Political Insider

By Aquagirl

May 9, 2007 8:55 AM | Link to this

Ralphie, what does one’s literal interpretation of a creation story have to do with morals or decency? Nothing. This wingnut has repeated his own nonsense for so long that he believes it’s true.

Ralph is right about it being a code phrase to bring out Zombie Nation to the voting booths. saying you dislike “activist judges” is another. Or “preserving traditional marriage”. How about “not supporting the troops”? Oh, these nutcases are so predictable.

By Elizabeth

May 9, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this

Isn’t it funny how Republicans only support separation of church and state when it’s not their own church? If it’s THEIR church then there should be no separation. THEIR church should be imposed on everyone else.

By George

May 9, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this

Oh no. Ralph Reed is back on the circuit, preaching his brand of religion as the only true one. I would hope that by now people can see through his thin veneer. To him, there is no truth but his own.

By Darrell

May 9, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this

Oh please! None of you can stand to have one of the Liberal Holy Grails challenged. Evolution is a theory. For which there is no sustaining proof. What species has developed beyond what we have seen it be for thousands of years? Why are there still apes, single cell amebas? Looks to me that things have pretty much stayed the way they are for a very long time without a single transformation to lift up on your alter of “Man is God” and “don’t tell me to be mindful of a higher power”

By Ken Kuykendall

May 9, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this

“The Mormons believe that the lost tribes of Israel came over here after the death of Christ.”

Hmm, that’s a lot of mistakes about Mormon beliefs in a pretty short sentence. The Book of Mormon begins as a record of a few families only, living in Jerusalem about 600 B.C., who come to the New World at that time. Might be best to ask a Mormon (and not a political consultant or journalist) what Mormons believe.

Ken Kuykendall MormonCentury.org

By Tony

May 9, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this

Come on people. You’ve fallen into Ralphie’s trap. He was slapped down by his own party trying to run for Lite Guv. Now he needs something to get some free face time. He wants to make controversy to get some free press and you’re giving it to him. Hit the IGNORE button and move along…nothing to see here.

By Charles

May 9, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this

I have a healthy respect for the history of the Mormons, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others. My respect grows out of their determination as a Christian people to succeed regardless of the criticism of others.

“The Mormons believe that the lost tribes of Israel came over here after the death of Christ. Well, if they want to teach that in a Mormon Church, that’s perfectly acceptable, but they don’t teach that in the Utah public schools, nor should they.” The Mormons now have the power to enforce their will should it become necessary.

I wish the Nation of Islam had that kind of determination years ago. Unlike Joseph Smith and others, the Muslims allowed petty criticisms by others to hijack their path to power on the grounds of education and purity.

If Democrats are not able to convince people that they believe in the theory of creationism instead of the theory of evolution, they will not win the presidency.

By Walter Cronkite

May 9, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this

… and religion is a series of myths, Darrell. “Theory” in its scientific definition means a body of work… not some random concept. Read a book.

By Yup

May 9, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this

Definition of Scientific Theory: 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. 2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

By Eirik

May 9, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

Darrel,

Your post is demonstrative of the problem this country has with evolution and science in general..Your comments about the existence of apes and lower order animals shows you have no concept of what Evolution of Species really means.

But, as a twist, perhaps you can provide the scientific evidence that a Supreme Being plopped all of the species down on earth in about a week. How did this happen?…how did God make them physically on earth when they had never existed before…what was the mechanism? And how do you arrive at your answer? And what scientific tests have you (or anyone) done to support your conclustions? Were all the newly created animals adults that didn’t go through the stages of growth from fetus to adult..or were they recently conceived embryos (immaculate conception) that somehow managed to live outside of any womb (since they would be the first of their kind ever) and managed to grow up without any help from the adult (since they would be the first of their kind ever). Something we would never observe now.

Also, Creationism (i.e., Genesis) maintains that there was no strife among all the species until the fall of Adam…so meat eaters like dinosaurs strode with Adam but didn’t eat him…hawks didn’t hunt chipmunks…spiders didn’t eat flies…it was all harmonious until that pesky Adam messed up. Can you provide some scientific proof of all of this?..because we don’t observe it today.

