It is hard to see how itâs âhystericalâ when prominent figures within the Trump administration hold the creationist position. Even harder to make the argument that sensationalism cost the Democrats the election when you see who won the election.
1 Like
Whatâs really hysterical is all this shit about Russia having won Trump the election. Truly pathetic. A desperate attempt by the Democrat establishment to deflect blame from themselves. As for these morons trying to get the electoral college to reject TrumpâŚ
3 Likes
Stupidity and arrogance, not sensationalism, cost the Democrats the election.
Are you suggesting people who believe in creationism (that the world has a divine origin) should be excluded from government? Thatâs a lot of people, including most of the Irish population I would imagine. Anyone who is a Christian, Muslim , Jew, etc. by definition believes in creationism.
All the actual evidence suggest the leaks from the DNC came from within US intelligence. With all the hysteria regarding Russia, not one item of evidence has yet been produced.
Your definition of creationism is a blatantly dishonest one. In American political life creationism means a rejection of evolution.
And what Iâm saying is that itâs not unreasonable to fear a creationist influence on Trump policy when there are creationists in his administration.
Thatâs like saying anybody who voted for Trump believes man-made climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese.
[quote=âWatch_The_Break, post:4533, topic:19437, full:trueâ]
Your definition of creationism is a blatantly dishonest one. In American political life creationism means a rejection of evolution. [/quote]
No, creationism is the belief that the universe and life have a divine origin rather than a natural one. There is no conflict for the great majority of Christians between this religious belief and the scientific theory of evolution. Catholics for example have no problem with the theory of evolution. I grant you there is much ignorance on the issue among some Protestant churches, but it is based on not understanding either science or religion.
Flesh that out a bit as it makes as much sense as my dog barking.
Iâm not the one who has to do the fleshing out here, you are, as you made the big statement about what people believe in the first place.
No, you were the one who fell for the view that Scaramucci was quoting YEC with his 5,500 year old earth comment. This has been rubbished by anyone with a functioning brain, so now you are trying to deflect.
As I said, if you want to debate the environment, religion, science, go right ahead.
But thereâs nothing about Young Earth Creationism in what I quoted.
Youâre imagining things, a bit like a creationist.
And human history runs for a lot longer than 5,500 years, by the way.
Go on, flesh out your grand statement that I asked you to flesh out there, youâre the one deflecting, youâre going all @Tim_Riggins here.
The FED put a stop to the Trump rally todayâŚwhat a shower of cunts.
But there is⌠when you stated âthe planet is 5,500 years old apparently⌠megalotzâ, falling for the quote mined article (unsurprising for someone whose specialty is quote mining), just like all the other article writers over the past few days who all claim he must be a YEC.
Human recorded history is approximately 5,500 years old, the Sumerians and Eqyptians from 3,500BC. Any knowledge we have before that time, whatever itâs based on, isnât history in the common usage of the term.
What do you want me to flesh out for you? The meaning of creationism?
According to Yellen yesterday, the economy is doing just fine and no need for any stimulus measures. If I were in Trumpâs position, my first act would be to abolish this unelected bunch of pompous windbags.
No, there isnât.
What I quoted shows a big business shill who is ideologically arguing that science is ideological.
An idiot, in other words. And only idiots defend other idiots.
Human art goes back 40,000 years.
Thatâs human history.
You seem to think âhistoryâ only applies to things that are written down. It doesnât.
I want you to flesh out this statement:
Which, as I said makes as much sense as saying anybody who voted for Trump believes man-made climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, arguably much less.
Iâm not arguing about, or defending, anything else the guy said other than the 5,500 year old earth comment which you highlighted. Clearly only an imbecile would think the comment â5,500 years of human historyâ means anything other than recorded human history.
If you believe science cannot be ideological then you are truly an idiot. Do you think the scientists who testified under oath that cigarette smoking was harmless based on their studies did so because of their commitment to science or their commitment to the companies delivering their paychecks? Much of what passes for science is ideological, based on who is funding it.
The idiot in the room on the question of climate change is Obama who stated that the science is settled. Science is never settled, itâs an ongoing endeavor. There is no question that the earth is warming, and significant evidence that humans have and are contributing to this warming cycle. The question is what to do about it, again something I am happy to debate as I happen to have a lot of (scientific) expertise in this area.
