U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution

[ILIKEALLCAPS 0]

But didn't you know that believing the bible is fundamentalist? Be more secular!!! Don't take a stand on anything! If you let your beliefs get affected by society and it's beliefs, then and only then are you a good Christian girl Marissa.

I just love how fundamentalist is a bad word. I love being a fundamentalist! I embrace it and I'll tell anyone who asks.

Yes ...people assume fundamentalist=wants to blow up things and kill people, and WILL NOT tolerate anyone who doesn't agree with them. That is how Islamic fundamentalists have been described, but if you actually look at the word it just means someone who strongly adheres to their beliefs.

fun·da·men·tal·ism P Pronunciation Key (fnd-mntl-zm)

n.

1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

2. a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.

b.Adherence to the theology of this movement.

source

As you'll see.....the first definition specifically mentions intolerance....and the second describes the movement as militant.

So yes, I've looked at the word.....looked at the meaning....and looked at the whole meaning. Seems closed-minded to me. I'm happy for you if you believe in fundamentals, but unless you want to be identified with such a group as listed above, maybe you'd best search for a more apropos moniker.

And before y'all start saying "oh, but we're different from that"....it doesn't matter....If your neighbor said "I'm a Nazi" and you start reacting as such and she explains "Oh, I'm a different Nazi, we're good and happy and helpful"....you'd still have her tainted with the label.

(no, I'm not calling fundamentalists Nazis. I'm using powerful words that nearly everyone can understand. You could insert "atheist" or "liberal" in there and incanada would be on board, it's the word/label that has the power. I could have used "pedophile" "NAMBLA" "Republican" or any other words that I consider unwholesome.)

That's not what I said. You're asking me to agree to a set of assumptions without asking what they mean - 'perfect' and 'anything' are questions of interpretation and definition, not absolutes.

I think God created the universe according to a set of logical physical laws that mankind can observe and manipulate.

Its no coincidence that animals can't speak - any biologist will tell you that is the direct result of brain size and the lack of vocal cords. If vocal cords aren't needed to speak why bother to create them?

I do admire your way of thinking, fishdude (this post and the other post you made on the 1st page). You ask good questions that make me think, and I've often questioned a lot of this stuff too. As far as evolution though, I just can't accept it. Not just because of what the Bible tells me but also the fact that there's such a huge gap. What kind of proof is there that we evolved from, what, apes? Where's the missing link? And I mean, the thought that we started as some little tadpole like creature...come on. I can see a 5 year old believing that, but grown men and women? How could we evolve in 6,000 years? I know I know, the earth is hundreds of millions of years old, etc etc. What is carbon dating and how exactly does it "prove" that? How can anyone prove that the earth has been around for millions of years? You can't! Scientists simply cannot recreate that. They're basically guessing - so do you want to put your faith in men or God?

Here's a link to an explanation of radiocarbon dating.....with a dropdown at the bottom that will take you on to explanations of other scientific methods for determining age.

Radiocarbon dating

I know it is a cliche but the 'world is flat' really applies here. Represents a fundamental paradigm shift between the broad validity of scientific observation vs stubborn superstition.

"The world is flat" was not and is not a biblical doctrine ( was "church" doctrine yes), creation is.

Isaiah 40:22

22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,

and its people are like grasshoppers.

He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,

and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

interesting that you'd bold 'circle' and use it as your argument against 'flat'. You can have flat circles. Just look at coins, or cut one out of paper.

When you can prove to me 100% that the big bang happened and evolution followed, I will believe you. Until then, we're just doing a lot of arguing back and forth. All I see when I read about the two subjects is "THOUGHT to have happened" and "COULD have happened" and "MIGHT be what occurred." Not good enough for me. Sorry, God/Bible wins.

I'm sorry, but I don't follow how God/Bible wins. The support for the claims you make come from the same book. So because it references itself, it must be true? And because it contains dire warnings about what happens if you don't believe in the authority of it's own self-reference, you are left with no choice but faith? It seems more like a chain letter to me. "Noah followed my instructions and avoided the flood. Lot's wife didn't forward this to 8 of her friends and got turned into a pillar of salt! Job didn't put enough postage on his and spent some time in the belly of a fish!" Science isn't about proving 100% of anything. That's not a claim any hypothesis makes. Theories are tested, re-tested, and supported, discarded, or modified. Even the great laws of physics are up for modification should new evidence shed light on something not yet known. If science causes people to doubt the existence of god, that's a by-product and not a goal. Nobody ever goes out to study the weak molecular bond with the end goal of "if my theory is correct, then finally everyone will know god doesn't exist!!" Scientists are too geeky for that. Those scenarios seem to come from cartoonists. (I suppose I can see how you'd get that confused though....cartoons are often in books, and must therefore be absolute literal truth).

