Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 66

• 100%

  crespi1 year, 3 months ago

  This guy is surprised when ultra-Conservative, Fundamentalist Christian Neocons reject fact over faith? What laboratory has HE been shut in?

  Didn't he hear about his fellow scientists who were so actively blocked by the Super-Christians who infiltrated NASA?

  We don't need Galileo, we've got Brownback.

  Believe Bush. GOD told HIM what to do...

  Reply

  14 Replies

  • 100%

    jeffery11 year, 3 months ago

    Well, add to that the fact that the "bible", there actually is no bible but bibles because various sects and religions accept varient texts and books, is absolutely incoherent and loaded with contradictions it is actually impossible to accept the bible as literally true; The bible can only be interpreted and accepted on faith. This is the conveinence most people are looking for anyway. Therefore, god tells him only what he wants to do.

    Reply

    13 Replies

    • 100%

      Helixbuilder1 year, 3 months ago

      Here's a good page for you, http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ .

      Read and enjoy.

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 93%

        jeffery11 year, 3 months ago

        Thanks for the link.

        Reply
      • 100%

        Ratskii1 year, 3 months ago

        Thanks Helix, I've bookmarked it for future reference.

        Reply
    • 0%

      whatever20001 year, 3 months ago

      Good point. Which Bible is true? My guess is none. It was written ( or should I say edited) by man. It does possess some great wisdom as well as some really weird stuff.

      Reply

      9 Replies

      • 50%

        loquaciousrana1 year, 3 months ago

        Actually, more ancient manuscripts of the Bible exist in the original languages than any other book. We have Hebrew manuscripts from before the second century B.C.E. These manuscripts have been compared textually with Hebrew manuscripts written some 1000 years later and the differences in the two manuscripts were miniscule. They were mostly punctuation errors. It is difficult to copies of William Shakespeare's works that have less errors than were encountered between the manuscripts. Also, the earlier manuscripts were not discovered until the 1940s; therefore, they were unavailable to the copyists of the later manuscripts. Since we have thousands of ancient manuscripts available, translators and scholars can easily identify were the texts have changed over time and make corrections accordingly.

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          relevance1 year, 3 months ago

          That's a load of exaggerated garbage.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 75%

            loquaciousrana1 year, 3 months ago

            The Masoretic text was written around 1000 C.E. and the Dead Sea Scrolls contain a text of Isaiah written about 200 B.C.E. These two Hebrew texts were compared contextually. The record of this comparison can be found in a book written by Sir Frederic Kenyon who was a curator and archaelogist at the British Museum. So, where is the exaggeration. As for ancient Manuscripts of both the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, they can be found at various Museums and University Libraries. In fact, some ancient Manuscripts are at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, the British Museum, the New York City Public Library, the Leningrad Museum, and etc. Know your facts before you try to call someone's argument garbage. Other interesting facts, both the cities of Ninevah and Babylon were considered mythical since the only text that talked about them was recorded in the Hebrew scriptures. Today, we know where those cities exist.

            Reply
      • 100%

        Doomsheep1 year, 3 months ago

        Right idea wrong direction...

        I believe in God... However I believe the Bible is incomplete therefore not 110% accurate. I to believe it was edited but more as a compromise to the Conservative, Moderate & Liberal church leaders of the time. in short it was made politically correct. Much of the source of the modern Bible has been lost (Dead Sea Scrolls) so to assume the Protestant or Catholic bibles 110% correct is wrong.

        Reply

        5 Replies

        • 100%

          loquaciousrana1 year, 3 months ago

          Actually, there is little evidence that the Bible was significantly altered textually. The amount of ancient manuscripts that exist in the original languages shows otherwise. Some spurious scriptures were added; however, any good translation of the Bible will have either noted the scriptures or have eliminated them. There have also been mistakes from copying the texts; however, a comparison of the existent manuscripts has shown that the mistakes have been minor. Also, by comparing various manuscripts from the same era, Bible translators are able to eliminate many of the errors that have crept in. The problem is not that the Bible has been altered; the problem is the Bible holds an unpopular viewpoint.