Also, can you provide an explanation of how all the species of the earth fit into an ark that was only the size of a few football fields? And remember, according to Creationism all of the species that have ever existed (millions and millions) would have had to be saved, which would mean the Ark would have to be about the size of Australia. Please explain how this was mathmatically possible.

You see, Creation mythology followers always criticize the scientific validity of evolution but fail to provide any scientific evidence for Creationism..

And by the way, claims against the scientific validity of Evolution do not provide evidence for Creationism…because there might be a completely different explanation from those two theories.

The truth is that this isn’t a political conflict except for people like Ralph Reed and other dumb southerners (I can say that because I’m from the south) who have made it a political issue. Plenty of true conservatives (less government, personal responsibility, yada, yada) believe completely that all of the species on this earth evolved.

By Mark

May 9, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this

Darrell,

Look at the evolution of antibiotic-resistant germs (or all germs and viruses that evolve to thwart the medicines we use against them). The germs the medicine kills don’t live to reproduce. The germs medicine doesn’t kill, off spring that are some how slightly different so as not to be as susceptible to the medicine, do live to reproduce and their offspring are more and more resistent to the medicine until the medicine doesn’t work any more. That’s proof evolution played out over a couple of years.

In Great Britain during the industrial revolution, light colored moths that lived on the pale-barked trees of the area were common until the smoke and soot from the new factories made all the trees black. Light colored moths then were easier for birds to spot and they got eaten up more easily. Moths with more gray or black colored wings didn’t get eaten because they blended into the new dark-colored tree bark better. Thus, more dark colored moths. This process reversed itself when Britain cleaned up its factories and the soot wasn’t on the trees anymore. More proof of evolution in just a couple of decades.

Now think how species would react and how mutations may have helped or hurt various species during the whole course of the earth’s existence. That’s evolution. Did God have anything to do with it? That’s a question for the theologans. But to ignore scientific evidence that you can see right in front of you and that is unversally accepted is just plain ignorant. Read a book or go stick you head back in the sand. Evolution doesn’t usurp God.

By Mark

May 9, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

I think my favorite moment of Ralph Reed’s doomed Lt. Gov. campaign was seeing him taking an endoresment from Rudy Guiliani — a twice divorced man who was once married to his own cousin, who cheated on his second wife and lived with his mistress while still married to his second wife and who let his second wife know of his plans to divorce her in a news conference. Rudy’s kids won’t even speak to him. What family values was Rudy upholding there? And would a truly pious person — which Ralph claimed to be — stand arm in arm with such a person?

In fact, Ralph Reed is one of the lowest forms of life around and I can’t belive credible news outlets like CNN and the AJC keep giving him a forum for spreading his lies and his hypocrasy.

Please let’s have heard the last of Ralph Reed. He’s a little worm.

By JP

May 9, 2007 1:21 PM | Link to this

Ralph Reed is a joke and a parasite. I have a seriously hard time believing anyone gives a flying turd what he believes anymore, and I lack respect for anyone who does.

By Darrell

May 9, 2007 1:26 PM | Link to this

Ignorance? I think not. For animals, insects and viruses to adapt to changes in their environment is not evolution. They are still viruses, moths etc. Show me where over the course of time a species mutated into something completely different like your primal ooze to fish to ape to man crap proclaims. Sorry I don’t have the faith for that kind of system. there is no evidence and every time you say you have it, it gets shot down. Remember Lucy? No there’s a lot more evidence for Divine creation than evolution, you just have to be smart enough to allow yourself to consider it.

By Aquagirl

May 9, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this

Godless evolutionists!

By Ted

May 9, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this

Creationism is doomed to failure because it’s trying to overturn some very well-established science via rhetorical argument, without any evidence behind it. The entire “debate” is a colossal waste of time, and creationists are making fools of themselves.

