Now they want Mandatory church Attendance

[JohnStOnge]

So, you really think it's okay to have a leader that is stupid enough to believe that evolution isn't true and that the Earth is 6,000 years old? That doesn't raise a few red flags for you?

I don't think it is an indication that they are "stupid." What you're doing when thinking of the Earth as billions of years old or accepting the theory of evolution, probably, is pretty much taking things on faith. It's the conventional, acceptable, wisdom so that's what you believe. You probably haven't independently determined that the conventional wisdom is correct.

I'm the same way to a certain extent.

But I think that there are some very intelligent people who have decided to believe otherwise on the basis of faith. I might worry about that if it had any practical significance. But it doesn't. There is almost NO situation in the day to day lives of most people in which whether someone believes the world is 6,000 years old really matters.

Yes it matters if you're a paleontologist or something. But paleontology is just kind of a "gee that's nice to know" field.

[Vidav]

So, you really think it's okay to have a leader that is stupid enough to believe that evolution isn't true and that the Earth is 6,000 years old? That doesn't raise a few red flags for you?

I don't think it is an indication that they are "stupid." What you're doing when thinking of the Earth as billions of years old or accepting the theory of evolution, probably, is pretty much taking things on faith. It's the conventional, acceptable, wisdom so that's what you believe. You probably haven't independently determined that the conventional wisdom is correct.

I'm the same way to a certain extent.

But I think that there are some very intelligent people who have decided to believe otherwise on the basis of faith. I might worry about that if it had any practical significance. But it doesn't. There is almost NO situation in the day to day lives of most people in which whether someone believes the world is 6,000 years old really matters.

Yes it matters if you're a paleontologist or something. But paleontology is just kind of a "gee that's nice to know" field.

No, evidence and faith are not the same thing.

[polsongrizz]

Especially if they're one of the most brilliant students to ever attend Harvard law.

I have no idea as to what Cruz thinks about how old the Earth is but, yes, you're correct. What I listen to is what he says about the Constitution, etc. And I like what he says in that regard. So I couldn't care less about what he thinks about how old the Earth is. It really doesn't matter.

I mean think about it. If you listen to someone speak and you agree with everything they say in terms of the way government should operate and they think the Earth is 6,000 years old are you REALLY going to rule them out because they think the Earth is 6,000 years old? What the hell difference does it make? I mean really.

YES!!! For someone who thinks they are brilliant you are fairly slow. Only those who believe the earth is 6000 y/o are churchers. They have been attacking science in every state they control. They are already trying to force bible classes into public schools to be taught as Fact, not the Fiction it is. That is the problem.

[polsongrizz]

She did not seriously propose mandatory Church attendance.

Then this is just as fcking bad. Let me spell it out for you. If SHE is not serious then why in the fck are all of these wackjob churcher/baggers wasting money and time proposing such crap?

[kalm]

So, you really think it's okay to have a leader that is stupid enough to believe that evolution isn't true and that the Earth is 6,000 years old? That doesn't raise a few red flags for you?

I don't think it is an indication that they are "stupid." What you're doing when thinking of the Earth as billions of years old or accepting the theory of evolution, probably, is pretty much taking things on faith. It's the conventional, acceptable, wisdom so that's what you believe. You probably haven't independently determined that the conventional wisdom is correct.

I'm the same way to a certain extent.

But I think that there are some very intelligent people who have decided to believe otherwise on the basis of faith. I might worry about that if it had any practical significance. But it doesn't. There is almost NO situation in the day to day lives of most people in which whether someone believes the world is 6,000 years old really matters.

Yes it matters if you're a paleontologist or something. But paleontology is just kind of a "gee that's nice to know" field.

So…science only matters when you politically agree with it?

[Brock Landers]

I don't think it is an indication that they are "stupid." What you're doing when thinking of the Earth as billions of years old or accepting the theory of evolution, probably, is pretty much taking things on faith.

That's the opposite of what it is

[CID1990]

Actually shouldn't the title be, "Now This Woman Wants Mandatory Church Attendance"?

If you think she is the only one then you haven't been paying attention...

So who's "they"?

Im not part of "they"

Apparently you're not part of "they"

Who's "they" in Arizona?

[houndawg]

If you think she is the only one then you haven't been paying attention...

So who's "they"?

Im not part of "they"

Apparently you're not part of "they"

Who's "they" in Arizona?

The peyote people?

[polsongrizz]

If you think she is the only one then you haven't been paying attention...

So who's "they"?

Im not part of "they"

Apparently you're not part of "they"

Who's "they" in Arizona?

North Carolina Lawmakers Introduce Law To Establish An Official State Religion

Florida Amendment 8, the "Religious Freedom" act, lets the state government use taxpayer money to help fund religious schools, churches and other religious institutions.

Florida Republicans passed SB 98, a bill that would promote prayer in public schools .

Students in Texas' public schools are still learning that the Bible provides scientific evidence that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that astronauts have discovered "a day missing in space in elapsed time" that affirms biblical stories of the sun standing still and moving backwards.

South Dakota and Kansas tried to pass a law that made it legal to kill abortion Dr's.

The list obviously goes on but just some of the crazy in our country...

