G.W. Bush's Creationist beliefs

[Ryu (non-working password]

very much agreed.


Goodnight.

Ryu

[Newbie]

Masala

"Yeah but creationism isn't wild speculation, because it says so in the Bible."

Criticizing the religious beliefs of Creationists and insulting their inteligence does nothing to prove the Threory of Evolution. Additionally, proving Creationism is not a pre-requisite for criticising the Theory of Evolution, which should be open to criticism because it claims to be a field of science. In order to disprove a scientific theory, it is not neccessary to provide anything in it's place. If there is an unexplained phenomenon and an individual claims to have an explanation, should it be required that all opponents of his theory provide an alternate theory and attempt to prove their theories in order to raise valid objections?

Mr. Miyagi


"Radioactive dating is not a faulty method. It makes sense to scientists that the half life of a radioactive atom can be used to date something thousands of years old."

Radioactive dating is a faulty method. Lets take a look at the example of the Uranium to Lead dating method. Scientists measure the amount of lead in a mixture of Lead-Uranium. They calculate how many times it has gone through it's half-life and use this to determine it's supposed age. To begin with, scientists have absolutely no idea what percentage of the mixture was Uranium and how much was lead when the object was created. Evolutionists conveniently ASSUME that the mixture was composed of pure Uranium when the object was originally created. Additionally, it is also assumed that the rate of decay has remained constant. H. C. Dudley, in "Radioactivity Re-Examined", explains that external influences such as temperature, pressure, electric and magnetic fields, as well as others can significantly alter the rate at which radioactive decay occurs.

"Besides the piltdown man scandal, anthropology has been moving forward very handily for the last 100 years"

Actually, you neglected to mention Hesperopithecus haroldcookii(Nebraska Man), of 1922. This species of ape-men was used as evidence in the famous Scopes "Monkey Trial" of 1925. The name for the species came from the fact that the entire amount of fossil evidence, ONE TOOTH, was discovered by a man named Harold Cook. An entire hypothetical species, complete with drawings showing hair, eyes, and full anatomical details, was reconstructd based on the unquestionable accuracy of sophisticated calculations regarding the analysis of the tooth and used as irrefutable scientific evidence in the "Trial of the Century". The tooth was determined to be approximately 2,000,000 years old according to scientific dating methods. Evolutionary experts of the time, such as Proffessor H. Newman of the University of Chicago, ridiculed prosecutor William Jennings Bryan for daring to contest the supposed age of the tooth during the trial. Bryan, so shaken by his inability to refute the "evidence", became rattled on the stand and gave contradictory testimony. Bryan's testimony proved to be a crucial part of the trial.
However, two years after the trial, several other teeth were found in the same location. It was finally admitted that the tooth was in fact that of a pig and was no more than 60 years old. Of course, this is all irrelevant. The fraud had already served it's purpose. The evolutionists had already won the trial and gained considerable ground in the meantime.

"bible thumpers"
"closed minded fools that they really are."

I notice you demonstrated the typical inability of evolutionists to refrain from insulting the intelligence of Creationists.

Pit Dog

"Yet, you present them with a MOUNTAIN of hard evidence pointing to evolution and ALL THEY DO is question."

Shouldn't scientific theories be questioned? Shouldn't proponents of those scientific theories analyze the questions posed by critics of their theories in a constructive manner as opposed to indiscriminately labelling those individuals as "total idiots" or as examples of a "non-thinking sub-human"? Maybe they could even select a few samples from the "MOUNTAIN of hard evidence" and share them with others in a constructive manner and possibly educate those opponents of the theory as to why their objections are found wanting.




[Edited by Newbie on 11-17-2000 at 07:05 AM]

[Joe Manco]

Originally posted by Newbie
Pit Dog

Shouldn't scientific theories be questioned? Shouldn't proponents of those scientific theories analyze the questions posed by critics of their theories in a constructive manner as opposed to indiscriminately labelling those individuals as "total idiots" or as examples of a "non-thinking sub-human"? Maybe they could even select a few samples from the "MOUNTAIN of hard evidence" and share them with others in a constructive manner and possibly educate those opponents of the theory as to why their objections are found wanting.

Repeat statement for the thinking-impaired:
"Science is for thinking people. Its doctrine states, 'WHAT IS THE TRUTH; LET'S QUESTION EVERYTHING UNTIL WE KNOW.'"

Your question has already been answered, nimrod. Yes, with scientific people ALL THEY DO is question. The reason we want to spit in the direction of theistic people, and call them stupid, is because they will quesion every piece of scientific fact they see ... but they will NEVER question their poorly-written "Bibble."

