Why does Creationist view cause a problem as Sec of the Army?

[OldLady]

Trump wants Mark Green for Secretary of the Army. There's a real issue there because he is a Creationist and because he said psychiatrists consider transgenderism a disease.

Are those actual issues as secretary of the Army? I'm really asking. I don't see how those views have anything to do with the position.

Trump Army secretary pick gave a lecture arguing against the theory of evolution - CNNPolitics.com

The problem of having uber-religious peole in positions like this is they make decisions based on their religion. Even if subconsciously they will be more likely to want to use US military might to subdue a country that follows another religion. The very same reason it is so dangerous to have religious fanatics in charge of the military or Iran or other extremist regimes.

I definitely can't put myself in the shoes of an uber-religious person, but I wonder if that is making a pretty big leap? Does being a creationist make Mark Green a fanatic? I don't know. I'm not sure we can assume that.

It is a trend in people drumpf has chosen. uber-Kristians who will use their position to push THEIR religion.

A soft theocracy.

Other than Pence, who?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Are those actual issues as secretary of the Army?

The specific matter that Green is a Creationist is not a problem. The fact that as the whatever type of Creationist he is, and he's clearly not an Evolutionary Creationist, he must necessarily reject, misapply or misunderstand the notion of falsifiability is a problem for it shows there is a huge gap in his understanding of the scientific method, a gap that by its mere existence necessarily means his analytical skills are "so-so" at best.

• Falsifiability - RationalWiki
  • Falsifiability of creationism - RationalWiki
    
  • Falsifiability of evolution - RationalWiki
• What Theory is Not

The issue isn't as much that the SecArmy will perform science, per se, but rather that the concepts and application of the scientific method are part and parcel of rational thought, analysis and decision making of any sort. Although voters can and clearly have installed as POTUS a man of meager cognitive aptitude, mediocrity in that regard is not what we need in anyone who serves as an appointed principal, most especially seeing as the "brains" at the top are not exactly "cooking with gas."

How is the creationist view that different from the Intelligent Design view, in which we find such "idiots" as Michio Kaku? To assume that someone who disagrees with the idea that the universe came from nothing for no reason is stupid is itself rather simplistic and dumb.

How is the creationist view that different from the Intelligent Design view

Google is your friend.

To assume that someone who disagrees with the idea that the universe came from nothing for no reason is stupid is itself rather simplistic and dumb.

Actually, what's stupid is making (1) decisions, and (2) forming arguments, about something other than matters of theology based on a the assumption that question has been conclusively answered for the fact is the "jury is still out" on it. That's particularly so as there is now a mathematical proof that shows it's possible for a universe to have been spontaneously created from nothing. Whether ours is one such universe has not been determined, but we, unlike Aquinas (see also: Summa Contra Gentiles), now know it's not outside the realm of possibility.

Xelor, that's impossible.

What is?

 

[IsaacNewton]

Trump wants Mark Green for Secretary of the Army. There's a real issue there because he is a Creationist and because he said psychiatrists consider transgenderism a disease.

Are those actual issues as secretary of the Army? I'm really asking. I don't see how those views have anything to do with the position.

Trump Army secretary pick gave a lecture arguing against the theory of evolution - CNNPolitics.com

The problem of having uber-religious peole in positions like this is they make decisions based on their religion. Even if subconsciously they will be more likely to want to use US military might to subdue a country that follows another religion. The very same reason it is so dangerous to have religious fanatics in charge of the military or Iran or other extremist regimes.

I definitely can't put myself in the shoes of an uber-religious person, but I wonder if that is making a pretty big leap? Does being a creationist make Mark Green a fanatic? I don't know. I'm not sure we can assume that.

It is a trend in people drumpf has chosen. uber-Kristians who will use their position to push THEIR religion.

A soft theocracy.

Other than Pence, who?

The fake education secretary who wants to use vouchers to allow 'her kind' to opt out of public school and go to bible school.

 

[OldLady]

Are those actual issues as secretary of the Army?