[CID1990]

Let me know when these things become SCOTUS vetted law - also let me know when the sky falls

[Grizalltheway]

I'm impressed you were able to move those goalposts all by yourself.

[Chizzang]

I don't think it is an indication that they are "stupid." What you're doing when thinking of the Earth as billions of years old or accepting the theory of evolution, probably, is pretty much taking things on faith. It's the conventional, acceptable, wisdom so that's what you believe. You probably haven't independently determined that the conventional wisdom is correct.

I'm the same way to a certain extent.

But I think that there are some very intelligent people who have decided to believe otherwise on the basis of faith. I might worry about that if it had any practical significance. But it doesn't. There is almost NO situation in the day to day lives of most people in which whether someone believes the world is 6,000 years old really matters.

'
This ^ is where you are your most entertaining - because you express your true agenda here
So instead of logic and reason (which you make great claims of)
you set them down here and move into "it's okay to believe in the tooth fairy" even if you're 45 years old
Because it doesn't actually have any "practical significance"



But it does...
Do we really want a guy like EXPANDOS as the president..?
Do we really want somebody so out of touch with commonly agreed logic and reason..?

Because right now (as you love to point out) we have a President who is extremely "out of touch"
and you HATE IT... Our President is an example of somebody who completely believes their own Bull sh*t
Much the same - only different - than the guys you're defending as harmless
and this country absolutely does not need ANY more of those - in any form

.... Believing utter bull sh*t is not harmless - as we see in action every day in politics

[CID1990]

I'm impressed you were able to move those goalposts all by yourself.

I never set them- I was trying to figure out who the boogeyman was

or if there IS a boogeyman - turns out there isnt, really

[JohnStOnge]

So…science only matters when you politically agree with it?

No, it matters in a practical sense when it matters. Example: You need brain surgery. Your life is at stake. There is guy who is revered as the best brain surgeon in the world and you can have him handle your surgery. But he is a creationist who believes that the world is 6,000 years old and does not believe in evolution.

Are you going to give a crap? Are you going to say, "Even though he's the best brain surgeon in the world I don't want to use him because he thinks the World is only 6,000 years old"? And, yes, that sort of scenario is possible.

When you're talking about stuff like how old the earth is, whether or not the over arching theory of evolution is correct, whether or not black holes exist, whether or not there is an oscillating universe or not, etc., it's all nice stuff to talk about. But it does not matter in a practical sense.

Now, if you're talking about whether or not a particular drug has an effect in curing or reducing the impact of a particular disease, that matters. Religion does run afoul of that sort of thing sometimes and in those cases some serious issues arise. And, yes, something like the Climate Change thing has practical significance because if the alarmists are right it does matter. Regardless of what the truth is it's something where decisions one way or the other have real impact.

But whether somebody believes in evolution or not or believes the Earth is 6,000 years old or not has no practical significance at all in most real world situations. And especially if what you're talking about is someone how is a political leader.

[houndawg]

So, you really think it's okay to have a leader that is stupid enough to believe that evolution isn't true and that the Earth is 6,000 years old? That doesn't raise a few red flags for you?

I don't think it is an indication that they are "stupid." What you're doing when thinking of the Earth as billions of years old or accepting the theory of evolution, probably, is pretty much taking things on faith. It's the conventional, acceptable, wisdom so that's what you believe. You probably haven't independently determined that the conventional wisdom is correct.

I'm the same way to a certain extent.

But I think that there are some very intelligent people who have decided to believe otherwise on the basis of faith. I might worry about that if it had any practical significance. But it doesn't. There is almost NO situation in the day to day lives of most people in which whether someone believes the world is 6,000 years old really matters.

Yes it matters if you're a paleontologist or something. But paleontology is just kind of a "gee that's nice to know" field.

It sure is an indication that they aren't interested in facts. Which isn't very smart for a national leader.

Similar to the extraordinary lengths you go to whitewash your fundamentalist beliefs with a veneer of science.

[JohnStOnge]

It sure is an indication that they aren't interested in facts. Which isn't very smart for a national leader.

Maybe they're interested in other facts such as the fact that we have strayed WAY away from the Constitution in terms of what it says and the original understanding of various bits of language in it. That's a hell of a lot more important to our day to day lives than the question of whether the Earth is 6,000 years old or 5 billion years old.

BTW, I do believe that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old as the estimates suggest. But I also believe it's incorrect to call any estimate of the age of the Earth a fact. Aging things is based on our understanding of how certain things behave over time and assumptions that certain things happen in certain ways. There is no way of validating the techniques used to estimate the age of the Earth with respect to the time frames involved. By validating, I mean something like this:

You find a brand new planet and note the date it formed. Five billion years later you have scientists use the techniques they use to age planets and have them do a "blind" estimate where they use those techniques without knowing the date you observed 5 billion years earlier. And they estimate 5 billion years. Now the techniques are validated for estimating the age of a planet that is 5 billion years old or younger.

Obviously, that hasn't happened. We accept things all the time such that the scientific community says something and has absolutely no way of really validating it.

But the saving grace is that most of the time whether they are right or not in such scenarios has no practical significance to our day to day lives anyway.