• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Evolution, embriology, and the Big Bang are "lies from teh pit of Hell."

Dittohead not!

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
52,009
Reaction score
33,944
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ATHENS, Ga. — Georgia Rep. Paul Broun said in videotaped remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell" meant to convince people that they do not need a savior.
Click to expand...


Broun also said that he believes the Earth is about 9,000 years old and that it was made in six days. Those beliefs are held by fundamentalist Christians who believe the creation accounts in the Bible to be literally true.
Click to expand...


Oh, well, so his medieval ideas on those subjects don't necessarily mean he won't be a good Congressman, do they?



He sits on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
Click to expand...


Oh. Maybe they do.



link
 
Oh Lord....
 
This is where I'm tired of trying to be balanced.

This whole science denying crowd needs to pack their **** up and **** the **** off.
 
Wait... isn't this?

yeah, I think this is another thread on the same topic.
 
From the holy scriptures of the Baha'i religion:

If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science, they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible, and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation.
Click to expand...
`Abdu'l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace (Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1922. 2nd edition 1982, p. 181

Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism.
Click to expand...
'Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks (London: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1969), p. 143

Religion and science shouldn't be played out against each other, but should complement each other.
 
German guy said:
From the holy scriptures of the Baha'i religion:


`Abdu'l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace (Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1922. 2nd edition 1982, p. 181


'Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks (London: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1969), p. 143

Religion and science shouldn't be played out against each other, but should complement each other.
Click to expand...

Yes, they should.

And, when someone clings to religious belief despite empirical proof that it is false, it calls in to question their rationality, and therefore their ability to make rational decisions.
 
I knew it. Evolution is for the devil!
 
They have also showed a Arkansas rep who says Lincoln was a marxist and that the Bible proves that slavery was justified. This guy is also on the science committee. There is another guy on the science committe from La I think that believes that early Global Warming was caused by farts from dinosaurs.
 
wolfman24 said:
They have also showed a Arkansas rep who says Lincoln was a marxist and that the Bible proves that slavery was justified. This guy is also on the science committee. There is another guy on the science committe from La I think that believes that early Global Warming was caused by farts from dinosaurs.
Click to expand...

And, with an approval rating in the single digits, we keep sending the same people back to Congress.
 
Dittohead not! said:
And, with an approval rating in the single digits, we keep sending the same people back to Congress.
Click to expand...

Several years ago there was the "throw the bums out" movement. It failed miserably because the right voted for the right "new guys" and the left did it for theres. Now what was wrong with that picture. Everything because it changed nothing. People need to get their heads out of their asses and realize that party does not equal good government no matter which side(s) you are on.

What matters is what the person stands for, do they REALLY understand the issues and their responsiblities, Will they commit to doing the job they were elected to do for the benefit of the people and put party on the back burners. Until we can find people like that and I still believe they are around nothing will change.

I have posted before that I believe that candidates should be subjected to a lithmus test before they can even run for office.
1. Do they understand the issues
2. Do they understand the process
3. Are they competent to do the job.

Then the debates should be scrapped in favor of infocasts where what the candidate says or claims is automatically evaluated by some type of computer system. This way everyone would see whether people like Romney or Obama are just playing politics or really mean what they say. Of course non of this will happen but its a nice idea.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Oh, well, so his medieval ideas on those subjects don't necessarily mean he won't be a good Congressman, do they?





Oh. Maybe they do.



link
Click to expand...

While the medieval theologians would have mostly agreed with him about the approximate age of the Earth, biblical literalism is only a few hundred years old.
 
Paleocon said:
While the medieval theologians would have mostly agreed with him about the approximate age of the Earth, biblical literalism is only a few hundred years old.
Click to expand...

Really?
That's the first time I've heard that one. How do you know?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Really?
That's the first time I've heard that one. How do you know?
Click to expand...

Really.

Have you read St. Augustine? He believed that the Earth, Adam and Eve, and all the animals and plants were created instantaneously (which we now know to be incorrect, but the point is that that's just as non-literal of an interpretation as billions of years).

That's not to say that they're weren't theologians who interpreted it literally, but the notion that assigning an allegorical interpretation is somehow contrary to the faith, is a relatively new idea.
 
Paleocon said:
Really.

Have you read St. Augustine? He believed that the Earth, Adam and Eve, and all the animals and plants were created instantaneously (which we now know to be incorrect, but the point is that that's just as non-literal of an interpretation as billions of years).

That's not to say that they're weren't theologians who interpreted it literally, but the notion that assigning an allegorical interpretation is somehow contrary to the faith, is a relatively new idea.
Click to expand...

That's the situation we have now, isn't it? There still are theologians who insist on a literal interpretation, while most people do not. The difference is that now science has advanced to the point that we know, or should know, that a literal interpretation is physically impossible without resorting to the "god can do anything" argument.
 
Dittohead not! said:
That's the situation we have now, isn't it? There still are theologians who insist on a literal interpretation, while most people do not. The difference is that now science has advanced to the point that we know, or should know, that a literal interpretation is physically impossible without resorting to the "god can do anything" argument.
Click to expand...

As you said, the difference is that now we have physical proof that it is not meant literally. Back then, aside from theological arguments in favor of instantaneous creation, they didn't have any reason to disbelieve in a literal interpretation. And those that did take it literally, didn't act as though those who did not were somehow being unfaithful.

Also, St. Augustine explicitly says that we should not interpret the Bible in a way that is plainly contrary to physical evidence, when physical evidence indicates a non-literal interpretation.
 
Paleocon said:
As you said, the difference is that now we have physical proof that it is not meant literally. Back then, aside from theological arguments in favor of instantaneous creation, they didn't have any reason to disbelieve in a literal interpretation. And those that did take it literally, didn't act as though those who did not were somehow being unfaithful.

Also, St. Augustine explicitly says that we should not interpret the Bible in a way that is plainly contrary to physical evidence, when physical evidence indicates a non-literal interpretation.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but then, how does that show that Biblical literalism is only a few hundred years old? Biblical literalism in the face of proof of the contrary is fairly new, but only because that proof is fairly new. Didn't people believe in that stories like Adam and Eve were literally true back in medieval times and beyond?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Oh, well, so his medieval ideas on those subjects don't necessarily mean he won't be a good Congressman, do they?



Oh. Maybe they do.



link
Click to expand...

The anti science creationists are so purposfully ignorant it is scary. This clown is just one step away from waving snakes and speaking in tounges in a tent on Saturday nights.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Agreed, but then, how does that show that Biblical literalism is only a few hundred years old? Biblical literalism in the face of proof of the contrary is fairly new, but only because that proof is fairly new. Didn't people believe in that stories like Adam and Eve were literally true back in medieval times and beyond?
Click to expand...

By literalism I meant the tendency to dogmatize literal interpretations of specific passages, particularly in spite of proof to the contrary. My original point is that while medievals agreed with him about certain specifics, their basis for scriptural interpretation was completely different, and if they were around today they would probably disagree with him.
 
Paleocon said:
By literalism I meant the tendency to dogmatize literal interpretations of specific passages, particularly in spite of proof to the contrary. My original point is that while medievals agreed with him about certain specifics, their basis for scriptural interpretation was completely different, and if they were around today they would probably disagree with him.
Click to expand...

So, were they privy to the findings of modern science, they wouldn't hold on to their beliefs. That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that some people who are privy to the findings of modern science still insist on believing the impossible.
 
Dittohead not! said:
So, were they privy to the findings of modern science, they wouldn't hold on to their beliefs. That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that some people who are privy to the findings of modern science still insist on believing the impossible.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom