Barbara Forrest: The Woman Texas Creationists Don't Like#2

[Cousinsjay]

you go girl....great job! 

[thesageofohio]

she was so true when she stated that christians want a theoracy. nothing upsets them more knowing this country was created a secular nation not a christian nation.

[benbisley]

Speaking as an academic with a doctorate in Three Bears Studies I have to say that I believe in the historical truth of a global flood which covered the Himalayas, the Andes and the Alps all at the same time. Goldilocks herself told me so.

[lordmetal2]

Life is pointless, but i have NO problem whatsoever with that. Neither should you

[hybridamerica]

Look up, "Myth of Christian Martyrdom" - and you'll find that 95% of tales of Christian Martyrs is LORE - with no verification other than legends.

Yet another Christian exaggeration (lie) they use to prop up their farce.

[Acrimonator]

Creationism renamed ID like KKK renamed to NRA...

[jbernest]

different topic...freshwater and marine mollusk shells help marine biologists study historical changes in water depth. analysis at the black sea (salt water) shows no marine mollusks prior to 6.8k ya, while freshwater mollusks date from 10-15k ya. also an abrupt change from layers of silty mud to organic-rich marine layers. interpretation--a great flood causing rapid mixing of fresh and salt water...Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 128 (2004) 143-167.

[DarthServo]

A "great flood" in the black sea in no way indicates a thermodynamics-defying global flood that creationists propose.

[jbernest]

pubmed search results...all of these are controversial even among evolutionists...Australopithec­us afarensis--weighed ~60lbs, possible bipedalism but hands suited for grabbing trees, gorrilla-like mandibles. Homo floresiensis--only partial scapula and humerus found, same stature as modern pygmy people. possibilities--ape, human, primitive human (yes, possible), dwarfed/diseased/malnutrition.­..my point is interpretation depends on pre-existing views. and I promise I'm in a phd science program

[DarthServo]

You betray your lack of science understanding by obsessing over terminology like "possible". Science ALWAYS deals in terminology like that. Science admits it might be wrong about things and changes its views when new evidence comes to light. However, the lack of 100% certainty is NOT evidence against a particular position, nor is it evidence for what is essentially magic (creationism).

You can promise you're a scientist till the cows come home. Your statements scream otherwise.

[jbernest]

What is the "proof of evolution" for explaining humans? It is a theory because no missing link has been found. Either theory can agree with science. Creationists trust the biblical account of creation, and Jesus affirmed the scriptures. He claimed to God. He can either be insane, history's greatest illusionist and liar, or the Son of God. 11 of 12 of Christ's closest friends chose to die rather than deny that Christ was God. That's my evidence for creation, and I am a scientist.

[Mektefuzas]

"That's my evidence for creation, and I am a scientist. "

NO, you aren´t... scientists don´t need faith, they rely on evidence. And you seem really confused on the field of science. The word "theory" is used for the highest form of proof in science (and there are thousands of fossils). Please, next time try to learn something before you post such BS

[jbernest]

Thousands of fossils of missing links between ape and man? Name one. Not bragging, but I do know something about science as I am in a genetics/biochemistry PhD program. My point is that scientists have pre-existing views about God, and they interpret science to fit their view, myself included. So which option about Jesus do you choose, or do you have another alternative?

[Mektefuzas]

Oh, I forgot those fossils, so here they are:

Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Paranthropus aethiopicus, Paranthropus robustus, Homo erectus, Homo rudolfensis, Homo habilis, Homo georgicus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor,

Homo neanderthalensis, Homo rhodesiensis,

Homo floresiensis, Homo sapiens......

Yeah, there is absolutely no proof for human evolution....

[Mektefuzas]

I realy doubt that you have anything to do with science, because you confuse terms like "theory" and "hypothesis". Evolution is a theory, because it has undoubtful explanation for diversity of life (including humans) and it´s foundational theory of biology. To reject any part of evolution, you would need to reject genetics/biochemistry too!!!! If you are in PhD program, then it must be something wrong with your educational system....

[sinusbradycardia]

I'm a scientist too and that is a relatively weak evidence for creation. BTW, my 10 year is a scientist as well and my 2 year old and think majority of people can call themselves a scientist. So simply calling yourself a scientist, doesn't mean squat!

[jbernest]

All evidence for evolution or creation is weak if viewed objectively. Creationists' pre-existing belief is that the Bible is from God and is true, based on its impact, Jesus' life, etc. Evolutionists' pre-existing belief is that the Bible is not 100% true. The way people interpret "evidence" depends on their pre-existing belief. My point was that I understand the facts just like you or any scientist, but the facts don't prove how humans came to be and they are consistent with both views.

[DarthServo]

"but the facts don't prove how humans came to be and they are consistent with both views."

Wrong. Only someone completely ignorant of the process of pattern recognition can think the evidence is in any way consistent with creationism. If some deity did create the world the way it is, that deity is completely dishonest. Every dating technique known completely destroys a 6000 year age for the planet and bio-system. Even something as simple as tree-ring dating disproves a 6000-year age.

[jbernest]

John 20 "I have not yet returned to my father and your father, my God and your God." I would say claiming God as his father is the same as being the Son of God.

It's tree fossils that are used to date organic materials, and these are accurate up to tens of 1000s, not millions of years ago.

I agree that lack of 100% certainty of one theory doesn't prove the other theory. My point is that both theories are feasible depending on your prior assumption--either God or infinite time.

[DarthServo]

"I would say claiming God as his father is the same as being the Son of God. "

The point I addressed was your claim that Jesus said he was God, not God's Son. You can't even keep on topic.

[jbernest]

God exists in three forms, Father, Son, and Spirit. The Son is the form that walked the earth. Is that not generally understood?

[DarthServo]

The concept of the trinity was created centuries after Jesus died. Jesus himself never hinted at anything like it.

watch?v=fnj7PlqmJ5o

And not all Christians accept the concept of the trinity.

[jbernest]

Alright, switching gears to theology...there are clear references to all three....Jesus mentions God, his father, who sent him, often. God the Father sent the spirit as a dove when Jesus was baptized and Jesus told people the holy spirit remains with them to give them faith just before he ascended to heaven....anyway, I'm out for a while, it's good for me hearing objections to my beliefs because it prepares me for giving a better answer in person.

[DarthServo]

Yes, the New Testament mentions Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It does NOT say they are all one and the same being. In fact the story you cite about Jesus' baptism indicates the opposite; that they are DIFFERENT individuals, occupying different points in space, having one (Holy Spirit) follow the instructions of the other (The Father).

[DarthServo]

Further, the verse you already cited "I have not yet returned to my father and your father, my God and your God." further points to the conclusion that the trinity is wrong. Jesus clearly states that "his God" is the same as the one the Jews worshiped, and that Jesus is NOT in fact that being. Especially if Jesus needs to return to him. How does one return to himself? According to trinitarian thinking, that passage should read, "I go to myself, and to myself. And to myself and to myself".

[jbernest]

I'm no Billy Graham, but my thinking...Jesus didn't go around boasting that he was God--that would have been a display of pride. Ok I'll give you that then...my past comment should have said "Jesus claimed to be God's son sent from heaven." As for your last few questions, those are excellent questions...I think you've made assumptions though already in the questions. But regardless, I don't have a simple answer, like I don't have a simple answer for the free will vs. election question.

[DarthServo]

To whom was Jesus praying if he is God?

How can there be things that God knows but Jesus does not?

How can Jesus and the Father have different wills if they are the same being?

How could the Father have abandoned Jesus on the cross if Jesus is the Father?

watch?v=fnj7PlqmJ5o

[jbernest]

Friday starts winter break, but until then no more youtube posting for me.

[namkari]

DarthServo

Jesus was God in the form of man. During the time He walked the Earth he was subjected not only to the same temptations & struggles of man, but also the same limitations. God revealed things to Jesus, whom, because He had been born & raised a man, didn't fully understand, as needed. SEE NEXT ENTRY

[DarthServo]

More admission that Jesus was NOT God, if God could understand something and the same time that Jesus didn't understand it. God doesn't need to "reveal things to Jesus" if God really IS Jesus. You're saying God is revealing truth to himself. Total nonsense.

