Inner El Guapo
War Child
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2004
- Messages
- 609
The idea that creationsism cannot co-exist with evolution is only perpetuated by the ignorant evangelical zealots. It's simply boggles the mind. Evolution HAS BEEN PROVEN. Just as it's been proven that you need oxygen to breathe. I am not talking abouot any one theory persay, but the actual process of species evolving is fact.
For the record, I am a creationist, I hate religion, or at least what it has become, a social event, a corporation whatever analogy that fits for you, but you simply cannot ignore hard core scientific fact, it defies logic.
It's the silliness of books like this, and those who promote it that really lead people away from God or faith in the truest sense. Most biblical scholars will say that almost all of the older religions, the muslims, even the buddhists have historical references of a great flood. In other words, it's not really disputed. What is disputed is that the flood submerged the entire earth, It's believed by scholars I have heard and read, that the most likely occurence was a deluge in mesopotamia (middle east) or in the general area, which is actually beilevable even to the secular scientists.
I have read a lot, or tried to anyways, about science/creationism/evolution/geology/biblical history etc.
I would never claim to be an expert but in my efforts to educate myself I have found, as well as those much much more scholarly than me, that creationism and evolution can absolutely co-exist.
I am not talking about Darwin's theory, but I don't even discount it.
I believe that science itself tells you that creationism is plausible. You have to look at the scientific theories for the creation of life and understand some of the stretches that are made. I have read (or heard) more than one secular scientist say that they could see both sides of that token, but it cannot be proven, how would it be proven?
Anyhow this is not an argument about the semantics of each of our beliefs, it's about the agenda that our leadership in DC has.
It's an agenda if ignorance because it defies science. Believe what you will, I am a man of faith, I believe the bible is a book of teachings, and I believe in Christ. And while someone like A_Wanderer or others might think that is silly, I am okay with that. But at least I don't defy actual scientific fact.
What does it say about a philosophy or religion or line of thought that defies science? It's a lot harder to believe unless you throw all critical thinking out the window. Is this what we have in DC?
Yes. Bush seems to be a good man, who is like every other radical evangelical I know (and I know a lot of them, friends and family).
They would discount the nose on their face if it was taught to them in bible study.
Just think, for goodness sakes. Can't I have a President who thinks? Critically? I don't agree with everything that Bush stands for, but if this were a critically thinking man who could admit mistakes and listen to opposing opinions or points of view then I would feel better. What we have is a man of faith, who leads by faith. That's why he scoffed at Kerry, these people (radical evangelicals) don't take doubters well.
I don't want to put down anyone's faith or the way they practice it, I would just like the President of the United States to be able to discern opinions that don't follow his method of operation. Critically think for goodness sakes. Bush's life was changed by an emotional and dramatic event in his life, this was tied into his sobriety, his wife etc. It's a wholesale event. I'd applaud the man's steadfastness and stubborness if he weren't the most powerful man on the planet fighting a difficult war. He HAS to be able to listen to oppositions.
That's the thing, he doesn't think he has anything to learn. He believes it's all mapped out for him.
This doesn't defy science, this defies logic, even in the sense of faith and love in a higher being. The mistakes that have happened over the last few years could have been avoided, not all of them, but some had he had more of a presence of mind to listen to opposing viewpoints.
Have you read Bush at War by Bob Woodward? This book was AUTHORIZED by the White House and it shows the very same things that his critics think. I am not talking about Michael Moore hyperbole and untruth, I am talking about a man that will not listen to opposition. O'Neill's book said the same thing. Clarke's book said the same thing. Woodwards second book Pal of Attack, said the same thing. But I guess we are to believe that this is all 'partisan hackery'. Give me a break.
My only hope is that Bush learns from his mistakes for the good of us all. I think he will be re-elected by those who buy his rhetorric. I'm not talking about conservative Republicans. Those people were going to vote for him no matter what. That's fine that is an idealogical link, they are likeminded, right or wrong, it's understandable. I am talking about those voters in the middle, the ones who are gullible and buy into Swiftboat nonsense and other garbage. They can't critically think either. Look at the charts, the music charts, the TV ratings, the movies our mass public watches, listens to etc. We aren't a thinking public, so I guess maybe we deserve a non-thinking President. Well, I'm sure he thinks a lot, but not critically. It's been proven, just like the sciences, but not everyone believes it, if it defies their dogma, then it can't be, even if it is.
