jdobbin Posted March 18, 2009 Report Posted March 18, 2009 If evolution has nothing to do with god, then what purose would a god have until we became what we are....thats a lot of time to do nothing. So you think that we were created 6000 years ago as we are now. Quote
M.Dancer Posted March 18, 2009 Report Posted March 18, 2009 Thats a lot of random mutations. How many generations in 100 million years? every generation has numerous mutations...most are benign..some are fatal...some are benieficial... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted March 18, 2009 Report Posted March 18, 2009 If evolution has nothing to do with god, then what purose would a god have until we became what we are....thats a lot of time to do nothing. why would God need a purpose? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Alta4ever Posted March 18, 2009 Report Posted March 18, 2009 why would God need a purpose? Is it enough for you to just exist? Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
M.Dancer Posted March 18, 2009 Report Posted March 18, 2009 Is it enough for you to just exist? I am not god and I'm pretty confident that God doesn;t have human needs or weaknesses...like needing a purpose. In my mind it is possible that god is an impersonal entity with ni needs or concerns, perfectly happy to allow the umiverse to unfold without inerference or concern that we aren't enjoying ourselves or that tragedt falls on good and evil alike. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
ToadBrother Posted March 18, 2009 Report Posted March 18, 2009 You are suggesting he gets canned because he alledgedly believes in something. That's bigotry. As far as his department is concerned, he is doing a good job. In my field, if there is a short change in science and technology I would be extremely pissed. However, science and technology are not being canned. So we can safely say this guy is doing an adequate job in spite of being apparently a religious person. You generally don't appoint people whose view is so diametrically opposed to the stated aims of the office to that sort of a position. That's what's called sound management. But this is a matter of Christianity, this guy apparently is one, and you are willing to can him because of his beliefs on the subject, hardly a matter of dismissal. If there was a massive exodus of scientists, or our innovation levels are down, then I'd join you in calling for his head. However they are not, case in point stem cell research. Funny how an alledged creationist would allow this type of research to not only take place, but to prosper under his watch. This is why I call people calling for his head tinfoil hatists. Once again you keep insisting that this is an issue of Christianity. As I've already pointed out a number of Churches have no issue with Christianity, and one of those churches represents over a billion Christians. The fact that you keep insisting that this is somehow a slur on Christians suggests to me that you're a pretty dishonest guy. As to the mass exodus of scientists, well, none of them knew the guy responsible for the funding is a Creationist until today. And the reaction, at least from some quarters has been pretty harsh. Canada has an anti-science Creationist deciding which research gets money. Quote
ToadBrother Posted March 18, 2009 Report Posted March 18, 2009 If evolution has nothing to do with god, then what purose would a god have until we became what we are....thats a lot of time to do nothing. Wait a minute here. I thought God was infinite; the Alpha and the Omega; the first and last, existing outside of time. Now, suddenly God is some finite being who gets bored? At any rate, your private musings on God are rather irrelevant. Since I've already established that being a Christian is not incompatible with accepting evolution, we can move past your own theological leanings to discuss the issue of how someone who in fact appears to disagree with a theory that the overwhelming majority of working scientists simply accept as reality being in charge of scientific funding. Quote
Visionseeker Posted March 18, 2009 Report Posted March 18, 2009 You are the one who doubts his ablity to do his job, based on no facts you are just disriminating against him and his religion. You are a bigot. Well, there are other facts in play: http://www.scribd.com/doc/12931207/Goodyear-Goof- But beyond that, discriminating against stupidity is survival, not bigotry. Quote
ToadBrother Posted March 18, 2009 Report Posted March 18, 2009 Again Mdancer I ask for proof, which we both know does not exist, we have theories. Even Stwphen Hawking changes his mind from time to time on what the Unisverse is doing. At first he thought it was like an elastic band and would expand to a only a certain point then would begin contracting. He then changed his theory. I don't know where you got your knowledge of Hawking, but this reads like some semi-literate moron read the back cover of A Brief History of Time. You're making yourself look like an ignoramus. My point is that they are thories yet to be proven. Its not like sailing around the world or taking pictures of the planet from space. We have no hard evidence of what caused these changes in evolution. I would like to know what event changed dinosaurs into chickens and other birds. Start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ For all those with an open mind and willing to listen, I wold encourage you to watch ben Stein's expelled, very interesting documentary, even if you don't agree with his stance. Ah yes, an open mind, so open in fact that your brain leaks out. As to Stein's Expelled, it wasn't interesting, it was deceptive and dishonest. I'll wager right now you have never read an actual book on evolution by a biologist. In fact, judging by the sheer retardation of your attempt to talk about Hawking, I have a hard time believing you've ever read anything by a scientist. Not surprising that you think Goodyear is okay, being that you're cut from the same cloth. Quote