The specific matter that Green is a Creationist is not a problem. The fact that as the whatever type of Creationist he is, and he's clearly not an Evolutionary Creationist, he must necessarily reject, misapply or misunderstand the notion of falsifiability is a problem for it shows there is a huge gap in his understanding of the scientific method, a gap that by its mere existence necessarily means his analytical skills are "so-so" at best.

• Falsifiability - RationalWiki
  • Falsifiability of creationism - RationalWiki
    
  • Falsifiability of evolution - RationalWiki
• What Theory is Not

The issue isn't as much that the SecArmy will perform science, per se, but rather that the concepts and application of the scientific method are part and parcel of rational thought, analysis and decision making of any sort. Although voters can and clearly have installed as POTUS a man of meager cognitive aptitude, mediocrity in that regard is not what we need in anyone who serves as an appointed principal, most especially seeing as the "brains" at the top are not exactly "cooking with gas."

How is the creationist view that different from the Intelligent Design view, in which we find such "idiots" as Michio Kaku? To assume that someone who disagrees with the idea that the universe came from nothing for no reason is stupid is itself rather simplistic and dumb.

How is the creationist view that different from the Intelligent Design view

Google is your friend.

To assume that someone who disagrees with the idea that the universe came from nothing for no reason is stupid is itself rather simplistic and dumb.

Actually, what's stupid is making (1) decisions, and (2) forming arguments, about something other than matters of theology based on a the assumption that question has been conclusively answered for the fact is the "jury is still out" on it. That's particularly so as there is now a mathematical proof that shows it's possible for a universe to have been spontaneously created from nothing. Whether ours is one such universe has not been determined, but we, unlike Aquinas (see also: Summa Contra Gentiles), now know it's not outside the realm of possibility.

Xelor, that's impossible.

What is?

Nothing comes from nothing (hum along....nothing ever could...) and zero plus zero equals zero. Zero minus zero equals zero. Zero times zero equals zero. Zero divided by zero equals zero.
Is this something along the lines of any number to the zero power equals 1?

 

[hadit]

Trump wants Mark Green for Secretary of the Army. There's a real issue there because he is a Creationist and because he said psychiatrists consider transgenderism a disease.

Are those actual issues as secretary of the Army? I'm really asking. I don't see how those views have anything to do with the position.

Trump Army secretary pick gave a lecture arguing against the theory of evolution - CNNPolitics.com

The problem of having uber-religious peole in positions like this is they make decisions based on their religion. Even if subconsciously they will be more likely to want to use US military might to subdue a country that follows another religion. The very same reason it is so dangerous to have religious fanatics in charge of the military or Iran or other extremist regimes.

I definitely can't put myself in the shoes of an uber-religious person, but I wonder if that is making a pretty big leap? Does being a creationist make Mark Green a fanatic? I don't know. I'm not sure we can assume that.

It is a trend in people drumpf has chosen. uber-Kristians who will use their position to push THEIR religion.

A soft theocracy.

Other than Pence, who?

The fake education secretary who wants to use vouchers to allow 'her kind' to opt out of public school and go to bible school.

What regulations has she written to accomplish that? What legislation has been passed?

 

[usmbguest5318]

The specific matter that Green is a Creationist is not a problem. The fact that as the whatever type of Creationist he is, and he's clearly not an Evolutionary Creationist, he must necessarily reject, misapply or misunderstand the notion of falsifiability is a problem for it shows there is a huge gap in his understanding of the scientific method, a gap that by its mere existence necessarily means his analytical skills are "so-so" at best.

• Falsifiability - RationalWiki
  • Falsifiability of creationism - RationalWiki
    
  • Falsifiability of evolution - RationalWiki
• What Theory is Not

The issue isn't as much that the SecArmy will perform science, per se, but rather that the concepts and application of the scientific method are part and parcel of rational thought, analysis and decision making of any sort. Although voters can and clearly have installed as POTUS a man of meager cognitive aptitude, mediocrity in that regard is not what we need in anyone who serves as an appointed principal, most especially seeing as the "brains" at the top are not exactly "cooking with gas."

How is the creationist view that different from the Intelligent Design view, in which we find such "idiots" as Michio Kaku? To assume that someone who disagrees with the idea that the universe came from nothing for no reason is stupid is itself rather simplistic and dumb.

