Conquer Club

Posted: **Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:48 pm**

Gypsys Kiss wrote:Player, you stick to your guns, girl.

Righto Player, you stick to your guns

....and keep telling yourself your a Christian while receiving the support of CC's atheists

Posted: **Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:55 pm**

DangerBoy wrote:
Gypsys Kiss wrote:Player, you stick to your guns, girl.

Righto Player, you stick to your guns

....and keep telling yourself your a Christian while receiving the support of CC's atheists

So, because I'm an atheist, I'm wrong? And you have the nerve to call others biased.

Posted: **Sun Nov 28, 2010 6:15 pm**

silvanricky wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:And, no, I won't "give it a rest" because the destruction to scientific knowledge that creationist represent is probably more harmful to not just this country, but the world than Al Qaeda terrorists ever could be, (except that they perpetuate similar misguided information).

That's a pretty shitty thing to say player and was totally unnecessary

Seriously, that's messed up. Creationists are as bad as Al Qaeda?!! WTF

OK, this does require clarification. But also, you hit on something without realizing it.

First, one can do evil and not BE evil. For that matter, if you were to talk to a lot of those who support the Talibhan or who sympathize with Al Quaeda, you would find, within their culture, a lot of them are just as kind and giving as us (that is, a man won't look at a women, but that's culture not unfriendliness. They will help out people in trouble, etc, etc.). The Difference is education. People who support terrorists live in a world where there are just no other viable options. Its not that they, inherently, like life less (for the most part, not talking about the actual suicide bombers or leaders) or have this passion for hurting innocent people. Its that they don't actually believe most of us ARE innocent. They firmly believe we are out to get them. Why? Education and experience that teach them this is true.

Now, fast forward to the US and young earth creationism. (I am not referring to plain creationism, that is God created all, compatable with evolution or at least not adamantly disputing it) MOST people who believe those ideas are strong believing Christians hwo have just plain never learned real evolutionary science. Some of those at the top are more extreme versions of that. Dr Morris is/was plain incapable of seeing anything other than his narrow vision. However, there are also a group of scientists and scientist "pretenders" who absolutely have to understand evolution, but who are willing to lie and deny evidence to put forward this agenda. Some of those have somehow convinced themselves they speak truth, but it is literally impossible that all are. Some have to know and understand that they lie. Those I do call "evil", but only those few.

As for the evil of the movement, look at the problems our world faces today. The US ,military considers global warming to be a serious security threat. Why? Because it would threaten people's food supplies, water and ways of life. Those are precisely the conditions that make people go from saying "we don't like those people, disagree with their way of life, but as long as they leave us alone, we will leave them be" and into "they are the enemy and must be killed!".

Even if global climate change is not the problem scientists believe it will be, you still have major threats to jsut about every commercial fish species on the planet, threats to water supplies across the world, oil and gas shortages, energy issues...e tc, etc, etc.

One of the major roadblocks to not only funding research into global warming, but also preparing future generations to deal with all those other issues IS this lobby of far right individuals, heavily influenced by young earth creationists. If you live in the US, chances are that at least one teacher in your area's public school system (likely more) is a firm young earth creationist. If you investigate the curriculum, you may well find that young earth ideas are being carefully snuck in. This is not accidental or just happenstance. It is a concerted and directed effort.

Any such effort to subvert the minds of our youth, of future generations, to teach them that lies are truth and truth is fiction is evil. The people who do it may not believe they are doing evil, but it is evil AND, yes, the impact of this is worse that Al Quaeda. It is worse because the lack of scientific understanding will create more Al Quaedas AND becuase it is here, now. Al Quaeda, real as that threat is, is being combated. Far too few people even recognize that young earth creationism has the sway it has.

Posted: **Sun Nov 28, 2010 6:32 pm**

PLAYER57832 wrote:Those are precisely the conditions that make people go from saying "we don't like those people, disagree with their way of life, but as long as they leave us alone, we will leave them be" and into "they are the enemy and must be killed!".

This is a rather idealistic and childish misconception, not only about about Islamo Fascism, but about human nature. The idea that people will not do harm to other people because they see it as being profitable, because tenets of their religion command them to, or for no tangible reason at all has been proven incorrect in virtually every human generation.

