|
the more religious you are, the less intelligent you are. (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by djHollen
and fat. dont forget fat. |
:stongue: |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
you know something funny, when I drive I often see trucks with the banners "Jesus is my light" and "Live for Jesus."
And conversely, college professors are the most liberal people in the US, as a group.
So, yes, there is truth to that statement. |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
I don't know about that. Some professors migt be liberal, but that doesnt make them smart. I mean I had this one professor who said China was smaller than the US. Than this same professor tried to convince me that the Afghanistan people looked European and were of European descent. I tried not to lose it, she said so many stupid things I just couldn't believe that she had a Phd.
Also and she was very religious; jew, she was jewish.
I can recall so many times when my teachers have said something really stupid and something not correct, but I don't say anything to them about it. I just sign.
Oh my grandma said that the beethoven's 9th symphony was playing when Jesus was born. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
Oh my grandma said that the beethoven's 9th symphony was playing when Jesus was born. |
Uhm, MGS, not to bust your grandma's bubble, but considering that Beethoven was born in 1770 (A.D. if you're keeping track), I don't see how his 9th Symphony could've been playing 1800 years earlier!:wtf:
Edit: Nevermind, I guess you were pointing out how people say stupid things. Guess I'm the stupid one!:crazy: |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| omg shakka OMG!!! R u ok? I swear you spend so much time on TA that your wife might have already left you and you didnt noticed. Go check on her Shakka go! |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
omg shakka OMG!!! R u ok? I swear you spend so much time on TA that your wife might have already left you and you didnt noticed. Go check on her Shakka go! |
Correction: I spend so much time procrastinating at work sometimes... |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Correction: I spend so much time procrastinating at work sometimes... |
...right...you spend so much time stalking me....do you have a thing for my avatar is that it? Do you? you like that ass |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
| that's a good ass. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
that's a good ass. |
These boards are filled with asses.  |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| Eh, TvD since it's pointless to argue about evolution with you because we refuted every single one of your claims while you basically failed to refute any one of ours, I would just like to ask you why and how you think Charles Darwin came up with the idea of evolution in the first place, and why did the scientific community adopt that idea? Your basic claim is that science is now so hard stuck on evolution because of the reasons that are the very foundation of creationism in first place, mainly dogmatism and tradition. But if that was the case, then the theory of evolution would never even be considered, as the whole of scientific community was pretty certain about creationism back in the days. |
|
|
| kush paintings |
| Well, I am not sure, but I believe his point is the scietific community seems to be afraid (may not be the right word) to question the theory of evolution. Some citizens of the red states simply want the theory of evolution to presented as a theory and flaws within it (although I have no idea what those would be) to be shown. Evolution theory has become a religion of its own, as it can't be questioned, for if you question it you are all of a sudden grouped with the ignorant religious crowd. A few liberls and many academics have a tendency to see the world as us vs. them and in the process become the bigoted, ingoramuses (if that's a word) that they have sworn to hate. Take this thread for example, a person who perhaps sees himself as educated and of diverse thoughts simply writes off an entire group of people simply because they don't look in a science book for answers, but a bible. This idea is hard for some to grasp, so rather than questioning if the "laws" of the bible are applicible towards people today, just as the laws of sciene are, they are simply written off as religious nuts. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by kush paintings
Well, I am not sure, but I believe his point is the scietific community seems to be afraid (may not be the right word) to question the theory of evolution. |
Allow me to clarify this up a bit with you. Nothing could be further from the truth pertaining to scientists. Quite the opposite, really. Scientists actually question evolution every single day, and they test and retest evolution in so many aspects of their research that the theory itself would surely be completely null and void by now if it wasn't considered scientifically valid.
But we don't see this for a reason - despite the literally millions of tests thrown upon evolution on the literally millions of different species of critters being tested, the theory holds up quite strong. In fact, with so many tests being performed, the theory only becomes more and more stronger.
There is no deniability here - it is only certainty. Most scientists ignore these so-called "criticisms" because up to this point, all criticisms given are erroneous and flawed. And when you get to know the creationist/ID camp the way I have over the years, you come to find that the vast majority of the flawed criticisms were deliberate and deceitful.
Let me repeat that for you:
you come to find that the vast majority of the flawed criticisms were deliberate and deceitful.
I don't say that lightly. But I have come to know the arguments of creationists/IDers pretty well by now, and up until recently I have naively given them the benefit of the doubt and felt that they simply misunderstood evolution.
