Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
nope, can't prove it, but it's obvious. come to me when you are a bit more grown up. I can tell you but one thing. athiests are the worlds biggest cowards.
What a silly thing to say. What if I retort that a person who chooses to believe in the religion that was taught to him/her as a child and has never considered truly understanding or examining the ideas behind that religion is a sheepish coward.
For Ron Paul to state that he doesn't accept the theory of evolution just confirms to me that he is a complete quack. How he was able to mobilize so many supposedly "independent thinking" persons, including college students, is a complete mystery to me.
More Republicans certainly do believe in creationism. However almost 40% of Democrat voters also believe in creationism.
This debate really is about religion and how much disdain liberals have for it, is it not? Well the numbers of Democrat voters who believe in God-guided evolution is also almost 40%. These two views equal almost 80%. What difference does it really make?
Either way a deity was involved. In a truly broad sense we are simply splitting hairs.
I admit that humans being created 10,000 years ago is fairly preposterous But don't atheists believe that the existence of a deity is preposterous?
Where is the tolerance for differing beliefs that the left is constantly beating everyone over the head with?
More Republicans certainly do believe in creationism. However almost 40% of Democrat voters also believe in creationism.
This debate really is about religion and how much disdain liberals have for it, is it not? Well the numbers of Democrat voters who believe in God-guided evolution is also almost 40%. These two views equal almost 80%. What difference does it really make?
Either way a deity was involved. In a truly broad sense we are simply splitting hairs.
I admit that humans being created 10,000 years ago is fairly preposterous But don't atheists believe that the existence of a deity is preposterous?
Where is the tolerance for differing beliefs that the left is constantly beating everyone over the head with?
It's fairly simple. The left isn't necessarily intolerant of opposing views concerning creation. The left is opposed to the mandatory teaching of Creationism, a hypothesis based entirely on biblical (read: religious) tenets and specious logic, in schools alongside the theory of evolution, a theory (read: not a hypothesis) backed by a century and a half of compiled scientific evidence and scrutiny. People on the left aren't opposed to the teaching of creationism at homes and in churches, just as they aren't for the mandatory teaching of evolution in church. It's a simple concept really. Keep things where they belong. Ours is a complex society that values discourse, not coersion.
Creationism tries to use as a weapon the fact that science doesn't have complete answers to some of science's own questions. Well, that fact has always been the case, but in the meantime you don't go around teaching children that there are ghosts in closets, that the Devil can sit on your shoulder, etc. Those are statements about beliefs in the supernatural, and not properly part of any scientific curriculum (except perhaps psychology).
quote=padcrasher;8676574It's not a religious question it's a science question. Evolution is not a religious belief, it's scientific fact.
It's not a fact. If it were a fact then it would be called the "Law Of Evolution".
Personally I do believe that the "Theory Of Evolution" is how we got here. And I'm a Republican. But then again, according to the fossil record, modern humans (Homo-sapiens-sapiens) somewhat abruptly appear around 100,000 years ago.
It's not a fact. If it were a fact then it would be called the "Law Of Evolution".
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Evolution is a fact. Look at the progression of fossils, examine comparative anatomy, observe genetic mutation in real time. Those are facts. Given all the objective evidence that has been collected, it is unreasonable not to accept that evolution has occurred and still occurs. It is some of the details involved that are still not well understood.
Scientists refer to gravity as both as 'force' and as a 'theory'. Look it up. Why would scientists today still refer to the "theory of gravity"? Because scientists cannot say today with certainty how the various subatomic forces work together to result in the gravitational force. So they can legitimately still refer to the "theory of gravity."
Look up what scientists mean when they use the word 'theory'.
Creationism tries to use as a weapon the fact that science doesn't have complete answers to some of science's own questions. Well, that fact has always been the case, but in the meantime you don't go around teaching children that there are ghosts in closets, that the Devil can sit on your shoulder, etc. Those are statements about beliefs in the supernatural, and not properly part of any scientific curriculum (except perhaps psychology).
Creationism does not try to use anything as a weapon. Creationism outdates evolutionary theory by almost 2,000 years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