As for creationists, I think we can agree that they're rather foolish. I have more respect for them than for Christians that ignore what their supposed holy books say, but fundamentally I believe that faith without proof is foolish, particularly when there is so much evidence to the contrary of what's believed..

.. There will always be foolish people and it's probably more tangible to manipulate them than reason with or educate them.

Posted: **Sun Nov 28, 2010 6:46 pm**

bradleybadly wrote:Your bitter obsession on this is unsettling, to say the least. There are plenty of smart people who don't buy into the evolutionary model.

Smart, yes. Educated in biology, geology and the science behind evolution, no.

bradleybadly wrote:My parents and wife are some of them. I grew up being told that the creation story was accurate, but was later able to make up my own mind. Students are a lot smarter than you give them credit for and we can have the confidence that if both views are taught, people can decide for themselves.

Teaching alternatives is valid when there actually are alternatives. We no longer teach that the Earth is flat, even though some people still believe that. We don't because the proof exists that it is not. Even if evolution did not have the supporting evidence it does, that doesn't mean that young earth creationism is a viable alternative.

The only way the earth could be young is if God created it that way and made it look as if it were old. Problem is, that is not what young earth creationists teach.

bradleybadly wrote: Creationists could be your bank managers, teachers, firemen, doctors, child care workers, or anyone else in your community.

They ARE those, but most particularly some of the teachers at my son's school. That is just not OK in 2010. There is way too much evidence both in support of evolution AND disproving young earth creationism. Fruthermore, we depend too much on having an educated future generation to allow our kids to be so taught.

bradleybadly wrote:Creationists, although wrong, are no more under qualified to do or run anything in life than you. It's the height of arrogance for you to suggest that unless someone believes the way you do, that the disagreement disqualifies them from being anything.

Belief is fine. Failure to acknowledge scientific proof, failure to understand what constitutes scientific proof disqualify someone from being an effective teacher, or making effective decisions regarding our environment.

That the manager of our borough doesn't understand hydrology means about 2 decades of houses were built without proper drainage. That so many fail to understand the significant of natural filtration or what it entails means that small towns all across PA are having to connect their drain lines to sewars to comply with that they have been told is required by law. That's not even getting into the Marsallas shale issues, where simply putting a well 1000 feet away from a water source means they are free to go ahead and any claims agains that company of pollution, damage to the wells will be initially dismissed. Fighting this means we, individual taxpayers have to hire attorneys and spend money we don't have just to protect what should be our basic right.. to use our wells without fear of contamination from some big companie's drilling operation.

ALL of this and more goes back to a lack of basic science education. It very much DOES matter, that is the point!

bradleybadly wrote: The constitution mandates no "evolution belief" requirement to be president.

No requirement that they have an IQ above 50 or think the world is round, either. Even so, I would consider those people unqualified to be president.

[/quote]There's a guy at my work who runs the IT department for multiple sites throughout the United States. He's got multiple certifications and some degrees. He believes that this world wasn't just created once but multiple times and that he himself is a little bit of god and become more like a deity every day. He's wrong but that doesn't make him crazy or extreme.[/quote]
Crazy? Probably not. Sounds like a distorted Buddhist to me. Extreme? perhaps. Depends. But, unless he is denying science and further insisting that my child or other children be taught his beliefs as if they were real and science, then there is no harm.

bradleybadly wrote: This is the problem you've created (love using that term in this context): anyone who isn't a strict adherent to your evolutionary beliefs becomes one of the "bad people". Then you set yourself up as some type of evolutionary superhero that will save us all from evil.

OK, this idea that people who disagree are "evil" is your idea, not mine. I don't even believe people who do evil are necessarily evil. They are generally just misguided or misinformed.

However, as the old advertisement went, knowledge is a dangerous thing. False "knowledge" is dangerous, too. There is nothing about Christianity that supports teaching kids things that are patently false. The earth is not young. This is not a belief, it is a fact, with only the caveat I gave above (that God could have made the earth instantaneously and just made it look old,with all the evidence for a long creation inserted... again, possible, but NOT what young earthers claim and not what I believe, either). Species change over time and give rise to other species, sometimes replacing the earlier species and sometimes appearing as additions. This is fact. Teaching kids otherwise is harmful.

bradleybadly wrote:You probably interact with creationists or people who believe in creationism more than you even know through the course of a week. Most people don't even make it an issue to get riled up over, it's just something they believe as they live their lives.