[Kaalec]

@namkari Stating "Jesus was God in the form of man" is like stating, "Elves are the bastard offspring of leprechauns and the Easter Bunny." They both identify beings for which not a single shred of evidence – hard, real evidence, not justifications –exists. But at least in my version, that most favoured of human activity, sex, is clearly a part of the beings' system of reverence.

[namkari]

Jesus saying let your will not mine be done is referring to the night before Jesus knew he was to be tortured & crucified. Submitting his will (his human desire of self-preservation & well being) to God's plan was the ultimate act of obedience. Because Jesus lived a perfect life & was completely obedient to God's will he became the only human who was worthy to act as the final & ultimate sacrifice for sin.

[DarthServo]

Mere repetition of your beliefs without actually justifying any of them. You're making excuses, not debating logically. Jesus and God had different wills, thus they can't be the same being.

[namkari]

While on the cross, Jesus was heaped with the sin of the world from the beginning to the end of time, not that he himself committed, but that all of us committed. I'd say when Jesus asked God why he had forsaken him right before he declared his work on the cross finished and died, that he probably felt further away from God than anyone ever had or will feel (since sin separates us from God). Not that you really care or even wanted this little commentary.

[DarthServo]

It is impossible to feel "further away" from YOURSELF, which is what you're arguing Jesus went through. You're so indoctrinated that all you know how to do is mindlessly repeat the dogma that's been drilled into your head over your lifetime and never take a serious critical look at what your saying to see if it even makes any sense or is self-consistent.

[1Skeptik1]

Namkari - Jesus heaped with sin? But a retelling of Yom Kippur, the Jewish goat replaced by the Christian Jesus ,an atonement for sin and no less bizarre or irrational. Regards

[Kaalec]

@namkari My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me was taken from the 22nd Psalm in which there is a very good description of what, according to the gospels, happened to Jesus – the crucifixion, the casting of lots for his garments. It was the gospel writers' ways of illustrating that Jesus was fulfilling prophecy. The gospel writers made sure their fictional hero was truly the son of God. They made up new lies to prove the old lies. But your interpretation of the gospels is pretty shallow.

[jbernest]

I guess people don't always believe you if you state a simple fact about yourself like "I'm a scientist". I said that just to clarify that I am educated in science and can have an informed conversation about evolution. I am working on a PhD at U of Tennessee in genome science and technology, for what it's worth.

[DarthServo]

"Creationists trust the biblical account of creation, and Jesus affirmed the scriptures. He claimed to God. He can either be insane, history's greatest illusionist and liar, or the Son of God"

Or people put words in his mouth and writers of the four Gospels...took liberties...in their recording of Jesus' life. Oh, and Jesus himself NEVER said he was God.

Fanatical zeal is proof of nothing. And your evidence of the deaths of the writers of the New Testament is all apocryphal at best.

[DarthServo]

"Creationists trust the biblical account of creation, and Jesus affirmed the scriptures."

watch?v=ZFrkjEgUDZA

Citing a metaphorical story doesn't mean one thinks it actually occurred. I cite moral of the story of "The Little Red Hen" all the time. Doesn't prove I think its literally true. Jesus repeatedly taught in parables. Those stories never literally happened so why should Genesis be any different?

watch?v=fnj7PlqmJ5o&feature=Pl­ayList&p=126AFB53A6F002CC&inde­x=2

[DarthServo]

"[Jesus] claimed to God."

No, he didn't. Jesus himself never made any such claim. Don't even think of citing John 1. Jesus didn't utter those words. John did, over 50 years after the fact.

watch?v=fnj7PlqmJ5o

[ccp5150]

The Fundies are profound hypocrites. They want to deny your children a good scientific education, but when they get sick, they don't go to their witch doctors with the pointy hats and incense bowls. Instead, they go to REAL scientists and REAL doctors who understand that evolution is real and proven. Any Creationist who sees an M.D. is a fraud and a liar. This isn't about truth, it's about POWER.

[JackHartHome]

Choosing to use the label "Creationism" instead of "Intelligent Design" tells me she has a weak case and she has an anti-religion bias.