          Reply

          4 Replies

          • 100%

            Doomsheep1 year, 3 months ago

            If this was true then both Roman Catholics & Protestants would read the same bible. The Protestants removed the Apocrypha & both denounce Gnostic texts. Add to that the fact much of the Dead Sea Scrolls are fragmented. For all we know there could be a passage where God rewards two lesbians for living a more chase life than most. Such a find would threaten much of Fundamentalism.

            Reply

            3 Replies

            • 100%

              loquaciousrana1 year, 3 months ago

              The complete book of Isaiah has been found among the Dead Scrolls. Many of the scrolls are fragmented; however, many of them are also completely intact. I have personally seen the scroll of Isaiah in the Metropolitan museum in NYC as well as one of the book of Habakkuk. Actually, if you want to threaten Fundamentalism, you do not need to find any such text. One text found in every Bible is quite clear, John 17:16 states, "They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world." Jesus said that his followers would not take part in the politics of the world. Fundamentalism is very involved in the politics of the world. Another scripture that would shake them is Ecclesiastes 9:5 which states, "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing" Most fundamentalists believe in the immortality of the human soul. This scripture directly contradicts that.

              Reply
            • 100%

              Helixbuilder1 year, 3 months ago

              The problem with the Roman Catholics is that the witness of Christ the son of God (according to the faithful) has to be interpreted by the Church. SO this is the crux the word of God isn't good enough they need to invent crap to push their version of Christianity. Don't believe me? Read the catechism.

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 100%

                loquaciousrana1 year, 3 months ago

                I'm not Catholic and I would agree that the Catholic church invalidates its belief in the Bible by its traditions. However, the Bible is also not Catholic; the scriptures were written long before the formation of the Catholic church, so to equate one with the other is erroneous. If I base the design of building upon an architectural blueprint, but make significant changes to the design of the building without consulting the architect and then discover that I have a major structural flaw, whose fault is it? the architect? or mine?

                Reply
• 0%

  p0ison_m1nd1 year, 3 months ago

  I'd be interested in hearing how this guy would respond if someone asked him whether or not the universe is a collection of mutually attracting bodies of mass or a series of concentric, rotating spheres as the church had once maintained. Either the church is the infallible word of God or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.

  Reply

  9 Replies

  • 0%

    whatever20001 year, 3 months ago

    The problem is that Church's are run by people. You're right, you can't have it both ways. The church is not the infallible word of God. I guess I'll see you all in Hell!

    Reply
  • 100%

    loquaciousrana1 year, 3 months ago

    Actually, it was the science of astronomy that maintained this view. The church at the time supported the common view held by Ptolemaic Astronomers. As the evidence mounted that this view of the universe was in error, the established Ptolemaic astronomers tried to hang on to the view by lambasting anyone who held another viewpoint. It was mainly a scientific controversy in which the Church tried to intervene in. The Church was interested in supporting the established elite at the time more than scientific truth.

    Reply

    5 Replies

    • 100%

      david_nwpa1 year, 3 months ago

      Intervening to the point of excommunicating astronomers and threatening people with their own livelihood. The Inquisition also leaps to mind as a gruesome reminder of how far the church was willing to go to purge it of the heretics who spread ideas contrary to the clap trap of the bible.

      Reply

      4 Replies

      • 100%

        loquaciousrana1 year, 3 months ago

        True, the Church did intervene; however, the Ptolemaic theory originated even before the Church existed. It was the established scientific view of the time and as such it did not like being challenged. The Church intervened for its own political purposes and it was wrong to do so; however, the debate was between scientists not between the religious community and the scientific community. Incidentally, the Bible does not say one way or the other since it does not discuss the revolution of the planets nor does it support the Ptolemaic view of the Universe. The scriptures used by the Church to support the Ptolemaic view were not talking about astronomy. Ecclesiastes 1:4 was emphasizing the durability of the earth not its physical location. The other scripture used was describing how the sun rises and sets from the point of a human observer and was also emphasizing the passage of time.

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 79%

          david_nwpa1 year, 3 months ago

          Hmmm, no. In a nutshell you are wrong. Consider the case of Galileo Galilei. His story is the epitome of the Church's engagement against science to squelch it.

