New Republicans - the party of Intelligent Design, hocus pocus, and trickle down economic theory.

Wake the Fuck Up!
Attachments:

Just a thought. Nota sermon.
Attachments:

Atheism is not a religion but you seem be to trying real hard to make it into one.

The bible actually does not specify. Gods years are no comparison to puny human years. So Earths creation in the bible could have occured Gazillions of years before being occupied. Obviously Dinosaurs existed, which scientist claim was millions of years ago. Time before we were created isn't mentioned, because it was not relevant to the purpose of the bibles teachings. Genesis speaks of creation of the Universe. Does not say actual dates. I sometimes wonder if people actually read the bible, or just take Professor Assanines word for it. *sigh*

> Gods years are no comparison to puny human years.

So you're suggesting that god lives on a planet that takes a very long time to revolve around its sun?

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Gods years are no comparison to puny human
> years.
>
> So you're suggesting that god lives on a planet
> that takes a very long time to revolve around its
> sun?


There are only two types of people that take the bible literally - Young Earth Creationists and atheists. Both are equally annoying.

Many in the Republican Party believe the world is 5-6,000 years old and that everything in the Bible is true.

While I believe in God and consider myself a Christian, I can handle scientific progress and facts like evolution - while still living a Christian life with complete faith in God.

America is an awesome country. You are free to be an ignorant ass and can worship Bazooka Joe Bubblegum for all I care - and pretty much everyone will leave you alone.

But I draw the line and can't support a Republican Party that is trying very hard to push their Christian Hocus Pocus version of nonsense into our classrooms and into our Government.

As a Christian - I can't vote for a party who's Candidate, Mitt Romney dismisses half of the country because they are old, infirm, under-priviliged, handicapped, disabled, destitute, poor, out of work, or Veterans.

Check out the 4th Grade Creationist/Intelligent Design Science book on electricity.
Attachments:

Not political, but can't help but notice that some of the high profile republicans who preach family values and christian lifestyles don't really practice either.

Newt Gingrich divorced his wife while she was being treated for cancer. "In sickness and in health"? If they break a vow made before their "God" , how can you trust anything they promise you?

Law and Order Governer Elliot Spitzer was banging whores at 5 grand a pop.
Maybe not a big deal, but Elliot would have approved of you being locked up for the same thing.

Rush Limbo was addicted to designer opiates, got caught smuggling cases of Viagra from the Dominican Republic and also revoked his own marriage vows three times. If a democrat did the same things , old Rush would have used that for fodder on his radio program for years.

Who knows what these hypocrites have done that they weren't caught for?


Agreed, the Democrats are two faced sleezeballs as well, but maybe because they are already considered corrupt, don't appear to be as sneaky about it as the republicans.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/03/2012 12:50PM by BEH.

GOP Double Speak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Many in the Republican Party believe the world is
> 5-6,000 years old and that everything in the Bible
> is true.
>
> While I believe in God and consider myself a
> Christian, I can handle scientific progress and
> facts like evolution - while still living a
> Christian life with complete faith in God.
>
> America is an awesome country. You are free to be
> an ignorant ass and can worship Bazooka Joe
> Bubblegum for all I care - and pretty much
> everyone will leave you alone.
>
> But I draw the line and can't support a Republican
> Party that is trying very hard to push their
> Christian Hocus Pocus version of nonsense into our
> classrooms and into our Government.
>
> As a Christian - I can't vote for a party who's
> Candidate, Mitt Romney dismisses half of the
> country because they are old, infirm,
> under-priviliged, handicapped, disabled,
> destitute, poor, out of work, or Veterans.
>
> Check out the 4th Grade Creationist/Intelligent
> Design Science book on electricity.


I hate to break it to you but, as much as you'd like to pretend that it doesn't, that includes many Democrats. But you ignore them because you need their votes. lol

pooty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> There are only two types of people that take the
> bible literally - Young Earth Creationists and
> atheists. Both are equally annoying.

lol, and where in the bible does it teach that "human years are puny compared to god's years"?

that's not "taking the bible literally". that's pointing out that some people want to believe in it so much, they resort to comepletly making shit up about it.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pooty Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> >
> > There are only two types of people that take
> the
> > bible literally - Young Earth Creationists and
> > atheists. Both are equally annoying.
>
> lol, and where in the bible does it teach that
> "human years are puny compared to god's years"?

Thanks for proving my point that only Young Earth Creationists and atheists take it literally and also proving my point that at least one of those two groups is annoying.

Can I get a Young Earth Creationist to respond so we can see if you are as equally annoying as TheMeeper? I am sure you can do it!

Yes, the mythology of ancient Hebrew tribes should be taken literally, just like we take Greek mythology and Norse mythology literally. It all sounds so factual.