It's the same with labeling "pro life" people as "Anti abortion".

It's a cheap trick.

[rohanwotan2]

Or.....it could just be she's honest. There is nothing intelligent about Intelligent Design. Evolution is fact. Even set aside the fossil record, the DNA record is quite conclusive.

[thecaneater]

... You do know that it's a matter of public knowledge that the major proponents of "intelligent design" has been shown to pick this title purely because "creationism" has that horrible state-religion separation taboo, and this has been demonstrated with their own literature, right?

And your choice of "anti-religion" shows to me you have an "anti-secular government" bias.

The whole issue isn't about being against religion in any sense, it's about wanting government to be secular.

[ThieleM]

No you just hate the fact that you dont have a leg to stand on when it comes to this intelligent design bullshit. The truth sometimes hurts.....you are just feeling that pain.

[DarthServo]

Intelligent design is creationism in a clown suit. Various editions "Of Pandas and People" subpoenaed at the Dover Trial proved it, as 'creationism' was replaced with 'ID' after teaching creationism was ruled unconstitutional. One edition even had this done rather sloppily with creationism not entirely replaced. The resulting text was something like cintelligent designism'.

The only one pulling cheap tricks is you and the creatio...er...um...ID advocates.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

First, the Constitution doesn't authorize the government to be in public education. Second, the 1st Amendment does not exclude God from public classrooms. It only prohibits the government from making a law mandating us to observe their religion over another. And last but not least, we woudn't have a Constitution if it wasn't for the Declaration of Independence. And it says our rights are inherent to us from our Creator. So it's not just religious to teach about our Creator. It's political too !

[grashum]

how is it not religious to teach about a creator? Its impossible to teach about a "creator" without being religious. And I'm sure that you are not proposing teaching about any creator, but your specific creator, and that is antithetical to the foundations on which this country was founded. People came here to escape being forced to follow one specific religion, not to establish a country that would seek to enforce one specific religious viewpoint.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

I said "it's not just religious to teach about our Creator. It's political too". I'm learning science itself becomes a religion of sorts to evolutionists. But they won't admit they deny God while they tout their credo that "science makes no claims to the supernatural".  But I agree with you how this country was founded. And so I don't care who your God is. As long as we both agree our rights are inherent to us antecedent of government. Which should not be unconstitutional to teach in school.

[califoniania]

"I'm learning science itself becomes a religion of sorts to evolutionists."

Bullshit! Evolution is no more a religion than atomic theory. It has no gods, no tenets, no clergy, not even a philosophy. You are just making a dishonest attempt to bring evolution down to your level.

"But they won't admit they deny God"

Ken Miller. DonExodus2. You lose.

"Which should not be unconstitutional to teach in school. "

Alright, then we'll teach about ALL of the gods as the US cannot favor one faith.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

The only statement you made worth commenting on is your last one. To which (as I said before) as long as we agree our rights are divinely inherent (be they from the god of your choice, or even merely just from nature itself) & antecedent of government, then I don't care if your particular god califoniania happens to be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or not, or whomever. And I agree that in that context, it should not be unconstitutional for these gods to be discussed in schools.

[califoniania]

"The only statement you made worth commenting on is your last one"

Only the last one? You do know that both Ken Miller and DonExodus are Christians, right? Therefore I demonstrably refuted your assertion that evolution supporters seek to renounce God.

"as long as we agree our rights are divinely inherent"

Sorry, no dice. There is no evidence of gods giving anyone rights, only books that claim they did. As far as we know, rights were developed, not revealed.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

I know Ken MIller claims to be Catholic. But they don't believe in the Jesus of the bible. Because their jesus is still on the cross. Which they depend upon everytime they go into their confession booth (1 John 1:9). But the work of my Jesus is finished (John 19:30) Who has already ascended unto glory (Acts 1:9). As for DonExodus2, I don't know anything about him except from his profile page. And just from that, I would say he's a heretic too. I know YEC is false. But to deny creation is heresy.

[califoniania]

"But they don't believe in the Jesus of the bible."

Who the hell are you to tell them that their interpretation is wrong?