How is the creationist view that different from the Intelligent Design view

Google is your friend.

To assume that someone who disagrees with the idea that the universe came from nothing for no reason is stupid is itself rather simplistic and dumb.

Actually, what's stupid is making (1) decisions, and (2) forming arguments, about something other than matters of theology based on a the assumption that question has been conclusively answered for the fact is the "jury is still out" on it. That's particularly so as there is now a mathematical proof that shows it's possible for a universe to have been spontaneously created from nothing. Whether ours is one such universe has not been determined, but we, unlike Aquinas (see also: Summa Contra Gentiles), now know it's not outside the realm of possibility.

Xelor, that's impossible.

What is?

Nothing comes from nothing (hum along....nothing ever could...) and zero plus zero equals zero. Zero minus zero equals zero. Zero times zero equals zero. Zero divided by zero equals zero.
Is this something along the lines of any number to the zero power equals 1?

Is this something along the lines of any number to the zero power equals 1?

No. Click the link I provided for the assertion. What "it" (the mathematical proof) is -- as opposed to what it is like -- is explained in really straightforward (easily enough grasped by non-mathematicians) language in the introduction and other prose one finds there. The paper isn't long either.

 

[JoeMoma]

The specific matter that Green is a Creationist is not a problem. The fact that as the whatever type of Creationist he is, and he's clearly not an Evolutionary Creationist, he must necessarily reject, misapply or misunderstand the notion of falsifiability is a problem for it shows there is a huge gap in his understanding of the scientific method, a gap that by its mere existence necessarily means his analytical skills are "so-so" at best.

• Falsifiability - RationalWiki
  • Falsifiability of creationism - RationalWiki
    
  • Falsifiability of evolution - RationalWiki
• What Theory is Not

The issue isn't as much that the SecArmy will perform science, per se, but rather that the concepts and application of the scientific method are part and parcel of rational thought, analysis and decision making of any sort. Although voters can and clearly have installed as POTUS a man of meager cognitive aptitude, mediocrity in that regard is not what we need in anyone who serves as an appointed principal, most especially seeing as the "brains" at the top are not exactly "cooking with gas."

How is the creationist view that different from the Intelligent Design view, in which we find such "idiots" as Michio Kaku? To assume that someone who disagrees with the idea that the universe came from nothing for no reason is stupid is itself rather simplistic and dumb.

How is the creationist view that different from the Intelligent Design view

Google is your friend.

To assume that someone who disagrees with the idea that the universe came from nothing for no reason is stupid is itself rather simplistic and dumb.

Actually, what's stupid is making (1) decisions, and (2) forming arguments, about something other than matters of theology based on a the assumption that question has been conclusively answered for the fact is the "jury is still out" on it. That's particularly so as there is now a mathematical proof that shows it's possible for a universe to have been spontaneously created from nothing. Whether ours is one such universe has not been determined, but we, unlike Aquinas (see also: Summa Contra Gentiles), now know it's not outside the realm of possibility.

Xelor, that's impossible.

What is?

Nothing comes from nothing (hum along....nothing ever could...) and zero plus zero equals zero. Zero minus zero equals zero. Zero times zero equals zero. Zero divided by zero equals zero.
Is this something along the lines of any number to the zero power equals 1?

Try googling zero divided by zero

 

[OldLady]

Trump wants Mark Green for Secretary of the Army. There's a real issue there because he is a Creationist and because he said psychiatrists consider transgenderism a disease.

Are those actual issues as secretary of the Army? I'm really asking. I don't see how those views have anything to do with the position.

Trump Army secretary pick gave a lecture arguing against the theory of evolution - CNNPolitics.com

The problem of having uber-religious peole in positions like this is they make decisions based on their religion. Even if subconsciously they will be more likely to want to use US military might to subdue a country that follows another religion. The very same reason it is so dangerous to have religious fanatics in charge of the military or Iran or other extremist regimes.

I definitely can't put myself in the shoes of an uber-religious person, but I wonder if that is making a pretty big leap? Does being a creationist make Mark Green a fanatic? I don't know. I'm not sure we can assume that.

