Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson is a Young Earth Creationist

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: AMrLogic

You describe physical and chemical processes and not an intelligent being.

I am describing intelligent physical and chemical processes, not the Being that designed it.

originally posted by: AMrLogic

The planet was hostile to life for most its existence and will be hostile to life in the future when conditions change.

What's the empirical evidence to show this? You'd be surprised at how much scientists just completely guess with these sorts of statements.

They're not 'intelligent' but just natural processes.
A bit of science will answer the question you asked me.

You need to have in mind the timescale of celestial objects like earth. Contrary to the young earth creationism theories the age of the planet is around 4.5 billion years and the sun will live for another 4.5 billion years. Long before that the conditions on earth will become hostile to most forms of life.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: AMrLogic

Faith is what makes God real. If you have it, he is. If you don't, he's not. But the one thing that none of us can get away from, is we are going to die eventually, and when we do, we get to find the answer to that question. But just as you can't prove there is no God, you can't prove there is, you have have to believe. And if you don't, that's fine. But if you don't want folks preaching to you, then you might not want to bash their beliefs either. That way everyone can just get along.

And if someone in power does something overtly religious and threatens the views of those who aren't, there are plenty of Atheist's to speak up.

It's true in the absence of faith there is no God. It's a human creation and we don't need to prove a supreme being exists but we can see there is no intelligent design and not a shred of evidence for the existence of this purely hypothetical being.

originally posted by: AMrLogic

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: AMrLogic

Science isn't dogmatic by definition. Some of the scientists can be religious and dogmatic on some occasions which may result in bad science...

We can agree on this. In fact, it happens all too often.

...but the pont is the speaker of the house is a nutcase.

May be, but as I noted in my first post, "the world is full of whacky beliefs". What makes Johnson any more insane or worthy of ridicule than a Muslim leader who thinks the world is flat and he's going to get 72 virgins when he dies, especially if he dies fighting the infidels? Note, we have a few of these people in government in this country.

Or how about the numerous Catholics in government who think they're eating the body of Christ and drinking his blood in communion?

Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Do I even need to explain that one?

And these are NOT all republicans. There are plenty of Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc democrats in government.

Picking on Mike Johnson for his creationist beliefs is a cheap shot, and honestly, hypocritical.

Muslims can believe whatever the want just like christians do but it doesn't make their beliefs true.

From my experience it's usually the christian branch of the republican party that holds these views among christians and among conservatives.

I never claimed it made their beliefs true, I said it was a cheap shot and hypocritical to call out Johnson, especially when the house and senate overwhelmingly identify as Christian, and a smaller percentage identify with other beliefs.

Granted that more republicans identify as protestant than democrats do, but 78% of democrats identify as Christian...

Democrats in Congress also are heavily Christian – much more than U.S. adults overall (78% vs. 65%).9 But the share of Democrats who identify as Christian is 21 percentage points lower than among Republicans (99%). Democrats are much less likely than Republicans to identify as Protestant (43% vs. 68%). Conversely, Catholics make up a higher share among Democrats than they do among Republicans (34% vs. 26%).

Among Democrats, 11% are Jewish, and 6% did not specify a religious affiliation. All of the Unitarian Universalists (3), Muslims (3), Buddhists (2) and Hindus (2) in Congress are Democrats, as are the single members in the “other” and religiously unaffiliated categories.

Source

And if you're going to tell me Catholic beliefs are any less fringe than protestant, then you don't know much about Catholicism.

Another thing to consider is that republicans are often singled out for ridicule by the mainstream for their religious beliefs than Christian democrats are.

I'll leave it there. I think we've both had our say.

Wait, I thought we were supposed to be tolerant and supportive of other people's beliefs no matter how ridiculous or insane! Is that across the board or only in specific circumstances?

Now what do we do?

originally posted by: AMrLogic
the age of the planet is around 4.5 billion years and the sun will live for another 4.5 billion years.

What's the evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? Not just expert opinion, but like real evidence that would indicate this age.

originally posted by: cooperton
What's the evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? Not just expert opinion, but like real evidence that would indicate this age.

You don't want expert opinion? Their educated opinions are based on real evidence. They understand the evidence better than you or I do. They know how to interpret it. We do not.

originally posted by: network dude
I think that they say and appear to believe exactly what I stated.

Nah. We're just not assholes. It costs absolutely nothing, and causes zero harm to call someone by their preferred pronouns.

The POTUS shakes hands with people who are not there just to point out one of the 1000s of things that show he's not there upstairs

Having a stroke is now a clear sign you should be a lawmaker

So Shure why not at this point someone could tell me they talk to smurfs and I'd say definitely senator material

originally posted by: Euronymous2625

originally posted by: network dude
I think that they say and appear to believe exactly what I stated.