"I would say he's a heretic too. I know YEC is false. But to deny creation is heresy. "

You'd fit right in with the Spanish Inquisition. How you can have the hubris to say your interpretation is right and theirs is wrong when you can't even substantiate that creation ever occurred. Given that their interpretation is more in line with reality, maybe you're the heretic.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

Come back and talk to me again after you have studied the bible for 20 years. Because I, unlike them (well DonExodus2 at least anyway), don't deny either science, nor the bible.

[califoniania]

"Come back and talk to me again after you have studied the bible for 20 years."

Why? I don't have to study Cinderella for 20 years to know it's a fantasy. How is the Bible any different aside from the fact that it CLAIMS to be true?

"Because I, unlike them (well DonExodus2 at least anyway), don't deny either science, nor the bible. "

Creation is not supported by science at all and saying so doesn't change that. If by creation you mean theistic evolution, DonExodus supports it too.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

You can make no claim to the validity of any religion if you haven't studied the bible.

And science, not even abiogenesis, has 100% irrefutably disproven creation. And like I said before, I knew nothing of DonExodus2. And if he is at least a theistic-evolutionist, and doesn't totally deny creation, then he's not a heretic. At least not as far as creation goes.

But if you respect him so much, then why are you such a staunch atheist ?

[califoniania]

"You can make no claim to the validity of any religion if you haven't studied the bible."

I didn't say I haven't studied it, I said I hadn't studied it for 20 years, nor do I need to. How many times do I have read Harry Potter or The Odyssey to know it's fictional?

"And science, not even abiogenesis, has 100% irrefutably disproven creation."

Right, because 100% proof or disproof is impossible (even gravity isn't 100% proven). Science operates on the best evidence available.

[califoniania]

"But if you respect him so much, then why are you such a staunch atheist ?"

What, I can't respect someone that believes differently from me? DonExodus2 is intellectually honest, doesn't deny reality, and is intelligent as well. Those are admirable qualities no matter who they come from or what that person's personal beliefs are. As for why I'm an atheist, I simply haven't been convinced by any of the thousands of myths out there.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

How did you come to respect him ? Did you introduce yourself to him like you did with me ? I noticed once you learned I wasn't a YEC you lightened up. I'm willing to give abiogenesis & evolution the credit they both deserve as legitimate sciences. And again, not knowing DonExodus2, I can't say this about him. But it's been my experience most evolutionists are not intellectually honest. They just repeat their credo. But deny their science attempts to explain the origin of species apart from God.

[califoniania]

"How did you come to respect him?"

His videos mostly. They are educational, well thought out, and helpful. He's also a decent guy too.

"Did you introduce yourself to him like you did with me"

I don't tap dance around and when I feel someone is wrong I point it out and expect the same in return. I may have been rough around the edges at first and I apologize for that.

[califoniania]

"I noticed once you learned I wasn't a YEC you lightened up."

Actually, it's normal for me to lighten up as the conversation progresses. While I can't say for sure that subconsciously it wasn't a factor (because I just don't know), I believe the main reason was that you seemed to be listening and it's common for me to lighten up to someone who is listening and having a meaningful conversation and trash those that refuse to listen.

[califoniania]

"it's been my experience most evolutionists are not intellectually honest. They just repeat their credo."

Some aren't intellectually honest, but you can't go and paint the whole group with one brush. They come from all different backgrounds: Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, deist, and atheist. The main reason you see a ton of repetition is because we get the same exact creationist comments over and over again ad infinitum. When something new is brought to the table, we give a new response.

[califoniania]

"But deny their science attempts to explain the origin of species apart from God. "

Some do and some don't. Like I stated in the previous comment, evolution supporters (we don't like the term "evolutionist" as it's not only insinuating that we are some sort of ideology but is also inaccurate) come from different backgrounds and where a Ken Miller will always include God, a Richard Dawkins will always exclude God as unscientific.

[DarthServo]

"But deny their science attempts to explain the origin of species apart from God."

Evolution explains the origin of species apart from MAGIC, not God. There's a difference. God is neither supported nor denied in evolution theory, just like the rest of science. Science deals with objective reality, not what someone 'believes in their heart'

[jbernest]

I'm not a creationism advocate or whatever, just believe that young students should be presented with both sides, rather than told (even though it's true) that most scientists believe man evolved, and therefore they should too, and that creationism is bogus.

