Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Dr. Carson vs evolution

ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 5:04:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
https://www.youtube.com...

If you are going to contribute to this thread, I duly request that you have watched the whole video, so as not to contribute ignorantly and thus negligently. . Also, somewhere in your post, please state your general religious alignment.

That said . . .

I do not agree with everything he says here, and his final conclusion is somewhat unsatisfying; he determines that, in the end, it is faith vs faith - belief in evolution versus a belief in creation. Nonetheless, many of his premises resonate very well, for non-believers and believers alike. I personally like to believe in a god, but am not necessarily confident of his existence (i.e., my faith isn't really high . . .). I think the problem with religion vs science is that science is a never-ending process. We're learning new things everyday, achieving breakthroughs every now and then. A lot of Carson's "counter-evidence" for evolution relies on the current evidence and knowledge that we have for evolution. If trends tell us anything, it is only a matter of time when we will have gathered sufficient evidence to lay the question to rest.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 5:53:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 5:04:21 PM, ben2974 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

If you are going to contribute to this thread, I duly request that you have watched the whole video, so as not to contribute ignorantly and thus negligently. . Also, somewhere in your post, please state your general religious alignment.

That said . . .

I do not agree with everything he says here, and his final conclusion is somewhat unsatisfying; he determines that, in the end, it is faith vs faith - belief in evolution versus a belief in creation. Nonetheless, many of his premises resonate very well, for non-believers and believers alike. I personally like to believe in a god, but am not necessarily confident of his existence (i.e., my faith isn't really high . . .). I think the problem with religion vs science is that science is a never-ending process. We're learning new things everyday, achieving breakthroughs every now and then. A lot of Carson's "counter-evidence" for evolution relies on the current evidence and knowledge that we have for evolution. If trends tell us anything, it is only a matter of time when we will have gathered sufficient evidence to lay the question to rest.

I'm shocked that this guy is a surgeon, considering he uses all the same strawmen, incredulity and ignorance fallacies used by other ID'ers and creationists.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 6:11:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 5:53:01 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/25/2015 5:04:21 PM, ben2974 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

If you are going to contribute to this thread, I duly request that you have watched the whole video, so as not to contribute ignorantly and thus negligently. . Also, somewhere in your post, please state your general religious alignment.

That said . . .

I do not agree with everything he says here, and his final conclusion is somewhat unsatisfying; he determines that, in the end, it is faith vs faith - belief in evolution versus a belief in creation. Nonetheless, many of his premises resonate very well, for non-believers and believers alike. I personally like to believe in a god, but am not necessarily confident of his existence (i.e., my faith isn't really high . . .). I think the problem with religion vs science is that science is a never-ending process. We're learning new things everyday, achieving breakthroughs every now and then. A lot of Carson's "counter-evidence" for evolution relies on the current evidence and knowledge that we have for evolution. If trends tell us anything, it is only a matter of time when we will have gathered sufficient evidence to lay the question to rest.

I'm shocked that this guy is a surgeon, considering he uses all the same strawmen, incredulity and ignorance fallacies used by other ID'ers and creationists.

What are some strawmen arguments he made?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 6:17:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
45 minutes of religiously inspired junk science from a guy who will never be elected... No thanks.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 7:42:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 6:11:25 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/25/2015 5:53:01 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/25/2015 5:04:21 PM, ben2974 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

If you are going to contribute to this thread, I duly request that you have watched the whole video, so as not to contribute ignorantly and thus negligently. . Also, somewhere in your post, please state your general religious alignment.

That said . . .

I do not agree with everything he says here, and his final conclusion is somewhat unsatisfying; he determines that, in the end, it is faith vs faith - belief in evolution versus a belief in creation. Nonetheless, many of his premises resonate very well, for non-believers and believers alike. I personally like to believe in a god, but am not necessarily confident of his existence (i.e., my faith isn't really high . . .). I think the problem with religion vs science is that science is a never-ending process. We're learning new things everyday, achieving breakthroughs every now and then. A lot of Carson's "counter-evidence" for evolution relies on the current evidence and knowledge that we have for evolution. If trends tell us anything, it is only a matter of time when we will have gathered sufficient evidence to lay the question to rest.

I'm shocked that this guy is a surgeon, considering he uses all the same strawmen, incredulity and ignorance fallacies used by other ID'ers and creationists.

What are some strawmen arguments he made?

The usual ones, life cannot come about from non-life, natural selection cannot produce other species, etc. Carson does not have anything new, he is no different from other creationists.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 8:23:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 7:42:20 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/25/2015 6:11:25 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/25/2015 5:53:01 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/25/2015 5:04:21 PM, ben2974 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

If you are going to contribute to this thread, I duly request that you have watched the whole video, so as not to contribute ignorantly and thus negligently. . Also, somewhere in your post, please state your general religious alignment.

That said . . .