Nah. We're just not assholes. It costs absolutely nothing, and causes zero harm to call someone by their preferred pronouns.

And just exactly how does Mike Johnson's beliefs cause you harm, Mr. Not-An-Asshole? Point to where on the doll that he hurt you.

You guys are so effed. You can't say a single GD thing now without exposing yourselves as insufferable hypocrites.

originally posted by: AMrLogic

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: AMrLogic

Faith is what makes God real. If you have it, he is. If you don't, he's not. But the one thing that none of us can get away from, is we are going to die eventually, and when we do, we get to find the answer to that question. But just as you can't prove there is no God, you can't prove there is, you have have to believe. And if you don't, that's fine. But if you don't want folks preaching to you, then you might not want to bash their beliefs either. That way everyone can just get along.

And if someone in power does something overtly religious and threatens the views of those who aren't, there are plenty of Atheist's to speak up.

It's true in the absence of faith there is no God. It's a human creation and we don't need to prove a supreme being exists but we can see there is no intelligent design and not a shred of evidence for the existence of this purely hypothetical being.

LOL, it's all in how you see things. I watch a sunrise and cannot fathom how it could be some amazing without God's hand. Or the birth of your first child. As I said, it's all about faith. And the fantastic news is, nobody will force you to have it, because they can't. I wish everyone could see that part of nature, but some fight it.

originally posted by: Euronymous2625

originally posted by: network dude
I think that they say and appear to believe exactly what I stated.

Nah. We're just not assholes. It costs absolutely nothing, and causes zero harm to call someone by their preferred pronouns.

do they wear a sign or something? Or can I just call it like I see it as in baseball?

originally posted by: FlyersFan

You don't want expert opinion? Their educated opinions are based on real evidence. They understand the evidence better than you or I do. They know how to interpret it. We do not.

Ahh yes the immortal opinion of 'trust the science'. I would be shocked if you could find the evidence that makes them believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old. It is very speculative, void of concrete evidence. Big numbers get thrown around and no one asks how they came to such a conclusion. Just another case of blindly believing, "trust the science", yet the science isn't there.

originally posted by: cooperton
Just another case of blindly believing, "trust the science", yet the science isn't there.

Isn't that what you are doing - blindly believing - believing the Old Testament as literal truth, yet so much of it has been debunked. Adam and Eve, debunked. Noahs Ark, debunked. Tower of Babel, debunked. Exodus, debunked. You might not want to accuse people of 'blindly believing' in science, when you do the same with the Old Testament. ALL of Christianity does. Faith is belief without proof. And I say that as an active Catholic.

You need to listen to the experts. When you look at a rock, you just see a rock. When they look at a rock, they can tell you how and when it formed. The Earth Is not just a few thousand years old like the Bible claims. It simply is not. the Old Testament can't all be read as literal truth. Much of the Old Testament is faith filled myth, concocted by ancient people in order to explain that which they couldn't explain.

The Speaker of the House is a Dominionist. He thinks that the entire country should be run fundamentalist Christian and that it is inevitable. He also thinks the US will lead the world in converting it. He's an extremist. He believes in Noahs Ark which means he isn't that smart. He thinks being gay isn't protected by the Constitution and that it should be outlawed, which makes him wrong and maybe even dangerous when it comes to basic rights of Americans.

The only difference between him and the Muslims in the Middle East is that he isn't carrying a gun shooting people for being the wrong religion or for being LGBTQ. Our secular rule of law prevents that from happening.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: cooperton
Just another case of blindly believing, "trust the science", yet the science isn't there.

Isn't that what you are doing - blindly believing - trusting the Bible, yet so much of it has been debunked. Adam and Eve, debunked. Noahs Ark, debunked. Tower of Babel, debunked. Exodus, debunked. You might not want to accuse people of 'blindly believing' in science, when you do the same with the Old Testament. ALL of Christianity does. Faith is belief without proof. And I say that as an active Catholic.

The Bible is history, and it has corroborating accounts from other cultures. even Egypt has their greatest-grandfather Atum (Adam), father of all humankind. Atum even had a child Set (Seth).



There are many other examples. But history is different than science. Science requires empirical evidence, which the 4.5 billion year old fairy tale does not have.

Same with the tower of Babel, the Sumerians have historical record of this as well, they call it the Tower of Etemenanki. Like the Hebrew record, they supposed Nebuchadnezzer built it. The etymology of Etemenanki means "House of the foundation of heaven and earth", just like the Hebrew record referred to it as a building reaching the heavens.

Again, we aren't told this because we are raised in a secular school system that wishes to disprove the Bible.