By CobbCoian

May 9, 2007 1:58 PM | Link to this

Darrell - wow, all I can saw is wow. I hope you are not a teacher, perhaps you are really Ralph trying to stick up for yourself?

Content of your debate aside, you just argued the same thing that the previous posters already pointed out to be false and offered no new information. Perhaps you could learn a thing or two by watching the debate team at the local high school.

By Phil

May 9, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this

James Carville said, “Every Democratic candidate believes in evolution, as does every scientist.” That is a lie.

James Carville said, “When people pray, they pray that the war on science is going to stop.” I don’t think Mr. Carville has the foggiest idea about prayer, or what goes on inside the heads of people who do have brains.

James Carvile said, “every Democratic candidate believes in evolution…..and every Democratic candidate, by the way, believes in gravity.” He went on to point out that evolution is just as much fact-based science as is the law of gravity.

For those of you have brains, you can try this at home. Put something in your hand and drop it. Bingo! Then, go to the zoo with your camera and start filming monkeys. Take a lot of extra memory chips and batteries. I want to see the part of the clip where the monkey turns human. Then please post it on youtube so we can all agree that evolution is fact-based science.

Creationism should never be taught as science, because it includes the possibility of supernatural. Supernatural is not science. I am opposed to teaching creationism theory as science. I am also against teaching the far-fetched fairy tale about homo sapiens evolving from monkeys, which evolved from amoebas, which were the result of a big bang 3.2 billion years ago.

Even if bacteria and viruses do evolve into new species, that is a long way from proving that homo sapiens evolved from monkeys.

The research that has been done on global warming during the past decade, has shown that the only real records and provable facts regarding the temperature of the earth show that the earth has ALWAYS been warming up. If that were so, then the dating procedures would be all screwed up and there is no way that we could have evolved over 3.2 billion years, or even 100 million years, which changes the whole ball-game for the theory of evolution making any sense at all. However, so-called scientists (who need to make a living, too) have come up with their own non-fact based account of the earth’s temperature history in order to accomodate their non-fact theory of evolution.

James Carville says that only fact-based science should be taught in schools. I agree. So, why are kids being brain-washed into believing that it is a scientific fact that homo sapiens evolved from lower forms of life. That is not fact-based science. It is Star-Trek style fiction.

I am in favor of the seperation of church and state, and I am not advocating teaching religion in school. I don’t want kids being taught Islam or Satanism or Catholicism or Mormonism or Bhuddism or any other religion, including Atheism, in our public schools. But why are others so adament about teaching a flimsy theory in school so that they can cling on to it as scientific evidence that there is no God? Hmmmmmmm? Makes one think maybe there is something to this God thing.

For him who has brains to think, let him think.

By Aquagirl

May 9, 2007 2:51 PM | Link to this

Oh, Phil, you’re so clever! Those scientists are promoting the global warming theory, which is somehow tied to the falsity of evolution, since evolution proves that there is no God. (?)

BTW, humans didn’t evolve from monkeys or apes. The only time I’ve ever heard that phrase is from creationist wingnuts. No real scientist has ever claimed such a thing. If you want to trip on down to the zoo and wait, go ahead. Evolutionists could save you some time by telling you the monkeys won’t turn into humans. You see, real scientists use their brains.

By Phil

May 9, 2007 2:59 PM | Link to this

Well, Aquagirl, you must be too young to have seen the charts up on the wall in school showing man evolving from monkeys. Check with Darwin.

By Debbie

May 9, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this

Well known atheist Anthony Flew changes his mind about God and Evolution…

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

By Aquagirl

May 9, 2007 3:07 PM | Link to this

Phil, if there were charts on the wall of your school showing men evolving from monkeys, they must have been anti-evolution propaganda typical of a snake-handling inbred religious school.

Go ahead, find one link to a chart or even a written document seriously proposing that man evolved from monkeys. I’d love to see it. You seem to have such inside knowlege, I can’t produce such a thing. Darwin is dead, you are my only hope for factual correctness at this point.

