Why "YEC"/Fundamentalist Creationism is BAD for America

No, as stipulated, there is no discernible beginning. But they are not the universe existing in some form. And those two half-universes emerged from two quarter-universes each. There is no at T=0, its an asymptote. But I have. Multiple times now. With explanations how they refute you. Your behavior shows this to be a lie. You will just dig your heels in further and maintain your belief in spite of all the evidence and explanations. No, you will keep your position regardless. And we'll all watch it happen (its already begun).That's one of the problems with YEC. They already think they're right and nothing anyone ever says can change that. You're exhibiting this behavior exactly.

No, the first step would be to make sure they know that science isn't the only source of knowledge, that when the U.S. was founded, and it was being determined what would be good or bad for it, that science had very little to do with it. Teaching them how to think, not what to think, as one example, would be to make sure they understand what Federalist Paper #10 was about, including the definition of what a 'faction' is. That's for sure, if we give in to atheist, liberal, global warming factions, all the irreversible problems it is sure to cause could have been avoided if only those who allowed it to happen had known something about the tyrannies of history. No, history shows that it did. I'm not sure if the scientific community is attempting to revise that or not, however. If they are, it shouldn't be taught as fact. That's not controversial. I'm sure most atheists/liberals in the scientific community consider any discussion about U.S. financial problems to be "drivel" because most of them don't have even a high school level knowledge of economics. Of course not, I'm sure atheist liberal courses on critical thinking would include nothing more than science, and have little to do with history, economics, morals, etc.

Climate scientists aren't completely in charge of U.S. political decisions, and their opinions of what is bad or good for the U.S. is of minor importance. Of course, if they didn't have information of the special interests that opposed them, I wouldn't think they'd have much credibility.

The tone of the O/P is loaded with all three. Only those who are completely blinded by all three wouldn't be able to see it.

That is just another of your unsupported and dishonest misrepresentations.Science and opposition to creationism and the Christian Cult of Ignorance have nothing to do with atheism, liberalism, global warming factions or not knowing about the tyrannies of history.It has to do with Creationism being dishonest, based on falsehoods, denying reality and the universe GOD created.But I do think it should be taught in schools, in science, in social studies, in history as the example of what happens when people check their brains at the door and stop using the gifts GOD gave them.

You use the word "empirical" as if it's a foolproof, scientific only term. Let's see what dictionary.com has to say about the word;1)derived from or guided by experience or experiment.2)depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.3)provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.Particularly regarding #2, the tyrants of the religions of 250 years ago could correctly say the evidence of their religion was empirical. Says you who desperately wants to run U.S. politics according to atheist/liberal beliefs, and not one other scientific poster on these forums has questioned you on that so far. You're not going to answer my question about where you're from?

Um, the OP self-proclaims himself to be a deist...

They always support what I claim, just because there is opposition to them doesn't make them invalid. The good professor probably got contacted by someone in control of his job, or his life, telling him to get busy and fix his mistake, if he knows what's good for him.

There is often a lot of difference between what someone claims himself to be, and what he writes. But todays deists don't show themselves to be any different from atheists anyway. Very little similarity between todays deists and those few who were involved in U.S. founding.

Well thank god we have you here to set us straight! Well, apart from the whole believing in god thing. Psh, Thomas Jefferson rewrote the Bible and took all the magic out of it...I think your arrogance exhibits one of the reasons that creationism is bad for America.It takes a certain amount of conceit to think that you can take some writing from a guy who calls himself a deist and "determine" that they really aren't one.Or call all scientists atheist liberals.The hubris, its maddening.

You are amazing. Are you saying that political decisions should not be based on science. Wow! If you actually read this stuff and still think they support you, then your reading comprehension and/or basic science skills are very lacking.Even when you are shown that you are misunderstanding something you still go with it. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

The scary thing is that you actual believe this.

You obviously know very little about the founders.

For the simple reason that this is before scientific investigation became formalized and different branches of investigation began, ... certainly it was before Darwin was born.And for the simple reason that this was the "age of reason" and a lot of people were questioning authority, the rational basis for government and even the rational of church based religions.The separation of church and state being part of that. Would be a good idea indeed, especially when it comes to unfounded beliefs and irrational biases, or when it comes to cherry-picking history while ignoring the whole picture. Oh there you go cherry-picking and telling people what to think not how to think. Such as the different factions within religions that don't agree with one another, to say nothing about the disagreement between religions ... and the rational reason that separation of church and state is critical to preserving the freedom of all people to pursue their personal beliefs?Enjoy

nothing is completely useless -- it can always be used as a bad exampleEnjoy