Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 57443

I'm not opposed to research or the search for knowledge or the practical use of science in the form of technology. I do not reject the scientific method as a means to study the physical world. I do not reject teaching science and the scientific method in school.
What I do reject is the abuse and misuse of science as a tool to promote leftist and agenda and establish political policy. I reject the misuse of it to justify government control of education. I reject the misuse of science as a weapon with which to bash and discredit religious beliefs and to make the Bible out to be a lie.

My decision to not accept the interpretation of the forensic and circumstantial evidence found in the fossil record that are used to support the ToE does not mean that I am anti-science. All it means is that I do not accept the interpretation of the fossil record because I think that their interpretation is wrong and that there are other better ones.

By your own definitions, the best scientists can do is say that the evidence supports their theory. That's not good enough. That's not a better reason to accept the ToE rather than to accept Scripture. On the contrary, believing the God who doesn't lie makes much more sense than believing the uncertain, indeterminate conclusions of men.

Calling me anti-science is a lie, plain and simple. It is not true and will never be no matter how often you repeat it and how much you wish it were so.

metmom, Free Republic 46 Comments [1/29/2009 1:48:30 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
Hi

metmom is anti-science.
I never lie.

1/29/2009 1:59:06 PM

rubber chicken

The evidence supports the TOE, it does not support Biblical creation.
Science says, follow the evidence. You do not follow the evidence, therefore you are not following science. Therefore you are anti-science, now STFU

1/29/2009 2:04:52 PM

Lucretius

The first paragraph is fine if a limited definition of what science is ,limiting to a purely techonlogical application.

But it goes downhill from then on ,since when has science promoted a leftist and (sic)agenda and establish political policy ?
If anything in science does make the Bible out to be a lie then that is a problem with the Bible and not science.
metmom is indeed anti science.

1/29/2009 2:09:20 PM

Zoo

"That's not good enough."

Theory of gravity anyone?

Anyway I need, before I will consider you or people like you seriously, the names of these other better "theories" and a good sampling of the evidence for each. You and your type NEVER supply it.

You are not a scientist (not that one has to be), you don't think like one (here's the real problem), you aren't even honest with yourself (this doesn't help at all), you are not qualified to say what is right or wrong scientifically. I'm not always qualified to do so with my current level of training, especially where I also lack general knowledge about a particular topic (except dealing with your sort, you never tax my knowledge at all), but at least I can be honest about labeling what I think separately from what I know.

1/29/2009 2:10:13 PM

Chatvert

And I reject the abuse and misuse of science as a tool to promote religious agendas and establish political policies. I reject the misuse of it to justify fundamentalist control of education. I reject the misuse of science as a weapon with which to bash and discredit the Theory of Evolution and to make the Bible out to be the literal truth.

Cuts both ways, metmom, but points for trying. And whose argument sounds rational, and whose sounds like it should also belong on CTSTDT? 'S what I thought.

1/29/2009 2:23:47 PM

Illuminatalie

God has personally told me that water is an element. Calling me a liar is a lie.

1/29/2009 2:38:06 PM

BufferickVonHellbags

"My decision to not accept the interpretation of the forensic and circumstantial evidence found in the fossil record that are used to support the ToE does not mean that I am anti-science."

umm, yes it does.

@zoo - that was very well said. kudos to you sir!

1/29/2009 2:38:47 PM

aaa

You are pro-bullshit.

1/29/2009 2:39:07 PM

Detrs

You are anti-science.

That's all there is to it.

1/29/2009 3:00:37 PM

Panz

If this is what you believe;
"I reject the misuse of science as a weapon with which to bash and discredit religious beliefs and to make the Bible out to be a lie"
Than this is a lie;
"I'm not opposed to research or the search for knowledge or the practical use of science in the form of technology. I do not reject the scientific method as a means to study the physical world. I do not reject teaching science and the scientific method in school. "

"interpretation is wrong and that there are other better ones. "
wouldn't happen to list any?

"By your own definitions, the best scientists can do is say that the evidence supports their theory. That's not good enough. That's not a better reason to accept the ToE rather than to accept Scripture. On the contrary, believing the God who doesn't lie makes much more sense than believing the uncertain, indeterminate conclusions of men."
Scientists use fact and reason to come to conclusion, you're using a book from 2k years ago penned by man that's riddled with errors and contradictions

1/29/2009 3:02:20 PM

Dan Onymous

Yeah, but you are though.

1/29/2009 3:03:02 PM

Rat of Steel

"On the contrary, believing the God who doesn't lie makes much more sense than believing the uncertain, indeterminate conclusions of men."

