OT: Superman and Stemcells

[Arryn]

Gandalf, Creationists posit that the Biblical account of Genesis is accurate and thus the Earth was created, pretty much as you see it today, a bit over 6000 years ago. And thus God also created the fossil record for some unknown reason (or as someone once told me, to make scientists look foolish), and thus radiocarbon dating cannot be true (which throws most of particle physics right out the window). Creationism and Evolution *are* necessarily mutually exclusive. BTW, the principal backer of Creationism is the same Catholic church that took 500 years to acknowledge that it was wrong and Galileo and Copernicus were right. IOW, its backers have a long track record of being wrong and being too obstinate to admit it.

[Gandalf Parker]

Arryn said:
Gandalf, Creationists posit that the Biblical account of Genesis is accurate and thus the Earth was created,

The term creationists is a much larger term than people who would quote genesis as their source. And that is also a larger group than saying christians. Its probably a good idea to not lump terms like creationists, religion, religious people, moral people, and many others I cant think of right now.. automatically into a group called christians. Its abit of a red flag for me.

In fact, in my humble opinion, jumping to christians usually gives far more points to the argument than it would otherwise have. Rather like starting a discussion against dieting by considering them all to be anorexics.

[Arryn]

Gandalf Parker said:
The term creationists is a much larger term than people who would quote genesis as their source.

I use the definition from the Merriam-Webster Online page for Creationist . Playing semantics is a smokescreen for dodging the argument.

[Tuidjy]

I think that what Gandalf is saying is that one can be spiritual, religious,
or even Christian, and still believe in evolution. While I agree with him,
I must say that Arryn is very much right when she insists on the importance
of using the right terminology. Today, being a Creationist means that you
believe in the Creation account in the Bible. The word should not be used
to mean other things, or you can't have a good argument.

And everyone knows that having good arguments is why the Powers that Be created
the universe. Or at least I believe so. And you can't argue with belief, by
definition. So the Powers that Be do not want you to Believe. So all religious
people are sacriligeous.

And that was an example of how useful logic is in this topic.

[Arryn]

Thanks, Tuidjy. Your summation, and the points you make, are excellent.

[Gandalf Parker]

Tuidjy said:
I think that what Gandalf is saying is that one can be spiritual, religious,
or even Christian, and still believe in evolution.

Thats probably true, but not what I meant.

I must say that Arryn is very much right when she insists on the importance
of using the right terminology. Today, being a Creationist means that you
believe in the Creation account in the Bible.

I have to disagree with that also. Please dont paint the world as being christian/non-christian. There are many Groups, and religions, which believe that the world was created by design without being christian bible Groups. I could generate a fantasically long list but the easiest might be to say that just about every religion other than christian, jewish, and muslim would be using a source other than genesis for their basis of creation. And I guess the ancestral worships can be let off the hook. As far as I know most of the rest do have some sort of creationism belief.

But my initial point of "both" is that some are perfectly willing to accept that the world was created, and evolution was the tool. Thats only a major point of contention with the christian crowd as far as I know.

[Evil Dave]

Gandalf Parker said:

But my initial point of "both" is that some are perfectly willing to accept that the world was created, and evolution was the tool. Thats only a major point of contention with the christian crowd as far as I know.

Gandalf, are you arguing for Newton's blind watchmaker? God wound up the world and set it going according to physical laws?
I'm not trying to argue (yet ), but just trying to understand what you're saying.

[Arryn]

Evil Dave said:
Gandalf, are you arguing for Newton's blind watchmaker? God wound up the world and set it going according to physical laws?
I'm not trying to argue (yet ), but just trying to understand what you're saying.

Since science has done a passable job of explaining the universe from the Big Bang onwards, it pretty much only leaves room for God in the (as-yet) unexplained area of "what happened before the bang"? Some people prefer to see the hand of God in the setting of the physical laws of the universe, and in the "spark" of creation. Yet others can explain even that as random processes in a multiverse of infinite universes and infinite possibilities. (We exist because this universe happens to have the right random conditions for us to exist to ponder the question.)

What really scares some (many) religious believers is the possibility that some (unethical) scientist may someday (in the not-so-distant future) create a human being entirely in a lab from raw DNA, without "conception" at all. No egg. No biological parents. Instant person, just add water. (That's a joke.) If said experiment turns out a breathing, thinking human, where will that leave religion (and what many religions teach about humans)? We can already create viruses from scratch. It's only a matter of time before more complex organisms, and eventually people, can be 'manufactured'.

[Gandalf Parker]

Evil Dave said:

Gandalf, are you arguing for Newton's blind watchmaker? God wound up the world and set it going according to physical laws?
I'm not trying to argue (yet ), but just trying to understand what you're saying.

For many there is the belief that the world was created or at least put in motion, to a plan. For many of those there is nothing saying that the plan couldnt be billions of years of evolution. Trying to push all creationists into the can of some 6-day timeline is going for an easy argument (and kindof christio-obnoxious which is what torqs me off)

[Huzurdaddi]

Getting back to the original question about stem cells I just don't see why it is not a bigger issue in the current election.

It polls *very* well for one side. That side was going to lose 100% of the votes of people it does not poll well. It polls well with the undecided people.

One of the two sides should be bringing it up at every opportunity and then make their own opportunities to bring it up. It's a great issue.

As is breaking the relationship between an "evil tyrant" and 9/11. This connection is still belived by 50% of the population. Now it is impossible to get that number below 40% since that is bedrock base, but you could drive it down further perhaps to the low 40s. The canidate should see this as a key word. Whenever the subject is brought up he *must* break the relation. He started doing it, but still let it slide multiple times. A horrible display.