But in fact, I've concluded that the harshest critics - Behe, Dembski, anyone in the Discovery camp, etc. actually do know evolution pretty good, but rather simply cannot accept it as a result of a supposed clash with their spiritual viewpoints. It's despicable and digusting to watch them willfully misrepresent evolution and spin it in a completely unscientific manner.
| quote: | | Some citizens of the red states simply want the theory of evolution to presented as a theory and flaws within it (although I have no idea what those would be) to be shown. |
Many citizens in those Red States haven't a ing clue what evolution truly is and means in the first place, and that it should not be considered a threat to any spiritual belief they may have. I say this with complete knowledge of fighting this very fight in one of the reddest states in the country.
| quote: | | Evolution theory has become a religion of its own, as it can't be questioned, for if you question it you are all of a sudden grouped with the ignorant religious crowd. |
ing bull. As stated previously, evolution is questioned on a daily basis. I've personally seen it questioned in both undergraduate and graduate research, and I see it being questioned in my Doctoral work with a professor I am considering working under as a research assistant (she's looking for a cure for diabetes). Scientists are tired as hell seeing wingnutters come after them with asinine questions that do nothing but waste their time and completely misunderstand evolution in the first place.
Now don't get me wrong, I think scientists are finally having to realize that they can no longer ignore the fundamentalist wingnutters anymore as this ing debacle is building into a political PR battle, and as a consequence they are going to learn how to talk more openly and clearly in public circles about their research. But the problem is if one wishes to learn about evolution, it's not a sit-down 1-hr. conversation type ordeal. The intricacies are just as complicated in understanding as learning about relativity, quantum theory, etc. etc.
But I do think it's going to somehow be a necessary step in order to address the wingnutters.
| quote: | | A few liberls and many academics have a tendency to see the world as us vs. them and in the process become the bigoted, ingoramuses (if that's a word) that they have sworn to hate. |
Oh please. Can you honestly blame them if they are literally being attacked by idiots who know next to nothing about what evolution states and doesn't state? It's a ing insult to researchers to see these wingnutters pretty much piss all over their life's work.
Can you understand this? I'm not trying to be condescending, but think about it for a second. My undergrad. mentor, for example, spent the vast majority of his life studying underwater "flight" of various little critters in the ocean. Without evolutionary theory, his entire work would be nothing but worthless. IOW, his entire research would be completely baseless.
But, in fact, the opposite is true. But I challenge you or anyone else to get him or any other professor to attempt to insert a creationist or ID theory in place of evolutionary theory he has successfully utilized for some 35 years and see just how far his research would get him. Let's just see just how useful these creationist/ID theories are in a research setting, then we can have something to compare to.
Or perhaps, just perhaps that has already been done? And perhaps, just perhaps this is why there is not 1 peer-reviewed paper pertaining to the usefulness of any creationist/ID theory out there. I promise you, this is is not some academic conspiracy - the reason is quite clear: there is no utilization or support of any kind pertaining to any given creationist/ID theory.
Unless, of course, they have somehow successfully understood methodological naturalism and found the scientific method worthwhile for once in some little-known paper that I am unaware of. I'd be quite interested in seeing that, if you know of any (as would about a few hundred-thousand biological researchers out there too).
And then perhaps one can explain to me why ID places like Discovery.org continually state that they are working on research, when in fact they do nothing of the sort and instead focus all their finances on PR battles in local elections for state and school board of education officials. Pretty interesting tactic for a group that contends their theory is so strong, ain't it?
| quote: | | Take this thread for example, a person who perhaps sees himself as educated and of diverse thoughts simply writes off an entire group of people simply because they don't look in a science book for answers, but a bible. |
We write it off for good reason. I've been down this road countless numbers of times with a number of folks here on this forum, and an even higher number of times with other creationist/ID folks in other forums and public events.
If people wanna look in the Bible for "answers", all the power to them. But attempt to put those Biblical "answers" in the science classroom where we try to teach kids that science uses methodological naturalism and the scientific method as a means to understand the natural world through science, and I'll be the first in line to block your entrance. If people cannot understand the distinct and very different concepts of faith and science, 'em. They will not be attempting to bring their confusion into my future kid's science classroom as far as I'm concerned.
| quote: | | This idea is hard for some to grasp, so rather than questioning if the "laws" of the bible are applicible towards people today, just as the laws of sciene are, they are simply written off as religious nuts. |
Well maybe, just maybe it's because most rationally thinking individuals, many of them Christians themselves, have come to realize that the Bible is not inerrant when it comes to history and science lessons. I could be wrong, but the last time I checked I don't think rabbits chew their cud, do you?
So instead of using the Bible as some history map and science guide, maybe wingnutters should consider using the Bible what it was intended for - a moral guide? I know, that's a really crazy thought to hold, but it just might work a bit better for them that way. And then they can leave the study of the natural world up to something that does quite well with that instead, like science?
I know, it is a crazy thought. |
|
|
|
|