I do not agree with everything he says here, and his final conclusion is somewhat unsatisfying; he determines that, in the end, it is faith vs faith - belief in evolution versus a belief in creation. Nonetheless, many of his premises resonate very well, for non-believers and believers alike. I personally like to believe in a god, but am not necessarily confident of his existence (i.e., my faith isn't really high . . .). I think the problem with religion vs science is that science is a never-ending process. We're learning new things everyday, achieving breakthroughs every now and then. A lot of Carson's "counter-evidence" for evolution relies on the current evidence and knowledge that we have for evolution. If trends tell us anything, it is only a matter of time when we will have gathered sufficient evidence to lay the question to rest.

I'm shocked that this guy is a surgeon, considering he uses all the same strawmen, incredulity and ignorance fallacies used by other ID'ers and creationists.

What are some strawmen arguments he made?

The usual ones, life cannot come about from non-life, natural selection cannot produce other species, etc. Carson does not have anything new, he is no different from other creationists.

I'm pretty sure scientists do argue that life came about from non-life. Remember in bio class when we all learned about prokaryotes and eukaryotes? I know I did. Eukaryotic cells are what define living organisms vs prokaryotic cells defining the make-up of things like bacteria. With time, evolution took its course and prokaryotic organisms eventually churned up eukaryotic cells. The question of how a scientist defines a living organism versus that of a non-living organism is what's interesting. Afterall, i'll always remember what my A.P bio teacher once noted: humans are made entirely of enzymes. That's it.

I definitely don't agree that humans just "popped" into existence via a God, but I can imagine a god having creating the conditions necessary for the eventual existence of them.

A problem Carson has is that he simply can't imagine/accept that biological evolution is capable of producing highly complex organs/organisms.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 8:26:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 8:23:37 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/25/2015 7:42:20 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/25/2015 6:11:25 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/25/2015 5:53:01 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/25/2015 5:04:21 PM, ben2974 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

If you are going to contribute to this thread, I duly request that you have watched the whole video, so as not to contribute ignorantly and thus negligently. . Also, somewhere in your post, please state your general religious alignment.

That said . . .

I do not agree with everything he says here, and his final conclusion is somewhat unsatisfying; he determines that, in the end, it is faith vs faith - belief in evolution versus a belief in creation. Nonetheless, many of his premises resonate very well, for non-believers and believers alike. I personally like to believe in a god, but am not necessarily confident of his existence (i.e., my faith isn't really high . . .). I think the problem with religion vs science is that science is a never-ending process. We're learning new things everyday, achieving breakthroughs every now and then. A lot of Carson's "counter-evidence" for evolution relies on the current evidence and knowledge that we have for evolution. If trends tell us anything, it is only a matter of time when we will have gathered sufficient evidence to lay the question to rest.

I'm shocked that this guy is a surgeon, considering he uses all the same strawmen, incredulity and ignorance fallacies used by other ID'ers and creationists.

What are some strawmen arguments he made?

The usual ones, life cannot come about from non-life, natural selection cannot produce other species, etc. Carson does not have anything new, he is no different from other creationists.

I'm pretty sure scientists do argue that life came about from non-life. Remember in bio class when we all learned about prokaryotes and eukaryotes? I know I did. Eukaryotic cells are what define living organisms vs prokaryotic cells defining the make-up of things like bacteria. With time, evolution took its course and prokaryotic organisms eventually churned up eukaryotic cells. The question of how a scientist defines a living organism versus that of a non-living organism is what's interesting. Afterall, i'll always remember what my A.P bio teacher once noted: humans are made entirely of enzymes. That's it.

I definitely don't agree that humans just "popped" into existence via a God, but I can imagine a god having creating the conditions necessary for the eventual existence of them.

Nothing in reality appears to have anything to do with gods and everything to do with the physical laws.

A problem Carson has is that he simply can't imagine/accept that biological evolution is capable of producing highly complex organs/organisms.

Hence, Carson's incredulity and ignorance.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 8:34:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 5:04:21 PM, ben2974 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

If you are going to contribute to this thread, I duly request that you have watched the whole video, so as not to contribute ignorantly and thus negligently. . Also, somewhere in your post, please state your general religious alignment.

That said . . .

I do not agree with everything he says here, and his final conclusion is somewhat unsatisfying; he determines that, in the end, it is faith vs faith - belief in evolution versus a belief in creation. Nonetheless, many of his premises resonate very well, for non-believers and believers alike. I personally like to believe in a god, but am not necessarily confident of his existence (i.e., my faith isn't really high . . .). I think the problem with religion vs science is that science is a never-ending process. We're learning new things everyday, achieving breakthroughs every now and then. A lot of Carson's "counter-evidence" for evolution relies on the current evidence and knowledge that we have for evolution. If trends tell us anything, it is only a matter of time when we will have gathered sufficient evidence to lay the question to rest.

