Something that puzzles me about the Creationists:

[underlankers]

I've never understood the sense in how it is politically or socially viable to entertain the delusions of a group of people who really *are* stuck in a time-warp. The Creationist viewpoint is full of hoary old nostrums that Thomas Lyell and Charles Darwin debunked 150 years ago. The Creationist worldview is as follows: 6,000 years ago God created

Comments

[gunslnger]

You're being fucking moronic and I think you know it.

The Tea Party is overwhelmingly connected with Creationism: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2010/02/will_christian_right_join_the_tea_party.html.

Blatantly false, right from your link. You're equating Christian Right to Creationists on no basis and then linking Christian Right to Tea Party also on no basis, and contradicting your own cited article. Overlapping membership is not equality. This is a basic concept.

At least with your climate change idiocy you're just repeating someone else's idiocy.

And I don't see any reason to get into your strawman introduction.

[underlankers]

Yes.....because one can be in the Christian Right and believe in that loathsome Godless Marxist Nazi doctrine that is Darwinist Evolution. /snerk.

And really? You disappoint me.

[gunslnger]

Yes, you can. I'm sorry that blows your worldview.

[underlankers]

Did you tell the leaders of the movement this?

[geezer_also]

Since a large portion of creationists believe in the gap theory, or something similar, I think you are using hyperbole to do your usual hatchet job on the tea party. No offense, particularly, but it is starting to get old.

[underlankers]

The elephant in the room being, of course that the Big Bang conflicts with Genesis in such a glaring way that if one accepts the Big Bang Bibliolatry is done for.

[geezer_also]

Nah, that's the beauty of the "gap theory" :D

turtles all the way down

[thies]

replace creationism with religion at large.

[chipuni]

Your first link says exactly the opposite of what you say.

Have a nice day.

Reality disagrees with you:

[underlankers]

Ahem....

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/odonnell-on-video-talking-about-god/

Re: Reality disagrees with you:

[light_over_me]

So? Obama is also on record talking about is belief in god, and also his belief in marriage being a sacred institution between a man and woman.

Now what we've calmed down about that fact that she was talking about god, same as many most Democrat politicians do, what did she say?

"God continued to strengthen and empower us when, you know, his strength is perfected in our weakness, and that’s what’s exciting," Ms. O’Donnell told a CBN reporter, Jennifer Wishon. "Because you see that if it weren’t for faith, when all logic said it’s time to quit, we pursued. We marched on, because we knew God was not releasing us to quit. And now, with such an important lame-duck session, you realize why we were to endure all that stuff."

So she's crediting god and her faith for giving her strength to continue her campaign in the face of adversity. Yes, this is terribly, terribly evil and horrible.

Re: Reality disagrees with you:

[underlankers]

Christine O'Donnell denies evolution and simultaneously advocates banning masturbation while living off a live-in boyfriend and unable to remember whether or not she attended college at Oxford. If that's the best the Christian Right can do.....

[silver_chipmunk]

You do realize that not all creationists are Young Earth Creationists, which is what you're ranting about here? There are plenty of creationists who are willing to accept that the Earth is much older than that, and that the "six days" are not literal 24-hour days, but may mean much longer spans of time.

All creationists are wrong, but some, the young earthers, are wronger than others, and it doesn't do any good to tar them all with the same brush.

[underlankers]

Except that scientifically speaking the evidence is entirely for the Sun existing before the Earth. Any attempt to hold to the literal sequence of days in the Bible will in fact run up against that in the Bible's sequence the Sun must exist *after* the Earth.

[rasilio]

Only if one presumes that "In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the earth" refers literally to the physical ball of rock we happen to inhabit and not something more esoteric, or just plain incomprehensible to ancient man.

Even here however, your argument only applies to biblical literalists and not to creationists in general. The majority of creationists are not biblical literalists but rather see the Bible as an allegory of creation "dumbed down" for the minds of bronze age shepherds.

What you are missing is that one can be a creationist and completely agree with modern evolutionary biology and astrophysics because contrary to what the ID crowd tries to peddle creationism answers the question WHY the events occurred the way they did and science answers the question of HOW it occurred.

[telemann]

The majority of creationists are not biblical literalists but rather see the Bible as an allegory of creation "dumbed down" for the minds of bronze age shepherds.

45 percent isn't exactly something to sneeze at:

According to a 2001 Gallup poll, about 45% of North Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."