          "During Galileo's time one in twelve people living in Rome was either a cleric or a nun. The Church forbid any teaching that deviated from what was taught in the Bible. To enforce this control, the Church set up the Inquisition. Galileo was targeted by the Inquisition for his observations and experiments. Because his teachings differed from the socially accepted ideas of Aristotle, the Inquisition believed he should be persecuted."

          http://www.lycos.com/info/galileo--catholic-chu...

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 86%

            loquaciousrana1 year, 3 months ago

            The Church was defending the ideas of Aristotle and claimed that the ideas were based upon the Bible. The problem was not the Bible, but rather what the Church claimed. The Church was interested in maintaining political control and not interested in defending the Bible. If it had been interested in defending the Bible, it would not have opposed the translation of the Bible into the vernacular of the common man. Tyndale was burned at the stake for daring to translate the Bible into the English language.

            Reply
      • 50%

        loquaciousrana1 year, 3 months ago

        The Inquisition was also imposed to prevent the translation of the Bible into the common vernacular. The Church knew that if the Bible was translated, they would lose their power since the common man could compare what the Bible actually said with what the Church claimed that it said. If you take a careful look at history, you will see that the greatest enemy that the Bible has had has been the Church.

        Reply
  • 0%

    Doomsheep1 year, 3 months ago

    ROFLMAO.... You really this clueless or did it take practice?

    Scientifically PROVEN Fact in 1920 man CAN NOT flay faster than the speed of sound. another FACT of Science... the Titanic is 110% UNSINKABLE.

    Now either Science is 110% right or it isn't you can't have it both ways right?

    Oh BTW can you show me using purely empirical evidence

    why killing, theft or any other criminal behavior is wrong???

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 100%

      p0ison_m1nd1 year, 3 months ago

      "Scientifically PROVEN Fact in 1920 man CAN NOT flay faster than the speed of sound. another FACT of Science... the Titanic is 110% UNSINKABLE."

      Actually these were engineering problems.

      "Now either Science is 110% right or it isn't you can't have it both ways right?"

      Nothing is 100% right or wrong, especially science which progresses from theory to law through experimentation.

      "Oh BTW can you show me using purely empirical evidence

      why killing, theft or any other criminal behavior is wrong???"

      This is the realm of philosophy, ethics and law, not science; however, if you base right or wrong on a standard of freedom or what constitutes a healthy society, then these things are self-evident.

      Reply
• 94%

  Wil1 year, 3 months ago

  This article dovetails with a submission of mine from a few weeks http://religion.netscape.com/story/2007/05/04/w...

  It was, of course, pretty heavily sunk, presumably from people who are described by the article.

  I've also been a bit heartened to read more than one conservative complain that this sort of thing makes Republicans "the stupid party." John Cole says, "People who reject scientific evidence in favor of fantasy and myth are not 'deeply religious,' they are stupid. The numbers overall are frightening, but the GOP in particular appears to be a lost cause."

  Reply

  19 Replies

  • 100%

    whatever20001 year, 3 months ago

    The Dems and Repubs are all a lost cause.

    Reply
  • 100%

    loquaciousrana1 year, 3 months ago

    What I find interesting about the article is that the author asserts that there is monumental evidence in the fossil record for macro-evolutionary change, but he does not give even one example of that evidence. If the evidence is so monumental then why is not presented. What I find is a dogmatic assertion that macro-evolution is a fact and then anyone that does not hold the same opinion as the author is wrong. Sounds the same as the Baptist preacher telling me that a burning hell exists without offering me one shred of proof. I would be a fool to believe either.

    Reply

    17 Replies

    • 88%

      whatever20001 year, 3 months ago

      I couldn't and haven't said it better myself.

      Reply
    • 100%

      disraeli1 year, 3 months ago

      Feel free to wade through the 10's of thousands of peer reviewed papers addressing each and every aspect of evolution and the literally billions of words on the subject.

      Then come back and advise whether the author has made a "dogmatic assertion" or whether the weight of scientific authority on the matter supports his position.

      To criticize his article because it does not go through in exhaustive detail the minutiae of evolution is akin to critizing any post here for failing to provide a lengthy treatise detailing the nature and existence of cognition as a requisite preamble to the poster's point.