I again repeat it is this intellectual FRAUD on the part of theists, this lack of reciprocity, that has scientific people dispeptic. Ulecerated. Nauseated at the prospect of debating with a theist, because they are intellectually bankrupt and fraudulent.

In determining what to have "faith" in, it all boils down to what is REASONABLE to believe and what has more LIKELIHOOD of being accurate?

Are huge bodies of scientific data that have been collected, measured, and have repeatedly held true to be dismissed?

Or ...

Is a poorly-written book that was put together in an age of ignorance to be dismissed?

Should fossil evidence, DNA evidence, astronomical evidence, # of species evidence, evolutionary evidence be discarded and instead should we all continue to follow what was scribed together by some bearded madman thousands of years ago?

I believe a resonable person would discard the latter. What infuriates a scientific person to a homicidal rage (or at least to the point of name-calling, LOL) is the fact that OF ALL things that should be questioned ... it is not the scientific conclusions that have been reached ALREADY THROUGH exhaustive questioning ... but the ridiculous, factually-erred "Bibble" that was written without any type of accountability whatsoever.

So the very fact that some idiot like you can sit there and seek to "question" decades of TRUE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ... and yet not question a book of fables after which you try to pattern your life ... brings the desire for most scientific people to simply dismiss you as an idiot and not take you seriously at all. That's why.

Yours truly,

Joe




[Edited by Joe Manco on 11-17-2000 at 09:47 AM]

[Mr. Miyagi]

The radioactive dating methods are not "faulty". They, like other scientific methods, have some room for error. How can you not when you have to estimate the age of something thousands or millions of years old? It's still very useful for finding which bones may have existed first, etc, and it's bound to be a hell of a lot closer to the truth than the Bible.

By the way, if want to mention scandals, the Bible starting with the Genesis is a wonderful place to start. Rather than question scientific methods now, I'd love to hear why you and other blind followers choose to believe in the almighty Bible, which seems to be much more far fetched than any scientific experiment.

[Scott Harper]

If humans evolved from apes, then there must be some apes maybe that haven't fully evolved yet. I have seen some examples.

Almost forgot, which people do the orangutan most closely resemble or should I say which class of people did the orangutan evolve into?

[Joe Manco]

Shaq O'Niel is proof some have not quite fully evolved. Or just look at Iran Barkley ... or at any rap group.

Clearly none of these are quite human.

Yours truly,

Joe

[david a]

Joe, Miyagi, Pit and company,

Sadly I admit that there are some close-minded christians who never look at anything but just rely on heresay from anything labeled "christian or "creationist" that runs on the lines of their dogmatic veiws. And for that, christians are in the spotlight, and rightly so. But there are evolutionists who do the same thing. Don't get me wrong, there are people who honestly look at both sides of the story on this forum, like Atomic and Linden, but most have given me reason to believe they share the same spotlight with those "dogmatic creationists".

However, I think that creation cannot be proved with sience because of the definition of science itself, which states that we must be there to witness the beginning of our origin! Evolution, on the other hand, can use science to attempt to understand how we originated, because it comes from scientific theory and must use the products from which it branches. The belief in God through the bible, however, are hitstoric and so evidence must be provided through historical literature, archeology, etc. and through itself-the scriptures.
I do think though, that science can be used to hint that creation is a plausible arguement for our origin. The question then is not which theory holds water, but what or who holds the universe in balance?

Do you know that if the earth's rotation was to slod a little bit we would either freeze or burn up?

Do you know that the sun's surface temp. is 12000 degrees and if it was any closer to the earth we would burn up?

Do you realize that if the globe tilted beyond 23 degrees vapours from the n+s oceans would pile up ice of continental size?

Do you know that if the moon did not remain from its exact distance from the earth the ocean tides would inundate the land twice a day?

Do you know that if the ocean slipped to a couple of feet lower than its depth, carbon doixide and oxygen in the atmosphere would be completely absorbed?

Who or what holds it in balance. The probabilities of this our insurmountable. Something to think about.

[Eazy-E]

Mr. Miyagi and Atomic,

Thanks for the carefully reasoned defense of evolution. I think you are giving pearls to swine mostly, but I applaud the effort.

Pit Dog,

Great replies!! I think you treat the Newbie post with the correct amount of respect and intellectual rigor.

The evidence for the basics of evolution is overwhelming and almost surely true. But these people continue to disbelieve the scientific evidence. That is there choice, but please dont claim that the evidence is on your side!