It is a trend in people drumpf has chosen. uber-Kristians who will use their position to push THEIR religion.

A soft theocracy.

Other than Pence, who?

The fake education secretary who wants to use vouchers to allow 'her kind' to opt out of public school and go to bible school.

He's rewarding that part of his base; they helped him get elected. Trump is NOT by a long shot a religious guy. I don't think he's got a conservative religious takeover in mind. Now Pence, he's another story.

 

[OldLady]

How is the creationist view that different from the Intelligent Design view, in which we find such "idiots" as Michio Kaku? To assume that someone who disagrees with the idea that the universe came from nothing for no reason is stupid is itself rather simplistic and dumb.

How is the creationist view that different from the Intelligent Design view

Google is your friend.

To assume that someone who disagrees with the idea that the universe came from nothing for no reason is stupid is itself rather simplistic and dumb.

Actually, what's stupid is making (1) decisions, and (2) forming arguments, about something other than matters of theology based on a the assumption that question has been conclusively answered for the fact is the "jury is still out" on it. That's particularly so as there is now a mathematical proof that shows it's possible for a universe to have been spontaneously created from nothing. Whether ours is one such universe has not been determined, but we, unlike Aquinas (see also: Summa Contra Gentiles), now know it's not outside the realm of possibility.

Xelor, that's impossible.

What is?

Nothing comes from nothing (hum along....nothing ever could...) and zero plus zero equals zero. Zero minus zero equals zero. Zero times zero equals zero. Zero divided by zero equals zero.
Is this something along the lines of any number to the zero power equals 1?

Try googling zero divided by zero

If you tell me zero divided by zero ISN'T zero, I'm gonna have a meltdown. LOL

 

[JoeMoma]

Google is your friend.

Actually, what's stupid is making (1) decisions, and (2) forming arguments, about something other than matters of theology based on a the assumption that question has been conclusively answered for the fact is the "jury is still out" on it. That's particularly so as there is now a mathematical proof that shows it's possible for a universe to have been spontaneously created from nothing. Whether ours is one such universe has not been determined, but we, unlike Aquinas (see also: Summa Contra Gentiles), now know it's not outside the realm of possibility.

Xelor, that's impossible.

What is?

Nothing comes from nothing (hum along....nothing ever could...) and zero plus zero equals zero. Zero minus zero equals zero. Zero times zero equals zero. Zero divided by zero equals zero.
Is this something along the lines of any number to the zero power equals 1?

Try googling zero divided by zero

If you tell me zero divided by zero ISN'T zero, I'm gonna have a meltdown. LOL

Then I'm not going to tell you that it's "undefined"..... Still, try googling zero divided by zero...... google has a very entertaining response.

 

[usmbguest5318]

How is the creationist view that different from the Intelligent Design view, in which we find such "idiots" as Michio Kaku? To assume that someone who disagrees with the idea that the universe came from nothing for no reason is stupid is itself rather simplistic and dumb.

How is the creationist view that different from the Intelligent Design view

Google is your friend.

To assume that someone who disagrees with the idea that the universe came from nothing for no reason is stupid is itself rather simplistic and dumb.

Actually, what's stupid is making (1) decisions, and (2) forming arguments, about something other than matters of theology based on a the assumption that question has been conclusively answered for the fact is the "jury is still out" on it. That's particularly so as there is now a mathematical proof that shows it's possible for a universe to have been spontaneously created from nothing. Whether ours is one such universe has not been determined, but we, unlike Aquinas (see also: Summa Contra Gentiles), now know it's not outside the realm of possibility.

Xelor, that's impossible.

What is?

Nothing comes from nothing (hum along....nothing ever could...) and zero plus zero equals zero. Zero minus zero equals zero. Zero times zero equals zero. Zero divided by zero equals zero.
Is this something along the lines of any number to the zero power equals 1?

Try googling zero divided by zero

??? Zero divided by zero.

I didn't read the content at all those links, but I didn't notice anything that struck me as "new" with regard to what schools typically teach regarding division by zero.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The left needs to get serious and burn down those fake bible schools. Force those kids into leftist indoctrination.