      Reply

      15 Replies

      • 82%

        loquaciousrana1 year, 3 months ago

        Cite one example. Recently, DNA evidence has shown that Homo Neanderthalensis were not ancestors of Homo Sapiens. I have yet to see one fossil evidence of the link between amphibian and reptile. The only evidence of an amino acid being created in an organic soup also showed that if it was not removed from that soup it would disintegrate. I have seen arguments presented and the evidence has not been forthright. However, the article like your argument makes a dogmatic assertion without even trying to present one piece of data to convince me of veridity of your conclusions.

        Reply

        11 Replies

        • 50%

          disraeli1 year, 3 months ago

          I quite agree that Homo Neanderthalensis is not an ancestor of Homo Sapiens. They are two distinct evolutionary branches that share a common ancestor, evolving from that common ancestor approximately 500,000 to 700,000 years ago. Homo Neanderthalensis is now extinct, save and except the few extant specimens currently wrestling professionally.

          Preliminary DNA sequencing from a 38,000 year old bone fragment of a femur bone found at a Croatian Vindija Cave in 1980 shows that Neanderthalis and Homo sapiens share about 99.5% of their DNA.

          Reply

          10 Replies

          • 100%

            disraeli1 year, 3 months ago

            As regards the common ancestory of reptiles and amphibians refer to the work by Gauthier et al., 1989 in which Tetrapoda was formally defined as a crown-group. A crown-group is a clade that includes the last common ancestor of two or more extant taxa, and all its descendants. In this case, Tetrapoda was defined as the clade that includes the last common ancestor of lissamphibians and amniotes, and all its descendants. Amniotes includes, inter alia, reptiles.

            As to the "veridity" of my conclusions I'm not sure what veridity means. I don't know if it's a typo for validity or a typo for viridity. If it's a typo for viridity in the sense of naïve innocence I'll have to renounce my naivete while maintaining my innocence.

            Reply

            5 Replies

            • 0%

              loquaciousrana1 year, 3 months ago

              Oops! I meant validity. The word verificar got mixed in my mind at that time. Don't ask me how it came out veridity. That's the curse of knowing more than one language.

              However, is there actual fossil or just the artist's conception. From the articles I have seen, I have only seen the artist's conception.

              Reply

              4 Replies

              • 86%

                disraeli1 year, 3 months ago

                There is work and research available with actual fossils, refer to Dr. Marcello Ruta's work on the following

                - Evaluation of the quality of the early tetrapod fossil record; comparisons between patterns of morphological divergence in amniotes and amphibians.

                - Use of multipe, fossil-based calibration points for the chronology of the major episodes in tetrapod evolution.

                Reply

                3 Replies

                • 100%

                  loquaciousrana1 year, 3 months ago

                  The point is that the evidence available is subject to viewpoint. The evidence to prove that gravity exists is solid and can be said to be irrefutable; however, the evidence to prove evolution is not that solid. I can view the evidence from completely different viewpoint. Therefore, to say that someone is ignorant because they do not accept your explanation of the evidence is being dogmatic.

                  Reply

                  2 Replies

                  • 100%

                    disraeli1 year, 3 months ago

                    First I didn't call you ignorant in my initial response, I'm sorry you took it that way. I pointed out that to be dismissive of the article on the basis that the entire body of evidence for evolution was not produced before the author made his point was, and is, wrong.

                    As to your analogy about gravity I agree that the evidence for gravity is solid, however the mechanism by which gravity works is a matter of some conjecture. Current theories involving quantum arcana have supplanted earlier speculations and are being refined and updated as new information comes to light.

                    In much the same way the existence of a diversity of life is a given and the mechanism by which it arose and specialised, i.e. evolution has supplanted earlier theologically based explanations. Naturally the specific details of the evolutionary processes spanning hundreds of millions of years are subject to ongoing refinement as new information, data and evidence comes to light.

                    Reply

                    1 Reply

                    • 0%

                      loquaciousrana1 year, 3 months ago

                      I am not saying that you called me ignorant. The author of the article implied that not to believe in evolution was ignorance. The implication is that the evidence is unmistakable and not open to interpretation. Gravity we can measure. The age of the Universe we can extrapolate by the distance of the galaxies. We can definitely say that gravity exists; we can also definitely say that the Universe is a few billion years old. I have heard estimates from 12 to 20. We can prove much of theory of relativity. However, the fossil record is not so clear cut. Whether the theory holds up or not has not yet been solidified. Even among adherents of evolution there are camps that doubt Darwinian evolution. I have heard of at least three or four variants. Therefore, for the author to criticize someone for not believing in evolution is really unfounded.

