Be Afraid

[RenaissanceLady]

When those who are opposed to science are able to dismantle it from within, we end up with a stupid populace. I see this as one of the bigger threats to the country.

 

[pickles]

This is from Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) who is on the House Science Committee:

Rep. Paul Broun Says Evolution, Embryology, and Big Bang Theory are "Lies from the Pit of Hell."

This is what American Theocracy looks like. It will undermine science, critical thought and everything that made the U.S. a great nation.

Except that the United States was based on a Christian foundation. Modern university leftists have tried for decades to get us to forget that, turning the original settlers and founders of this nation into racist indian killers. Having said that, where Christians like Broun fail is they forget that evolution is simply the game after God threw up the jump ball. The two need not be mutually exclusive.

 

[RenaissanceLady]

Except that the United States was based on a Christian foundation. Modern university leftists have tried for decades to get us to forget that, turning the original settlers and founders of this nation into racist indian killers. Having said that, where Christians like Broun fail is they forget that evolution is simply the game after God threw up the jump ball. The two need not be mutually exclusive.

It might behoove you to read the Jefferson Bible sometime and familiarize yourself with Thomas Paine. Then you might want to Google the word "deist" and "secularist", then take a little time to sit down and read the entire Treaty of Tripoli. While you at it, I'd appreciate it if you would explain to me why Thomas Jefferson said, "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man," or why Benjamin Franklin said, "Lighthouses are more useful than churches" and "This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in."

I'll give you a hint: It wasn't because they desired this to be a "Christian nation" nor inflict a certain level of Christianity upon all others. I fear you've succumbed to a desperate attempt by a profoundly uneducated few who choose to cherry-pick history rather than read the entire words and actions by a group of men who lived and flourished during the Age of Enlightenment, following the words and philosophies of Voltaire and especially the aforementioned Thomas Paine.

George Washington feared our becoming a "Christian country", instead saying, "Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."

They deliberately left off the words "In God we Trust" from the currency. Those words didn't appear until 1956, during the height of McCarthyism. Instead of religion, we were given the Establishment Clause in our very First Amendment. This is the Separation of Church and State conservatives try to pretend doesn't exist, entirely because it doesn't say word for word that "there is a separation of church and state." Instead, it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" In other words, there is a separation of church and state. As a matter of fact, nowhere in the constitution does it ever state that "we are a Christian nation" nor even mention the word "Christian." If it wasn't part of the constitution, it wasn't a principle for the basis of the country.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a socialist (yes, socialist) minister, who never once mentioned God during that pledge. The words "under God" were again added in the 1950s during the scourge of McCarthyism, in another desperate attempt by the right to inflict religion upon all others and pretend we were better than those Godless communists. Francis Bellamy specifically wrote this - and it was the words many of our parents and virtually all generations beforehand were taught to say:

"I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Interesting how it mentioned neither God nor specifically the "United States of America," yet I doubt our parents and grandparents were radical heathens wanting to overthrow the moral character of the country.

One a final note: Remember that Treaty of Tripoli I asked you to research? It was signed unanimously by Every Single member of Congress and yet it said this:
“The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

Be sure you take the time to explain this to those who wish to enslave your mind and create fictional histories about how our country has a "Christian foundation." As I've clearly shown, it does not and never did.

 

[Muadib]

Well said RenaissanceLady, I was going to write up something similar (but not as eloquent) but I've already had this argument with another member of this forum and didn't feel like re-visiting it. Christians have historically tried to adopt many figures who were either decidedly anti Christian or uninterested in religion, such as Einstein. It always amazes me when they claim this nation was founded as a "Christian nation" when some of the very people who signed the original Declaration of Independence and were responsible for fomenting our revolution were so vehemently anti religion and anti Christianity in particular.

 

[exo_doc]

I could not have said it better R'Lady. Excellent!

 

[Goggs Mackay]

This thing about the teacher and freedom of speech and academic yadayada..... so if a maths teacher starts teaching that 1+1=5 he can just say 'but that's what I believe...'