ToadBrother Posted March 18, 2009 Report Posted March 18, 2009 Well, there are other facts in play:http://www.scribd.com/doc/12931207/Goodyear-Goof- But beyond that, discriminating against stupidity is survival, not bigotry. Yes, Goodyear is a moron, but one wonders what kind of moron would put such a moron in such a portfolio. Well, we all know who, Mr. Social Conservative himself, Stephen Harper. Quote
ToadBrother Posted March 18, 2009 Report Posted March 18, 2009 Just because someone professes a faith in religion does not mean they take the Taliban approach to interpretation. Remember, you Liberal flamers, Paul Martin the church attending Catholic? Why did you not take him to task on this issue? Since I've already established that Christianity, or at least the largest churches, aren't denying evolution, this suggestion that this was an attack on Goodyear's religion is what is disingenuous. Quote
Visionseeker Posted March 18, 2009 Report Posted March 18, 2009 I wonder how it is that Lord Halifax did his job during WWII as he wanted to negociate peace with the Nazi's and not continue the war, yet he remained in the Cabinate an continued to do his job no less. A contrarian point of view about future events is in no way analogous to someone who fails to refute the notion that they believe in fairies. A minister of science who is asked whether he believes in creationism has but one answer to offer: No. Why? Because there is no scientific foundation to support creationism. Quote
Visionseeker Posted March 18, 2009 Report Posted March 18, 2009 Is it enough for you to just exist? YES! Each daily challenge is rather quite illuminating and stimulating. And the realization that I only have one kick at this can is what motivates me to be the best person, son, husband, father, friend that I can be. It's really quite liberating. You should try it. Quote
ToadBrother Posted March 18, 2009 Report Posted March 18, 2009 YES!Each daily challenge is rather quite illuminating and stimulating. And the realization that I only have one kick at this can is what motivates me to be the best person, son, husband, father, friend that I can be. It's really quite liberating. You should try it. Be careful with all of this. All those religious conservatives out there are trying to cast this as poor True Believer Goodyear being picked on by evil atheists. This isn't about whether God exists or not, this is about whether or not someone who rejects a major branch of modern science (and likely a few other major branches as well) should be given responsibility of any kind over a portfolio that supplies money to scientists. Quote
benny Posted March 18, 2009 Report Posted March 18, 2009 Until science shows how human consciousness may have been the product of natural selection, this debate between creationism and evolutionism will not be settled. Steven Pinker, one of the best Canadian scientists, has tried to show that in his book How the Mind Works (1997) without success. Quote
ToadBrother Posted March 18, 2009 Report Posted March 18, 2009 Until science shows how human consciousness may have been the product of natural selection, this debate between creationism and evolutionism will not be settled. Steven Pinker, one of the best Canadian scientists, has tried to show that in his book How the Mind Works (1997) without success. I don't see why that is so. We don't have a complete theory of gravity, or more precisely we don't have a quantum theory of gravity, but I don't hear anybody crying "We can't determine how to send probes to Jupiter". Theories do not have to be complete to have explanatory power. Just because we can't explain every the evolutionary path of every facet of human physiology and psychology doesn't mean that the debate between science and interpretations of Genesis which even the largest Christian churches don't accept is somehow unwinnable. Creationism, in a very real sense, lost the debate 150 years ago, and was on the losing side for some time before that. Quote
waldo Posted March 18, 2009 Report Posted March 18, 2009 newsflash! flip-flopping Science Minister Goodblimp now offers... as fact... we are evolving!!!uhhh... apparently, Goodblimp's understanding of evolution has nothing to do with natural selection acting on individual genetic variations... towards the development of new species. Rather, Goodblimp's evolution is all about changing from Nikes to Jimmy Choos depending on surface particulars. He is a chiropractor... after all! what's worse - a creationist Minister Goodblimp refusing to acknowledge his belief by falsely/mistakenly associating evolution to religion... or an imbecilic creationist Minister Goodblimp refusing to acknowledge his belief by falsely/mistakenly associating evolution to religion while not even understanding what evolution actually is? waldorf, you should read the forum rules. We've been warned more than once by the mods that we are to use the proper names when referring to third parties. yes, Ms. HallMonitor… thanks for contributing – nothing to the actual discussion, vis-à-vis evolution vs. religion and the stupidity/quackery of Steven Harper’s Minister of Faith Based Science… Quote