As for the comment you want me to flesh out:
All followers of the Abrahamic religions believe in creationism, as in the belief that the origin of the universe and life is divine rather than natural. What is it about this statement you need help understanding?
Fuckin yawn already.The DEMS need to take a good hard look at themselves, fuckin reelecting polosi,ffs,these old cunts need to be put out to grass,FOAD.This shit wouldnât be going on if Teddy was about heâd had knocked the shit outta trump
It certainly doesnât come across that way.
Science cannot be ideological. Those who practice science may have an ideological bent. I t may or may not affect their work.
Those who practice science with an ideological bent and carry that ideological bent into their work will quickly be found out. And theyâre overwhelmingly in the anti-anthropogenic climate change camp.
Claiming that science is ideological is by definition an ideological position, and thatâs what that Scaramucci chap fell into doing.
The basic premise that human activity is contributing to warming the earthâs climate has been effectively settled, and it was settled a long time ago. Only cranks, shills and idiots dispute this.
Quite a few of them have been named in the Trump administration.
I think you rather overestimate the amount that âfollowersâ of a religion think through every position a religion officially holds.
I also think you rather overestimate the amount of followers of religion in Ireland, given that you say that âmost people in Irelandâ believe in creationism. 63% of voters here voted to legalise same sex marriage, remember. Legalising same sex marriage directly contravened the position of the Roman Catholic Church.
As Iâm sure youâd be aware, if you could somehow remove that zealotâs hat you constantly carry around on your head, the vast majority of people are baptised into a religion without choice and donât conduct in depth investigations into the ideological positions of their religion.
I was baptised as a Roman Catholic as an infant, and as I havenât bothered to officially excommunicate myself from that Church, I guess Iâm still officially a Roman Catholic, although the religion or its teachings itself mean pretty much nothing to me - I might go to mass at Christmas, or Winterval, as I like to call it.
I donât believe in creationism.
Now, Trump voters all voted out of free choice. Trumpâs position was that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by China.
If youâre to be consistent and maintain the position, which you have indicated you hold, that all people who are baptised (not by their own choice) into a religion by definition hold every position that their religion does, to be consistent, youâd have to say all Trump voters must believe everything he says, ergo they all must believe climate change is a hoax perpetrated by China.
Iâm not saying that, by the way, although I think one could make a more plausible argument to defend that position than to defend the position that all Christians, Jews and Muslims are creationists, which is a plainly idiotic one.
I[quote=âSidney, post:4546, topic:19437, full:trueâ] Science cannot be ideological. [/quote]
Spoken like a true zealot! The question whether science is or can be ideological or not is a philosophical one, and like all philosophical questions there are multiple answers (study Popper and Feyerabend for contrasting views*). Given the history of science, its really difficult to argue coherently that itâs not ideological, Popper or no Popper. The problem is science is not some defined truth, itâs open to the same flaws as any human quest for knowledge. I could give you several examples of well established theories, where contrary evidence has been uncovered, but then a new hypothesis quickly developed to explain why the theory still works. Science and scientists get very attached to their theories, as Max Planck once said, new theories only get accepted after all the proponents of the older theory die off.
The term settled science is an oxymoron, âused by real morons to convince their fellow morons, at the expense of everyone else, moron or notâ.
Nowhere have I said that everyone professing to be religious (nevermind being unwillingly baptised into their religion) must hold every position that their religion does. However, there is one thing that unifies all those who profess to be Christian, Jew or Muslim - they are all creationists, otherwise they are not Christians, Jews or Muslims. The most fundamental belief of the Abrahamic religions is that the universe and life has a divine origin. If you donât believe that then you are not a Christian, Jew or Muslim, no matter whether you go to church once a year, every day, or never. There is no such thing as a Christian who doesnât believe in God*, thatâs another oxymoron, but I suppose someone who believes Marxism can work can believe anything.
The word creationist has been abused to death in the US in the debate regarding evolution. Religion and Science are, in the words of the great evolutionist S.J. Gould, non overlapping magisteria. Attempts by fundamentalist Christians to invade science are idiotic, as are attempts by zealot scientists like Dawkins and Krauss to invade religion. In both cases neither has a fucking clue about the subject matter they are challenging. The ones that take the biscuit though are liberal atheists, who somehow manage to be frequently blissfully ignorant on both topics.
- For full disclosure, I am a Christian Agnostic.
Thundering gobshites