By Debbie

May 9, 2007 3:07 PM | Link to this

Letter from Antony Flew on Darwinism and Theology Professor Antony Flew, who is famous for his philosophical arguments in favour of atheism, has contributed these tantalising comments to the debate.

Dear Editor,

The publication of ‘The Alleged Fallacies of Evolutionary Theory’ by Massimo Pigliucci and others in Issue 46 of Philosophy Now provides a convenient occasion for pointing out the limits of the negative theological implications of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. In the fourteenth and final chapter of The Origin of Species Darwin himself – apart from noticing certain short (a mere handful of million years long) geological periods in which the fossil record reveals the occurrence of inexplicably rapid evolution – wrote:

“Analogy would lead me one step further, namely to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from one prototype…. Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings that have lived on the earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.”

Probably Darwin himself believed that life was miraculously breathed into that primordial form of not always consistently reproducing life by God, though not the revealed God of then contemporary Christianity, who had predestined so many of Darwin’s friends and family to an eternity of extreme torture.

But the evidential situation of natural (as opposed to revealed) theology has been transformed in the more than fifty years since Watson and Crick won the Nobel Prize for their discovery of the double helix structure of DNA. It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.

I will here confine myself to recommending two books by individuals who started as believers in two different revealed religions. The author of the first started as, and remains, a Protestant Christian. The author of the second started as, and remains, an Orthodox Jew. The first book is Roy Abraham Varghese’s The Wonderful World: A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God (Fountain Hills, Arizona;Tyr Publishing 2003). The second book is Gerald L Schroeder’s The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth (Touchstone; New York 2001)

Anyone who should happen to want to know what I myself now believe will have to wait until the publication, promised for early 2005, by Prometheus of Amherst, NY of the final edition of my God and Philosophy with a new introduction of it as ‘an historical relic’. That book was a study of the arguments for Christian theism, first published in 1966 in various editions in both hardcover andpaperback in both the USA and the UK. My own commitment then as a philosopher who was also areligious unbeliever was and remains that of Plato’s Socrates: “We must follow the argument wherever it leads.”

Yours,

Antony Flew

By Aquagirl

May 9, 2007 3:19 PM | Link to this

And Richard Dawkins went from Anglican believer in God to Atheistic supporter of evolution over creationism. So? Your point, Debbie, perhaps in your own words, not a long cut-and-paste of someone else’s?

By GodHatesTrash

May 9, 2007 3:20 PM | Link to this

Ralphie Reed might be a sleazy poof, but s/he’s a smart sleazy poof. S/he knows that the cretins and retards that believe in intellyjint dezine are the heart and soul of the GOP vote…

Trash.

By Phil

May 9, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this

Yea, that’s it. I am making up charts that were in every public school in the 70’s. Okay. You got me.

Yes, I have heard that DNA evidence has disproven what was formerly taught as scientific fact.

The theory of evolution is very interesting, and may be the closest thing to scientific explanation for the origin of man, but that does not make it fact-based science, or even close to being the truth.

No matter how many degrees a person has on their wall, or how many books they have written, the fact is that there is no human being alive who really knows what planet earth was like 10,000 years ago. Nor can anyone predict which horse will win the Kentucky Derby in 100 years. I am interested in the theory of evolution, and evidence of psychic phenomena, and evidence of UFO’s, but that does not mean that I am going to disengage my brain and call it fact-based science that is just as certain as the law of gravity.

By Phil

May 9, 2007 3:28 PM | Link to this

Regarding “snake-handling inbred religious school” by Aquagirl. It always intrigues me that supporters of fantasy science have to bring up religion, even though I have not promoted religion myself. Hmmmmmmmm.

P.S.-I went to a public school, unfortunately.

By Aquagirl

May 9, 2007 3:31 PM | Link to this

Well, Phil, since you are unable to produce any proof of these God-assaulting charts, except in your own mind, then maybe I do have you. What happened to all your blather about evolutionists not being able to prove anything? You sure can’t. While you’re at it, ramble on about DNA disproving evolution. Was that up on a wall in the ‘70’s also?