(Now, see what happens when Cerise brings home work on a Saturday and I end up having to amuse myself? Ok, flame away)

[*Robert* 2]

Outstanding post ILIKEALLCAPS!!! Five stars and two thumbs up!

The definition of fundametnalist certainly fits incanada to a tee. No wonder she likes to be called that.

Cerise should work on Saturdays more often!

Edited August 12, 2006 by roi_aggie

[ceriserose 1]

Cerise should work on Saturdays more often!

Are you trying to get on my bad side???? Bahstard!

(I just finished. Now I take this man outside and make him mow the lawn! tee hee!)

[*Robert* 2]

Cerise should work on Saturdays more often!

Are you trying to get on my bad side???? Bahstard!

(I just finished. Now I take this man outside and make him mow the lawn! tee hee!)

NO NO NO!!! Don't want to do that!!! You know I was just kidding!

Uh oh... not the lawn!!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When you can prove to me 100% that the big bang happened and evolution followed, I will believe you. Until then, we're just doing a lot of arguing back and forth. All I see when I read about the two subjects is "THOUGHT to have happened" and "COULD have happened" and "MIGHT be what occurred." Not good enough for me. Sorry, God/Bible wins.

Why do you need an absolute answer about creation? The Big Bang theory and evolution don't pretend to be absolute answers - they just offer a reasoned explanation of how the universe actually came into being and how life developed.

I don't see why that "disproves" God. Again if don't trust 'man's science' on this issue, why trust your doctor and not simply rely on God to cure cancer, heart disease etc?

Its like saying alcohol makes me drunk (because of the ways in which its molecules affect my own), but molecules themselves are magically created.

Why does anyone here have to sh!t on or try to challenge someone's beliefs? None of us know with any certainty, so why does anyone here give a chit if so and so beliefs in Creationism? Seriously, does it really matter?

No matter what you believe, it's a personal choice so it's got nowt to do with anyone else. and who the hell is anyone to try to change anyone's mind?

Atheists like to feel smug with their supposed superior intelligence on the subject. That, by the way, they can't prove.

Who says people who question "creationism" are atheists? Similarly who says that the quantum physicists, biologists and geneticists don't have religious beliefs?

Isn't that just another form of absolutism?

[Mirorgate 0]

I have not yet read the entire thread... just the first few pages... but I would like to say that the Bible clearly talks about the world being flat - four corners of the earth... hmmmmmmmmmmmm Galileo was condemned to spend his life under house arrest for daring to suggest that the sun was the centre of the solar system and that the earth was not flat...

Why not re-introduce the flat earth theory??? It is about as relevant as that of creation.

yeah.... who wants a bunch of prose in a book anyway. descriptive writing... sheesh... who needs that... it should read like stereo instructions!

Yes galileo did advance a new theory that proved out to be correct. thats nice... do/did your children be born with full knowledge of evrything around them at birth or the age of 1? did they get all their knowledge of their surroundings from you directly? Or did they explore on their own?

Why not re-introduce the flat earth theory??? It is about as relevant as that of creation.

no. it is not.

you dont have to believe. in fact no one does has to do anything... the wonders of freedom of choice ya know. if some choose to believe, that is for them to decide. if you do not.. that is for you to decide. as stated before... science does not prove nor disprove the existence of God. Faith in His existence does.

[chri'stina 190]

But didn't you know that believing the bible is fundamentalist? Be more secular!!! Don't take a stand on anything! If you let your beliefs get affected by society and it's beliefs, then and only then are you a good Christian girl Marissa.

I just love how fundamentalist is a bad word. I love being a fundamentalist! I embrace it and I'll tell anyone who asks.

Yes ...people assume fundamentalist=wants to blow up things and kill people, and WILL NOT tolerate anyone who doesn't agree with them. That is how Islamic fundamentalists have been described, but if you actually look at the word it just means someone who strongly adheres to their beliefs.

fun·da·men·tal·ism P Pronunciation Key (fnd-mntl-zm)

n.

1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

2. a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.

b.Adherence to the theology of this movement.

source

As you'll see.....the first definition specifically mentions intolerance....and the second describes the movement as militant.