                      Reply
          • 100%

            loquaciousrana1 year, 3 months ago

            An example of how viewpoint colours the evidence is your statement about the DNA being 99.5% the same.

            Based on an evolutionist's viewpoint, your conclusion that both Neanderthalis and Homo Sapiens have the same ancestor is quite logical.

            However, does the difference in DNA just point to this conclusion or could we also conclude that they have the same designer? A programmer may write two completely different programs and still use the same basic design elements between the two. It's called code reuse. Why should a designer of life be any different?

            Reply

            3 Replies

            • 100%

              disraeli1 year, 3 months ago

              Of course given the same set of facts two people may come up with different conclusions as to what those facts mean. That is where logic and common sense come into play, if one of the conclusions is reasonable and the other is fanciful, chances are the reasonable conclusion is correct.

              Following the lines of your programming analogy I could hypothesize that the author of Milton's Paradise Lost and anything by Danielle Steele are in fact the same person because both works consisted of words using the same 26 letter alphabet. However a reading of both would suggest that to be an absurd conclusion. A more rational conclusion would be that the authors were two seperate people with a common link, in this case the English language.

              Reply

              2 Replies

              • 89%

                loquaciousrana1 year, 3 months ago

                Actually, both conclusions would be rational. Only further analysis of the data would make one more conclusive than the other. Since writing is not determined by letters, but by word usage, writing style, and grammatical syntax. If I were to examine two articles in which the difference between the above criteria varied by less than 1% then I could conclude rationally that the same person authored both articles. If the percentage of difference you are mentioning in the DNA is based on composition (like letters of the alphabet) then conclusion that both Neanderthalis and Homo Sapiens come from the same common ancestor is invalid. It only proves that they were organic beings. However, I assuming your implying that the structure of the DNA is similar, which would make both conclusions reasonable.

                Reply
              • 100%

                loquaciousrana1 year, 3 months ago

                Another question to ponder: how similar is 99.5%? For example, in simple program of a hundred or less lines, then the 0.5% difference would equate to a word or maybe even a partial word. However, in million line piece of code the difference equates to 5000 lines of code. This could easily equate to completely different functionality. Therefore, a better comparison would be needed. How different is the DNA between Neanderthalis and another primate? How different is Homo Sapien DNA and that of another primate? What are the differences? How different is the DNA from a non-primate mammal? Only having a more complete picture could one draw more conclusive conclusions.

                Reply
      • 86%

        loquaciousrana1 year, 3 months ago

        Since you say that tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers showing fossil evidence exists, why is it that you are unable to given even one example? Why was the author unable to provide even one-link to such evidence? You are arguing that I am an idiot for not accepting your arguments on face value. After all, I should blindly trust you that such evidence exists. What difference is there between accepting your and the author's views on face value and believing that Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell has a direct channel to God just because they say so?

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          disraeli1 year, 3 months ago

          Patience, patience and refer to the posts above.

          Reply
        • 100%

          Helixbuilder1 year, 3 months ago

          Start here. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

          Reply
• 100%

  decipher1 year, 3 months ago

  the statistic: "more than half of Americans" "largely reject evolution" is terrifying. is this a mental disorder unique to the u.s.? do these people really need such a simplistic explaination? isn't their god smart enough to have created evoultion?

  Reply

  6 Replies

  • 100%

    Dionys1 year, 3 months ago

    It's not unique to the US, but the US has the largest % of fundamentalists who don't believe in Evolution and who believe in "literal" interpretation of the Bible (though which translation and version is up for debate, I suppose). It's quite frightening. Especially when all those fundamentalist nutters prooftext things with an English translation that has nothing to do with the historical context and original language of the text.

    Reply
  • 0%

    Wil1 year, 3 months ago

    This is important to me, because I believe in science, and I think that understanding science is incredibly important. I also believe that pandering politicians have worked very hard to be anti-science as a culture war issue with their outrageously ignorant base. GOP operatives have managed to equivocate science with all the other culture war issues, like a woman's right to control her own body, two people's right to get married or adopt children, and the rights of most of us to have freedom FROM religion.

