Reply With Quote
a blind (ignorant, anti-scientific asshole) squirrel find a nut!
a blind (ignorant, anti-scientific asshole) squirrel find a nut!
"This is a huge victory for Texas students and teachers,"
That's not true. People generally could careless. Dr. Eugenie Scott sounds like a real ing bag if you ask me.
Rational, scientific taxpayers mustn't relax.
These assholes will definitely be back.
You're pretty stupid. I can see how you wouldn't care.Why?Dr. Eugenie Scott sounds like a real ing bag if you ask me.
I'm asking you.
Is evolution the core of biology? I'll take my answer off-air.
Has evolution been proven true? The theory sounds like a great idea to teach. As well as the idea that a spagetti monster combined two meatballs and out we came. I think a victory for any school anywhere in America should be that they aren't just teaching to pass a test.
"Is evolution the core of biology"
I'd say yes, since life is NEVER static.
It's constantly changing, and sometimes permanently in one generation in response to environment (change in food, water, weather, predators, cleaving/colliding of tectonic plates, air/sea migration, etc). Over 1000s of generations, "it adds up", including new speciation.
Believing that God created the universe and Adam and Eve about 6000 years ago in 144 hours proves these Bible-thumpers are ignorant, duped jerks.
I might agree with you on hard-core Bible literalists, but most Christians I know do not believe in a literal Bible, and take the "evolution as the method of Intelligent Design" approach. They don't try to suppress science, don't try to force their beliefs on anyone, but otherwise are intense about their religious beliefs.
Although I did get a kick out of a paper I read trying to use Relativistic time-perception as a basis for accepting a literal Bible.
Hard-core Bible literalists are in the same class as hard-core atheists who want to kill religion anywhere outside of a church (and sometimes even in a church) and think anyone religious is an idiot.
Agree that the theory of evolution does sound like a great idea to teach, but disagree that teaching about a spaghetti moster is just as great.
"most Christians I know do not believe in a literal Bible"
Something like 30-40% of Americans poll as Bible literalists and not believing in evolution. They're stupid s, just as intended and needed by the huckster preachers and corporations to sucker them into parting with their money for ty "products".
neh, it's not in the same class at all, tbh.
I don't disagree with you about literalists. I'm just saying you often lump all religious people into your condemnations, when it's not the case. The US is about 75% Christian, so while literalists are a significant portion, it's not an overwhelming majority justifying the denegration of the entire class of people.
"you often lump all religious people"
link?
I even write "Christian" meaning that special group of "Christian" extremists/supremacists who mostly ignore Christ's hippy message of "love and peace and inclusiveness for all" and the entire NT in favor of the weird-ass crazy in the OT, which they cherry-pick aggressively, just like they say they adore the Cons ution, while violating it when it suits them, and even wanting to rewrite it to include the 10 Commandments.
what percent of the Bible do non-literal Christians believe to be true?
Thomas Jefferson approves
I don't believe in evolution. And I called and asked my mom if I'm a stupid and she said no.
Me fitting in that wide general category would answer with John 3:16
you need to check with mom if you are stupid or not?
that would make you an insecure .
so you literally believe in John 3:16 but not Genesis?
seriously blake...
smh
In my experience, 100% of the message while allowing that the Bible is written in literary prose.
Good one, fyatuk.
THAT evolution happens is not theory.
HOW evolution happens (natural selection) is Darwin's (as yet undefeated) theory.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