[DarthServo]

"11 of 12 of Christ's closest friends chose to die rather than deny that Christ was God."

The same can be said for the founder of the Mormon Church. Shall I go call the LDS missionaries and tell them you with to convert?

[JemyM]

You do not need to read the bible to discard the religion, but the bible really is one of the greatest arguments for atheism available. People who haven't read it doesn't know how far removed from modern insight it is.

[darkblood626]

People who look to the bible for moral guidance never read the fucking bible.

[thechessstick]

The secular materialists who dominate today have only man's opinion on which to base everything.  Man has a fallen mind. I hope this helps. The Word of God is true and is perfect. It is upon this that we must base all of our morals... God bless... The Stick...

[kingthamus]

Go Constitution!

[godscuttingyoudown]

scientist pick on creationism because they know its bogus but a great distraction from another theory that hasn't been debunked so they ignore it.

ancient astronuaght theory: beings from other worlds came to earth built structures and messed with our genes

1. Pyramids base consited of 300 tons blocks

2. 30,000 ancient texts talk about the fallen ones from the heavens

3. mayans, egyptians, sumerians celtics all had the zodiac??

4. south american cocaine discoverd in egyptian tombs?

[TheProf1988]

dont forget that the ancients were on the verge of an age of enlightenment by the time of the greeks (who learned a lot from the egyptions). it was creationism that trust us into a 1200 year dark age.

there is growing evidence for trade routes between s.america and the med, its where the myth of the ten kingdoms of atlantis came from. never underestimate the technology of human beings, even ancient ones.

[anchoragemark]

And don't forget that Romans had indoor plumbing. But because of the Church, it took almost 2000 years to become a regular fact of life. And that's still not true everywhere in the world.

[TheProf1988]

watch?v=Oj9rDCrKSHw&feature=ch­annel_page

this is a great video about what knowledge we lost when dogma took over and what *may* have been if we had never had the dark age.

Id probably me messaging you over YouHologram from my comfy sofa on mars if wed have had the enlightenment in the 5th century instead of the 19th.

[thechessstick]

People like this woman simply want to live their lives the way THEY want to live them. They do not want to conform their lives to the will of God. This is typical of homosexuals. No one has answered yet as to whether this chick is Jewish. If so then she is acting very inappropriately. Does anyone know? Cheers... the stick...

[TheProf1988]

'People like this woman simply want to live their lives the way THEY want to live them.'

yep, the difference between scientists and creationists is that scientists are indipendant thinkers and creationists are drones who are fooled into submission. and what do you have agianst homosexuals and jews, take your filthy nazi values out of public areas you hypocrite

[chimpoozle]

I wish it were possible for you to know how stupid you are.

[6u174r]

Sorry, I was going to give you a thumb down, but my mouse slipped. Also, I would suggest reading a bit on the issue and gather information from both sides before you make your decision on this issue. And please don't use the Bible as your only source, please.

[anchoragemark]

Chimpoozle, it is possible but extremely improbable. Let's go try for the Irish Sweepstakes instead.

[JodaSFU]

I'm an atheist, and I take my morals from the categorical imperative (if you know what that is), which has always in some sense existed in human kind (The medieval ages being a LOW for this). I don't kill, steal etc. because I don't want people to do it to me, and because the basis of civilization is law. Your claim that atheism or scientific materialism means no morals is completely baseless. Buddhism, for instance, is an atheistic religion and the one with the best track record regarding moral

[anchoragemark]

Joda, the Dalai Lama was a religious dictator who was forced into his position as a child. I would not hold Buddhism as an example of morality. The Buddhists want you to renounce the ways world and blank out desire. In its purer form, it is also a salvation religion. The path to salvation, however, is much different than other paths, such as Christianity or Scientology or Mormonism, etc. In that regard, it might be seen as more moral. At its core, it still hates the Human Mind.