Science!

pooty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TheMeeper Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > pooty Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > There are only two types of people that take
> > the
> > > bible literally - Young Earth Creationists
> and
> > > atheists. Both are equally annoying.
> >
> > lol, and where in the bible does it teach that
> > "human years are puny compared to god's years"?
>
>
> Thanks for proving my point that only Young Earth
> Creationists and atheists take it literally and
> also proving my point that at least one of those
> two groups is annoying.
>
> Can I get a Young Earth Creationist to respond so
> we can see if you are as equally annoying as
> TheMeeper? I am sure you can do it!




It's called "reasoning". If a being "always existed" or is "infinite", then you must ponder it's (his, God's) mentality towards time. To me it seems like common sense, but that would be insulting to suggest you do not possess it. So we just see things differently.

As you are all trying to clown me, you haven't proven where it states how long Earth existed. In Genesis in it extremely vague. So I can't figure out why your conclusion is any more concrete than mine. Circles are wonderful.

A political party that denies truth, science, and facts, and which intentionally lies about truth, science, and facts - does not deserve a seat at the table of Government. They belong in a church or an insane asylum. Truth is not a Democracy.
Attachments:

Kinetic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A political party that denies truth, science, and
> facts, and which intentionally lies about truth,
> science, and facts - does not deserve a seat at
> the table of Government. They belong in a church
> or an insane asylum. Truth is not a Democracy.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg

Please note which Committee he is serving on when asking this question.

^ -1

Logic fail. I didn't specify a political party. There are idiots and liars on both sides of the aisle - politically and religiously.
Attachments:

Kinetic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^ -1
>
> Logic fail. I didn't specify a political party.

Where did I indicate you specified political party? I was simply supporting your assertion about politicians and their ignorance of science.

Logic fail, indeed. On your part.

You are correct. My bad.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pooty Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> >
> > There are only two types of people that take
> the
> > bible literally - Young Earth Creationists and
> > atheists. Both are equally annoying.
>
> lol, and where in the bible does it teach that
> "human years are puny compared to god's years"?
>
> that's not "taking the bible literally". that's
> pointing out that some people want to believe in
> it so much, they resort to comepletly making shit
> up about it.

To be fair, I think Ahmayzin was misremembering 2nd Peter 3:8 -- "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

I'M A FIVE-STAR MAN!!

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pooty Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> >
> > There are only two types of people that take
> the
> > bible literally - Young Earth Creationists and
> > atheists. Both are equally annoying.
>
> lol, and where in the bible does it teach that
> "human years are puny compared to god's years"?
>
> that's not "taking the bible literally". that's
> pointing out that some people want to believe in
> it so much, they resort to comepletly making shit
> up about it.


And where in the Bible does it say the Earth is 6000 years old. You don't know jack about the Bible Meeps.

Where in the Bible does it say the earth was 6,000 years old? Im not sure where anyone gets this from. The Bible does point to a much younger earth than conventional Science dictates. We dont know how old the earth is, in truth. Carbon dating is futile past a certain point.

thetruthshallset youfree Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where in the Bible does it say the earth was 6,000
> years old? Im not sure where anyone gets this
> from. The Bible does point to a much younger earth
> than conventional Science dictates. We dont know
> how old the earth is, in truth. Carbon dating is
> futile past a certain point.

The Ussher chronology is a 17th-century chronology of the history of the world formulated from a literal reading of the Bible by James Ussher, the Archbishop of Armagh (Church of Ireland). He calculated that the world was created in 4004 BC which was about the same as other Biblically based estimates, such as those of Jose ben Halafta (3761 BC), Bede (3952 BC), Ussher's near-contemporary Scaliger (3949 BC), Johannes Kepler (3992 BC) or Sir Isaac Newton (c. 4000 BC).

House of Ussher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thetruthshallset youfree Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Where in the Bible does it say the earth was
> 6,000
> > years old? Im not sure where anyone gets this
> > from. The Bible does point to a much younger
> earth
> > than conventional Science dictates. We dont
> know
> > how old the earth is, in truth. Carbon dating
> is
> > futile past a certain point.
>
> The Ussher chronology is a 17th-century chronology
> of the history of the world formulated from a
> literal reading of the Bible by James Ussher, the
> Archbishop of Armagh (Church of Ireland). He
> calculated that the world was created in 4004 BC
> which was about the same as other Biblically based
> estimates, such as those of Jose ben Halafta (3761
> BC), Bede (3952 BC), Ussher's near-contemporary
> Scaliger (3949 BC), Johannes Kepler (3992 BC) or
> Sir Isaac Newton (c. 4000 BC).


Uh huh, sure. Where in the Bible does it say how many years Adam lived before God created Eve? Where does it say how many years both Adam and Eve lived in the garden before they fell? Nowhere, that's where. Again, jackless knowledge of the Bible.