Seeing as how there is more activity here, I'll reproduce my response from the other forum here:

First off, I am SO disappointed in Ben Carson. His entire speech is relying on arguments from incredulity, strawmans of evolution, and complete ignorance - none of which refute evolution.

As I said in my earlier post, we have evidence for evolution and none for God. It is absurd to deny the evidence for evolution (in many many disparate fields of science) in favor of an illogical claim which can only be advocated under the pretense that ignorance is knowledge.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
katie.snappy
Posts: 108
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 9:48:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The fact that Dr. Carson's stance on evolution and creationism is somehow considered relevant to his ability to lead the country is concerning.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 9:53:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 9:48:10 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
The fact that Dr. Carson's stance on evolution and creationism is somehow considered relevant to his ability to lead the country is concerning.

It's concerning because his adherence to an obviously false belief system in the face of modern knowledge does not speak well of his ability to think critically and rationally, hence his leadership of our nation would be less that optimal.
katie.snappy
Posts: 108
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 10:02:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 9:53:27 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/25/2015 9:48:10 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
The fact that Dr. Carson's stance on evolution and creationism is somehow considered relevant to his ability to lead the country is concerning.

It's concerning because his adherence to an obviously false belief system in the face of modern knowledge does not speak well of his ability to think critically and rationally, hence his leadership of our nation would be less that optimal.

Although I identify as atheist, I do not find his personal beliefs concerning. Rather, the fact that he bases his decisions on these beliefs rather than critical thinking is concerning.
Serato
Posts: 743
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 10:31:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 10:02:26 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
At 8/25/2015 9:53:27 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/25/2015 9:48:10 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
The fact that Dr. Carson's stance on evolution and creationism is somehow considered relevant to his ability to lead the country is concerning.

It's concerning because his adherence to an obviously false belief system in the face of modern knowledge does not speak well of his ability to think critically and rationally, hence his leadership of our nation would be less that optimal.

Although I identify as atheist, I do not find his personal beliefs concerning. Rather, the fact that he bases his decisions on these beliefs rather than critical thinking is concerning.

What's even more concerning is how oblivious you are to flipping this BS back towards you. If his decisions are based on his beliefs, then what are you? because only a lifeless robot makes decisions based without beliefs. So here you are as an Atheist, standing high and mighty in front of an avalanche of evidence supporting the presence of gods, and babbling on and on and when it hits you smack in the face burying 10 feet under because too busy were you to see it coming, and this concerns me.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 11:16:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 9:48:10 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
The fact that Dr. Carson's stance on evolution and creationism is somehow considered relevant to his ability to lead the country is concerning.

It is relevant to me. I would prefer to have a leader representing the governed rather than his concept of god, but I don't think we will have a much of a choice in that regard.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
katie.snappy
Posts: 108
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 11:23:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 10:31:17 PM, Serato wrote:
At 8/25/2015 10:02:26 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
At 8/25/2015 9:53:27 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/25/2015 9:48:10 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
The fact that Dr. Carson's stance on evolution and creationism is somehow considered relevant to his ability to lead the country is concerning.

It's concerning because his adherence to an obviously false belief system in the face of modern knowledge does not speak well of his ability to think critically and rationally, hence his leadership of our nation would be less that optimal.

Although I identify as atheist, I do not find his personal beliefs concerning. Rather, the fact that he bases his decisions on these beliefs rather than critical thinking is concerning.

What's even more concerning is how oblivious you are to flipping this BS back towards you. If his decisions are based on his beliefs, then what are you? because only a lifeless robot makes decisions based without beliefs. So here you are as an Atheist, standing high and mighty in front of an avalanche of evidence supporting the presence of gods, and babbling on and on and when it hits you smack in the face burying 10 feet under because too busy were you to see it coming, and this concerns me.

I'm sorry, I should have clarified. I meant to say that I don't find the fact that he is very religious to be concerning. I find it concerning that religion is involved in politics, a place where it doesn't belong. And in response to your ad hominem attack, I am not saying that I do not have beliefs, I am saying that my beliefs are not ones that do not belong in politics. And should anyone provide me compelling evidence that proves that there is a god, I would willingly accept that reality and convert. In the absence of that evidence, however, I do not believe.
katie.snappy
Posts: 108
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 11:27:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 11:16:43 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/25/2015 9:48:10 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
The fact that Dr. Carson's stance on evolution and creationism is somehow considered relevant to his ability to lead the country is concerning.

It is relevant to me. I would prefer to have a leader representing the governed rather than his concept of god, but I don't think we will have a much of a choice in that regard.

True.
Serato
Posts: 743
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 12:07:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 11:23:15 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
At 8/25/2015 10:31:17 PM, Serato wrote:
At 8/25/2015 10:02:26 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
At 8/25/2015 9:53:27 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/25/2015 9:48:10 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
The fact that Dr. Carson's stance on evolution and creationism is somehow considered relevant to his ability to lead the country is concerning.