 

[JoeMoma]

Xelor, that's impossible.

What is?

Nothing comes from nothing (hum along....nothing ever could...) and zero plus zero equals zero. Zero minus zero equals zero. Zero times zero equals zero. Zero divided by zero equals zero.
Is this something along the lines of any number to the zero power equals 1?

Try googling zero divided by zero

If you tell me zero divided by zero ISN'T zero, I'm gonna have a meltdown. LOL

Then I'm not going to tell you that it's "undefined"..... Still, try googling zero divided by zero...... google has a very entertaining response.

Oops... I should of said... Ask Siri (if you have that available).

 

[usmbguest5318]

Google is your friend.

Actually, what's stupid is making (1) decisions, and (2) forming arguments, about something other than matters of theology based on a the assumption that question has been conclusively answered for the fact is the "jury is still out" on it. That's particularly so as there is now a mathematical proof that shows it's possible for a universe to have been spontaneously created from nothing. Whether ours is one such universe has not been determined, but we, unlike Aquinas (see also: Summa Contra Gentiles), now know it's not outside the realm of possibility.

Xelor, that's impossible.

What is?

Nothing comes from nothing (hum along....nothing ever could...) and zero plus zero equals zero. Zero minus zero equals zero. Zero times zero equals zero. Zero divided by zero equals zero.
Is this something along the lines of any number to the zero power equals 1?

Try googling zero divided by zero

If you tell me zero divided by zero ISN'T zero, I'm gonna have a meltdown. LOL

f you tell me zero divided by zero ISN'T zero

Well, will you also "meltdown" if we tell you that indeterminate (not defined) and zero are different things?

 

[JoeMoma]

What is?

Nothing comes from nothing (hum along....nothing ever could...) and zero plus zero equals zero. Zero minus zero equals zero. Zero times zero equals zero. Zero divided by zero equals zero.
Is this something along the lines of any number to the zero power equals 1?

Try googling zero divided by zero

If you tell me zero divided by zero ISN'T zero, I'm gonna have a meltdown. LOL

Then I'm not going to tell you that it's "undefined"..... Still, try googling zero divided by zero...... google has a very entertaining response.

Oops... I should of said... Ask Siri (if you have that available).

The response, (In Siri's voice): "Imagine that you have zero cookies and you split them evenly among zero friends," she says. "How many cookies does each person get? See? It doesn't make sense. And Cookie Monster is sad that there are no cookies, and you are sad that you have no friends."

 

[usmbguest5318]

Nothing comes from nothing (hum along....nothing ever could...) and zero plus zero equals zero. Zero minus zero equals zero. Zero times zero equals zero. Zero divided by zero equals zero.
Is this something along the lines of any number to the zero power equals 1?

Try googling zero divided by zero

If you tell me zero divided by zero ISN'T zero, I'm gonna have a meltdown. LOL

Then I'm not going to tell you that it's "undefined"..... Still, try googling zero divided by zero...... google has a very entertaining response.

Oops... I should of said... Ask Siri (if you have that available).

The response, (In Siri's voice): "Imagine that you have zero cookies and you split them evenly among zero friends," she says. "How many cookies does each person get? See? It doesn't make sense. And Cookie Monster is sad that there are no cookies, and you are sad that you have no friends."

TY. That is entertaining. I don't use an Apple phone, so I suspect I haven't access to Siri.

 

[OldLady]

How is the creationist view that different from the Intelligent Design view, in which we find such "idiots" as Michio Kaku? To assume that someone who disagrees with the idea that the universe came from nothing for no reason is stupid is itself rather simplistic and dumb.

How is the creationist view that different from the Intelligent Design view

Google is your friend.

To assume that someone who disagrees with the idea that the universe came from nothing for no reason is stupid is itself rather simplistic and dumb.

Actually, what's stupid is making (1) decisions, and (2) forming arguments, about something other than matters of theology based on a the assumption that question has been conclusively answered for the fact is the "jury is still out" on it. That's particularly so as there is now a mathematical proof that shows it's possible for a universe to have been spontaneously created from nothing. Whether ours is one such universe has not been determined, but we, unlike Aquinas (see also: Summa Contra Gentiles), now know it's not outside the realm of possibility.

