(05-05-2015 07:32 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(05-05-2015 05:00 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  I disagree entirely. It implies a serious disconnect with reality and what you want to believe. It proves that this man will believe things, even if they are wrong, in the face of any amount of evidence you want to present to him.

Also, I've met very few YEC's but 100% of them were on the "Send the Jews back to the homeland so Jesus can come back" or "Jesus is returning with our lifetimes" train.

I, personally, don't want anything to do with Israel, Palestine or the entirety of the Middle East, but another, more scary prospect of this entirely irrational thought process is another trend I've noticed amongst people who think like this.

What's the point of preserving the earth or thinking of future generations or the future in general if Jesus is coming back anyway? It sounds ridiculous, but every time I get lumped into a religious conversation with the extremely religious this topic always arises. It's like a cop out of "Oh we don't need to do that, Jesus is coming back anyway". It's utterly ludicrous but these people are entirely straight-faced when saying it.

It doesn't take a neurosurgeon to see the relation between a religiously inspired YEC view and a hazardously short-minded vision of the future.

Darn near everyone has pet beliefs that go against a consensus of expert opinion.

Sure that may be true. Doesn't discredit my point though.

I get a chuckle out of militant atheists that get on their high horse about forming belief on evidence while claiming Jesus never existed. That goes against the overwhelming consensus of historians, whose practice is based on facts, evidence, and logic.

There is a lot of completely unwarranted hysteria over GMOs that has affected policy in European countries that could potentially affect food prices which affects many people. Anti-GMO hysteria is far more troubling to me than anti-evolution sentiment because it has actual real-world consequences. Yeah, I know, a lot of people crap their pants over any suggestion of intelligent design making it's way into schools, but so what? At worst it's a waste of time.

Irrelevant. I never brought up any of this, and only serves as a straw man argument

Regardless of how some say it's a critically important evolution is to biology, there is a reason you won't find evolution in most medical and biomedical science curricula and not in any engineering or physical science curricula.

You're right. And that reason is because it's been proven beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt, and is not necessary to re-explain in advanced academia because it is the foundation of the biological sciences. It's like re-proving 2+2=4 each time you use it in a Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis. At some point or another, it has to be taken as given.

You need to ask yourself why you make an exception when it comes to creationism? You might just have a bias when going against mainstream expert opinion comes from a religious bias.

I've answered this in the post you are replying to.

Electable or not, Carson had the winning quote of the week:

"I believe in a safety net for people who need a safety net, (but) I do not believe in a system that puts people in a chronic state of dependence."

(05-05-2015 10:31 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I can't think of anything that reflects on the man less than his belief in young Earth creationism. That just sounds like a judgmental and narrow way of looking at things for no benefit whatsoever. You may as well say you won't ever vote for somebody who believes Cleopatra didn't kill her brother. Who cares and why does it matter?

It's a harmless belief, unlike a belief that pedophilia is fair game; the two are not the same thing.

It shows a disconnect with reality.

(05-05-2015 07:32 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(05-05-2015 05:00 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  I disagree entirely. It implies a serious disconnect with reality and what you want to believe. It proves that this man will believe things, even if they are wrong, in the face of any amount of evidence you want to present to him.

Also, I've met very few YEC's but 100% of them were on the "Send the Jews back to the homeland so Jesus can come back" or "Jesus is returning with our lifetimes" train.

I, personally, don't want anything to do with Israel, Palestine or the entirety of the Middle East, but another, more scary prospect of this entirely irrational thought process is another trend I've noticed amongst people who think like this.

What's the point of preserving the earth or thinking of future generations or the future in general if Jesus is coming back anyway? It sounds ridiculous, but every time I get lumped into a religious conversation with the extremely religious this topic always arises. It's like a cop out of "Oh we don't need to do that, Jesus is coming back anyway". It's utterly ludicrous but these people are entirely straight-faced when saying it.

It doesn't take a neurosurgeon to see the relation between a religiously inspired YEC view and a hazardously short-minded vision of the future.

Darn near everyone has pet beliefs that go against a consensus of expert opinion.