It's concerning because his adherence to an obviously false belief system in the face of modern knowledge does not speak well of his ability to think critically and rationally, hence his leadership of our nation would be less that optimal.

Although I identify as atheist, I do not find his personal beliefs concerning. Rather, the fact that he bases his decisions on these beliefs rather than critical thinking is concerning.

What's even more concerning is how oblivious you are to flipping this BS back towards you. If his decisions are based on his beliefs, then what are you? because only a lifeless robot makes decisions based without beliefs. So here you are as an Atheist, standing high and mighty in front of an avalanche of evidence supporting the presence of gods, and babbling on and on and when it hits you smack in the face burying 10 feet under because too busy were you to see it coming, and this concerns me.

I'm sorry, I should have clarified. I meant to say that I don't find the fact that he is very religious to be concerning. I find it concerning that religion is involved in politics, a place where it doesn't belong. And in response to your ad hominem attack, I am not saying that I do not have beliefs, I am saying that my beliefs are not ones that do not belong in politics. And should anyone provide me compelling evidence that proves that there is a god, I would willingly accept that reality and convert. In the absence of that evidence, however, I do not believe.

Well the evidence is there, so I hope you don't go into politics and make mass decisions because you're walking deaf, dumb and blind. Your have a handicap, so stay out of politics. There are already too many morons in politics, but at least they're not Atheists. Maybe they chose the wrong god, but at least they're not stupid.
katie.snappy
Posts: 108
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 12:34:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/26/2015 12:07:08 AM, Serato wrote:
Well the evidence is there, so I hope you don't go into politics and make mass decisions because you're walking deaf, dumb and blind. Your have a handicap, so stay out of politics. There are already too many morons in politics, but at least they're not Atheists. Maybe they chose the wrong god, but at least they're not stupid.

You may say being a nonbeliever is a handicap, but plenty of people also believe that believing is a handicap. It is all a matter of perception. Your beliefs are no more or less valid than my non-belief. And for the record, religion has no place in government. The Constitution made it very clear that there is to be a separation of church and state. Government is to act within the bounds of the law and protect the rights of all citizens. Including Christians, Catholics, Hindus, Muslims, and Atheists.

The reality is that the personal beliefs of politicians do not belong in government. Government is not about religion. It is about the protection of the people and preserving Constitutional principles.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 12:53:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 10:31:17 PM, Serato wrote:
At 8/25/2015 10:02:26 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
At 8/25/2015 9:53:27 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/25/2015 9:48:10 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
The fact that Dr. Carson's stance on evolution and creationism is somehow considered relevant to his ability to lead the country is concerning.

It's concerning because his adherence to an obviously false belief system in the face of modern knowledge does not speak well of his ability to think critically and rationally, hence his leadership of our nation would be less that optimal.

Although I identify as atheist, I do not find his personal beliefs concerning. Rather, the fact that he bases his decisions on these beliefs rather than critical thinking is concerning.

What's even more concerning is how oblivious you are to flipping this BS back towards you. If his decisions are based on his beliefs, then what are you? because only a lifeless robot makes decisions based without beliefs.

So, what you're saying is that the brain can only function with religious beliefs? Nothing else will work with the brain? Understanding of things doesn't work?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 8:01:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 5:04:21 PM, ben2974 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

If you are going to contribute to this thread, I duly request that you have watched the whole video, so as not to contribute ignorantly and thus negligently. . Also, somewhere in your post, please state your general religious alignment.

That said . . .

I do not agree with everything he says here, and his final conclusion is somewhat unsatisfying; he determines that, in the end, it is faith vs faith - belief in evolution versus a belief in creation. Nonetheless, many of his premises resonate very well, for non-believers and believers alike. I personally like to believe in a god, but am not necessarily confident of his existence (i.e., my faith isn't really high . . .). I think the problem with religion vs science is that science is a never-ending process. We're learning new things everyday, achieving breakthroughs every now and then. A lot of Carson's "counter-evidence" for evolution relies on the current evidence and knowledge that we have for evolution. If trends tell us anything, it is only a matter of time when we will have gathered sufficient evidence to lay the question to rest.

i agree science continues to change and improve, where religion is stagnant. every time a religion is proven wrong by science then it changes from " historical fact" to a parable or some other excuse.
the only thing that can disprove science, is more science
Serato
Posts: 743
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 12:19:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/26/2015 12:53:07 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/25/2015 10:31:17 PM, Serato wrote:
At 8/25/2015 10:02:26 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
At 8/25/2015 9:53:27 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/25/2015 9:48:10 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
The fact that Dr. Carson's stance on evolution and creationism is somehow considered relevant to his ability to lead the country is concerning.