So yes, I've looked at the word.....looked at the meaning....and looked at the whole meaning. Seems closed-minded to me. I'm happy for you if you believe in fundamentals, but unless you want to be identified with such a group as listed above, maybe you'd best search for a more apropos moniker.

It really matters where you get your definition from, as they seem to vary. I believe fundamentalism is defined two different ways.

One way it is defined by people who think if someone believes what the bible (substitute any other religion's book) is all true, then they are a "fundamentalist". That name is usually given by people who do not like that those ppl actually believe what the bible(etc) says. Does that mean they are completely intolerant? Intolerant to accept those ideas into their own lives, yes, but that doesn't mean they go around threatening people.

The other way it is used for extremists who DO wish harm on others due to their intolerance.

I would be called a fundamentalist by some as I do believe what the bible says is real. However I don't go around being intolerant to every person who doesn't agree, I just agree to disagree. If you look at the definition from webster this it what it says:

Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism

Pronunciation: -t&-"li-z&m

Function: noun

1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs

2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism>

"Fundamentalist" describes a movement to return to what is considered the defining or founding principles of the religion. (wikipedia)

In the websters definition there is no "intolerance" listed in the definition.

In my opinion, the word fundamentalist has gone from meaning someone who really believes what their holy book says is true, into meaning crazy people who wish death on those who don't believe the same and just will not tolerate it. The name is usually given by those who don't like the label "terrorist" that gets thrown around a lot these days. So it's ok for them to label ppl fundamentalists right and left, who are not threatening anyone, but they don't want you to label people terrorists.

So if I am going to be called a fundamentalistbecause I believe the bible is true, then I don't care, and that's what I was joking with Marissa about. In people's opinions, my beliefs would be fundamental. Yet where is the intolerance or threatening in my words? There is a lot of intolerance for those who believe the bible is true. I don't usually call myself fundamental, because what the term has come to mean, is not how I am. But I do believe in the bible and that what it says is real. And for some people that makes me a fundamentalist.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's no "harm" in believing in creation - except when it spills into secular institutions and people try to form legislation based on those beliefs.

Religion has no place in science classrooms, intelligent design which has become little more than 'creationism' by stealth, attempts to propagandise the subject and subvert the methods of scientific inquiry.

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

There's no "harm" in believing in creation - except when it spills into secular institutions and people try to form legislation based on those beliefs.

Religion has no place in science classrooms, intelligent design which has become little more than 'creationism' by stealth, attempts to propagandise the subject and subvert the methods of scientific inquiry.

that i'll agree with

and btw, i don't believe in the creationism in the classroom. i've yet to meet anyone in kansas that does.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's no "harm" in believing in creation - except when it spills into secular institutions and people try to form legislation based on those beliefs.

Religion has no place in science classrooms, intelligent design which has become little more than 'creationism' by stealth, attempts to propagandise the subject and subvert the methods of scientific inquiry.

that i'll agree with

and btw, i don't believe in the creationism in the classroom. i've yet to meet anyone in kansas that does.

Not to mention that subverting science with religion and politics is potentially dangerous. While what we're talking about is not comparable to this, propagandised pseudo-science was one of the tools the Nazis used to justify aryanism and racial superiority.

[ILIKEALLCAPS 0]

It really matters where you get your definition from, as they seem to vary. I believe fundamentalism is defined two different ways.

One way it is defined by people who think if someone believes what the bible (substitute any other religion's book) is all true, then they are a "fundamentalist". That name is usually given by people who do not like that those ppl actually believe what the bible(etc) says. Does that mean they are completely intolerant? Intolerant to accept those ideas into their own lives, yes, but that doesn't mean they go around threatening people.

The other way it is used for extremists who DO wish harm on others due to their intolerance.

I would be called a fundamentalist by some as I do believe what the bible says is real. However I don't go around being intolerant to every person who doesn't agree, I just agree to disagree. If you look at the definition from webster this it what it says:

Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism

Pronunciation: -t&-"li-z&m

Function: noun

1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs

2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism>

"Fundamentalist" describes a movement to return to what is considered the defining or founding principles of the religion. (wikipedia)

In the websters definition there is no "intolerance" listed in the definition.

In my opinion, the word fundamentalist has gone from meaning someone who really believes what their holy book says is true, into meaning crazy people who wish death on those who don't believe the same and just will not tolerate it. The name is usually given by those who don't like the label "terrorist" that gets thrown around a lot these days. So it's ok for them to label ppl fundamentalists right and left, who are not threatening anyone, but they don't want you to label people terrorists.