[JodaSFU]

Hates? No, Buddhism doesn't deal in hate. Disregards? To a certain degree. But even Buddha "said" that we shouldn't believe what anyone told us, lest it made sense to us as individuals. Even his own teachings. And what Buddhists have of immoral traditions, can in no way outweigh the crusades or jihads of the medieval ages in terms of morals. You may see the presumption of the world as an illusion as immoral, but I find it hard to follow you on this.

[JodaSFU]

Although I will give you this: Judaism has a better track record. However, the number of Jews in the world, hardly classifies it as a World Religion.

[anchoragemark]

I find Buddhism to be a religion of mystical collectivism.  And I believe that mystical collectivism, whether it manifests as Christianity or Communism or Islam or whatever, to be the cause of true evil in the world. I don't consider it immoral, I consider it an antecedent of evil. Science is simply a tool of the human mind to perceive what is real and to make accurate predictions, e.g, if I add x to y, I always get the effect z.

[JodaSFU]

Yes, science is the method of describing the world as we can observe and calculate it. I find it hard to see what this has to do with our discussion though.

I see the difference here. I look at a regime's or religion's track record, you look at their collectivity? So, while I conclude that Christianity has an immoral history due to the crusades, witch burnings etc. you conclude that Buddhism is immoral because some parts of it is shrouded in mysticism, or is a mystery to people from the West?

[jenblumfeld]

LOL, I loved it when she said, "Creationists have had to evolve." So true, and yet they deny the process.

[OpenDiscussion]

censorship test

[OpenDiscussion]

censorship test result: PASS

[thechessstick]

Does anyone know if the Barbara Forrest chick is Jewish? She seems to be filled with hate toward Christians.... The stick...

[fismail07]

thechesstick, if as you claim, she is Jewish, and you are associating what she is saying with her Jewishness, then you are merely proving that Jews are really smart people!

[1n354a]

...hate towards Christians? How did you get this? I think that she is pretty straight forward and honest.

[EarlFaulk]

I think that guy is just one of the people she says that gets angry when their beliefs are questioned

[tattypatty]

He gets it from playing the 'victim' role. It's a fun game. Feel free to condemn gays, feminists,rational thinkers, scientists, other religions (even other christians) to a lake of fire and then scream 'HATE' when somebody calls bullshit

[pontolones]

i think you need to deinterlace your bits with just the text. make it a solid image and select "deinterlace" on whatever program you use.

[RolfLarsson]

Makes me sad to live in Texas. These fundamentalists make us progressive, scientific people look bad.

[decemberchill]

how come?

[RolfLarsson]

Because it makes it seem that the ignorant fundamentalist position is the typical position of Texans as a whole.

[KaylinJH]

I agree 100%

[system0slaven]

Death to Religion!

[WoWaddict3d]

Fuck yeah!

[naomi94]

anti-intellectualism is a major problem in American and Australia

[sovijus]

it's worldwide, actually... you can find anti-intellectuals, anti-science people in every society. It's a problem even in my little country.

[KaylinJH]

Im pretty sure you can thank TV and movie stereotypes of "nerds" for that. Its a shame!

[Timbul53525253]

Is it just me or is there an elephant in this room? In the absence of an established church, US protestant ministers are reliant on their congregations for tithes. What motivates people to hand over millions to these shysters? Fear. How best to keep people frightened? Keep them ignorant. That's what truly lies behind creationism...

[aokiji42]

I think the Amish have tried this idea: rejection of modernity for religious reasons. The only problem is, they want to drag the rest of us back into the dark ages. No thank you. Keep crazy to yourselves!

[ThatOneQuestion]

I love how religious fanatics keep trying to sound intelligent. They always fail.

Eventually, all these nut jobs will finally see they cant do anything but keep their mysticism to themselves and let the world go on without their silly beliefs.

[kirafan68]

Thanks for posting!

[Cocheese0]

What a bright woman. What era do creationists long for? The wonderful 30's? The 40's? Or their own concept of what the 50's were like.

[RuinedSaint]

"Or their own concept of what the 50's were like."

They really do have a "Wally & The Beave" perception of reality...

[Saukko31]

"What era do creationists long for? The wonderful 30's? The 40's? Or their own concept of what the 50's were like."

I think it is more like 14th or 15th century.