It's concerning because his adherence to an obviously false belief system in the face of modern knowledge does not speak well of his ability to think critically and rationally, hence his leadership of our nation would be less that optimal.

Although I identify as atheist, I do not find his personal beliefs concerning. Rather, the fact that he bases his decisions on these beliefs rather than critical thinking is concerning.

What's even more concerning is how oblivious you are to flipping this BS back towards you. If his decisions are based on his beliefs, then what are you? because only a lifeless robot makes decisions based without beliefs.

So, what you're saying is that the brain can only function with religious beliefs? Nothing else will work with the brain? Understanding of things doesn't work?

Honestly I'm not sure what I'm saying. I don't even know who Dr.Carson is, nor was I aware that he was running for office. In fact I've no idea who any of the candidates are. And I'm unaware of these things because of the impacts that certain fundamental beliefs of mine have in affecting various outcomes. So it seems a person's core beliefs unwillingly guide their thought process. For example, an Atheist unbelieving in gods and the esoteric societies that further the agendas of these gods, for the Atheist assuming none of this exists, this lays a foundation for believing a separation of church and state can not only be possible, but is ongoing.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 12:50:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 9:53:27 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/25/2015 9:48:10 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
The fact that Dr. Carson's stance on evolution and creationism is somehow considered relevant to his ability to lead the country is concerning.

It's concerning because his adherence to an obviously false belief system in the face of modern knowledge does not speak well of his ability to think critically and rationally, hence his leadership of our nation would be less that optimal.

In the description of the video it says that his talk was made in 2011. And, if you had listened to the talk (or still, read the description), you would have learned that he was speaking at a "Celebration of Creation" event. This is hardly linked to his run for for the presidency. I can accept that what he thinks on the subject of evolution and religion is closed-minded, but I can't accept that just because he has such an immense faith in religion that the rest of his character, his efforts as a neurosurgeon, and everything he has done in between should be shunned and ignored. At best, his dogmatic faith in religion only blocks discourse for him in the specified sciences; he can certainly think critically and rationally in many other types of discourse. After all, you don't just become a neurosurgeon . . .
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 1:33:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/26/2015 12:50:25 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/25/2015 9:53:27 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/25/2015 9:48:10 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
The fact that Dr. Carson's stance on evolution and creationism is somehow considered relevant to his ability to lead the country is concerning.

It's concerning because his adherence to an obviously false belief system in the face of modern knowledge does not speak well of his ability to think critically and rationally, hence his leadership of our nation would be less that optimal.

In the description of the video it says that his talk was made in 2011. And, if you had listened to the talk (or still, read the description), you would have learned that he was speaking at a "Celebration of Creation" event. This is hardly linked to his run for for the presidency. I can accept that what he thinks on the subject of evolution and religion is closed-minded, but I can't accept that just because he has such an immense faith in religion that the rest of his character, his efforts as a neurosurgeon, and everything he has done in between should be shunned and ignored. At best, his dogmatic faith in religion only blocks discourse for him in the specified sciences; he can certainly think critically and rationally in many other types of discourse. After all, you don't just become a neurosurgeon . . .

No, you don't. It requires a great deal of study and information gathering as well as a high level of manual skill. He chooses to abandon all of that to promote a system that has no scientific or factual basis. It demonstrates a serious schism in his thought processes and that is what frightens me for him as a potential leader of our nation.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 1:55:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/26/2015 1:33:38 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/26/2015 12:50:25 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/25/2015 9:53:27 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/25/2015 9:48:10 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
The fact that Dr. Carson's stance on evolution and creationism is somehow considered relevant to his ability to lead the country is concerning.

It's concerning because his adherence to an obviously false belief system in the face of modern knowledge does not speak well of his ability to think critically and rationally, hence his leadership of our nation would be less that optimal.

In the description of the video it says that his talk was made in 2011. And, if you had listened to the talk (or still, read the description), you would have learned that he was speaking at a "Celebration of Creation" event. This is hardly linked to his run for for the presidency. I can accept that what he thinks on the subject of evolution and religion is closed-minded, but I can't accept that just because he has such an immense faith in religion that the rest of his character, his efforts as a neurosurgeon, and everything he has done in between should be shunned and ignored. At best, his dogmatic faith in religion only blocks discourse for him in the specified sciences; he can certainly think critically and rationally in many other types of discourse. After all, you don't just become a neurosurgeon . . .

No, you don't. It requires a great deal of study and information gathering as well as a high level of manual skill. He chooses to abandon all of that to promote a system that has no scientific or factual basis. It demonstrates a serious schism in his thought processes and that is what frightens me for him as a potential leader of our nation.