    The United States is ranked near the bottom of the world - the world! - in science literacy. The very thing that propelled our nation to the top of the world in the 1950s and lead to us winning the Cold War is being thrown out by plutocrats who want to create a theocracy, and it's shameful and terrifying. It's like climate change skeptics; they're not deniers because they really question the science; they're deniers because their favorite Republican told them to be deniers.

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 100%

      whatever20001 year, 3 months ago

      First of all, is it appropriate to use "believe" in the same sentence as science? Science does not require faith, which is belief. When there is proof there is no need for belief. Your selective acceptence of science is scary. It's good where it is in congruence with what you think but not if you disagree i.e. gay adoption and abortion. Also it's freedom OF religion (yours may be atheism), not FROM. Buddhists are equally entitled to protection from athiests as atheists are from Christians. Bottom of the world! That means last place. I believe you are wrong until you show me the statistic putting US scientific literacy below every other country on the planet. Your bias shows and it undermines your argument. Lastly, don't tell me why I would question climate science. Science by it's very mandate needs to be questioned. Anyone who doesn't is doing us all a disservice inluding the scientific community. Open your own mind!

      Reply
  • 100%

    Charlson1 year, 3 months ago

    I think a lot of the problems we are seeing with the rejection or just ignorance of science have evolved from the evangelical movement of the Moral Majority and similar organizations that started as a backlash to the hedonistic, free love sixties. And we haven't yet recovered from them yet.

    Reply
  • 0%

    whatever20001 year, 3 months ago

    That is crazy. I question the statistic. Personally, I do believe that if God exists, he/she is smart enough to create evolution. Regarding simplistic explanations, are you familiar with Ocham's Razor? (sp?)

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 100%

      Dionys1 year, 3 months ago

      Ockham or Occam. I agree that Evolution and most religious versions of creationism are rarely, if ever, mutually exclusive.

      Reply
• 0%

  toph19731 year, 3 months ago

  This is really scary. Still 2000 years later and we still have morons arguing the origins of life. We have a mountain of evidence the size of Everest suporting Evolution. We can see evolution happening microbiologically. Yet people refuse to accept this as fact. This is stupidity at a monumental level. But the church fosters this. They don't allow for rationality, openmindedness, or questioning the status quo. As far as I'm concerned religious people holding office is a voilation of the separation of church and state clause in the constuitution.

  Reply

  4 Replies

  • 100%

    whatever20001 year, 3 months ago

    If evolution holds credence, why don't I have three arms and eyes in the back of my head? Just a joke. In a respectful manner I would pose that your statement is equally not open minded. You criticize those that question accepted science in the same sentence you criticize people who accept their faith blindly. I'm not arguing either point. When we open our mouths and utter aaaahhh, we call it the letter A. The letter doesn't really exist, there aren't little A's coming out of our mouths. The letter is a symbol for the sound. This is all an atom can be proved to be. It's a system (created by science) that allows us to manipulate that which we can't see, just like the alphabet makes it possible to read and write (AKA manipulate the sounds). Your statement about religion and public office is scary as hell. You're tying social standing to religious belief. THAT'S A BIG NO NO in a free society! The founding fathers would cringe. The seperation of church and state is a two edged knife.

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 100%

      toph19731 year, 3 months ago

      Please explain to me how arguing a fact is unopenminded. I don't follow.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 100%

        whatever20001 year, 3 months ago

        Your arguing a theory.You embrace science as your flag and wave it high but you don't want to accept the responsibility that comes with it.Science needs to be scrutinized.It is imperative that researchers show doubt regarding it's findings.You accept what your told by scientists(much like the religious zealots you criticize accept what the church tells them) and no one is allowed to dissent.Science is not perfect and it is not infallible because it is practiced by people.They make mistakes.There is bias in questionares. Statistics are manipulated.Variables do not get adequately controlled for.To illustrate my point, go to any post regarding global warming. Dare to question what the prevailing viewpoint is. See what happens when science turns into a religion? Most of the people have no idea what paleoclimatology is and what it's role is in climate science. You will be labelled a "heretic". All this just because you QUESTIONED their findings. This is not healthy science. Peace!