Nobody has ever seen a planet formed, actually physically followed Jupiter about the sun to track it’s orbit, or ventured to the surface of the sun to stick a thermometer in there. But we all accept facts associated with those things as a result of the scientific method.

There is plenty of evidence of Evolution. Your remembering monkey charts from your flaming youth isn’t a good reason for not calling it fact-based science.

By Rone

May 9, 2007 3:32 PM | Link to this

Phil,

I’m happy to see that you are against teaching creationism in our schools. But to call evolution a flimsy theory, and then with your next breath say “Makes one think maybe there is something to this God thing.” is hilarious.

Religion is good and bad. If you’re a believer, you get that warm feeling inside that some higher power is looking out for you and will give you an after life so you don’t feel the worms eating your eyes. On the other hand, we saw religious nuts kill 3000+ people in NYC, while thinking they would get their promised virgins after they pulled off the deed.

I’m of the opinion that when I die, I won’t get any virgins, but science tells me I won’t feel the worms eating my eyes either.

By Phil

May 9, 2007 3:32 PM | Link to this

Regarding GodHatesTrash: “S/he knows that the cretins and retards that believe in intellyjint dezine are the heart and soul of the GOP vote..”

Yep. The GOP has used so-called moral values and the abortion issue to get votes from stupid religious people who don’t think for themselves. Ralph Reed isn’t too bright. But that doesn’t make James Carville correct or accurate.

By GodHatesTrash

May 9, 2007 3:34 PM | Link to this

Phil, you want to know the problem with public schools in the south?

Garbage in, garbage out.

Your teachers did the best they could with the trash that surrounded them…

By Phil

May 9, 2007 3:45 PM | Link to this

Did I advocate religion? Why is your argument for evolution an argument against religion?

I won’t “get any virgins when I die,” either. I don’t “get that warm feeling inside that some higher power is looking out for” me. Nor have I mentioned after life.

I bet I could give you a lot more ammo about how stupid religion is, but that doesn’t make nonsense any less nonsense.

And, if AquaGirl wants to believe that schools did not have charts of monkeys and apes progressing into man, then she has one more tidbit of false info to add to her gig.

By Hungry Hippo

May 9, 2007 3:48 PM | Link to this

Good God, Ralph Reed is back. This little parasite has ZERO credibility and should stick to squirrely deals and stay away from our nation’s airwaves.

I mean, his hypocrisy is sickening. That shouldn’t be allowed on the airwaves. The FCC should do something about it.

The Hungry Hippo has spoken.

By Rone

May 9, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this

Phil, Do you believe in God?

By Phil

May 9, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this

To Hungry Hippo,

You are correct about Ralph Reed. The same goes for James Carville.

By Aquagirl

May 9, 2007 4:30 PM | Link to this

Phil, if you want to call me a liar because you can’t find any evidence of your non-existent Monkeycharts, that seems like further proof of your impaired reasoning.

How about if I don’t remember them because they weren’t there? You’re the one who remembers them. Like I said, could be your snake-handling one room school house. this look familiar?

By GodHatesTrash

May 9, 2007 5:04 PM | Link to this

Wanna see the Missing Link? Go to any Baptist church in Georgia any Sunday morning - you’ll be surrounded by knuckle-dragging trash.

By sm

May 9, 2007 5:44 PM | Link to this

Phil,

Is this the type of chart you are speaking of http://tinyurl.com/2tzzcd ? (I know that this is just a more modern representation of those older charts, but you get the picture.)

By Aquagirl

May 9, 2007 6:06 PM | Link to this

Yeah, that’s a genuine piece of scientific research. I’m sure it’s used by textbooks everywhere.

C’mon, monkeys or apes to homo sapiens! Anybody?

Anybody?

Bueller?

By Keith

May 9, 2007 7:07 PM | Link to this

Jesse Ventura was right, religion is for the weak minded. Look at the Black community, all these poor dumb saps are talking about my Jesus and tithing their money away to con men like Creflo Dollar and in the mean time, our community continues on a downward spiral. I only went to church to join the singles ministry and get laid, nothing else their but pimps in the pulpit.