Ah, but your god DOES lie, starting with the story of Adam, Eve, and the Tree of Knowledge, and proceeding merrily along from there.

1/29/2009 3:04:33 PM

Pule Thamex

I can see that you are not anti-science where it doesn't conflict with your religious views. The problem is that science does not take religious sensibilities into account when it does its job. Science is concerned with nature and has nothing to say about the supernatural.

The fact that you think evolution is against the bible is neither here nor there, since nature, like science, takes no account of transitory ideas and philosophies.

It is the fundamentalist take on religions that causes the rot to set in and tends to result in indefensible positions and the adopting of a belligerent stance. It would be as if you insisted pi must be equal to exactly 3 instead of 3.14159, to 5 decimal places, and proclaimed that all mathematics can be taught as long as pi equals exactly 3.

It would make a mockery of the whole education system if you were to pick and choose those bits you could live with and avoid those that were contrary to religious interpretation.

There is no virtue to being unenlightened, and the lowering of ones national educational standard is surely something to guard against.

1/29/2009 3:32:59 PM

David B.

"My decision to not accept the interpretation of the forensic and circumstantial evidence found in the fossil record that are used to support the ToE does not mean that I am anti-science."

1. Learn what forensic means.
2. Yes it does, pretty much by definition.

"By your own definitions, the best scientists can do is say that the evidence supports their theory. That's not good enough."

1. This is true of all science, therefore no science is "good enough" by your criteria.
2. Hence you are anti-science.

"On the contrary, believing the God who doesn't lie makes much more sense than believing the uncertain, indeterminate conclusions of men."

1. Your only proof that God does not lie is that it says he doesn't in a book you claim was written by him.
2. It is pretty much disproved by the multiple independent lines of evidence that point to an ancient and natural origin for the stars, planets (including Earth) and life. Either the bible is wrong and God lied about how the world was created, or the bible is right and God chose to stamp the world with a single, monstrous lie of apparent age and origin.

1/29/2009 3:37:13 PM

Mister Spak

"What I do reject is the abuse and misuse of science as a tool to promote leftist and agenda and establish political policy."

Lucky for you that doesn't happen.

1/29/2009 3:38:04 PM

practical_god

Science is okay so long as useful stuff comes from it, but science is not okay if I have to think about where any of this stuff comes from.

You. Are. A. Freeloading. Idiot.

1/29/2009 3:56:20 PM

werewolf

I wouldn't call you anti-science. I'd characterize you as ignorant. Go learn something. It's good for you.

1/29/2009 3:59:14 PM

CT

I reject the misuse of science as a weapon with which to bash and discredit religious beliefs and to make the Bible out to be a lie.

Hey Fucktard... you lot started all this by using the Bible to attack Science. Stop fucking crying now that Science is fighting back and showing the "evidence" you use (aka The Bible) is a load of shit.


Seriously... if you fucking start something, see it through to the end and don't BAAAAWWWWWWW when you lose.

Fucking crybaby...

1/29/2009 4:03:36 PM

booley

Oh I see, You're not anti-science, you just reject the primary principle behind science, that to understand the world we need to observe it and the idea that has the most evidence is the best theory.

1/29/2009 4:34:07 PM

TheOutsider

"I'm not anti-science, I just reject science when it hurts my feelings."

1/29/2009 4:35:47 PM

QT

Not accepting the mountains of evidence in favor of evolution in preference of an ancient book that cannot, in any way, be confirmed to be accurate is anti-science.

Get over yourself.

1/29/2009 4:49:36 PM

Headache

My decision to not accept the interpretation of the forensic and circumstantial evidence found in the fossil record that are used to support the ToE does not mean that I am anti-science. All it means is that I do not accept the interpretation of the fossil record because I think that their interpretation is wrong and that there are other better ones.

You have a PhD in Biology? Genetics? Medicine? Geology? Or are you just the single bagger working at Walmart?

You simply have no background in the area and no knowledge that gives you any leverage in order to reject the issues, all you have, is a 2000+ year old collection of goat herder and camel driver scifi books.

You are a fucking moron!

1/29/2009 5:17:03 PM

Atheist Amy

Hmm, I'm pretty sure that interpreting the "forensic and circumstantial" evidence to fit your pre-existing belief system is quite anti-science.

1/29/2009 5:17:46 PM

toothache

Anti-science? Probably not, because you have to know what something is to be against it.

1/29/2009 6:04:30 PM

Grigadil

What I do reject is the abuse and misuse of science religion as a tool to promote leftist neocon and agenda and establish political policy.

1/29/2009 6:09:45 PM
1 2