For the record, I am a creationist, I hate religion, or at least what it has become, a social event, a corporation whatever analogy that fits for you, but you simply cannot ignore hard core scientific fact, it defies logic.
It's the silliness of books like this, and those who promote it that really lead people away from God or faith in the truest sense. Most biblical scholars will say that almost all of the older religions, the muslims, even the buddhists have historical references of a great flood. In other words, it's not really disputed. What is disputed is that the flood submerged the entire earth, It's believed by scholars I have heard and read, that the most likely occurence was a deluge in mesopotamia (middle east) or in the general area, which is actually beilevable even to the secular scientists.
I have read a lot, or tried to anyways, about science/creationism/evolution/geology/biblical history etc.
I would never claim to be an expert but in my efforts to educate myself I have found, as well as those much much more scholarly than me, that creationism and evolution can absolutely co-exist.
I am not talking about Darwin's theory, but I don't even discount it.
I believe that science itself tells you that creationism is plausible. You have to look at the scientific theories for the creation of life and understand some of the stretches that are made. I have read (or heard) more than one secular scientist say that they could see both sides of that token, but it cannot be proven, how would it be proven?
Anyhow this is not an argument about the semantics of each of our beliefs, it's about the agenda that our leadership in DC has.
It's an agenda if ignorance because it defies science. Believe what you will, I am a man of faith, I believe the bible is a book of teachings, and I believe in Christ. And while someone like A_Wanderer or others might think that is silly, I am okay with that. But at least I don't defy actual scientific fact.
What does it say about a philosophy or religion or line of thought that defies science? It's a lot harder to believe unless you throw all critical thinking out the window. Is this what we have in DC?
Yes. Bush seems to be a good man, who is like every other radical evangelical I know (and I know a lot of them, friends and family).
They would discount the nose on their face if it was taught to them in bible study.
Just think, for goodness sakes. Can't I have a President who thinks? Critically? I don't agree with everything that Bush stands for, but if this were a critically thinking man who could admit mistakes and listen to opposing opinions or points of view then I would feel better. What we have is a man of faith, who leads by faith. That's why he scoffed at Kerry, these people (radical evangelicals) don't take doubters well.
I don't want to put down anyone's faith or the way they practice it, I would just like the President of the United States to be able to discern opinions that don't follow his method of operation. Critically think for goodness sakes. Bush's life was changed by an emotional and dramatic event in his life, this was tied into his sobriety, his wife etc. It's a wholesale event. I'd applaud the man's steadfastness and stubborness if he weren't the most powerful man on the planet fighting a difficult war. He HAS to be able to listen to oppositions.
That's the thing, he doesn't think he has anything to learn. He believes it's all mapped out for him.
This doesn't defy science, this defies logic, even in the sense of faith and love in a higher being. The mistakes that have happened over the last few years could have been avoided, not all of them, but some had he had more of a presence of mind to listen to opposing viewpoints.
Have you read Bush at War by Bob Woodward? This book was AUTHORIZED by the White House and it shows the very same things that his critics think. I am not talking about Michael Moore hyperbole and untruth, I am talking about a man that will not listen to opposition. O'Neill's book said the same thing. Clarke's book said the same thing. Woodwards second book Pal of Attack, said the same thing. But I guess we are to believe that this is all 'partisan hackery'. Give me a break.
My only hope is that Bush learns from his mistakes for the good of us all. I think he will be re-elected by those who buy his rhetorric. I'm not talking about conservative Republicans. Those people were going to vote for him no matter what. That's fine that is an idealogical link, they are likeminded, right or wrong, it's understandable. I am talking about those voters in the middle, the ones who are gullible and buy into Swiftboat nonsense and other garbage. They can't critically think either. Look at the charts, the music charts, the TV ratings, the movies our mass public watches, listens to etc. We aren't a thinking public, so I guess maybe we deserve a non-thinking President. Well, I'm sure he thinks a lot, but not critically. It's been proven, just like the sciences, but not everyone believes it, if it defies their dogma, then it can't be, even if it is.