^ +4000

Facts are just so annoying to some people, especially when it comes to their religion.
Attachments:

thetruthshallset youfree Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Carbon dating is
> futile past a certain point.

The 6,000 year old Earth has been a traditional Judeo/Christian view of the world. Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. have revived this view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

Carbon 14 isn't the only element with a half life. The current method of determining the age of the planet is through Uranium-Lead isotopes in radiometric dating. The results have been corroborated by rocks found during the Apollo missions and examining meteorites from the solar system.

How does the fossile record prove or disprove anything in the Bible? I don't get the correlation. Please enlighten.

Plus, anyone who spells colors "colours" is an automatic dork from the get-go

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thetruthshallset youfree Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Carbon dating is
> > futile past a certain point.
>
> The 6,000 year old Earth has been a traditional
> Judeo/Christian view of the world. Christian
> fundamentalists in the U.S. have revived this
> view:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationi
> sm
>
> Carbon 14 isn't the only element with a half life.
> The current method of determining the age of the
> planet is through Uranium-Lead isotopes in
> radiometric dating. The results have been
> corroborated by rocks found during the Apollo
> missions and examining meteorites from the solar
> system.


Other than rabid atheists, who cares what old traditions of some Christians have been? Christians (and others) have been adding to, interpting and filling in the blanks of the Bible for centuries. That doesn't mean the Bible is wrong. What are you babbling about? Your logic, like all anti-Bibleists, is flawless pretzel-like.

Them Eeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How does the fossile record prove or disprove
> anything in the Bible? I don't get the
> correlation. Please enlighten.
>
> Plus, anyone who spells colors "colours" is an
> automatic dork from the get-go


You are good with me Eeper...lol. I see a lot of dodging in here. Don't expect an intelligent answer.

House of Ussher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thetruthshallset youfree Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Where in the Bible does it say the earth was
> 6,000
> > years old? Im not sure where anyone gets this
> > from. The Bible does point to a much younger
> earth
> > than conventional Science dictates. We dont
> know
> > how old the earth is, in truth. Carbon dating
> is
> > futile past a certain point.
>
> The Ussher chronology is a 17th-century chronology
> of the history of the world formulated from a
> literal reading of the Bible by James Ussher, the
> Archbishop of Armagh (Church of Ireland). He
> calculated that the world was created in 4004 BC
> which was about the same as other Biblically based
> estimates, such as those of Jose ben Halafta (3761
> BC), Bede (3952 BC), Ussher's near-contemporary
> Scaliger (3949 BC), Johannes Kepler (3992 BC) or
> Sir Isaac Newton (c. 4000 BC).




You sir, are referring to statements made by men, yet again no scriptural reference from the bible. You are failing.

The 6000 year old Earth is calculated using bible quotes of how long each person lived in Genesis. It's pretty easy to do because we know the approximate time of historical events and you back track through the biblical lineages.

According to Genesis, many of the early characters lived for hundreds of years. When it's all calculated up, it amounts to around 6000 years. Some argue as much as 10,000 years, but does giving or taking 4,000 years really matter?

No, because it's been proven by carbon dating, historical documents and artifacts and through fossils that the Earth is at least 4 billion years old and that other stars and planets are much older. Earth is relatively young, in the grand scheme of things.

Yes Godless, we all know how 6000 year old Earth was calculated. Until Adam fell, there was no sense of death or age. So your "numbers" are suspect and open for debate. And what are these "historical documents" that prove the Earth is at least 4 billion years old? Stop making stuff up, it makes you look loonier than you already do.

Richard Dawkins believes that life on Earth began with Aliens and cyrstals or something. Because Darwinsim fails to explain the origination of the first replicating organism. He's basically on par with Gorgio Tsoukalos.

Exactly how is using Aliens to explain the origins of life on Earth more plausible then God. Attributing life to aliens only leads to more questions such as who or what created aliens?

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Richard Dawkins believes that life on Earth began
> with Aliens and cyrstals or something. Because
>

lol, that's from some kooky right-wing "documentary" trying to slam Dawkins reputation. Unfortunately he's a scientist, which means they have to make up stories about him and edit film footage, instead of actually producing their own science to challenge him. he doesn't think life came from aliens or crystals, that's reatarded.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hay Zeus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Richard Dawkins believes that life on Earth
> began
> > with Aliens and cyrstals or something. Because
> >
>
> lol, that's from some kooky right-wing
> "documentary" trying to slam Dawkins reputation.
> Unfortunately he's a scientist, which means they
> have to make up stories about him and edit film
> footage, instead of actually producing their own
> science to challenge him. he doesn't think life
> came from aliens or crystals, that's reatarded.

Point being he can't explain the origins of the first replicating organism.

Hay Zeus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Point being he can't explain the origins of the
> first replicating organism.