But I don't think religious influence on belief in the sciences permeates in the same way for politics, or for any other matter, to be honest. As long as church and state are separated, that's fine. Carson's religious beliefs would then only affect his values (political, social, economical), and values should be judged by their own merits. You don't have to be an atheist (or reformed) to have valid values.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 2:01:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/26/2015 1:55:58 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/26/2015 1:33:38 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/26/2015 12:50:25 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/25/2015 9:53:27 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/25/2015 9:48:10 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
The fact that Dr. Carson's stance on evolution and creationism is somehow considered relevant to his ability to lead the country is concerning.

It's concerning because his adherence to an obviously false belief system in the face of modern knowledge does not speak well of his ability to think critically and rationally, hence his leadership of our nation would be less that optimal.

In the description of the video it says that his talk was made in 2011. And, if you had listened to the talk (or still, read the description), you would have learned that he was speaking at a "Celebration of Creation" event. This is hardly linked to his run for for the presidency. I can accept that what he thinks on the subject of evolution and religion is closed-minded, but I can't accept that just because he has such an immense faith in religion that the rest of his character, his efforts as a neurosurgeon, and everything he has done in between should be shunned and ignored. At best, his dogmatic faith in religion only blocks discourse for him in the specified sciences; he can certainly think critically and rationally in many other types of discourse. After all, you don't just become a neurosurgeon . . .

No, you don't. It requires a great deal of study and information gathering as well as a high level of manual skill. He chooses to abandon all of that to promote a system that has no scientific or factual basis. It demonstrates a serious schism in his thought processes and that is what frightens me for him as a potential leader of our nation.

But I don't think religious influence on belief in the sciences permeates in the same way for politics, or for any other matter, to be honest. As long as church and state are separated, that's fine. Carson's religious beliefs would then only affect his values (political, social, economical), and values should be judged by their own merits. You don't have to be an atheist (or reformed) to have valid values.

I'm not questioning his values, I'm questioning his ability to be rational in all instances. If this man were to be the leader of our nation he will be under huge amounts of pressure from all sides. It takes a disciplined mind to make clear, unbiased decisions under that kind of stress and anyone who demonstrates what I consider to be an irrational course of thought is potentially hazardous in that role as the leader of our country. I cannot have confidence in a man of science and technology who chooses to ignore everything he learned to endorse an unsupported, purely religious point of view. As I said, it demonstrates a poor grasp of facts or excessive pandering to a religious group. Either way, it does not belong in politics at any level.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 2:32:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/26/2015 2:01:24 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/26/2015 1:55:58 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/26/2015 1:33:38 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/26/2015 12:50:25 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/25/2015 9:53:27 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/25/2015 9:48:10 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
The fact that Dr. Carson's stance on evolution and creationism is somehow considered relevant to his ability to lead the country is concerning.

It's concerning because his adherence to an obviously false belief system in the face of modern knowledge does not speak well of his ability to think critically and rationally, hence his leadership of our nation would be less that optimal.

In the description of the video it says that his talk was made in 2011. And, if you had listened to the talk (or still, read the description), you would have learned that he was speaking at a "Celebration of Creation" event. This is hardly linked to his run for for the presidency. I can accept that what he thinks on the subject of evolution and religion is closed-minded, but I can't accept that just because he has such an immense faith in religion that the rest of his character, his efforts as a neurosurgeon, and everything he has done in between should be shunned and ignored. At best, his dogmatic faith in religion only blocks discourse for him in the specified sciences; he can certainly think critically and rationally in many other types of discourse. After all, you don't just become a neurosurgeon . . .

No, you don't. It requires a great deal of study and information gathering as well as a high level of manual skill. He chooses to abandon all of that to promote a system that has no scientific or factual basis. It demonstrates a serious schism in his thought processes and that is what frightens me for him as a potential leader of our nation.

But I don't think religious influence on belief in the sciences permeates in the same way for politics, or for any other matter, to be honest. As long as church and state are separated, that's fine. Carson's religious beliefs would then only affect his values (political, social, economical), and values should be judged by their own merits. You don't have to be an atheist (or reformed) to have valid values.

I'm not questioning his values, I'm questioning his ability to be rational in all instances. If this man were to be the leader of our nation he will be under huge amounts of pressure from all sides. It takes a disciplined mind to make clear, unbiased decisions under that kind of stress and anyone who demonstrates what I consider to be an irrational course of thought is potentially hazardous in that role as the leader of our country. I cannot have confidence in a man of science and technology who chooses to ignore everything he learned to endorse an unsupported, purely religious point of view. As I said, it demonstrates a poor grasp of facts or excessive pandering to a religious group. Either way, it does not belong in politics at any level.