You have a few quack scientists blathering on, but without any real data to support their claim. You merely construct clever arguments based on sophistry. If you want to believe the Bible verbatim, do so, whatever that really means. But dont expect the rest of us to throw our brains out!!

E

[Newbie]

Pit Dog

"this intellectual FRAUD on the part of theists, this lack of reciprocity, that has scientific people dispeptic."

I believe that any field of study which claims to be
scientific, is taught in the public school system as scientific fact, and has it's educational curriculum as well as it's research funded by the taxpayers of this country should be held to a higher standard of scientific scrutiny than a set of religious beliefs which are not taught in the public schools as a scientific theory.
Look at the example of George W. Bush. When asked about his beliefs on the subject in an interview, he stated that he believes in Creationism. He stated that he did not believe that evolution was a proven fact. Did he state that Creationism was a proven fact? No. Did he propose legislation to fund the teachings of Creationism in the public schools as scientific fact? No. The day George W. Bush claims that Creatoinism is a SCIENTIFIC fact, as opposed to his RELIGIOUS beliefs, is the day that he should be required to defend his opinions regarding CREATIONISM against scientific scutiny. Until that time, any evolutionist that wishes to express criticism of his opionion should limit himself to discussing the objections George W. Bush has to the Theory of Evolution in terms of their scientific merit. He should be limited to producing intelligent arguments as to why the objections raised regarding EVOLUTIONARY THEORY are invalid. He should not resort to personal insults, questioning his opponent's intelligence BEFORE the debate even begins.
Why is it that whenever the beliefs of evolutionists are questioned, they invariably respond by questioning the intelligence of their critics before the debate even begins?
Could it be an attempt to discredit their critics as "bible thumpers" and "total idiots" because they are affraid of the questions that may be asked? Could it be that they have so little faith in their supposed scientific theories that they feel they have no recourse other than
to empirically state that anyone too stupid to blindly accept their theories as irrefutable scientific fact should invariably have his viewpoints disregarded?
The insistent belief that anyone who disagrees with you must be so unintelligent that their opinions should invariably be disregarded by default before the debate
even begins must be a very liberating thought indeed. I believe the fact that Creationists are even attempting to discuss the matter with Evolutionists in a constructive manner demonstrates the respect which the Creationists are showing to the Evolutionists, respect which is sadly not
returned. In my humble opinion, the behavior displayed by
evolutionists is that of intellectual bigotry, and in instances such as the questioning of someone's fitness for public office based on his refusal to renounce his religious beliefs, borders on religious persecution.

"Science is for thinking people. Its doctrine states,
'WHAT IS THE TRUTH; LET'S QUESTION EVERYTHING UNTIL WE KNOW."

Notice the last part of your statement: "UNTIL WE KNOW."
NOTHING in science should EVER be held above scrutiny. Questions regarding the valdity of ANY scientific theory that is taught as scientific fact in public institutions and funded by the government should NEVER be blindly dismissed without being addressed no matter how entrenched that theory has become in scientific circles.

"OF ALL things that should be questioned ... it is not the scientific conclusions that have been reached ALREADY"

Are you saying that evolutionary theory has gotten to the point where it should be held above criticism and no longer be questioned?

Mr. Miyagi

"The radioactive dating methods are not "faulty".
They, like other scientific methods, have some room for error."

In your rebuttal of my criticisms of the Lead-Uranium Dating Method, you did not manage to produce one intelligent response to the actual points I made. You merely attempted to dismiss my questions with the statement "They, like other scientific methods, have some room for error." while AVOIDING the actual points that were made. The questions I posed, unless actually invalidated, point out some very significant flaws in the very intellectual foundation that the Lead-Uranium Dating Method is based on.


[Edited by Newbie on 11-19-2000 at 06:09 PM]

[david a]

Good thoughts in your post, Newbie.

[Mr. Miyagi]

Newbie, I respect your objections to some scientific research, but I have not respect for your's or anyone else's blind faith in the Bible. Carbon dating or Uranium 238 dating, is considered a relatively accurate dating method, because of the astronomical numbers involved. The bible has no merit whatsoever. I would like you to defend why belief in the bible is plausible, rather than attacking a scientific viewpoint, which appears to be closer to the truth. I am unable to honestly say that a radioactive dating method will be exact, but I am quite sure that it will yield a result that is much closer to the truth than the more recent numbers stated by the bible.

[Masala]

Umm Newbie,
By stateing that he believes in Creationism because Evolution is not "proven", he implies that Creationism IS proven...or does it not need proof, and if not, then why does Evolution? This is the double standard that Pit points to: It is ok to require scientific proof of Evolution, yet it is not required of creationism.