Enough! Enough of 'belief' - keep it at home teachers.

 

[starise]

If Paul Broun is simply stating his belief/opinion and not pushing it on anyone else why it this reason to be "afraid"?

Even though evolution is in fact a theory it is taught in most school systems. The theory has the upper hand in education right now. I don't think he should try to legislate any of it because it has been proven time and again you can't legislate morality. A theory has been legislated but that doesn't make it any less or more than a theory. Are you afraid that his ideas are dangerous? Isn't he allowed to have his own ideas? The Big Bang is also a theory, why would one be afraid of someone else having a different idea? Theories should be open to constant speculation until such time as they have been proven to be factual.

I am not sold on evolution at all,does that make me some kind of anti-freedom monster? I do believe in ADAPTATION. I am not sold on the Big Bang Theory unless someone like God made the big bang happen and even then I don't think we can be certain that it happened the way they think it happened. Does that viewpoint somehow make me an evil person in your eyes?

How legitimate is a viewpoint that condones a theory to the death and goes to great lengths to squelch anyone who has what they themselves believe to be yet another theory?

 

[Muadib]

The problem isn't that he has a theory the problem is he wants his theory, which explains nothing at all and is more a matter of faith than anything based on empirical evidence, to be given equal footing with a "theory" that has mountains of evidence supporting it. Saying "I don't know, therefore God did it" is not an answer at all and has no place in the science classroom. People are free to believe whatever they want but they are not free to label it science and teach it in schools. Not to mention saying that the "theory" of evolution (I put theory in quotes because evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory) and the fact that the universe is 4.5 billions of years old are "lies from the pit of hell" is an extreme position for anyone, let alone someone on a government funded science committee.

 

[starise]

I don't really know much about Paul Broun so I can't comment on his background nor do I know if he uses a scientific basis for his understanding of what he believes. Most people have some kind of a basis for making these kinds of comments other than " God said it". I would hope he could offer more than that. In any case the same can be said for the theory of evolution in that it jumps to certain conclusions hence the fact that it is still a theory.

" Lies from the pit of hell" is not really in keeping with the kind of approach a man in that position should have in the position he holds. I think he really feels this way but his tact went right out the window here and he lost some credibility IMO.

The thing I have found with accusations against people who hold a certain view is that it only matters if you don't like the person or the view. In this case I think the guy attracted some attention to himself in a bad way.I'll have to listen to the video again. I didn't think he said that an old universe was a lie from the pit of hell. I believe he is not in agreement with the Big Bang theory.

 

[exo_doc]

If Paul Broun is simply stating his belief/opinion and not pushing it on anyone else why it this reason to be "afraid"?

Even though evolution is in fact a theory it is taught in most school systems. The theory has the upper hand in education right now. I don't think he should try to legislate any of it because it has been proven time and again you can't legislate morality. A theory has been legislated but that doesn't make it any less or more than a theory. Are you afraid that his ideas are dangerous? Isn't he allowed to have his own ideas? The Big Bang is also a theory, why would one be afraid of someone else having a different idea? Theories should be open to constant speculation until such time as they have been proven to be factual.

I am not sold on evolution at all,does that make me some kind of anti-freedom monster? I do believe in ADAPTATION. I am not sold on the Big Bang Theory unless someone like God made the big bang happen and even then I don't think we can be certain that it happened the way they think it happened. Does that viewpoint somehow make me an evil person in your eyes?

How legitimate is a viewpoint that condones a theory to the death and goes to great lengths to squelch anyone who has what they themselves believe to be yet another theory?

Because Broun is on a "science" committee that affects everyone. Evolution is science, NOT from the pit of hell.
He is allowed to have his own ideas, HOWEVER he is in a position to make some very damaging decisions based on beleif, NOT FACT.
If you do not understand the difference between "common everyday usage theory"....and "scientific theory", you need to further your education. You and a freind may discuss a theory --meaning a "guess". A scientific theory , especially Evolution (the most successful scientific theory ever) has so much provable, demonstrable evidence going for it it's in all practicality a law.
You are not an anti-freedom monster for just saying that. You are just not well educated in all the facts of evolution and let your religion get in the way.

