OT: Superman and Stemcells

[Gandalf Parker]

Zen said:
It might also be an interested thing to note how many forumites believe in Creationism and how many believe in Evolution.

Or those who believe in both. One is cause, the other is method. They arent necessairly exclusive of each other unless you belong to certain faiths which say they are.

Interesting note: What came first, the chicken or the egg?
(The answer is known. Your question answers this one)

[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.

[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.

[Arryn]

Daddi, because that particular candidate (much as it pains me to say it) is incapable of remaining focused on one side of an issue (which his opponents enjoy pointing out), or in driving an issue home by repetition (a tactic, along with gross distortions of the truth, that his opponents are masters at).

Yes, the GOP is vulnerable on this issue. But in the eyes of voters, it's not even in the top 5 of important issues. And it's not as juicy for the media (that is, they can't provide "exciting" daily film clips) as are Iraq, pissed-off unemployed workers, or pissed-off people waiting in line at airports. The American public consumes whatever the media feed it. Blame the media for not keeping it in the forefront of American's ultra-short attention spans.