Rick Wiles invited conservative pastor Laurence White onto “Trunews” yesterday to answer the question: “Is America repeating Germany’s path into Nazism?”
Unsurprisingly, the two agreed that America is moving in the direction of Nazi Germany, which they blamed in part on pastors who do not vocally denounce abortion rights, marriage equality and evolution, which White said is “not science but religion.”
White said questions posed to politicians like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker about whether they believe in evolution come straight from Satan: “They’re trying to make conservative, Bible-believing candidates look foolish because the Devil is the Father of Lies and he’s good at it.”
Pastors, according to White, must “lead our people to be able to discern what is actually going on in this country, that collision of two religions: one pagan, one Christian. And until they recognize that, they’re not going to understand the nature of the spiritual warfare in which we are engaged.”
Here is the audio:
For the record Evolution is NOT a religion. It is science.
However these people cannot argue against science, because they don't understand it. So instead they attempt to bring the science down to their level, the level of blind superstitious faith, in order to fight against it more effectively
I should also add that it is not the people asking Scott Walker and others their thoughts on evolution that are making them look foolish. it is their inability to answer such a simple question that accomplishes that feat.
All of these fundamentalists must foreswear: radio waves, television, airplanes, telephones, antibiotics, antiseptics, surgery, automobiles, X-rays, MRIs, CAT scans, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, refrigeration etc.
ReplyDeleteAll of these are the product of pagan science.
They must ride in Amish horse-drawn carriages and cast off any pagan dominion over their lives. Starting now. Otherwise, they're cherry-picking hypocrites.
Personally, I'd be satisfied if they all disregarded gravity.
DeleteSorry, but even the Amish horse drawn carriages are products of science. On foot or riding an animal is the only thing they can claim isn't based on science and technology.
DeleteAnd even at that, they can't truly claim RIDING isn't since Man had to learn how to capture, train and control the animal.
And what of their clothes? They should go back to skins.
And, we already knew they were cherry pickers.
Well, if we become a fascist state, it will be because of the Koch brothers and their personal political party, the Tea Party wing of the GOP.
ReplyDeleteBeaglemom
And those idiotic religious folk who aid and abet them.
DeleteFAITH is belief without evidence.
ReplyDeleteSCIENCE is a method where a WORKING THEORY is reached through the compilation and understanding of empirical evidence.
EVOLUTION is not something you choose whether to believe in or not: EVOLUTION is something you either understand or not.
Like calculus, for example.
Thank you Randall. Very well stated.
DeleteAs a church goer, the moment this stuff is preached from the pulpit is the day I walk out.
ReplyDeleteWith faith like this, who needs the Devil and evil he represents. It's here on earth, manufactured by these xtian producers.
ReplyDeleteWhat is science, "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment"
ReplyDeleteWhat is religion, "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods"
What this moron doesn't seem to want to understand is that religion is a belief system based on faith in something that can't be substantiated and science is the based on facts.
Science is not a religion and we are not living in Nazi Germany. WTF is wrong with these people.... I am so sick of them comparing the political/economic climate in the US to the murder of millions of people. Sorry for the long rant, but these idiots get me worked up!
The man admits that a belief in creationism is "foolish", but he then goes on to caal for christianity to be foolish. These "thinkers" have no more sense than a Palin family icon, who, by the way, refuses to speak, probably because he knows better.
ReplyDeletePoor Todd. Looks like God slammed another door in his face. Too bad his wife and daughter aren't there to comfort him in his hour need. Maybe he will find someone to make him feel vibrant again?
DeleteThis man needs a bleach enema!
ReplyDeleteIf scientists knew all the answers, why are there still scientists looking for answers?
ReplyDeleteThere isn't one bit of difference between ideologue warriors of creationists and evolutionists, both think they know. Yet, no one person can even explain an eye. Intricacy upon intricacy upon intricacy will explain what it does, yet no genius has figured out why or how it does it.
Allow me to see a scientist create an insect, then turn it into a caterpillar, and then a butterfly while creating a free-standing race of caterpillars.
Personally, I think the average ape would be ashamed of admitting he was a descendant of these scientists or evolutionists.
Abiogenesis: How do they know that man was not formed in the sea? How do they know it was not panspermia after oxygen invaded the planet and killed off everything here.
Anyone who says they know absolutely how we got here is full of shit.
Science doesn't claim to know absolutely how we got here.
DeleteAnd apes wouldn't be descendents of humans.
Do you really think scientists don't know how eyes work and why we have them?
Your comment makes it clear you don't really know much about science.
You sound like Bill O'Reilly:
"Tide goes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that."
DeleteThen why keep on talking about evolution?
My mistake, Should have been ascendant.
The question is not why we have them but Why they work, what causes the intricate mechanisms to perform
When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. (A picosecond is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a single human hair.) The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters its behavior. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein, called transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but critically different from, GDP.)
GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to “cut” a molecule called cGMP (a chemical relative of both GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, just as a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub. Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump keeps the level of sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell membrane that, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain. The result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision. If the reactions mentioned above were the only ones that operated in the cell, the supply of 11-cis-retinal, cGMP, and sodium ions would quickly be depleted. Something has to turn off the proteins that were turned on and restore the cell to its original state. Several mechanisms do this. First, in the dark the ion channel (in addition to sodium ions) also lets calcium ions into the cell. The calcium is pumped back out by a different protein so that a constant calcium concentration is maintained. When cGMP levels fall, shutting down the ion channel, calcium ion concentration decreases, too. The posphodiesterase enzyme, which destroys cGMP, slows down at lower calcium concentration. Second, a protein called guanylate cyclase begins to resynthesize cGMP when calcium levels start to fall. Third, while all of this is going on, metarhodopsin II is chemically modified by an enzyme called rhodopsin kinase. The modified rhodopsin then binds to a protein known as arrestin, which prevents the rhodopsin from activating more transducin. So the cell contains mechanisms to limit the amplified signal started by a single photon. Trans-retinal eventually falls off of rhodopsin and must be reconverted to 11-cis-retinal and again bound by rhodopsin to get back to the starting point for another visual cycle. To accomplish this, trans-retinal is first chemically modified by an enzyme to trans-retinol— a form containing two more hydrogen atoms. A second enzyme then converts the molecule to 11-cis-retinol. Finally, a third enzyme removes the previously added hydrogen atoms to form 11-cis-retinal, a cycle is complete.
ok.
OK, then you sound like Mother Jones
<"Tide goes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that.">
May I quote you?
Your comment makes it clear you don't really know much about science.
Anonymous 7:50 - thunderous applause for that awesome and scientific reply!!!
DeleteBirdbrain
That quote was direct from Bill O'Reilly, trying to say that science can't explain things.
DeleteI did a search for your block quote (because you didn't cite your source). It seems like people who question evolution use that example (and, apparently, that quote over and over again), to show how complex the process is and how evolution can't explain it. You, on the other hand are using it to say we don't know how it works.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but in your OP, you wrote this: "...yet no genius has figured out why or how it [the eye] does it."
Yes, it's complex and that complexity certainly may be something that undermines the theory of evolution. Of course, before germ theory, people would never have guessed that diseases were caused by tiny little organisms they couldn't see. And before people understood that diseases could be transmitted from person to person at all, humans thought it might be the work of the devil or black magic. History is chock full of examples of things so unimaginably complex, nobody could even fathom understanding them...and then, some scientist or engineer figured it out.
Your misunderstanding of science appears to largely be based on your misconception that scientists claim to know everything about everything. Science is about learning and change, not about faith and stagnation.
If abiogenesis is supported enough on its own merit (and not just because evolution can't explain everything), it may overcome evolution to become the prevailing theory.
Or perhaps we will find that abiogenesis and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
I can't understand why you appear to be so angry about evolution and continue to equate it with religion here and on other threads.
Wow... so much stoopid. It's truly heartbreaking to see that in this day and age we still have people who think they're smart enough to define the parameters of any question regarding science, and feel entitled enough that they should get to have an "opinion" about science despite having no concept of how it works.
DeleteOnly a truly imbecilic person would suggest that "science thinks it knows everything". Science is the cumulative result of our best attempts to understand how things work. PERIOD. Scientists endeavor to add to the collective knowledge about the universe, not to glorify themselves as some kind of super know-it-alls. And certainly not as part of some ridiculous conspiracy to "discredit God" or conservatives, or whatever.
Chiselling absolutes in stone is the province of religion, not science. Science isn't trying to have all the answers, it's trying to ask all the questions.
Scientists know that new data can alter old knowledge, refining it or causing it to be rewritten. Scientists know that the single most dangerous blockage to knowledge is to believe you already know the answer. Everything must always be open to being updated as new data and techniques become available.
That is why the "theory" of evolution will ALWAYS be a "theory", just like the "theory" of gravity.
Science does not care about God. What I mean is the purpose and goals of science have nothing to do with God, pro or con. They are looking at evidence and extrapolating data and testing it for veracity. It is all peer reviewed. NONE of it is based on someone makin some shit up or simply deciding to believe in something because it SOUNDS good to them.
Anyone who thinks that's how science works is just dragging scientists down to their own level, just embarrassing themselves.
So if anyone wants to turn off their brain and decide that a 2000 year old book knows everything, then good for you (bad for your kids). The rest of us will continue using the brains we were gifted with to try and understand the universe as best we are able.
In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if imbeciles would please stop trying to posit their personal ignorance about how science works as "proof" that it DOESN'T.
I equate evolution and religion because the worshipers of each are worshiping nonsense and are lunatic ideologues.
DeleteHey 7:50am
DeleteIt's always polite when copying and pasting from a book to give credit to the author.