By Rone

May 9, 2007 9:59 PM | Link to this

Keith, I’m with you on the Jesse Ventura quote. I’m also with you on your view of Creflo. It’s bewildering to me that people that I have spoken to stand up for that guy and all preachers like him. I once had somebody try to explain to me why it was ok for him to be driving around in a Bentley. I nearly bit my tongue off trying not to call out this person. (this person was a co-worker, and I couldn’t get in a knockdown drag out)

I was raised Catholic and understand people’s need for religion. But when zealots try to force their beliefs on our schools, it makes me want to pack up and go to another country where people actually use their brains.

Aquagirl, Keep up the fight. Your entries are well thought, and on the money. I’ve enjoyed reading your stuff on this thread and on Wooten’s as well. Hopefully, more people will come to their senses, and make this country a place I would feel comfortable calling home.

By Aquagirl

May 9, 2007 10:53 PM | Link to this

Well, thanks Rone. I know there are lost souls, like Phil, and your co-worker who agrees with Creflo that Jesus really entered Jerusalem on the back of a Bentley. But there are a few people starting to wonder “why does Ralph Reed take money from one gambling tribe to squish another? What does Jesus have to do with any of that? Why are these people in charge of anything?”

I generally hound the losers just in case there are lurkers with an ounce of sense out there. If you call people like Phil on their BS, it shows that all they have is opinion and a loud bullying voice. Ask them real questions and they dry up and blow away.

And I’m still waiting on the monkey to homo sapien chart. Maybe Phil is Photoshopping.

By Darrell

May 10, 2007 8:38 AM | Link to this

I would like all of you who are so sure about your evolution “facts” to check out this site and the very detailed info that shows how such “facts” as the smoke moth was all faked and a lie. http://www.geocities.com/deitiphobe1/evolution

By Darrell

May 10, 2007 8:42 AM | Link to this

That should be Peppered Moth.

By Aquagirl

May 10, 2007 9:13 AM | Link to this

Darrell, since you seem to be the resident web-surfing anti-thought wingnut today, I cordially invite you to go find Phil’s Monkeychart, instead of the link to the crazy geocities blog which you think proves something.

Really, if you can find a chart (preferable) or a text document (acceptable) of the evolution of monkeys or apes into homo sapiens, I will apologize and consider it evidence that you have a valid point. It would, however, have to be from an evolutionary scientist, and a real website like an .edu or .org, or other known reputable source. Not some anonymous geocities crap like your last link.

If you do this, I will never defend the theory of evolution on these blogs again.

Go for it.

By Darrell

May 10, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/index.html

“In the 8 million years or so since the earliest ancestors diverged from the apes, at least a dozen humanlike species…..”

By Aquagirl

May 10, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

Darrell, take your Ritalin and look at the chart associated with that quote. It clearly shows the divergence of humans and it’s not from “an” ape, it’s from “the” apes, who were included in the same package. That means we have a common ancestor (Australopithecus), but we didn’t come “from” apes. Or chimpanzees. Or anything viewable in a modern zoo, unless you’re using Phil’s crazy memory card. “The” apes are relatives, not ancestors.

This is why I said charts are preferable, they’re a lot clearer than text descriptions, especially when taken out of context of the entire document. Nice try, though.

The reason I made that challenge is because you can’t win…It may be a teensy difference in your mind that we didn’t come “from” apes,like Willie B, but it shows that most creationists/anti-evolutionists don’t even know what the hell they are arguing against. Phil’s original challenge was to go sit at the zoo and wait for the monkeys to turn into humans. No serious evolutionist has suggested that’s the case. He doesn’t know the difference between pre-hominid, chimpanzee, and flying monkeys from his butt for that matter. Neither do you.