The point isn't that. The point is that a scientific explanation is preferable to "God created it."

It used to be that the gods created rain, thunder, lightning and earthquakes. Now science has given us some insight into the causes of these natural phenomena.

There has been a lot of research into the question of the the first replicating organism. The key with science is to figure out how it happened. Or you can just throw up your hands and say, "It happened. The end."

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hay Zeus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Point being he can't explain the origins of the
> > first replicating organism.
>
> The point isn't that. The point is that a
> scientific explanation is preferable to "God
> created it."
>
> It used to be that the gods created rain, thunder,
> lightning and earthquakes. Now science has given
> us some insight into the causes of these natural
> phenomena.
>
> There has been a lot of research into the question
> of the the first replicating organism. The key
> with science is to figure out how it happened. Or
> you can just throw up your hands and say, "It
> happened. The end."

Fine, i get that. But there isn't proof one way or the other.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hay Zeus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Point being he can't explain the origins of the
> > first replicating organism.
>
> The point isn't that. The point is that a
> scientific explanation is preferable to "God
> created it."
>
> It used to be that the gods created rain, thunder,
> lightning and earthquakes. Now science has given
> us some insight into the causes of these natural
> phenomena.
>
> There has been a lot of research into the question
> of the the first replicating organism. The key
> with science is to figure out how it happened. Or
> you can just throw up your hands and say, "It
> happened. The end."


Which in a nut shell is Evolution vs. Creation. See how fun circles are...lolol.

Ahmayzin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Which in a nut shell is Evolution vs. Creation.
> See how fun circles are...lolol.

But jerks like Dawkins present their case as though it is conclusive but its not. Him and the op are proselytising athiesim, which is kind of an oxymoron. If he rejects religion fine, thats his choice.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/03/2012 05:41PM by Hay Zeus.

I never pushed Atheism.

I pushed science.

Big difference.

The two can co-habitate in one brain - unless you are a complete zealot.

I'm a Christian. I can reconcile science with my faith. Science actually drives my faith home to me every day. It is logical and the scientific process keeps things pretty honest in the hands of the right people.

And by that, I most certainly do not mean the Right Wing religious nuts trying to take over the once sane and rational GOP. Same for the religious idiots on the Left trying to give everything away without paying for it.

Faith and logic and science can co-habitate - but not with zealots.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hay Zeus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Point being he can't explain the origins of the
> > first replicating organism.
>
> The point isn't that. The point is that a
> scientific explanation is preferable to "God
> created it."
>
>

This says it all. Your OPINION as to what is preferable is no more valid than anyone else's OPINION as to what they prefer. It appears that you think because something is spewed from a scientist, it is therefore a scientific explanation and is therefore preferable. There are thousands of leading scientists who believe in God and that He is the creator. Is that a scientific explanation? You kung fu is weak grasshopper. Logic is the enemy of the anti-Bibleists. And logic, like math, is much more absolute than science.

Christian Science Monitor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I never pushed Atheism.
>
> I pushed science.
>
> Big difference.
>
> The two can co-habitate in one brain - unless you
> are a complete zealot.
>
> I'm a Christian. I can reconcile science with my
> faith. Science actually drives my faith home to
> me every day. It is logical and the scientific
> process keeps things pretty honest in the hands of
> the right people.
>
> And by that, I most certainly do not mean the
> Right Wing religious nuts trying to take over the
> once sane and rational GOP. Same for the
> religious idiots on the Left trying to give
> everything away without paying for it.
>
> Faith and logic and science can co-habitate - but
> not with zealots.




I'll drink to that

Cheers mate!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/03/2012 08:05PM by Hay Zeus.

Heh, I love the "anti-Bibleists" stuff. You do know who wrote the Bible don't you? When was it written? By whom? I'd love to hear your interpretation.

Christian Science Monitor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I never pushed Atheism.
>
> I pushed science.
>
> Big difference.
>
> The two can co-habitate in one brain - unless you
> are a complete zealot.
>
> I'm a Christian. I can reconcile science with my
> faith. Science actually drives my faith home to
> me every day. It is logical and the scientific
> process keeps things pretty honest in the hands of
> the right people.
>
> And by that, I most certainly do not mean the
> Right Wing religious nuts trying to take over the
> once sane and rational GOP. Same for the
> religious idiots on the Left trying to give
> everything away without paying for it.
>
> Faith and logic and science can co-habitate - but
> not with zealots.


Like most things in your life, this thread has evolved far beyond you and your simple-minded OP. One man's zealot is another man's prophet. You are the zealot to many. When you actually post something logical, then you can claim your greatness is logic. So far, you've demonstrated nothing but your ability to post anti-GOP screeds while wrapping yourself in the smugness of a pompous self-worth far beyond you've earned based on your posts.