LOL
No. In my town, there are exactly 3 churches that don't teach young earth creationism. About half of the teachers at my son's school are young earth creationists. Even the local Roman Catholic Priest is a bit "iffy" on the issue, and I don't just mean the Popes assertion that human evolution might be in question. (not getting into that particular issue here and now).

bradleybadly wrote:Unfortunately, you're going to limit yourself in being able to be friends and enjoy life more because you've already labeled them as your enemy.

Again, you label me based on your own way of being. In fact, one of the Pastors I respect most is a firm creationist. We disagree on this issue. He knows my beliefs, I know his. He does not know all of why I believe as I do, but he is of the same mind as I that allowing any such issue to divide the church, to put it in the forefront as many have is just wrong. However, this in no way means my backing down from science as science. I have no issue with someone saying that they believe the Bible, no matter what the evidence seems to show. I have a problem with this group of people that try to deny that evidence exists or twist it in ways that have nothing to do with what is really taught about evolution. I have a problem with people who try to use the church as justification for lying. And lying is EXACTLY what the leaders of the so-called "young earth" movement are doing. The Pastor of whom I spoke is not a scientist, makes no claim to be one. He is not insisting that our school curriculum be changed to suit him. In fact, I taught his son geology, he has had my kids in his Sunday school. I simply told his son what is believed and why. He similarly teaches my kids. We don't have to agree to respect each other. IF he were to try to put himself on an environmental review board, to run for governor or even assemblyman, I would object. I do not object to his being a pastor of his church and teaching what he believes, as long as he does not claim it is verified proof, which he does not, but the ICR and their ilk do.

bradleybadly wrote: If you continue on this crusade of yours you'll end up alienating and marginalizing yourself.

There comes a time when sitting back and being the rhetorical pacifist is appropriate and a time when you have to stand up for what you believe. When I lived in Mississippi, I tolerated my 80 year old neighbors references to "n@@##" who were "not to be trusted", etc. I did not agree with them, but I also did not get into a debate about it. They were not going to change based on one conversation with me and were half senile besides. When confronted with similar ideas from younger people, I DID, in many overt and subtle ways "fight back". And, there were consequences.

I HAD been working on this "behind the scenes". My goal, for some time has been to create a science textbook that would teach real science, but that could be used by creationists. I knew how much this issue was permeated with Christianity and yes, my first inclination (and second, and third and fourth, for that matter) is to "make peace", be tolerant, work slowly to convince. But, I found first that a real compromise textbook was not possible, because these young earth creationist ideas were not just offering alternatives. I came to believe, that the whole purpose was a flat out attack on traditional science, only disguised as a religious movement. Religion is not the reason this movement has gotten so much support, not really. Religion is just the excuse, the launchpad. Those churches and pastors are being used. Even so, I was discouraged, but still felt the slow road was best.

When my son, in public, tax-supported school, having various issues as it was (he has ADHD, some other issues), came home with papers from his teacher informing him that frogs have no back bones, I realized sitting back was not an option. And, I began to realize just how prevalent and permeating these ideas were. Sure, traditional science won in Dover, etc. But, the real fight was not happening there, in the courthouse. The REAL fight was not even happening in front of school boards. The real fight was happening in elementary schools all across our country, where kids were coming home with papers that only loosely brushed on creationism, that only hinted at errors and problems with fossils, geological thinking, etc... all in the name of "critical thinking". Things so subtle that it takes a scientists schooled in these things to sometimes even realize the problem.

The frog bit, was a bit extreme. Even so, most parents never bothered to read through that paper. Of those who did, a good many had no idea there was a problem. Then there was the other paper he brought home. In this one, they talked briefly about how fossils were formed, but down at the bottom was the seemingly innocuous statement that we don't see bird fossils because feathers and skin are not preserved as well as bone. Problem is, such do exist. So, was that a simply error or something more?