Nobody is unbiased in their decision making. Carson can rationalize societal issues (i.e., social, political, economic) like anyone else. I was trying to argue that the only influence his religion would have on his presidency is the value system that comes with religion, and good values are not exclusive to atheists and the likes. The worst he could do is try to make schools teach both creation and evolution.
I would also argue that Carson would be great under pressure, and would be very disciplined as a global diplomat and commander in chief. His experience as a neurosurgeon and its effects on his demeanor has been made clear during his recent debates, interviews, and talks: cool, calm, and collected.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 2:34:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/26/2015 2:32:24 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/26/2015 2:01:24 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/26/2015 1:55:58 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/26/2015 1:33:38 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/26/2015 12:50:25 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/25/2015 9:53:27 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/25/2015 9:48:10 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
The fact that Dr. Carson's stance on evolution and creationism is somehow considered relevant to his ability to lead the country is concerning.

It's concerning because his adherence to an obviously false belief system in the face of modern knowledge does not speak well of his ability to think critically and rationally, hence his leadership of our nation would be less that optimal.

In the description of the video it says that his talk was made in 2011. And, if you had listened to the talk (or still, read the description), you would have learned that he was speaking at a "Celebration of Creation" event. This is hardly linked to his run for for the presidency. I can accept that what he thinks on the subject of evolution and religion is closed-minded, but I can't accept that just because he has such an immense faith in religion that the rest of his character, his efforts as a neurosurgeon, and everything he has done in between should be shunned and ignored. At best, his dogmatic faith in religion only blocks discourse for him in the specified sciences; he can certainly think critically and rationally in many other types of discourse. After all, you don't just become a neurosurgeon . . .

No, you don't. It requires a great deal of study and information gathering as well as a high level of manual skill. He chooses to abandon all of that to promote a system that has no scientific or factual basis. It demonstrates a serious schism in his thought processes and that is what frightens me for him as a potential leader of our nation.

But I don't think religious influence on belief in the sciences permeates in the same way for politics, or for any other matter, to be honest. As long as church and state are separated, that's fine. Carson's religious beliefs would then only affect his values (political, social, economical), and values should be judged by their own merits. You don't have to be an atheist (or reformed) to have valid values.

I'm not questioning his values, I'm questioning his ability to be rational in all instances. If this man were to be the leader of our nation he will be under huge amounts of pressure from all sides. It takes a disciplined mind to make clear, unbiased decisions under that kind of stress and anyone who demonstrates what I consider to be an irrational course of thought is potentially hazardous in that role as the leader of our country. I cannot have confidence in a man of science and technology who chooses to ignore everything he learned to endorse an unsupported, purely religious point of view. As I said, it demonstrates a poor grasp of facts or excessive pandering to a religious group. Either way, it does not belong in politics at any level.

Nobody is unbiased in their decision making. Carson can rationalize societal issues (i.e., social, political, economic) like anyone else. I was trying to argue that the only influence his religion would have on his presidency is the value system that comes with religion, and good values are not exclusive to atheists and the likes. The worst he could do is try to make schools teach both creation and evolution.
I would also argue that Carson would be great under pressure, and would be very disciplined as a global diplomat and commander in chief. His experience as a neurosurgeon and its effects on his demeanor has been made clear during his recent debates, interviews, and talks: cool, calm, and collected.

What I'm saying with the values thing is that everyone critically examines issues with a biased eye. That eye is formed by person's values.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 2:35:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/26/2015 2:32:24 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/26/2015 2:01:24 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/26/2015 1:55:58 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/26/2015 1:33:38 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/26/2015 12:50:25 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/25/2015 9:53:27 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/25/2015 9:48:10 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
The fact that Dr. Carson's stance on evolution and creationism is somehow considered relevant to his ability to lead the country is concerning.

It's concerning because his adherence to an obviously false belief system in the face of modern knowledge does not speak well of his ability to think critically and rationally, hence his leadership of our nation would be less that optimal.

In the description of the video it says that his talk was made in 2011. And, if you had listened to the talk (or still, read the description), you would have learned that he was speaking at a "Celebration of Creation" event. This is hardly linked to his run for for the presidency. I can accept that what he thinks on the subject of evolution and religion is closed-minded, but I can't accept that just because he has such an immense faith in religion that the rest of his character, his efforts as a neurosurgeon, and everything he has done in between should be shunned and ignored. At best, his dogmatic faith in religion only blocks discourse for him in the specified sciences; he can certainly think critically and rationally in many other types of discourse. After all, you don't just become a neurosurgeon . . .

No, you don't. It requires a great deal of study and information gathering as well as a high level of manual skill. He chooses to abandon all of that to promote a system that has no scientific or factual basis. It demonstrates a serious schism in his thought processes and that is what frightens me for him as a potential leader of our nation.

But I don't think religious influence on belief in the sciences permeates in the same way for politics, or for any other matter, to be honest. As long as church and state are separated, that's fine. Carson's religious beliefs would then only affect his values (political, social, economical), and values should be judged by their own merits. You don't have to be an atheist (or reformed) to have valid values.