So if I am going to be called a fundamentalistbecause I believe the bible is true, then I don't care, and that's what I was joking with Marissa about. In people's opinions, my beliefs would be fundamental. Yet where is the intolerance or threatening in my words? There is a lot of intolerance for those who believe the bible is true. I don't usually call myself fundamental, because what the term has come to mean, is not how I am. But I do believe in the bible and that what it says is real. And for some people that makes me a fundamentalist.

Fundamentalism is indeed defined just about at many ways as there are dictionaries. However, most of them agree that the majority of people who describe themselves as 'fundamentalists' take the bible, and each and every word therein, as the absolute and literal truth. As such they get quite irate when confronted by non-fundamentalists that are either diluting the pure word of god, or are trying to point out contradictions in the text. I would hazard a guess that it would indicate major insecurities in their beliefs. That any hint that the infallibility of the manuscript is indeed fallible leaves them with a distinct (if subconsious) feeling of isolation, abandonment, and betrayal. This would be when the intolerance comes in....the "it's so because it's so, and if you believe otherwise you'd best shut up or we'll make you shut up!" that makes the name 'fundamentalist' have negative connotations. Somewhere along the line the message goes from 'stick to the fundamentals' and becomes 'anyone who doesn't believe exactly as we do is wrong and must be converted or punished'. Stina, I applaud you for not joining in on that facet of fundamentalism. You have your faith, and follow it, and that's good for you. And yet, you understand that not everyone has to be on that path, and I think that's good for us all.

By the way, the rest of that wikipedia article (found here) has some interesting things on the history of the fundamentalist movement. I take anything from Wikipedia with a grain of salt though, as it's a conglomeration of things, edited by a bunch of different people at different times and therefore bound to have inaccuracies throughout......much like another reference text I could mention

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Fundamentalism is indeed defined just about at many ways as there are dictionaries. However, most of them agree that the majority of people who describe themselves as 'fundamentalists' take the bible, and each and every word therein, as the absolute and literal truth. As such they get quite irate when confronted by non-fundamentalists that are either diluting the pure word of god, or are trying to point out contradictions in the text. I would hazard a guess that it would indicate major insecurities in their beliefs. That any hint that the infallibility of the manuscript is indeed fallible leaves them with a distinct (if subconsious) feeling of isolation, abandonment, and betrayal. This would be when the intolerance comes in....the "it's so because it's so, and if you believe otherwise you'd best shut up or we'll make you shut up!" that makes the name 'fundamentalist' have negative connotations. Somewhere along the line the message goes from 'stick to the fundamentals' and becomes 'anyone who doesn't believe exactly as we do is wrong and must be converted or punished'.

Well said!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I take anything from Wikipedia with a grain of salt though, as it's a conglomeration of things, edited by a bunch of different people at different times and therefore bound to have inaccuracies throughout......much like another reference text I could mention

In point of fact, Wikipedia is more accurate than you might think. Wish I could find the details; but, a few months ago I heard of a study that compared Wikipedia to Britannica which was reviewed by experts in key fields. Wikipedia, according to this study, had only a slightly higher margin of error than Britannica (1-2 errors more per article, including technical errors and typoes/grammatical errors, etc.).

[Fuzzness 2]

how hypocritical to question a scientific theory yet blindly follow what is said in a book that has absolutely no proof whatsoever that what it says has actually happened.

you never cease to amaze me

Are you saying none of the events, people, or places in the Bible can be proven? Because I would so DEARLY love to prove you wrong.

Please do prove me wrong!

[Scott & Lai 12]

I have not yet read the entire thread... just the first few pages... but I would like to say that the Bible clearly talks about the world being flat - four corners of the earth... hmmmmmmmmmmmm Galileo was condemned to spend his life under house arrest for daring to suggest that the sun was the centre of the solar system and that the earth was not flat...

Why not re-introduce the flat earth theory??? It is about as relevant as that of creation.

No, the Bible does not actually say that the Earth is flat, nor does it state that the Sun in fact revolves around the Earth. "Four corners" is a metaphorical way of refering to the whole Earth, the same way we speak of the four points of the compass. And I'm sure you speak of "sunrise", instead of something like, "The imaginary line of the horizon descended due to the Earth's rotation this morning so that the Sun became visible at our longitude at 0655 ante-meridian local time."