And as for your argument that "creationism isn't taught in schools as truth....and you don't see GWB trying to legislate it so that it is taught in schools.."

You are way off here. Does George support school vouchers? Yes. If school vouchers were instituted would that mean that the public was paying for children to go to religious schools where they would be taught that Creationism IS the truth? Yes.

Bible thumpers lose the argument before it even starts, because their whole belief system is based on the huge and unlikely assumption that the multitude of people who wrote the bible (which version you ask? hehe) were inspired by God. And in order to believe that, you must also assume that there is a God (the kind that tells people what to write). And you must also assume that the VERSION of the bible you are reading is the "inspired one", and you must also assume that it is too be taken litterally (which even bible thumpers cannot agree on). So in other words, the belief system is based on an assumption based on assumption based on another assumption of an assumption.

Now apply your critical logic to that and decide which THOERY, creationism or evolution, has a better chance of being correct.

[Steed]

Oh, for f***'s sake. You bloody "no evolution" queers are like Krishnas at Heathrow--you just won't go away, will you?

This much is for sure: whatever evolution that has occurred is obviously wasted if the end result is people like you, who will next be telling us that the sun revolves around the earth, you intellectual tumbleweed.

Only the Great One himself could have created such an absolute waste of carbon--therefore unintentionally buttressing your "creation" theory. My guess is that he sneezed while pulling a lever and people like you instantaneously appeared, mewling about how the earth is flat, apes bear no relation to man, and "compassionate conservatism."

After listening to this rubbish for what's already been too much time, the next time the BBC has a special on a doomsday asteroid which will wipe out all existing life I'll order a pint and toast the flaming rock, thinking "You're doing us quite the favor, aren't you, mate?"

[Atomic]

Steed--

Let me know when it comes on, I'll toast one, too.

Newbie--

"Why is it that whenever the beliefs of evolutionists are questioned, they invariably respond by questioning the intelligence of their critics before the debate even begins?
Could it be an attempt to discredit their critics as "bible thumpers" and 'total idiots' because they are affraid of the questions that may be asked?"

Because they are total idiots. Anyone that would deny a mountain of evidence and dismiss it because of a conflict with religion is completely ****ing blind. It's that simple.

"Could it be that they have so little faith in their supposed scientific theories that they feel they have no recourse other than to empirically state that anyone too stupid to blindly accept their theories as irrefutable scientific fact should invariably have his viewpoints disregarded?"

You didn't read any of my posts. We don't need faith in the method, it's already been proven. Further, it's been proven in peer reviewed, scientifically ref'ed journals. Further, if the article and evidence for dating would have been crap, many, many people would have yelled it from every corner and the method would not currently be used.

My next suggestion is you take your little anti-dating claims, make a scientifically based article, and send it in. I guarantee if you have some valid, scientifically based facts that hadn't been pointed out they might print it. But they wouldn't print it to save you a ton of embrassment and making you a household known idiot.

As to your trial of the century, that's been covered many, many times and it's over 75 years old.

As for the other arguments you have, I suggest you look up carbon and uranium dating in the journals and see if you have any sort of proof to back your claim, which I don't think you do and that is why many people hate bible thumpers. No evidence, no real proof, just their faith to carry them through in what they believe with no hard evidence.

[Newbie]

Umm Masala,

"By stateing that he believes in Creationism because Evolution is not "proven", he implies that Creationism IS proven"

He did not state that he believes in Creationism BECAUSE evolution is not a proven fact. He stated that he believes in Creationism AND evolution is not a proven fact. He regards his belief in Creationism as a matter of religious faith and does not believe that the case for Evolution has been proven to the point to where he must revise his faith. You seem to be either missing or evading my point here. Criticisms levied against evoultionary theory do nothing to prove Creationism. The same is the case with the criticisms evolutionists direct at Creationists. They do absolutely nothing to support evolution. When an individual states that he believes in Creationism AND he believes that evolution is not a proven fact, he is not implying anything regarding Creationism.

"Bible thumpers lose the argument before it even starts"

I see we're back to name calling again. I also find the part about "lose the argument before it even starts" a bit disturbing. In the first place, I have done everyhting possible to have a DEBATE, not an ARGUMENT. However, what I find most disturbing is the very concept of "lose the argument before it even starts". The belief that your opponent, which you seem insistent on viewing me as, has lost before the debate has even begun must be very comforting. This must be the lazy man's preffered method of debate. No effort or thought is required at all. Simply pronounce your opponent as an idiot and declare victory. What has been won is beyond me, considering that no one learns anything in a situation like that.