I'm not questioning his values, I'm questioning his ability to be rational in all instances. If this man were to be the leader of our nation he will be under huge amounts of pressure from all sides. It takes a disciplined mind to make clear, unbiased decisions under that kind of stress and anyone who demonstrates what I consider to be an irrational course of thought is potentially hazardous in that role as the leader of our country. I cannot have confidence in a man of science and technology who chooses to ignore everything he learned to endorse an unsupported, purely religious point of view. As I said, it demonstrates a poor grasp of facts or excessive pandering to a religious group. Either way, it does not belong in politics at any level.

Nobody is unbiased in their decision making. Carson can rationalize societal issues (i.e., social, political, economic) like anyone else. I was trying to argue that the only influence his religion would have on his presidency is the value system that comes with religion, and good values are not exclusive to atheists and the likes. The worst he could do is try to make schools teach both creation and evolution.
I would also argue that Carson would be great under pressure, and would be very disciplined as a global diplomat and commander in chief. His experience as a neurosurgeon and its effects on his demeanor has been made clear during his recent debates, interviews, and talks: cool, calm, and collected.

"The worst he could do is try to make schools teach both creation and evolution."

Really? He could collaborate with other religious lawmakers and attempt to make his religious beliefs part of the law of the land. He could appoint supreme court judges sympathetic to his religious views. There are LOTS worse things he could do, worst case scenario. Do I think he would? Probably not, but I don't want someone who will deny facts to make judgments running the country.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 2:41:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/26/2015 2:35:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/26/2015 2:32:24 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/26/2015 2:01:24 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/26/2015 1:55:58 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/26/2015 1:33:38 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/26/2015 12:50:25 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/25/2015 9:53:27 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/25/2015 9:48:10 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
The fact that Dr. Carson's stance on evolution and creationism is somehow considered relevant to his ability to lead the country is concerning.

It's concerning because his adherence to an obviously false belief system in the face of modern knowledge does not speak well of his ability to think critically and rationally, hence his leadership of our nation would be less that optimal.

In the description of the video it says that his talk was made in 2011. And, if you had listened to the talk (or still, read the description), you would have learned that he was speaking at a "Celebration of Creation" event. This is hardly linked to his run for for the presidency. I can accept that what he thinks on the subject of evolution and religion is closed-minded, but I can't accept that just because he has such an immense faith in religion that the rest of his character, his efforts as a neurosurgeon, and everything he has done in between should be shunned and ignored. At best, his dogmatic faith in religion only blocks discourse for him in the specified sciences; he can certainly think critically and rationally in many other types of discourse. After all, you don't just become a neurosurgeon . . .

No, you don't. It requires a great deal of study and information gathering as well as a high level of manual skill. He chooses to abandon all of that to promote a system that has no scientific or factual basis. It demonstrates a serious schism in his thought processes and that is what frightens me for him as a potential leader of our nation.

But I don't think religious influence on belief in the sciences permeates in the same way for politics, or for any other matter, to be honest. As long as church and state are separated, that's fine. Carson's religious beliefs would then only affect his values (political, social, economical), and values should be judged by their own merits. You don't have to be an atheist (or reformed) to have valid values.

I'm not questioning his values, I'm questioning his ability to be rational in all instances. If this man were to be the leader of our nation he will be under huge amounts of pressure from all sides. It takes a disciplined mind to make clear, unbiased decisions under that kind of stress and anyone who demonstrates what I consider to be an irrational course of thought is potentially hazardous in that role as the leader of our country. I cannot have confidence in a man of science and technology who chooses to ignore everything he learned to endorse an unsupported, purely religious point of view. As I said, it demonstrates a poor grasp of facts or excessive pandering to a religious group. Either way, it does not belong in politics at any level.

Nobody is unbiased in their decision making. Carson can rationalize societal issues (i.e., social, political, economic) like anyone else. I was trying to argue that the only influence his religion would have on his presidency is the value system that comes with religion, and good values are not exclusive to atheists and the likes. The worst he could do is try to make schools teach both creation and evolution.
I would also argue that Carson would be great under pressure, and would be very disciplined as a global diplomat and commander in chief. His experience as a neurosurgeon and its effects on his demeanor has been made clear during his recent debates, interviews, and talks: cool, calm, and collected.

"The worst he could do is try to make schools teach both creation and evolution."

Really? He could collaborate with other religious lawmakers and attempt to make his religious beliefs part of the law of the land. He could appoint supreme court judges sympathetic to his religious views. There are LOTS worse things he could do, worst case scenario. Do I think he would? Probably not, but I don't want someone who will deny facts to make judgments running the country.

Hopefully he'll have the opportunity to elaborate on possible religiously inspired policy endeavors in future interviews and debates. But wouldn't all of what you mentioned be against the separation of church and state anyway?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 2:42:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The worst he could do is try to make schools teach both creation and evolution.

No he cant! I have a list of SCOTUS cases he might want to look at.