectually lazy and dishonest with themselves and others.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I didn't say understand, I said prove for yourself. At some point you have to realize that you take it on faith that the information you've read is true and analyzed accurately, and that the missing link existed. Given the countless potential explanations for existence, discounting a man based on which group of people's word on the subject he was swayed by in stead of examining his existing political record seems silly to me.

 

[RKMBrown]

Couldn't agree more. Personally, from my humble lifetime's observations, I view evolution theory as the most compelling explanation I've heard, but to discount anyone who doesn't agree with something one can't fully prove for oneself as intellectually inferior is beyond arrogant.

If I can understand it, another can too. It has nothing to do with creationists being intellectually inferior. It has to do with them being intellectually lazy and dishonest with themselves and others.

I love it when people make up strawmen about a group of people they disagree with then pat themselves on the back for being better than them.

 

[peach174]

Couldn't agree more. Personally, from my humble lifetime's observations, I view evolution theory as the most compelling explanation I've heard, but to discount anyone who doesn't agree with something one can't fully prove for oneself as intellectually inferior is beyond arrogant.

If I can understand it, another can too. It has nothing to do with creationists being intellectually inferior. It has to do with them being intellectually lazy and dishonest with themselves and others.

How about all of the dishonest scientist's that did hoaxes in order to support Darwin's theory?

They are still searching for the first transitional fossil out of potentially millions of fossils required to explain the entire chain of evolution and they still have not found it.
Most of what they have in inference and not facts or evidence.

 

[hadit]

My question from post 158:

If you owned a business and someone applied for a job and during the application process, they said evolution is a lie, climate change a conspiracy, science is a faith and education is for snobs and they dropped out of school, would you hire them? For what?

From these posts, it seems if you are right leaning, the answer would be either CEO or political leadership position. But if you are left leaning, the answer would be "start by emptying that".

If the job entailed scientific work or making policy decisions regarding science, you bet your sweet ass I would not hire him

But doesn't every job require some kind of decision making? Being able to reason a decision based on facts?
People who believe science is a faith have no reason. There is no reason in magical creation. It's based on a "feeling" with zero credible information or fact.
And anyone who believes education is for snobs, like Rick Santorum, is a fool.
I would have no problem with insisting all my employees have their children vaccinated. It is certainly a reasonable question when hiring. If your children aren't vaccinated, you won't want to work here.

With all the scientific evidence available for evolution and someone comes to the conclusion that we were shimmered into being from a pile of dirt by a man looking spirit in wizard robes and sandals is someone I would never trust with anything. Certainly no decisions more important than picking out the pattern for my toilet paper. And even then............

The president of the U.S. makes significant policy decisions regarding science in this country, and regarding science education, both of which are significant issues impacting our future. The country can ill afford a president who is clueless about what is essentially basic science.

Name one president who held back science education on creationist beliefs.

 

[hadit]

Walker is a puke!

Sure you think Walker is a puke. You also think Obama is a great POTUS. LAMO.

Walker is a pretty successfull Governor who's beaten the lefty loons at every turn so of course he's a puke in your eyes.

But then your a lefty loon who wouldn't know a successfull Governor if one bit you in your fake native american ass.

He's been successful as Wisconsin's governor? How? List the meaningful improvements in Wisconsin's economy that he can claim responsibility for.

If it interests you that much then feel free to Google away.

He's certainly had loads of success at surviving all the lefts efforts to unseat him.

Ed Shultz still hasn't recovered from the union's efforts to get him fired. You remember. That backfired on em and Walker is still Gov.

If the people of Wisc don't like him I'm sure he will be gone next election cycle. Or not.

The ability to win an election is not the ability to govern. Noted that you could not name a single WI improvement he can claim credit for.

After six years of Obama, I am glad you realized this.

I posted one of Walker's accomplishments, the fact you can't read is not my issue.

Obama is a classic example of a president with unsupportable beliefs who has implemented policies based on those beliefs that are having negative impacts on this country. And these yahoos are worried about a president who may or may not believe in evolution?