BBC Blog Network

User Profile

labcoat_samurai

Listed below are comments made by labcoat_samurai between Friday, 19th December 2008 and Monday, 16th February 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Evolution vs creationism 11:33pm on 16 Feb 2009 168 K4ot1K

"The bible lays out how the world was created, how we were created, how everything came into being. Can evolution give us the same answers?"

Science does not answer every question. Also, as you pointed out, science's answers are commonly refined, so you can't trust that a current model gives the complete picture.

But what convinces you that the answers in the bible are correct? How do you know they weren't just made up? What good is a seemingly complete answer if there is no reason to trust it?
Evolution vs creationism 11:39pm on 13 Feb 2009 69 ukwales

"I speak as I find and as yet no proffesing atheists are to be found at the places I have dealt with,seemingly all they can do is talk..

Show me one person who has been saved from drug and alchol addiction by the power of atheism..
Too many to count have been totally changed and saved by the Power of Christ.."

And if no one in this thread is able to do so, your conjecture is assumed, by default, to hold?

If you're right, it would really suck to be an atheist alcoholic. You either have to compromise your philosophy or inevitably die of alcoholism.

To call it what it is, this is nothing short of anti-atheist bigotry. People do not cease to be moral because they cease to believe in god. People do not lose their sense of compassion or their capacity for empathy when they no longer feel blackmailed by a promise of an afterlife into having them.

Nevertheless, if it matters to you:

Self-described atheists make up less than 10% of the US population. And given the assumption from people like you that they lack morality or integrity, they don't tend to out themselves without a good reason.

So between general rarity and unwillingness to open up, it's not hard to believe you wouldn't know many avowed atheists. I know three in my office, not including myself. I suspect the religious people in the office know zero.
Evolution vs creationism 11:24pm on 13 Feb 2009 57 dbiermann

"I just don't understand why Europeans find creationism so odd. It sounds just as crazy to me to say that the earth came into being because of totally random events caused by the Big Bang that resulted in what we see on earth now."

I'm not a European, but I have a guess nevertheless.

The Big Bang is merely an observation. We scientifically measure the velocities of galaxies, and trace back their paths to a single point, which, given the calculated gravitational force would have to collapse to infinitesimal smallness. This *is* a disturbing notion to scientists, because the laws of physics break down. But we're just observing, incompletely, what must have happened. Now the theory comes in. Was it a hot big bang? Was it a true beginning of time and the laws of physics or was it part of a larger cycle? We try to build a model that is both consistent with observation and has the power to predict future events.

That is why the notion of the big bang, presumably, does not bother Europeans. It's only fault is incompleteness. Creationism's fault, on the other hand, is that it was fabricated without evidence or observation. Creationism and Intelligent Design amount to one long and extended argument from incredulity matched in a false dichotomy against prevailing scientific thought. A creationist thinks his job is done as soon as he's debunked a scientific theory, because he believes his made up explanation is right by default if science has nothing to say. A scientist would then simply be back at square one saying "Well then I guess I don't know"

A creationist never says "I don't know"
Evolution vs creationism 11:01pm on 13 Feb 2009 53 freeclench

"The implication I was aiming for was that, if ever there were a cesspool of Creationism, it is in the general Midwest society. "

Fair enough, though I would venture (regrettably without evidence) that the midwest is far from the most egregious offender. But it is unquestionably more conservative than New England, and modern conservatism does seem to be positively correlated with evolution denial.
Evolution vs creationism 8:04pm on 13 Feb 2009 8 freeclench

"This was not in the Midwest: it was in New England."

I don't really care for this implication. Midwestern universities are not a cesspool of backward thinking and discredited theories, and I see no reason why the default assumption should be that a university in New England is less prone to this than a midwestern one.
American power lives on 11:02pm on 08 Jan 2009 8 Gary_A_Hill wrote:

"For that matter, humankind has dominated the Earth for a much shorter time than did the dinosaurs. It's not clear we will do as well as they, either."

I've always thought that was an odd notion. As though "the dinosaurs" are appropriately lumped into one big species. Or that they "dominated the Earth" in any way that's somehow comparable to what we do :)

And how long did they dominate the moon? I think we may have the record on that at least ;)
Obama's Republican fans 5:07pm on 20 Dec 2008 169 robloop

I have to agree. Since your uncivil early postings in the thread, you have been polite, articulate, and insightful. I find that calling you a zealot is not only inaccurate, but disappointingly counterproductive in what has blossomed into a very interesting conversation indeed.

(one in which, given my limited domain knowledge of Africa, I've elected to remain at the sidelines)
Obama's Republican fans 8:34pm on 19 Dec 2008 87 Gary

Yeah, I don't have any stats on it to argue the point, but I've met my fair share. I know a few people in my immediate family who vote straight ticket.

"If you felt "dirty" it's because you should have. Apparently, you lied about your party affiliation in order to crash someone else's "party." There's no honor in that."

Hey now.... I mislike having my honor questioned.

We have a two party system in this country and there is no reason why I should have less say in who represents me come January than a person who happily and loyally backs their favorite political sports team. I'm going to vote for a republican or a democrat in November as long as they are the only ones with a chance of winning, so I don't see why honor should dictate that I have no say in who gets on that ballot in the first place.
Obama's Republican fans 7:15pm on 19 Dec 2008 79 Gary_A_Hill

Well, I don't think I'm mistaken, perhaps largely because I didn't make a generalized claim. If I had made a claim about the scope of such devotion, I would have something to be mistaken about, but there are undeniably a lot of people out there who are blindly devoted to a party, and I was mostly lamenting the presence of them on this board ;)

"You had to declare Democratic to participate in a caucus because it's a party function. You can't have it both ways, except in some primary states."

Oh I know *why* I had to declare the affiliation. I just said I felt dirty doing it.

"I have been registered independent since 1976. I don't participate in party functions even when I have resided in states where one or more parties allow it. Why would a true independent expect to?"

Why not? If I would rather have Barack Obama on the ballot in November than Hillary Clinton, and it is within my power to contribute to that goal, why not do it? Ultimately, declaring democratic party affiliation is meaningless. It doesn't make me beholden to the democratic party and doesn't prevent me from voting in the republican caucus next time, provided I "switch" my affiliation (and I might be tempted... I heard it was far more organized... the democratic caucus I attended was an absolute mess)
Obama's Republican fans 6:21pm on 19 Dec 2008 12 DominickVila

"Doug, you may want to buy a new history book. There is a difference between undergoing impeachment proceedings and being impeached."

14 DougTexan

"Article 1, perjury to a grand jury,. convicted 228 votes to 206"

Ok, two things. Yes, Clinton was indeed impeached. No, Clinton was not convicted.

Probably the stinkiest thing about the whole business was the partisan nature of the vote. Republicans almost universally in favor and democrats almost universally against. Either he committed a crime worthy of removing him from office and convicting him or he didn't. It should not be a polarizing partisan issue. I was personally of the opinion that there was no good reason to proceed with impeachment, which leads me to call this a Republican witch hunt, but I respect that a person who genuinely felt the offense worthy of impeachment would draw the opposite conclusion.

Similarly, I'm glad that partisan efforts to pursue an impeachment of Bush failed. Impeachment should not be a partisan tool to go after a president you don't like (and I don't like Bush, incidentally... though I do respect the civility and maturity of the transition so far.... funny, Bush has done more to make me like him in the last few months than he did in the preceding 8 years)

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

labcoat_samurai