You screed was directly plagiarized from "Reclaiming Science from Darwinism" by Kenneth Poppe.
Hey, 9:01
DeleteYou're a liar. But for the sake of argument when are you going to start attributing your second hand opinions?
BOSCO
DeleteIn the meantime, I'd appreciate it if imbeciles would please stop trying to posit their personal ignorance about how science works as "proof" that it DOESN'T.
Good idea. Just as soon as you watermelons stop spreading your personal ignorance of falling for every quack idea that the sky is falling. Oh, that's right, you think Al Gore is a scientist.
So to be clear Anonymous 6:58, what you are saying is that science is hard, you don't understand it, and therefore magic?
DeleteFat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life son.
10:00
DeleteLet me be very clear, neither creationist nor evolutionist know how, why, or when we got here. Nobody knows if science will ever come up with an answer. Yet, both sides have disdain for each other which seems like a waste of energy and accomplishes nothing. Do you smear a group of scientists when they say "we don't know the answer to that'?
When I picture fat, drunk and stpuid I picture a couch potato watching awards shows or writing about irrelevant D-listers like Sarah Palin or Bill O'Reilly. Someone who thinks it is magic they can see a moving picture in a box. Someone who instead of going to church builds an altar to worship a temporary resident of 1600 Penn Ave.
It doesn't take a science degree to figure out that the sky is not falling, and just a trace of common sense will tell you that Al gore is full of shit, that the left wing and the right wing are part of the same vulture, that fools and rogues are the natural meat of demagogues. That bread and circuses entertain the minds of slaves.
Clear enough?
@10:46
DeleteGive it up. Almost every time you type what you THINK is brilliant it simply shows off your complete ignorance.
You typed: "Let me be very clear, neither creationist nor evolutionist know how, why, or when we got
here."
First, the creationists DO CLAIM they know exactly when we got here - or at least close enough in their own minds anyway - and that time was 6000 years ago. They claim that's when the earth - along with EVERYTHING else - came about. Further, they STATE they know exactly how and why things got here as well. God - this is their idea now - created it all those six thousand years ago. And in six days, too!
That in and of itself proves you have NO clue about your subject matter.
As for the scientists, they BELIEVE their evidence gives them an APPROXIMATION but never have claimed they were certain those dates were final. They DO say the evidence they have collected comes from specified times, yes. But I have yet to hear of any statement made by science that stipulates Man definitely came about in a specific time period. They don't because they are always searching and trying to answer the question. Add to that there are new discoveries made that tell them they may never know precisely.
As for the disdain for each other? The scientists' disdain (if they even deign to talk to the idiots) for the creationists is due entirely to the stupidity of the claims being made when nearly all the evidence says their claims are ridiculous.
The disdain from the creationists for the scientists is mostly based on fear that their be all and end all book and beliefs are WRONG.
You act like a troll. You think like a troll. And you refuse to admit the possibility someone may know more about a subject than you - just like a troll.
You're sick, like most trolls. SEEK HELP.
Oh. And you can scream all you wish and be as insulting as you wish. I personally won't waste any more time on you and your lunacy. I've wasted enough time on your disgusting attitude just having to actually read the trash you spew. Please go away.
1:45
DeleteWhat in the hell are you arguing against? That I said nobody knows?
We all know what creationists think. That had nothing whatsoever to do with my comment.
If anyone is a troll it's you.
Either that or learn to comprehend what you are reading. And for chrissakes quit being an ass.
Why, yes. America is following Germany's path to Nazism.
ReplyDeleteBut it isn't the scientists and evolution that are leading it.
It's the Republicans and their "patriotism".
Google the signs of Fascism and then check off all of the ones the Republicans are displaying and even worse, voting into law.
Mlaiuppa, I was just about to post the same thing! nationalism is the cudgel the Nazis used to take and maintain power. If you weren't for the state 100% without question, then you were the enemy.
DeleteRepublicans are only about questioning authority when it's them questioning a Democrat, otherwise questioning authority is tantamount to treason.
Off topic: From Politico, you have probably seen this. It's about gotcha questions and Scott Walker. Palin's name comes up.
ReplyDeleteGrilling a candidate about his faith or asking him to comment on the faith of others may seem intrusive, but these questions have long been asked of candidates, as Michael Tomasky wrote this week. A candidate who won’t parry, engage, or effectively ignore a question about faith but can only take umbrage needs to study the political careers of sharper politicians (Reagan, Clinton, Obama) who easily fielded such questions, wrapped them in Super Glue, and tossed them back at the questioners. A candidate like Walker who can’t answer a question that isn’t in his briefing book or campaign white paper fails one of the most elemental tests for becoming president: How to handle the unexpected/undesired. Pouting or playing the victim when asked a hazing question just makes a bad situation worse. Just ask Sarah Palin.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/scott-walker-got-gotcha-ed-115474.html#ixzz3SmCJMZrR
10 cats