No one said you have to be bright to be a Senator

[Skwim]

"Creationist Senator wants to know how to turn E. Coli into Humans"

[youtube]hQObhb3veQA[/youtube]
​

And this is a guy who helps make law.


original link

 

[fantome profane]

It is just so revolting. Not just this persons own ignorance, but that he is actively trying to interfere with children being educated. Like he wants to ensure that more people remain as ignorant as he is.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is just so revolting.

Watch it, bub!

 

[fantome profane]

Watch it, bub!

Sorry, I didn't mean to profane your name.

 

[Man of Faith]

I can tell him how to do it, first you outlaw creation in schools, call it anti-science, then you stigmatize belittle, ridicule and scorn any and all who question evolution and there you have it, e-coli into humans.

 

[Agnostic75]

I can tell him how to do it, first you outlaw creation in schools, call it anti-science, then you stigmatize belittle, ridicule and scorn any and all who question evolution and there you have it, e-coli into humans.

But prior to the 1800s, the vast majority of people accepted creationism, but widespread acceptance of evolution happened anyway. So, there was originally a fair playing field.

There is no doubt that sometimes, creationists are mistreated unfairly. However, many evolutionists treat creationists respectfully.

As some evolutionists have correctly noted, anytime that a theory becomes as
accepted as evolution is among experts (99.86% according to one study), there is bound to be a lot of rebukes, both proper, and improper.

The most important issue is whether or not evolution is true. Unless you are an expert in biology, or biochemistry, you are not qualified to comment on evolution based upon your own personal knowledge.

Since creationism is only obvious to religious conservatives, for them, it is obvious that there is more to studying evolution than just science. Consider the following:

Henry Morris, Ph.d., Institute for Creation Research, was an inerrantist. He said that “the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God’s word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture.” (Henry Morris, ‘Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science,’ 1970, p. 32-33.

Stanton Jones, Ph.D., psychology, and Mark Yarhouse, Ph.D., psychology, are conservative Christians. They wrote a book about homosexuality that is titled 'Homosexuality, The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate.' Chapter 4 is titled 'Is homosexuality a psychopathology?' After discussing a lot of scientific issues in that chapter, the authors conclude with the following paragraph:

"Finally, we have seen that there has never been any definitive judgment by the fields of psychiatry or psychology that homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle. But what if it were? Such a judgment would have little bearing on the judgments of the Christian church. In the days of Nero iit was healthy and adaptive to worship the Roman emperor. By contemporary American standards a life consumed with greed, materialism, sensualism, selfishness, divorce and pride is judged healthy, but God weighs such a life and finds it lacking."

Such attidudes are a hindrance to scientific research.

If a God created life on earth, he is not obligated to do so according to your own personal religious beliefs.

 

[rusra02]

I think the point the senator was making, badly perhaps, is that e-Coli doesn't change into something else. It is still e-Coli. Variation within a species or kind is not evolution, at least not in the sense most people think when the word "evolution" is used.

 

[Agnostic75]

I think the point the senator was making, badly perhaps, is that e-Coli doesn't change into something else. It is still e-Coli. Variation within a species or kind is not evolution, at least not in the sense most people think when the word "evolution" is used.

You are not scientifically qualified to oppose evolution based upon your own personal knowledge.

 

[Koldo]

Has anybody else noticed that at 1:01, the guy to the left performs a facepalm?

 

[rusra02]

You are not scientifically qualified to oppose evolution based upon your own personal knowledge.

Every person should be free to question and oppose evolution, especially if the evidence doesn't support this theory; and in my view it doesn't. Elitist attitudes will not change facts, and the facts continue to mount up against the ToE. Perhaps elitism is all that remains to its supporters?

 

[Skwim]

Every person should be free to question and oppose evolution, especially if the evidence doesn't support this theory; and in my view it doesn't. Elitist attitudes will not change facts, and the facts continue to mount up against the ToE. Perhaps elitism is all that remains to its supporters?

And just what are these facts that continue to mount up against the theories of evolution?

Three will suffice.

 

[Agnostic75]

Every person should be free to question and oppose evolution, especially if the evidence doesn't support this theory; and in my view it doesn't.

But how can you dispute Ken Miller's article on the flagellum, and intelligent design, at The Flagellum Unspun since you do not understand it? You couldn't be a referee at a football game unless you understood football very well. Similarly, you cannot criticize evolution from a scientific perspective unless you know biology, or biochemistry, very well, and you don't. Surely many creationists know very little about those sciences.

Why should people who know very little about science take your word over the word of 99.86% of experts (according to one study) who accept evolution?

And what about the global flood? How much do you know about geology? Probably not much. Surely your acceptance of creationism, and the global flood theory, are based primarily on religion, not science.

 

[Breathe]

Every person should be free to question and oppose evolution, especially if the evidence doesn't support this theory; and in my view it doesn't. Elitist attitudes will not change facts, and the facts continue to mount up against the ToE.

I'm aware that a significantly large chunk of creationists usually have a rather distorted perception of what evolution actually is, so I'd like to know what, exactly, you think evolution is, what you think doesn't fit, why you think it doesn't fit. -- If you don't mind answering?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm pretty sure you have to be rather stupid in order to be a Senator. Or sociopathic.

 

[Man of Faith]

I think the point the senator was making, badly perhaps, is that e-Coli doesn't change into something else. It is still e-Coli. Variation within a species or kind is not evolution, at least not in the sense most people think when the word "evolution" is used.

True, after 50,000 generations, they are still e-Coli, I bet they are mad that they can't sing opera yet.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm pretty sure you have to be rather stupid in order to be a Senator. Or sociopathic.

Not unlike being a creationist.

 

[painted wolf]

True, after 50,000 generations, they are still e-Coli, I bet they are mad that they can't sing opera yet.

Yup... after just a couple of years they remain E.coli.... what a surprise.

wa:do

 

[Falvlun]

True, after 50,000 generations, they are still e-Coli, I bet they are mad that they can't sing opera yet.

Is singing the opera something that would benefit their survival?

Note:
The purpose of evolution isn't to make everything into humans.

 

[Sunstone]

Every person should be free to question and oppose evolution, especially if the evidence doesn't support this theory; and in my view it doesn't. Elitist attitudes will not change facts, and the facts continue to mount up against the ToE. Perhaps elitism is all that remains to its supporters?

Why don't you try to come up with some of those alleged facts that "continue to mount up against the Theory of Evolution", rather than indulge yourself in rhetoric about elitism? Is it because you have no facts that can stand the test of reason and evidence?

 

[fantome profane]

True, after 50,000 generations, they are still e-Coli, I bet they are mad that they can't sing opera yet.