 

[Muadib]

I don't really know much about Paul Broun so I can't comment on his background nor do I know if he uses a scientific basis for his understanding of what he believes. Most people have some kind of a basis for making these kinds of comments other than " God said it". I would hope he could offer more than that. In any case the same can be said for the theory of evolution in that it jumps to certain conclusions hence the fact that it is still a theory.

" Lies from the pit of hell" is not really in keeping with the kind of approach a man in that position should have in the position he holds. I think he really feels this way but his tact went right out the window here and he lost some credibility IMO.

The thing I have found with accusations against people who hold a certain view is that it only matters if you don't like the person or the view. In this case I think the guy attracted some attention to himself in a bad way.I'll have to listen to the video again. I didn't think he said that an old universe was a lie from the pit of hell. I believe he is not in agreement with the Big Bang theory.

I agree that he definitely threw tact out the window and because of that fact he lost credibility, probably with believers and non believers alike. The thing is that you're misusing the word theory here, gravity is a theory, do you not believe in gravity? Of course you do, because you can see the effects of gravity, just like you can see the effects of evolution, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Evolution has been affirmed and reaffirmed through years of observation and experiments and the emergence of new fields like genetics has only reinforced the tenets of evolution which is why when people say "well it's only a theory" I bring up the comparison to gravity because just like if you threw out gravity you'd have to throw out hundreds of years of science in related fields, the same holds true of evolution. Genetics and biology textbooks would have to be completely rewritten if the "theory" of evolution was discarded for something like intelligent design, which raises more questions than it answers.

Saying "I don't know, therefore God did it," is obviously a simplification but I think it captures the essence of the arguments in favor of intelligent design, it's basically just the old "God of the Gaps" argument repackaged for a new generation, which is the reason I say it has no place in a science classroom. You can believe whatever you want, but you cannot label it science because when you boil it all down it has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with faith and science is not based on faith.

 

[starise]

exo doc I can see your concerns here in that this guy is on a science committee and might have some ability to change policy. I think your worries here are unfounded. Is evolution theory really science if it is a theory? Why is it still a theory if it is provable science?

I certainly understand the difference between a guess and a scientific theory.Scientific theory is a sophisticated guess but still a guess.

Here is where I question the credibility of some of the so called scientific theories. For the sake of argument I'll give an example. Evo- The universe is 4.5 billion years old. Cre- Are you 100 percent positive that the earth is exactly 4.5 billion years old? Evo- Well give or take a few billion years but we are fairly certain of it. Alternate answer 2- I am positive of this. Cre- Since we both know that verification of this proposed absolute is pretty much impossible how can we confirm this? Evo- Because scientist A said it was and Scientist B also said it was based on what they based it on which is the same thing and since no one was around then it sounds pretty good to me.Cre- Hmmm, I see its a SWAG then(scientific wild ass guess). A guess is a guess, a scientific guess is a guess with a scientific element in it IOW a few guys with nice degrees and high IQs got together did some research and it seemed like the best theory. A guess and an educated guess. We don't know ,but we're pretty sure, but we don't know, but it is almost a fact now.We are so almost sure that we are sure

Muadib- I don't think the line of thinking applies in the case of gravity . The two comparisons don't apply well to one another here in my opinion.

I think adaptation is observed in the labratory and this is taken into the area of evolution where it also doesn't apply. I don't doubt that things change over time. I just disagree with assumptions made about how they changed and in what ways.

I think the creationist should be open to examine anomalies in the thought process if they interfere with sound logic in the same way I believe that the staunch evolutionist should re examine the evidence if the theory has holes in it. Things may not have happened in exactly the way the creationist thinks they did and things very likely didn't happen in exactly the way the evolutionist thinks they did. You may not be willing to admit this but you take a leap of faith as well in saying for certainty that something happened 4.5 billion years ago when noone was there and the evidence so far doesn't make it a fact.

Aside from all scientific data gathered there is a deeper issue in how a person approaches the whole subject. In my case, if it was determined that a day was actually 1000 years in the account of Biblical creation, God still created it. If the universe was proven to be 4.5 billion years old then God made things 4.5 billion years ago or at least started them. If God started to make frogs into chickens 10 million years ago, then so be it. I don't believe that based on the things I know as of now but what I'm saying is that there is quite possibly some flexibility in the argument.

In the case of an avowed atheist. No matter if the earth happened 2 billion years ago or 50 billion years ago it just evolved into what it is. No change in the time line will change his mind either.Unless God approaches the atheist in some personal way then his views are sealed. In some cases the athiest hates that God and no amount of personal anything will work. If some were to dare to entertain the thought of God even on an impersonal vague basis they would want it to be the God they like...if it isn't they are not interested.

So are we trying to prove one thing in order to disprove something else? Or to disprove one thing to accomidate what we feel comfortable with?

 

[exo_doc]

...................... Why is it still a theory if it is provable science?

I certainly understand the difference between a guess and a scientific theory.Scientific theory is a sophisticated guess but still a guess.

If you think a scientific theory is "just a guess",...then you DON'T know what a scientific theory is Starise. It is most assuredly NOT a "guess".

It (a scientific theory) is a collection of evidence, otherwise known as "facts", compiled to reveal the bigger picture about something.

If you'd like I can put some links on here explaining the reality of evolution, what the evidence is for it, and why not one challenge to evolution has been verified or proven true. Not a single one. Every supposed piece of evolution refuting evidence has been shown to be a mistake, a misunderstanding, or a hoax.

 

[pickles]

It might behoove you to read the Jefferson Bible sometime and familiarize yourself with Thomas Paine. Then you might want to Google the word "deist" and "secularist", then take a little time to sit down and read the entire Treaty of Tripoli. While you at it, I'd appreciate it if you would explain to me why Thomas Jefferson said, "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man," or why Benjamin Franklin said, "Lighthouses are more useful than churches" and "This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in."

I'll give you a hint: It wasn't because they desired this to be a "Christian nation" nor inflict a certain level of Christianity upon all others. I fear you've succumbed to a desperate attempt by a profoundly uneducated few who choose to cherry-pick history rather than read the entire words and actions by a group of men who lived and flourished during the Age of Enlightenment, following the words and philosophies of Voltaire and especially the aforementioned Thomas Paine.

George Washington feared our becoming a "Christian country", instead saying, "Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."

They deliberately left off the words "In God we Trust" from the currency. Those words didn't appear until 1956, during the height of McCarthyism. Instead of religion, we were given the Establishment Clause in our very First Amendment. This is the Separation of Church and State conservatives try to pretend doesn't exist, entirely because it doesn't say word for word that "there is a separation of church and state." Instead, it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" In other words, there is a separation of church and state. As a matter of fact, nowhere in the constitution does it ever state that "we are a Christian nation" nor even mention the word "Christian." If it wasn't part of the constitution, it wasn't a principle for the basis of the country.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a socialist (yes, socialist) minister, who never once mentioned God during that pledge. The words "under God" were again added in the 1950s during the scourge of McCarthyism, in another desperate attempt by the right to inflict religion upon all others and pretend we were better than those Godless communists. Francis Bellamy specifically wrote this - and it was the words many of our parents and virtually all generations beforehand were taught to say:


Interesting how it mentioned neither God nor specifically the "United States of America," yet I doubt our parents and grandparents were radical heathens wanting to overthrow the moral character of the country.

One a final note: Remember that Treaty of Tripoli I asked you to research? It was signed unanimously by Every Single member of Congress and yet it said this:
“The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

Be sure you take the time to explain this to those who wish to enslave your mind and create fictional histories about how our country has a "Christian foundation." As I've clearly shown, it does not and never did.

What you've shown is that this country was not founded as a theocracy. That is correct. However, to eliminate "God" by placing reference to Him under the blanket of deism is dishonest. At the time, there was no real distinction between "god" and "God," especially among white European males. Equally, remember that these wise men worked every day to include everyone to get out founding documents ratified. Equally, telling a bunch of Muslim stone-age lunkheads that "we're not a Christian nation" to get them to stop raiding our ships is another example of saying what needs to be said to achieve a certain goal. Let's be real here. I'm sure your leftist professors would be slapping your back right now in attempting to undermine this nation's traditional values but hey, what else is new?

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I hate when the religious seem to claim all moral highground. No-one needs religion to be moral. I consider myself extremely moral and caring of others and I am that way cos I instinctively feel it is correct and natural.
I often get the sense many religious people only act in a positive way cos they are literally scared of hell. I think if a person only acts good because they think god is looking down on them, well that's wrong and.....if a conscious and caring god does know what we are all thinking and doing at all times, I hope he punishes those who only pretend to be good.

 

[Randall]

I hate when the religious seem to claim all moral highground. No-one needs religion to be moral. I consider myself extremely moral and caring of others ...

And I believe you are ... At the same time there are those who encounter religion as part of their search for something greater, and they can rightfully claim some higher moral ground than someone bereft of such sensibility. The problem is when the search stops at religion rather than proceeding through it. I don't mean to sound superior, but it was my experience that contemplating religion was like encountering a way point on my personal journey and only after dealing with the hard questions did religion become transparent and allow me to proceed onward. So I try not to be too judgmental of those who may be going through that same process. It took me several years to get it all in what I believe to be a reasonably true perspective. The thing that got me through it all is that I've never seen myself as religious, but as a truth seeker.

 

[RenaissanceLady]

What you've shown is that this country was not founded as a theocracy. That is correct. However, to eliminate "God" by placing reference to Him under the blanket of deism is dishonest. At the time, there was no real distinction between "god" and "God," especially among white European males. Equally, remember that these wise men worked every day to include everyone to get out founding documents ratified. Equally, telling a bunch of Muslim stone-age lunkheads that "we're not a Christian nation" to get them to stop raiding our ships is another example of saying what needs to be said to achieve a certain goal. Let's be real here. I'm sure your leftist professors would be slapping your back right now in attempting to undermine this nation's traditional values but hey, what else is new?[/quotailed to read my post or

It would seem as though you either didn't read or didn't comprehend what I had written, or you're not understanding what you had written. You said that, "the United States was based on a Christian foundation."

This is 100% incorrect.

The Treaty of Tripoli was signed unanimously by congress on June 7, 1797. YOU may decide that those particular words were just words that have no real meaning other than to placate "Muslim stone-age lunkheads" (though they were anything but), which means you're cherry-picking history and adding your own interpretation to that history in order to make straw man arguments supporting your claim. I'm showing that the Treaty of Tripoli was another brick that had followed a whole succession of bricks in the wall separating Church and State, which is backed by the quotes I used in my earlier post and further backed by that whole 1st Amendment thing. To indicate that the Treaty of Tripoli is just a bunch of words used as a means to an end is to like saying the Declaration of Independence is just a bunch of words used as a means to an end - the end being the shrugging off a British yoke. You might as well also say that the Constitution of the United States is just a bunch of words meant to placate nervous colonists who were unsure of the will of the new republic, rather than understand that these documents, declarations and treaties were all the foundation of this country, based on the ideals of that time.

The Founding Fathers were products of the Age of Enlightenment; their words and actions reflected this age. The Jefferson Bible (which you really should have researched) was a thoroughly comprehensive book showing EXACTLY what Jefferson thought of Christianity. In it, Thomas Jefferson removed all miracles by Christ, removed the resurrection, removed all references that Jesus was divine and removed almost all references to anything remotely supernatural.

You should read it sometime rather than spit out accusations about "liberal professors." Being educated on views that are different from or otherwise challenge your own is the mark of a good education and need not be liberal - unless you are of such a narrow mind that anything contrary to your held notions are automatically liberal and therefore wrong. If this is the case, it is not being "liberal" that you are opposed to but rather being thoroughly and objectively educated.