By Darrell

May 10, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this

You know it is futile carrying on a conversation with you, you apparently did not look long at the geocities blog. If you had, you would have seen a lot of facts and back up for the fallacy of evolution. See how many time Evolutionist have been caught fixing the results to try and force the answer they wanted. You can go to several groups, like Back to Genisis, to see more evidence, but because there are “Christian’s” associated with it, you will discount it, because you apparently refuse to consider that a Christian can have a valid thought unless it agrees with you. So be it. I’m willing to wait and see who is right in the end. What so I have to lose? What do you? In the meantime my kids (all very high SAT scores and still Christian imagine!) all are getting college degrees and aren’t buying into all of the “Liberal” clap trap that they are trying to shove down their throats, and I’ll see them continue to stand up for truth and I will feel very happy knowing that they will be annoying people like you , long after I’m gone, and till the end of time.

By Aquagirl

May 10, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this

I agree conversation is futile if you think that geocities link is worth the paper it would take to print it out. There are zillions of webpages out there. Anyone can advance any crackpot idea. But scientific theories (like evolution) are subject to peer review…which means if you can’t defend your point, it gets tossed.

I don’t accept “Christians” who use Christ as an excuse to bash people or supress scientific thought. There are Christians who have very valid thoughts. They’re much smarter than me. They are way smarter, and have nothing in common with you. Check out a list of them here

What you have to lose is superstition and bizarre thinking. If you’re determined to hang onto that, okay. People like you are annoying. But that’s about it. Your pals in Cobb County caused a minor fuss until they were exposed as liars by a judge and had to crawl back to their mud huts. The rest of the world has gone on, (minus a little taxpayer money) while they (and you) fume about “liberal crap” which is known to the rest of the world as “science”. You’ll dry up and blow away just as surely as Phil did. Now I’m going to go enjoy those liberal crap benefits like air conditioning, cars, modern medical science, and electricity. Bye! Drop me a postcard from the edge of the flat earth, y’hear?

By Darrell

May 10, 2007 1:30 PM | Link to this

What lie was that in Cobb County? That Evolution is a Theory? Which is all the lable said. I belive that is rock solid Truth. Can you prove otherwise?

As I said before, only those you agree with are deemed OK. Fine, very broad minded and tolerant of you.

By Aquagirl

May 10, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this

The lying I referred to didn’t involve the lable, but to disguising one’s true intent.

The creationists were trying to push the anti-evolution idea behind the guise of “considering other theories” It was noted that they didn’t want these stickers in any other books, about any other theories. Coincidence? Nope. They only contested the one theory that conflicted with their religiously-inspired idiocy. This didn’t exactly escape the Judge, who possessed an IQ of all the anti-evolution wackos combined.

Liars. At least they could have admitted they didn’t like evolution because of religious nuttism. Dressing it up and claiming it was for “science” was a bad example to the students of Cobb county.

BTW, One of their bibles is called “Of Pandas and People”. A judge in Dover blasted a similar bunch, because the book was edited to remove “creationism” and substitute “intelligent design” phrases. No other parts of the book were changed. Translation: Let’s hide what we think under another name and then sell it to people, all the while claiming it’s not rooted in religion!

They got sent to crawl back under their little rocks too, like the the anti-evolution nuts in Cobb. The judge here was more polite to this bunch, maybe it’s a Southern thing. But they still got sent back to the 18th century, where they won’t be dictating any more stickers for science books. Most of the school board members weren’t re-elected either.

No, I’m not broad minded or tolerant of lying snakes. They should go into politics, where at least that sort of thing is normal.

By Ray Ingles

May 11, 2007 3:55 PM | Link to this

Let’s assume the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Where did the oil come from? Was it created in the ground with the rest of the Earth? If so, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or perhaps it really did form from plants and dinosaurs, but about 10,000 times faster than any chemist believes it could? Any way you look at it, a young Earth and a Flood would imply some very interesting scientific questions to ask, some interesting (and potentially extremely valuable) research programs to start. How come nobody’s actually pursuing such research programs?

Why don’t fundamentalists put together an investment fund, where people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If “Flood geology” is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why isn’t anyone doing this?