Xelor, that's impossible.

What is?

Nothing comes from nothing (hum along....nothing ever could...) and zero plus zero equals zero. Zero minus zero equals zero. Zero times zero equals zero. Zero divided by zero equals zero.
Is this something along the lines of any number to the zero power equals 1?

Is this something along the lines of any number to the zero power equals 1?

No. Click the link I provided for the assertion. What "it" (the mathematical proof) is -- as opposed to what it is like -- is explained in really straightforward (easily enough grasped by non-mathematicians) language in the introduction and other prose one finds there. The paper isn't long either.

Ummm...you either linked the wrong paper or you're sadly mistaken about my powers of understanding that level of scientific chat.
You've once again proved you're smarter than me. LOL

 

[OldLady]

Xelor, that's impossible.

What is?

Nothing comes from nothing (hum along....nothing ever could...) and zero plus zero equals zero. Zero minus zero equals zero. Zero times zero equals zero. Zero divided by zero equals zero.
Is this something along the lines of any number to the zero power equals 1?

Try googling zero divided by zero

If you tell me zero divided by zero ISN'T zero, I'm gonna have a meltdown. LOL

f you tell me zero divided by zero ISN'T zero

Well, will you also "meltdown" if we tell you that indeterminate (not defined) and zero are different things?

I will accept that without tears.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Trump wants Mark Green for Secretary of the Army. There's a real issue there because he is a Creationist and because he said psychiatrists consider transgenderism a disease.

Are those actual issues as secretary of the Army? I'm really asking. I don't see how those views have anything to do with the position.

Trump Army secretary pick gave a lecture arguing against the theory of evolution - CNNPolitics.com

The problem of having uber-religious peole in positions like this is they make decisions based on their religion. Even if subconsciously they will be more likely to want to use US military might to subdue a country that follows another religion. The very same reason it is so dangerous to have religious fanatics in charge of the military or Iran or other extremist regimes.

I definitely can't put myself in the shoes of an uber-religious person, but I wonder if that is making a pretty big leap? Does being a creationist make Mark Green a fanatic? I don't know. I'm not sure we can assume that.

It is a trend in people drumpf has chosen. uber-Kristians who will use their position to push THEIR religion.

A soft theocracy.

Other than Pence, who?

The fake education secretary who wants to use vouchers to allow 'her kind' to opt out of public school and go to bible school.

Ohhh so only religious people will get vouchers. How will that work?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Google is your friend.

Actually, what's stupid is making (1) decisions, and (2) forming arguments, about something other than matters of theology based on a the assumption that question has been conclusively answered for the fact is the "jury is still out" on it. That's particularly so as there is now a mathematical proof that shows it's possible for a universe to have been spontaneously created from nothing. Whether ours is one such universe has not been determined, but we, unlike Aquinas (see also: Summa Contra Gentiles), now know it's not outside the realm of possibility.

Xelor, that's impossible.

What is?

Nothing comes from nothing (hum along....nothing ever could...) and zero plus zero equals zero. Zero minus zero equals zero. Zero times zero equals zero. Zero divided by zero equals zero.
Is this something along the lines of any number to the zero power equals 1?

Is this something along the lines of any number to the zero power equals 1?

No. Click the link I provided for the assertion. What "it" (the mathematical proof) is -- as opposed to what it is like -- is explained in really straightforward (easily enough grasped by non-mathematicians) language in the introduction and other prose one finds there. The paper isn't long either.

Ummm...you either linked the wrong paper or you're sadly mistaken about my powers of understanding that level of scientific chat.
You've once again proved you're smarter than me. LOL

The proof shows that when a small true vacuum bubble is created by changes in the energy found at a local energy minimum within the vacuum, the bubble can expand exponentially, which in turn results in the creation of matter." Simply put, under the right conditions, something can be created from nothing. Whether something, our universe/multiverse, has been created from nothing is a different question.

It's critical to realize that though energy can be converted to matter, "matter" being "something," energy is not mater. One might think of it as being roughly analogous to an idea for creating a thing not being the same thing as the thing one creates using the idea.