Jefferson explained to a friend in a letter that he wanted to write about his views of Christianity, explaining the deistic (yes, deistic) views of the ancient Jews, concluding with what he considered to be the deistic (there's that word again) principles of Jesus. Jefferson believed this book could be used to educate the Indians (though this probably never happened and some consider the "Indians" reference may have been a euphemism to refer to his Federalist opponents) while also proving that he was a "real Christian" - one that, in his own words, did not need miracles, the supernatural, nor the claptrap of those who considered themselves Christian but instead were rational thinkers who wished to express the "principles of pure deism" (an exact quote) that were taught by Jesus.

This is a far cry from the "Christian foundation" you are trying to pretend was the basis of this country. Even those who said they were a "real Christian" were accused of otherwise by others who did not recognize these deistic views as being Christian and who truly wanted a "Christian foundation" for this country. In a letter to a Calvinist, Jefferson stated, "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." That "sect", it would seem, was light years away from traditional Christianity and even further away from what those today consider to be "Christian."

In a nutshell: At this time, you've chosen to ignore solid facts and instead present, well, absolutely nothing. You have offered nothing that backs your claims other than what can best (and most politely) be referred to as a "gut feeling" that can only survive if it cherry picks history and believes written words are not meant to mean exactly what they say.

That's not an argument, instead being a rather poor excuse of a justification for an argument.

The truth is, I cannot educate those who prefer feelings and desires over an objective education. You do not have to read a single word of what I have written, you do not have to do your own research and you do not have to challenge your own beliefs. You are welcome to believe that ignorance is a virtue and stay in your comfort zone, whereas I might say your comfort zone is a prison that keeps your mind enslaved.

 

[Muadib]

This is 100% incorrect.

The Treaty of Tripoli was signed unanimously by congress on June 7, 1797. YOU may decide that those particular words were just words that have no real meaning other than to placate "Muslim stone-age lunkheads" (though they were anything but), which means you're cherry-picking history and adding your own interpretation to that history in order to make straw man arguments supporting your claim. I'm showing that the Treaty of Tripoli was another brick that had followed a whole succession of bricks in the wall separating Church and State, which is backed by the quotes I used in my earlier post and further backed by that whole 1st Amendment thing. To indicate that the Treaty of Tripoli is just a bunch of words used as a means to an end is to like saying the Declaration of Independence is just a bunch of words used as a means to an end - the end being the shrugging off a British yoke. You might as well also say that the Constitution of the United States is just a bunch of words meant to placate nervous colonists who were unsure of the will of the new republic, rather than understand that these documents, declarations and treaties were all the foundation of this country, based on the ideals of that time.

The Founding Fathers were products of the Age of Enlightenment; their words and actions reflected this age. The Jefferson Bible (which you really should have researched) was a thoroughly comprehensive book showing EXACTLY what Jefferson thought of Christianity. In it, Thomas Jefferson removed all miracles by Christ, removed the resurrection, removed all references that Jesus was divine and removed almost all references to anything remotely supernatural.

You should read it sometime rather than spit out accusations about "liberal professors." Being educated on views that are different from or otherwise challenge your own is the mark of a good education and need not be liberal - unless you are of such a narrow mind that anything contrary to your held notions are automatically liberal and therefore wrong. If this is the case, it is not being "liberal" that you are opposed to but rather being thoroughly and objectively educated.

Jefferson explained to a friend in a letter that he wanted to write about his views of Christianity, explaining the deistic (yes, deistic) views of the ancient Jews, concluding with what he considered to be the deistic (there's that word again) principles of Jesus. Jefferson believed this book could be used to educate the Indians (though this probably never happened and some consider the "Indians" reference may have been a euphemism to refer to his Federalist opponents) while also proving that he was a "real Christian" - one that, in his own words, did not need miracles, the supernatural, nor the claptrap of those who considered themselves Christian but instead were rational thinkers who wished to express the "principles of pure deism" (an exact quote) that were taught by Jesus.