I believe it is more, but it doesn't matter. Kids need to be taught what is true.

Posted: **Sun Nov 28, 2010 7:05 pm**

GabonX wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:Those are precisely the conditions that make people go from saying "we don't like those people, disagree with their way of life, but as long as they leave us alone, we will leave them be" and into "they are the enemy and must be killed!".

This is a rather idealistic and childish misconception, not only about about Islamo Fascism, but about human nature. The idea that people will not do harm to other people because they see it as being profitable, because tenets of their religion command them to, or for no tangible reason at all has been proven incorrect in virtually every human generation.

Did not say it wasn't. But you find that people's tolerance is higher when their bellies are full and they feel as though they have opportunities. That, too, has been proven. Usually, those other things to which you refer are backdrop, but its not until people feel personnally threatened that they go into attack mode.

GabonX wrote:As for creationists, I think we can agree that they're rather foolish.

I used to think this. But, I have seen this movement grow. And, as bradley badly did say, you find a good many otherwise intelligent people in all walks of life who believe this. And, they are not just sticking to teaching their own kids. Every state in the union this past year has faced multiple challenges to their textbooks on this issue. The have backed off some from court cases, but this issue is by no means dead. In fact, it is growing stronger than ever. And, it was absolutely not a mistake that Sarah Palin has emerged as a voice for the Tea Party. No mistake at all. Jokes aside, we ignore her real power and influence to our peril.

GabonX wrote:I have more respect for them than for Christians that ignore what their supposed holy books say,

The point is that the Bible is not specific on this point. It is a distortion to claim it is. Genesis is not a science textbook and cannot be read as such.

GabonX wrote:but fundamentally I believe that faith without proof is foolish, particularly when there is so much evidence to the contrary of what's believed..

.. There will always be foolish people and it's probably more tangible to manipulate them than reason with or educate them.

Like I said to Timminz, everyone is welcome to believe as they wish. However, this is not about belief. This is about science and proof.

There are people within each religion who accept science, and a few who do not. The issue is not whether one should "win". The issue is that facts are not matters of belief. Painting the debate as something else is a distortion.

Posted: **Sun Nov 28, 2010 7:33 pm**

A++ thread.

Will read again.

Posted: **Sun Nov 28, 2010 7:45 pm**

PLAYER57832 wrote:And, it was absolutely not a mistake that Sarah Palin has emerged as a voice for the Tea Party. No mistake at all. Jokes aside, we ignore her real power and influence to our peril.

And that is why you fail Player, not on one but in two ways.

First and foremost, Palin isn't a "voice" for the Tea Party. She is just on the bandwagon. She's like this big cheerleader, only she does twitter. This is the problem that drives the Progressives batty. You see the Tea Party isn't based on a specific person; they got this sort from that person, and they liked something of what this person said, and they really got motivated by some other person, and they are all pretty muched liked but they are not the "voice."

But the biggest fail is that Palin is not unique. Palin is everywhere. Palin is liberal. Palin is conservative. Palin is federalist. Palin is progressive. Joke all you want about flat earth and creationist ideas, but remember there are a whole lot of "inconvenient truths" that are in fact just "convenient lies." From the notion that there is an absolute cause and effect between man made CO2 emissions and global temperatures, to the notion that fiat currency gone mad (quantitive easing) is actually "good" to the notion that President Obama can actually compromise on anything. Notions that Iran, North Korea and George Soros are not serious threats to our nation and our way of life as we know it. Believe them at your peril.

Posted: **Sun Nov 28, 2010 8:44 pm**

http://barackobamaisyournewbicycle.com/

Posted: **Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:14 pm**

tzor wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:And, it was absolutely not a mistake that Sarah Palin has emerged as a voice for the Tea Party. No mistake at all. Jokes aside, we ignore her real power and influence to our peril.

And that is why you fail Player, not on one but in two ways.

First and foremost, Palin isn't a "voice" for the Tea Party. She is just on the bandwagon. She's like this big cheerleader, only she does twitter. This is the problem that drives the Progressives batty. You see the Tea Party isn't based on a specific person; they got this sort from that person, and they liked something of what this person said, and they really got motivated by some other person, and they are all pretty muched liked but they are not the "voice."

