DangerBoy wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote:He was the first to put it all together, complete in a form people could really understand well, in a form that people accepted.
Fine then, you're not going to give Lamarck and Monet their due so you can hold to your view and keep revising your original statement. I'll drop it.
No revision. My original statement was correct and still is.
DangerBoy wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Scientists who are in utterly non-biologic or geologic fields can possibly remain ignorant of evolution (though most have had enough to know evolution is real), but those who deal with geology, biology, etc, don't disagree on this. That is the point. Those who do are only barely above those who want to say the Earth is flat, truly. They are not recognized as legitimate scientists of anything to do with evolution.
You're ridiculous and only shows your own bias. Fine, live in your world where you dismiss those with alternate interpretations of data as not being real or legitimate.
Provide what you consider to be alternate sources. Because, all I have found is pure garbage.
DangerBoy wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:This is not about believing the Bible
This is about believing the Bible. The Bible says the world was created in 6 days and you say it wasn't. You give alternate explanations for it that coincides with your worldview.
A day, but not necessarily 24 hours. This gets down to two isseus.
1. how does "yom" correctly translate. I hold with those scholars who say that "yom" is exactly translated to "day". That is, 'day" in English (along withe the terms "morning" and "night") can mena a specific 24 hour period, one revolution of our Earth. However, it can also mean a more general, much longer time period, as in the phrase "this day and age". See, God doesn't make mistakes, only people do. If God wanted it to say 24 hours, he would have done so. When there is ambiguity in the Bible it is intentional.
2.You also have the debate over whether Genesis or all of Genesis was intended to be taken as an exactly literal, essentially scientific description. Most Jews say it was not. It's pretty interesting that Jews, who tend to study the Old Testament quite a bit, probably more and longer than many Christians are NOT the ones resurging this young earth bit. Could be because, unlike fundamentalist Christians, they also hold scholarship in high esteem, but that is only postulation.
DangerBoy wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:it is about believing one particular meaning for a few words within the Bible. And the similarity is a narrowness of thinking in both racists and creationists.
If it were really about that then you would take the time to investigate the original Hebrew.
I have. The only modern scholars who feel "yom" should be as specific as the young earthers claim can be traced back to a couple of sources and lines of teaching.
DangerBoy wrote: You'll either dismiss the original language or make up some alternate explanation for it to hold on to your bigoted stance that racists & creationists are somehow linked.
I never claimed a link, except that both positions fail in critical thinking. You are the one deciding that any mention of the two mean they have to be linked. This gets into critical thinking. You have made an assumption that is not there. I even explained it, but you still persist.
DangerBoy wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:I never said anything about a majority believing in slavery. I said plenty of presidents believed blacks and Native Americans were not fully human. In fact, even many of those who were against slavery were not willing to accept that blacks or native Americans should or could be full citizens. However, this just gets off track. My point was that narrowness of thinking leads to many distortions. Racism is one way, creationism is equally narrow minded and poorly based. There is some overlap of those two beliefs, but not a direct link.
No, but you certainly put that insinuation out there with no citations (again).
Insinuation? No, you added the assumption on your own. Citations? for the concept that for generations very, very few people, even amongst abolitionists and such did not think blacks or Native Americans truly the "equal" to whites? Since its common knowledge, no, I did not.
Here is a source, though:
It is important to know that many white abolitionist did not really think that black people and white people are equal - they just thought that slavery is wrong. All abolitionists did not think the same way about stopping slavery. Some thought that slaves should be freed but live away from white people. Some free states even had laws that did not allow blacks to move in their state. For example, in 1851 Iowa started a law that gave every black person three days to leave the state or go to jail. Some abolitionists believed that all people are equal and should be treated the same. They tried to help freed slaves find jobs and get education for their children. Some abolitionist only wanted to stop slavery from spreading. They wanted to leave slavery alone in slave states but did not want any more states to join America as slave states. Abraham Lincoln supported this view before he became president! Some abolitionist had very radical views. One of the most radical views was colonization movement. Thomas Jefferson supported this view.
For the citations to that, you can go to the link:
http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0212661/id27.htmOR, you could just pick up a book with the writings of any one of many prominant folks. In this case, the writings of the Presidents.
Info on the President's views of Native Americans is similarly widespread.
DangerBoy wrote: You still refuse to define what plenty is
Since I was quoting, no. But again, one doesn't have to provide a definition of common useage terms. The term "plenty" is an inexact term that means , an "abundant supply".
DangerBoy wrote:or acknowledge that native americans participated in the slave trade against blacks.
Huh? I never denied that in any way shape or form. In fact, Native American slavery pre-dates Columbus by a long stretch, but only in some tribes. However, its not relevant to the view of presidents about either blacks or Native Americans and whites.
DangerBoy wrote: You were the one who got this whole discussion off track by saying people who believe in creationist thought weren't fit to be president when this was really about Sultan taking a single verbal gaffe and trying to make it look like she actually believes we're allies of North Korea.
Those gaffes are just gaffes. The creationist issue, however, is quite serious.
DangerBoy wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Hatred, no. But worry, yes. Comparing them to terrorists is a bit of an exaggeration, but not as much as it might seem on the surface. The terrorists can kill bodies, destroy structures, but they cannot destroy our ability to think. Creationists do that, in spades. By destroying science, particularly biology, the destroy our ability to respond to the many ecological disasters and damage we face, they truly limit our ability to move forward as a society. So, yes, they are more harmful.
Furthermore, terrorists are easier to combat than a population of people who, in a free society are allowed to plug their fingers in their ears and ignore any reality they wish. The only issue is if they should have the right to impose that upon their children. But right now, they won't even stop there, they are trying to impose this on the rest of us, taking our tax dollars that are badly needed elsewhere just to fight these folks off.
My goodness, you can rationalize anything to your liking. You're more of a religious crusader than any evangelical, I'll tell you that. All you need is a banner of Charles Darwin that you can hold while you ride a horse charging over people.
I wrote that last part so you can go back to claiming that you are persecuted and have won the debate or something. Just try to limit it to less than 10 paragraphs.
No, just claim that belief in creationism means a very poor education, particularly in science and/or just plain poor skills in logical reasoning.