I get a chuckle out of militant atheists that get on their high horse about forming belief on evidence while claiming Jesus never existed. That goes against the overwhelming consensus of historians, whose practice is based on facts, evidence, and logic.

There is a lot of completely unwarranted hysteria over GMOs that has affected policy in European countries that could potentially affect food prices which affects many people. Anti-GMO hysteria is far more troubling to me than anti-evolution sentiment because it has actual real-world consequences. Yeah, I know, a lot of people crap their pants over any suggestion of intelligent design making it's way into schools, but so what? At worst it's a waste of time. Regardless of how some say it's a critically important evolution is to biology, there is a reason you won't find evolution in most medical and biomedical science curricula and not in any engineering or physical science curricula.

You need to ask yourself why you make an exception when it comes to creationism? You might just have a bias when going against mainstream expert opinion comes from a religious bias.

I don't have any "pet" beliefs that go against settled science. As a person of science...I find his belief system very bizarre.

(05-05-2015 08:33 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Irrelevant. I never brought up any of this, and only serves as a straw man argument

I'm not saying you think that way. Just that there are other that do, including those that like to get on a high horse about how they fit their beliefs to evidence.

(05-05-2015 08:33 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  You're right. And that reason is because it's been proven beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt, and is not necessary to re-explain in advanced academia because it is the foundation of the biological sciences. It's like re-proving 2+2=4 each time you use it in a Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis. At some point or another, it has to be taken as given.

No, it's not taught in those curricula because it's not relevant. There are plenty of things proven beyond any reasonable scientific doubt that are taught. Even an understanding of the basics of evolution is not applicable to medicine or biomedical research.

The fact that Carson can be an accomplished neurosurgeon and still be a YEC (assuming he actually is one and isn't pandering, as you seem to think) discredits the idea that knowledge or acceptance of evolution is required to be accomplished in sciences relevant to medicine and technology.

(05-05-2015 08:33 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  I've answered this in the post you are replying to.

So what you are saying is that because you know some YEC that thinks the rapture is eminent and soon and there's no point in planning for the future that all think that way?

Has he actually commented on the YEC stuff, or is it just part of his religious sect? I'm a southern baptist. The Southern Baptist Convention supports alcohol prohibition, yet I drink.

I honestly don't know anything about seventh day adventists or about Carson's belief system. Maybe he was raised in the church and is comfortable with it, thus hasn't changed his membership.

(05-06-2015 08:35 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(05-05-2015 08:33 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Irrelevant. I never brought up any of this, and only serves as a straw man argument

I'm not saying you think that way. Just that there are other that do, including those that like to get on a high horse about how they fit their beliefs to evidence.

(05-05-2015 08:33 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  You're right. And that reason is because it's been proven beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt, and is not necessary to re-explain in advanced academia because it is the foundation of the biological sciences. It's like re-proving 2+2=4 each time you use it in a Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis. At some point or another, it has to be taken as given.

No, it's not taught in those curricula because it's not relevant. There are plenty of things proven beyond any reasonable scientific doubt that are taught. Even an understanding of the basics of evolution is not applicable to medicine or biomedical research.

The fact that Carson can be an accomplished neurosurgeon and still be a YEC (assuming he actually is one and isn't pandering, as you seem to think) discredits the idea that knowledge or acceptance of evolution is required to be accomplished in sciences relevant to medicine and technology.

(05-05-2015 08:33 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  I've answered this in the post you are replying to.

So what you are saying is that because you know some YEC that thinks the rapture is eminent and soon and there's no point in planning for the future that all think that way?

To your last staatement, it was an example for the most part, anecdotal even which I try to avoid, but those two beliefs, in my experience, do go hand in hand.

I'll reiterate what I mentioned earlier is that the belief in a YEC model belies a serious disconnect with reality, which is a complete dealbreaker for a position that requires grounded reality based decisions.

And for that, unless he announces things such as quadrupling NASA's budget, education overhauls, complete withdrawal from Middle East, abolishing national debt, and presenting a bill that would force the AAC to be considered a P6 conference, I'll not be voting for him.