Yes, we know. The Tea Party doesn't have leaders, doesn't have a real position. Anyone who steps forward is a leader only when they get approval. I know full well that many people who agree with the Tea Party don't like Palin or what she represents, but plenty of folks are happy to latch onto her and allow her to latch onto their causes.
The Tea Party is plenty happy for those she brings with her... at least until someone better comes along.

tzor wrote:But the biggest fail is that Palin is not unique. Palin is everywhere. Palin is liberal. Palin is conservative. Palin is federalist. Palin is progressive. Joke all you want about flat earth and creationist ideas, but remember there are a whole lot of "inconvenient truths" that are in fact just "convenient lies." From the notion that there is an absolute cause and effect between man made CO2 emissions and global temperatures, .

You are drawing a whole lot into evolution, there. The questions about science are why we need REAL scientists and not folks who think that the grand canyon was created by a big flood (perhaps "the" flood, perhaps not) or that geysers are the remnants of Noah's flood or that transition fossils just don't exist and any claims that they do are just fabrications.

tzor wrote:to the notion that fiat currency gone mad (quantitive easing) is actually "good" to the notion that President Obama can actually compromise on anything. Notions that Iran, North Korea and George Soros are not serious threats to our nation and our way of life as we know it. Believe them at your peril

A. this has nothing to do with anything I said. B. I have never said those are not threats in this or any other thread. In fact, have not said much of anything about those things. What I have said is that creationism is impeding scientific education in this country and that is very, very harmful to us all.

Posted: **Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:19 pm**

Actually, this is a good thing for us on the conservative side of things. If the left really thinks that creationism is going to be an important issue for the 2012 elections, we've got it made. The economy is almost always the #1 issue, with the exception sometimes being national security.

Posted: **Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:21 pm**

bradleybadly wrote:Actually, this is a good thing for us on the conservative side of things. If the left really thinks that creationism is going to be an important issue for the 2012 elections, we've got it made. The economy is almost always the #1 issue, with the exception sometimes being national security.

No creationism won't be a big issue in the election. It is, however, a big issue in our schools, right now. That is far more dangerous than a mere election.

However, if you think that evolution is some kind of liberal issue, then you will find some interesting folks, indeed, classed as "liberal"

Posted: **Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:45 pm**

tzor wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:And, it was absolutely not a mistake that Sarah Palin has emerged as a voice for the Tea Party. No mistake at all. Jokes aside, we ignore her real power and influence to our peril.

And that is why you fail Player, not on one but in two ways.

First and foremost, Palin isn't a "voice" for the Tea Party. She is just on the bandwagon. She's like this big cheerleader, only she does twitter. This is the problem that drives the Progressives batty. You see the Tea Party isn't based on a specific person; they got this sort from that person, and they liked something of what this person said, and they really got motivated by some other person, and they are all pretty muched liked but they are not the "voice."

Yes the Tea Party is a grassroot movement. One that was started up, sponsored, advertised and covered and praised as American heroes by a huge corporate machine, which also broadcast and fueled the economic fears that was necessary for this movement. But other than that it was a completely spontaneous movement.

tzor wrote:But the biggest fail is that Palin is not unique. Palin is everywhere. Palin is liberal. Palin is conservative. Palin is federalist. Palin is progressive.

Uh.. wtf? Look I'm sorry your novels took off but if that's your idea of being deep let me break it to you: that's just rambling bullshit.

tzor wrote:Joke all you want about flat earth and creationist ideas, but remember there are a whole lot of "inconvenient truths" that are in fact just "convenient lies." From the notion that there is an absolute cause and effect between man made CO2 emissions and global temperatures, to the notion that fiat currency gone mad (quantitive easing) is actually "good" to the notion that President Obama can actually compromise on anything. Notions that Iran, North Korea and George Soros are not serious threats to our nation and our way of life as we know it. Believe them at your peril.

Oh, no here comes more. From a discussion about Palin you somehow managed to intertwine global warming, economic policies, foreign policy as well as conspiracy theories about George Soros as well as rampant fear-mongering for no apparent reason or any real structure.

The Glenn Beck is strong in this one.