Another point I would like to discuss is your rhetorical wisecrack "Yeah but creationism isn't wild speculation, because it says so in the Bible."

Is Creationism speculative? You bet it is. That does not invalidate my statement. I still stand by my statement that compared to the overwhelming physical evidence confirmining the spherical structure of the earth and it's orbit of the sun, which has been open to falsification by various scientific means, most notably DIRECT OBSERVATION, and has passed all tests with reproducable results, the evidence in support of evolutionary theory is extremely speculative. Now, if you would actually like to share any intelligent arguments in regards to Ronin's contention that the physical evidence in support of evolutionary theory is indeed comparable in both magnitude and nature to the physical evidence that proves the spherical structure of the earth and the fact that it orbits the sun, I would definitely be interested.

"If school vouchers were instituted would that mean that the public was paying for children to go to religious schools where they would be taught that Creationism IS the truth?"

This is the first intelligent point you have actually made. Let me begin by stating that I seriously doubt the underlying reason George W. Bush has for proposing school vouchers is some scheming plot to circumnvent constitutional laws which mandate the separation of church and state with an attempt at infusing untold quantities of government money into various religous institutions under the guise that he is actually attempting to improve the overall standard of education available to the general public, thereby funding a conspiracy designed to force Creationism upon the masses. I believe the actual intent, while it's effectiveness is an entirely different debate altogether, is to improve the quality of education children will receive in Math, English, etc. I would also like to point out that the parents would have the choice regarding which school they send their children to, so any parent that is offended by the thought of his children receiving instruction in Creationism would not be forced to choose a religious school to send his children to. Now, that being said, I still agree with you that the issue runs a potential danger of conflicting with constitutional laws regarding the separation of church and state. I personally believe that school vouchers are a good idea, except I believe that parents should be forced to choose a school with no religious affiliation if they wish to use government money to send their children there. I also believe the contention that the issue of school vouchers moves Creationism into the same category of government sponsorship as evolutionary theory is a bit of an exageration. Evolutionary theory has it's entire curriculum and research funded by the federal government outright.


Mr. Miyagi

"Carbon dating or Uranium 238 dating, is considered a relatively accurate dating method, because of the astronomical numbers involved."

What do you mean by astronomical numbers in terms of their validation of Radioactive Dating Methods? Are you using astronomical as an adjective to describe the size of the numbers, or are you saying that astronomical calculations can be used to verify Radioactive Dating Methods?


Atomic

"My next suggestion is you take your little anti-dating claims, make a scientifically based article, and send it in."

There's a rel gem. Should we now demand that everyone with a political opinion address Congress? I am perfectly content to share my opinions in this public forum. If my claim that the percentage of a Lead-Uranium mixture that was Lead when the mixture was originallly created must be ascertained, as opposed to being conventientally assumed to have been zero, is vital to the accuracy of any measuremnt using this dating method is so pathetic, why don't you simply refute it yourself. If a mixture is found that contains 87.5% Lead and 12.5% Uranium, how many half-lives has it gone through. Should we assume that it began as pure Uranium and determine it's age by multiplying Uranium's half-life by 3? What if it originally consisted of only 12.6% Uranium. How can we propose to know for certain. The differnce in results there is potentially staggering.


Your response to my statement "Why is it that whenever the beliefs of evolutionists are questioned, they invariably respond by questioning the intelligence of their critics before the debate even begins?
Could it be an attempt to discredit their critics as "bible thumpers" and 'total idiots' because they are affraid of the questions that may be asked?"

is:

"Because they are total idiots."

You have done a very good job of proving my point.

You go on to state "Anyone that would deny a mountain of evidence and dismiss it because of a conflict with religion is completely ****ing blind."

I have not denied or dismissed anything. I have raised questions regarding the validity of some of the claims made by evolutionists. If you can not see the difference, perhaps it is you that is "completely ******** blind".

All I have asked of anyone in this debate is that we attempt to discuss the matter in a civil, non-threatening, and constructive manner. I have been forced to spend the majority of my time arguing that I and others who believe in Creationism as a matter of religious faith should not have everything we say in criticism of evolutionary theory indiscriminately disregarded as the rantings of "total idiots" or "bible thumpers" and that our refusal to renounce our religious beliefs does not constitute grounds for regarding us as "non-thinking sub-humans".


[Edited by Newbie on 11-21-2000 at 05:31 AM]