You need to listen to the experts. When you look at a rock, you just see a rock. When they look at a rock, they can tell you how and when it formed.

You would be shocked at how much guess-work is involved with dating geological layers. To put it as simply as possible, there is no way to know the initial concentration of isotopic samples for radiometric dating, therefore they are calibrating the initial concentration to allow their super old theories to fit. Take for example fresh volcanic rock being dated from 250,000-3,200,000 years old despite being known to be 25-50 years old:


source

These results came from the Geochron laboratory, a well-respected radiometric dating lab. The error comes from geologists assuming that there is no daughter isotope in the initial formation of the igneous rock. This greatly skews the data as being wayyyy older than it actually is.

I am done trusting the experts, because most of their theories have such secular bias that they will ignore the obvious to maintain their dogma.

originally posted by: Creaky
a reply to: Jane1B

I guess you believe the whole of everything big banged from nothing
And you think he has Mr Johnson has issues
As for abortion, you don’t see it as people killing children

Clearly we should all believe what you believe I guess?

I am glad you put science alongside with religious beliefs because this is precisely what these republicans in office do together with those who voted for them.

It's probably worse when republicans completely ignore science and replace it with beliefs from the old and new testaments.

If you think the big bang is creation from nothing then you haven't even read the basics yet.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: cooperton
Just another case of blindly believing, "trust the science", yet the science isn't there.

Isn't that what you are doing - blindly believing - trusting the Bible, yet so much of it has been debunked. Adam and Eve, debunked. Noahs Ark, debunked. Tower of Babel, debunked. Exodus, debunked. You might not want to accuse people of 'blindly believing' in science, when you do the same with the Old Testament. ALL of Christianity does. Faith is belief without proof. And I say that as an active Catholic.

The Bible is history, and it has corroborating accounts from other cultures. even Egypt has their greatest-grandfather Atum (Adam), father of all humankind. Atum even had a child Set (Seth).

There are many other examples. But history is different than science. Science requires empirical evidence, which the 4.5 billion year old fairy tale does not have.

Same with the tower of Babel, the Sumerians have historical record of this as well, they call it the Tower of Etemenanki. Like the Hebrew record, they supposed Nebuchadnezzer built it. The etymology of Etemenanki means "House of the foundation of heaven and earth", just like the Hebrew record referred to it as a building reaching the heavens.

Again, we aren't told this because we are raised in a secular school system that wishes to disprove the Bible.

You need to listen to the experts. When you look at a rock, you just see a rock. When they look at a rock, they can tell you how and when it formed.

You would be shocked at how much guess-work is involved with dating geological layers. To put it as simply as possible, there is no way to know the initial concentration of isotopic samples for radiometric dating, therefore they are calibrating the initial concentration to allow their super old theories to fit. Take for example fresh volcanic rock being dated from 250,000-3,200,000 years old despite being known to be 25-50 years old:

source

These results came from the Geochron laboratory, a well-respected radiometric dating lab. The error comes from geologists assuming that there is no daughter isotope in the initial formation of the igneous rock. This greatly skews the data as being wayyyy older than it actually is.

I am done trusting the experts, because most of their theories have such secular bias that they will ignore the obvious to maintain their dogma.

The bible may contain some historical accounts but it's mostly a work of fiction that Mr Johnson wants to use as a basis for public policy.
What do mean by the 4.5 billion year old fairy tale? You think what Mr Johnson said and earth is only a few thousands old?

a reply to: Armageddon17

He isn't the only person who is elected and holds these beliefs.

A frightening thought.

A large part of the electorate has similar views in religion and politics and that's why this guy and others like him are getting elected.

Which is beyond frightening.
I was sort of suggesting that in my post.

Are these people really representative of America or are they just a small but extremely vocal and prominent minority?

All that money spent on education....what a waste.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: KrustyKrab

Oh, I think that's exactly the opposite of you want folks to do; figure it out.

a reply to: FlyersFan

.... but the Dominionists aren't violent rapists and murderers.

Yet.
Any casual study of Christianity will reveal a fair few who indulged in violent rape and murdering.
Thing is, Christianity by and large has progressed whereas Islam has regressed.

Of course that is a generalisation and there are exceptions that prove the rule.

I wouldn't be that surprised that if there was ever a large increase in support for these Christian 'fundamentalists' that their message would gradually get more and more extreme.

Just my opinion, nothing to back it up.

originally posted by: Jane1B

The bible may contain some historical accounts but it's mostly a work of fiction that Mr Johnson wants to use as a basis for public policy.

I know you are speaking out your brown eye, but humor me and list the legislation Mr. Johnson has authored that has to do with Young Earth Creationism. Just one bill will do.