benny Posted March 18, 2009 Report Posted March 18, 2009 I don't see why that is so. We don't have a complete theory of gravity, or more precisely we don't have a quantum theory of gravity, but I don't hear anybody crying "We can't determine how to send probes to Jupiter". Theories do not have to be complete to have explanatory power. Just because we can't explain every the evolutionary path of every facet of human physiology and psychology doesn't mean that the debate between science and interpretations of Genesis which even the largest Christian churches don't accept is somehow unwinnable. Creationism, in a very real sense, lost the debate 150 years ago, and was on the losing side for some time before that. More and more, I see religion and philosophy as superior to science precisely because most scientists do not feel the need to explicit how human subjectivity seems to participate actively in the construction of all scientific objects. Quote
Visionseeker Posted March 18, 2009 Report Posted March 18, 2009 Be careful with all of this. All those religious conservatives out there are trying to cast this as poor True Believer Goodyear being picked on by evil atheists. This isn't about whether God exists or not, this is about whether or not someone who rejects a major branch of modern science (and likely a few other major branches as well) should be given responsibility of any kind over a portfolio that supplies money to scientists. Be careful, why? Do religious conservatives own us all? I'm well aware of the nature of the debate, but am more than willing to engage fairy worshippers wherever they arise. Goodyear must go. Quote
benny Posted March 18, 2009 Report Posted March 18, 2009 Conservatives are very public with their disbelief in big government. Understandably then, a conservative science minister will shrink the size of his office. Quote
blueblood Posted March 18, 2009 Report Posted March 18, 2009 Conservatives are very public with their disbelief in big government. Understandably then, a conservative science minister will shrink the size of his office. Very good, welcome to conservatism 101. Quote "Stop the Madness!!!" - Kevin O'Leary "Money is the ultimate scorecard of life!". - Kevin O'Leary Economic Left/Right: 4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77
blueblood Posted March 18, 2009 Report Posted March 18, 2009 You generally don't appoint people whose view is so diametrically opposed to the stated aims of the office to that sort of a position. That's what's called sound management.Once again you keep insisting that this is an issue of Christianity. As I've already pointed out a number of Churches have no issue with Christianity, and one of those churches represents over a billion Christians. The fact that you keep insisting that this is somehow a slur on Christians suggests to me that you're a pretty dishonest guy. As to the mass exodus of scientists, well, none of them knew the guy responsible for the funding is a Creationist until today. And the reaction, at least from some quarters has been pretty harsh. Canada has an anti-science Creationist deciding which research gets money. Harper can appoint whoever he damn well wants and whoever he thinks can do the job without the government paying the price. Right now the guy is doing an adequate job beliefs or no beliefs. Those are facts, deal with it. I have an issue that you are perfectly fine discriminating somebody because they believe in something, yet I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that if a minority were to be discriminated against for believing in something you would yell that conservatives are racist until your blue in the face. You sir are a hypocrite. Quote "Stop the Madness!!!" - Kevin O'Leary "Money is the ultimate scorecard of life!". - Kevin O'Leary Economic Left/Right: 4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77
Smallc Posted March 18, 2009 Report Posted March 18, 2009 Harper can appoint whoever he damn well wants and whoever he thinks can do the job Yes, he can do that for the most part. without the government paying the price. I suppose that part is up to the people. Quote
Progressive Tory Posted March 18, 2009 Report Posted March 18, 2009 Hinduism teaches the world is recreated every 14 billion years I believe. The Qur'an states Allah created the heavens and the earth and all that is between them in six days. Sound familiar? Yes but time is relative. Doesn't it also say that "With God one day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day"? If we times everything by a thousand, we're closer. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Molly Posted March 18, 2009 Report Posted March 18, 2009 As disturbing as it is to be aware of such a collossal conflict of interest for one of our seniour staffers, it is double disturbing that he refuses to clarify the nature and degree of that conflict, preferring instead to pussyfoot, tapdance, and double-shuffle around it-- hiding behind freedom of concience and of religion to avoid what? Embarrassment? If he is embarrassed by his faith, shame on him. If his conflict of interest was based in personal financial matters, or family matters or what-have-you, we would demand, and recieve, a detailed explanation of the nature of the conflict, so as to judge whether we could accept the risk, or the priorities that someone in such a position would apply. We have the same right to know in this situation. Will funding for projects at the Royal Tyrell recieve fair hearing? Will funding for the U of S biology labs recieve fair consideration? Exactly which scientific 'truths' does his faith demand that he reject, and what impact will they have on his priorities, and his decision-making? We, as the people paying both his salary, and for the projects he approves (as well as suffering the cost of not funding the projects he rejects) have the right to know, in full. Not discussing it-- playing games of semantics, and dismissing the concerns as irrelevant-- is just plain not on. Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.