        Reply
  • 0%

    whatever20001 year, 3 months ago

    I hope we have morons arguing the origins of life for as long as there is life. I equate arguing with questioning accepted thought. I'm sure you would agree.

    Reply
• 100%

  Helixbuilder1 year, 3 months ago

  I have to use my favorite Heinlein quote here "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." Over and over again these clowns prove this true.

  Reply

  2 Replies

  • 0%

    whatever20001 year, 3 months ago

    The quote is great. If I hit my mark, R.A. Heinlein was a human too. Hopefully he had the maturity, humbleness and level headedness to not underestimate his own ability to be occasionally stupid as we all can be.

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 100%

      el-jefe1 year, 3 months ago

      Heinlein was quite humble, but he didn't suffer fools gladly. The problem was, nearly everyone he met was more of a fool than he was.

      No, I'm not being sarcastic. He really was very "with it", and books like Stranger in a Strange Land attracted some fairly "not with it" people to him.

      Reply
• 100%

  david_nwpa1 year, 3 months ago

  Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, one of the most respected Catholic theologians of the time, was called on to adjudicate the dispute between Galileo and his opponents, including both religious zealots and secular university professors. The question of heliocentrism had first been raised with Cardinal Bellarmine, in the case of Paolo Antonio Foscarini, a Carmelite father; Foscarini had published a book, Lettera ... sopra l'opinione ... del Copernico, which took the dangerous step of attempting to reconcile Copernicus with the biblical passages that seemed to be in contradiction. Bellarmine at first expressed the opinion that Copernicus would not be banned, but would at most require some editing to assure that the heliocentric idea was purely a hypothetical.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

  More evidence of the idiocy of the church. Seems at one time they knew little about astronomy.

  Reply
• 100%

  PamDemonium1 year, 3 months ago

  Blind faith is a dangerous thing. It closes the mind and results in bigotary and intolerance. It is the cause of wars. Whether you believe in christ, mohamed or budha, it is all the same, singleminded ignorance of science and logic.

  I'll believe in faith healing when an amputee regrows his arm.

  As for for a 'Creation Museum" isnt that an oxymoron?

  I understand it is difficult for those indoctrinated from a very young age....but in this modern age it is time to start questioning you're beliefs and why you believe them.

  Reply
• 0%

  ethicscouncil1 year, 3 months ago

  How awesome is this. At last Christians are learning to defend their faith. I checked out skepticsannotatedbible.com/ what a joke. Any Christian with even the slightest knowledge of apologetics would find this site pedestrian and callow at best and purposely misleading at worst. The site is completely void of any comprehension of ancient biblical language and that's just to start. I thought the remark made by relevance "That's a load of exaggerated garbage" pretty much summed up how the adolescent rebelling against mommy and daddys religion will respond when confronted with well documented fact. 10 times more new testament manuscripts with fewer errors than Homer and Plato combined. Sorry it is quite verifiable relevance do some research.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 100%

    Helixbuilder1 year, 3 months ago

    Yes, let's start with the creation story how far do you get before gravity was created? It exists but is never mentioned. Why?

    Reply
• 78%

  ethicscouncil1 year, 3 months ago

  Evolution? Micro or Macro? As Darwin himself stated "my theory can stand as nothing more than fodder if the future fossil record is not rich with transitional finds". I'm sorry has there been even one transitional fossil found? Get it? If a lizard became a rat where are the half lizard half rat fossils. Oh NOT ONE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL. Hmmm that's problematic. Not to mention the Cambrian explosion...lots and lots of problems. I'm glad evolutionist have such faith.

  And why do the goofballs who somehow tie faith and politics together always forget that Martin Luther King Jr. (a Republican by the way) and Jimmy Carter were/are strong Christians?

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 100%

    Helixbuilder1 year, 3 months ago

    Not one transitional fossil! Very good there are thousands. Changing the definition of what makes a fossil transitional does not discount the transistional fossil.

    The Cambrian explosion...it's amazing that you can wave off something that occurred over hundreds of million of years as sudden.

    Do some research, go to talk origins online FAQ, read, understand, and then comment. It's apparent that you don't understand the theory of evolution at all. To put this in context it's like not reading a book then reviewing it!

    Reply