This is a far cry from the "Christian foundation" you are trying to pretend was the basis of this country. Even those who said they were a "real Christian" were accused of otherwise by others who did not recognize these deistic views as being Christian and who truly wanted a "Christian foundation" for this country. In a letter to a Calvinist, Jefferson stated, "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." That "sect", it would seem, was light years away from traditional Christianity and even further away from what those today consider to be "Christian."

In a nutshell: At this time, you've chosen to ignore solid facts and instead present, well, absolutely nothing. You have offered nothing that backs your claims other than what can best (and most politely) be referred to as a "gut feeling" that can only survive if it cherry picks history and believes written words are not meant to mean exactly what they say.

That's not an argument, instead being a rather poor excuse of a justification for an argument.

The truth is, I cannot educate those who prefer feelings and desires over an objective education. You do not have to read a single word of what I have written, you do not have to do your own research and you do not have to challenge your own beliefs. You are welcome to believe that ignorance is a virtue and stay in your comfort zone, whereas I might say your comfort zone is a prison that keeps your mind enslaved.

Another excellent post RLady. What I find to be the funniest part of Mr. Pickles posts is something he said a couple days ago in another post, which was "Facts don't matter to Liberals, only feelings. Which is why they'd be funny if they weren't so dangerous" and then he makes a few posts in this thread which clearly show that, in reality, the only one ignoring facts for gut feelings is himself.

Another right wing hypocrite, that's a real shocker.

 

[Muadib]

Here is where I question the credibility of some of the so called scientific theories. For the sake of argument I'll give an example. Evo- The universe is 4.5 billion years old. Cre- Are you 100 percent positive that the earth is exactly 4.5 billion years old? Evo- Well give or take a few billion years but we are fairly certain of it. Alternate answer 2- I am positive of this. Cre- Since we both know that verification of this proposed absolute is pretty much impossible how can we confirm this? Evo- Because scientist A said it was and Scientist B also said it was based on what they based it on which is the same thing and since no one was around then it sounds pretty good to me.Cre- Hmmm, I see its a SWAG then(scientific wild ass guess). A guess is a guess, a scientific guess is a guess with a scientific element in it IOW a few guys with nice degrees and high IQs got together did some research and it seemed like the best theory. A guess and an educated guess. We don't know ,but we're pretty sure, but we don't know, but it is almost a fact now.We are so almost sure that we are sure

You seem to be sorely uneducated, not only on the subject of evolution but also how science has arrived at the age of the earth and of the universe at large, calling it a "wild ass guess" is just plain ignorant and a misrepresentation of the facts. If you'd bothered to look you would know that we know the exact age of the universe to a factor of +/- 0.11 billion years, so not even close to a "wild ass guess" as you would lead people to believe. Here's how we arrive at that number:

The age of the universe is defined in physical cosmology as the time elapsed since the Big Bang. The best current estimate of the age of the universe is 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years[1][2] (4.339 ± 0.035 ×1017 seconds) within the Lambda-CDM concordance model.[1] The uncertainty of 0.11 billion years has been obtained by the agreement of a number of scientific research projects, such as microwave background radiation measurements by Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and other probes. Measurements of the cosmic background radiation give the cooling time of the universe since the Big Bang,[3] and measurements of the expansion rate of the universe can be used to calculate its approximate age by extrapolating backwards in time.

You can read more here: Age of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only part that is in dispute among scientists is the +/- figure of 0.11 billion years, so not even 1 billion years. A "wild ass guess" this is not.

 

[starise]

Here we go again.....Look Muadib,from the calculations you give here which are taken from a proposed measurement system that can't be proven to go back that far. The theory itself has a significant slop in the time line.

It is probably the best we can do but it isn't accurate. My argument is that you can't be SURE. Your certainty rests on an uncertainty .

We don't know exactly what lies beneath our oceans. We have never went past the moon but somehow we know EXACTLY how old the universe it...please spare me.

Yes go ahead guys...I an uneducated idiot. I'm sure glad you filled me in on that one.