Posted: **Mon Nov 29, 2010 12:21 am**

so wait...let me try and understand this...

no one that has ever misspoke is capable of having the job the currently hold or seek?

damn thats shitty

Posted: **Mon Nov 29, 2010 5:35 am**

guardian1357 wrote:so wait...let me try and understand this...

Sorry, you failed.

Posted: **Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:50 pm**

tzor wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:And, it was absolutely not a mistake that Sarah Palin has emerged as a voice for the Tea Party. No mistake at all. Jokes aside, we ignore her real power and influence to our peril.

And that is why you fail Player, not on one but in two ways.

First and foremost, Palin isn't a "voice" for the Tea Party. She is just on the bandwagon. She's like this big cheerleader, only she does twitter. This is the problem that drives the Progressives batty. You see the Tea Party isn't based on a specific person; they got this sort from that person, and they liked something of what this person said, and they really got motivated by some other person, and they are all pretty muched liked but they are not the "voice."

But the biggest fail is that Palin is not unique. Palin is everywhere. Palin is liberal. Palin is conservative. Palin is federalist. Palin is progressive. Joke all you want about flat earth and creationist ideas, but remember there are a whole lot of "inconvenient truths" that are in fact just "convenient lies." From the notion that there is an absolute cause and effect between man made CO2 emissions and global temperatures, to the notion that fiat currency gone mad (quantitive easing) is actually "good" to the notion that President Obama can actually compromise on anything. Notions that Iran, North Korea and George Soros are not serious threats to our nation and our way of life as we know it. Believe them at your peril.

This has been explained to Player 10 times, 10 different ways. She doesn't want to understand. She wants to hate.

Posted: **Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:54 pm**

bradleybadly wrote:Actually, this is a good thing for us on the conservative side of things. If the left really thinks that creationism is going to be an important issue for the 2012 elections, we've got it made. The economy is almost always the #1 issue, with the exception sometimes being national security.

Creationism is just the liberal passion of the week. They don't know which ones to stand on, so they are picking issues out of a bag.

Most recently is daring the incoming Tea Party to cast a vote against raising the debt ceiling. I couldn't be prouder.

Things are rolling pretty good. 2012 aint so far away.

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!

Posted: **Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:56 pm**

guardian1357 wrote:so wait...let me try and understand this...

no one that has ever misspoke is capable of having the job the currently hold or seek?

damn thats shitty

it's just that it's so darn funny, time after time after time after time.......NOT!

That's why I like to focus on people's actions.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=112971&hilit=judging+people+by+their+actions

Posted: **Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:01 pm**

tzor wrote:But the biggest fail is that Palin is not unique. Palin is everywhere. Palin is liberal. Palin is conservative. Palin is federalist. Palin is progressive.

Deep, bro.

Posted: **Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:10 pm**

SultanOfSurreal wrote:http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/24/palin-north-korea/

CO-HOST: How would you handle a situation like the one that just developed in North Korea? [...]

PALIN: But obviously, we’ve got to stand with our North Korean allies. We’re bound to by treaty –

CO-HOST: South Korean.

PALIN: Eh, Yeah. And we’re also bound by prudence to stand with our South Korean allies, yes.

Posted: **Tue Nov 30, 2010 3:48 am**

Phatscotty wrote:Creationism is just the liberal passion of the week. They don't know which ones to stand on, so they are picking issues out of a bag.

Dear God, a tea partier is talking about passing passions?! Ground Zero mosque? Death panels? Evil socialists? Hello?

Conquer Club

this just in: palin a communist

Re: this just in: palin a communist

Re: this just in: palin a communist

Re: this just in: palin a communist

Re: this just in: palin a communist

Re: this just in: palin a communist

Re: this just in: palin a communist

Re: this just in: palin a communist

Re: this just in: palin a communist

Re: this just in: palin a communist

Re: this just in: palin a communist

Re: this just in: palin a communist

Re: this just in: palin a communist

Re: this just in: palin a communist

Re: this just in: palin a communist

Re: this just in: palin a communist

Re: this just in: palin a communist

Re: this just in: palin a communist

Re: this just in: palin a communist

Re: this just in: palin a communist

Re: this just in: palin a communist

Re: this just in: palin a communist