Thank You America!

[FORD]

Thank you, America

Leader
Thursday November 9, 2006

Guardian

For six years, latterly with the backing of both houses of a markedly conservative Republican Congress, George Bush has led an American administration that has played an unprecedentedly negative and polarising role in the world's affairs. On Tuesday, in the midterm US congressional elections, American voters rebuffed Mr Bush in spectacular style and with both instant and lasting political consequences. By large numbers and across almost every state of the union, the voters defeated Republican candidates and put the opposition Democrats back in charge of the House of Representatives for the first time in a dozen years.

When the remaining recounts and legal challenges are over, the Democrats may even have narrowly won control of the Senate too. Either way, the results change the political landscape in Washington for the final two years of this now thankfully diminished presidency. They also reassert a different and better United States that can again offer hope instead of despair to the world. Donald Rumsfeld's resignation last night was a fitting climax to the voters' verdict. Thank you, America.

In US domestic terms, the 2006 midterms bring to an end the 12 intensely divisive years of Republican House rule that began under Newt Gingrich in 1994. These have been years of zealously and confrontational conservative politics that have shocked the world and, under Mr Bush, have sent America's global standing plummeting. That long political hurricane has now at last blown itself out for a while, but not before leaving America with a terrible legacy that includes climate-change denial, the end of biological stem-cell research, an aid programme tied to abortion bans, a shockingly permissive gun culture, an embrace of capital punishment equalled only by some of the world's worst tyrannies, the impeachment of Bill Clinton and his replacement by a president who does not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. The approval by voters in at least five more states of same-sex marriage bans - on top of 13 similar votes in 2004 - shows that culture-war politics are far from over.

Exit polls suggest that four issues counted most in these elections - corruption scandals, the economy, terrorism and Iraq. In the end, though, it was the continuing failure of the war in Iraq that has galvanised many Americans to do what much of the rest of the world had longed for them to do much earlier. It is too soon to say whether 2006 now marks a decisive rejection of the rest of the conservative agenda as well. Only those who do not know America well will imagine that it does.

The Democratic victory was very tight in many places, but its size should not be underestimated. November 7 was a decisive nationwide win for the progressive and moderate traditions in US political life. The final majority in the House will be at least 18. The recapture of the Senate, if it happens, will involve captures from the Republicans in the north-east, the north-west, the midwest and the south. The Democrats won seven new state governorships on Tuesday, including New York and Ohio, and now control a majority nationwide. Republican governors who held on, like Arnold Schwarzenegger in California and Charlie Crist in Florida, only did so by distancing themselves from Mr Bush. The statewide Democratic wins in Ohio give their 2008 presidential candidate a platform for doing what John Kerry failed to do in this crucial state in 2004.

Claire McCaskill's win in the Missouri Senate race showed that Democrats can win a state which almost always votes for the winning presidential candidate. If Jim Webb has won the recounting Virginia Senate seat, Democrats will have gone another step towards re-establishing themselves in a changing part of the south. In almost every one of these cases, as in the Connecticut contest won by Joe Lieberman running as an independent, the Democrats have won by cleaving to the centre and winning the support of independent voters. The new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may be the Armani-clad San Francisco leftwinger of the caricaturists' dreams but she heads a caucus that will demand caution on some of the baby-boomer liberal generation's pet subjects.

The big questions under the new Congress will be the way that Mr Bush responds to this unfamiliar reduction in his authority and whether the Democratic win will push the president into a new Iraq policy. At his White House press conference yesterday, Mr Bush inevitably made plenty of suitably bipartisan and common-ground noises. He had little alternative. But they rang hollow from such a tarnished and partisan leader. It will take more than warm words in the immediate aftermath of an election reverse to prove that Mr Bush is now capable of working in a new way.

The departure of the disastrous Mr Rumsfeld has come at least three years too late. But it shows that Mr Bush has finally been forced to face the reality of the Iraq disaster for which his defence secretary bears so much responsibility. As the smoke rose over the Pentagon on 9/11, Mr Rumsfeld was already writing a memo that wrongly pointed the finger at Saddam Hussein. He more than anyone beat the drum for the long-held neoconservative obsession with invading Iraq. It was he who insisted, over the advice of all his senior generals, that the invasion required only a third of the forces that the military said they needed. He more than anyone else is the architect of America's humiliations in Iraq. It was truly an outrage that he remained in office for so long.

But at least the passing of Mr Rumsfeld shows that someone in the White House now recognises that things cannot go on as before. Business as usual will not do, either in general or over Iraq. Mr Bush's remarks last night showed that on Iraq he has now put himself in the hands of the Iraq Study Group, chaired by his father's consigliere James Baker, one of whose members, Robert Gates, an ex-CIA chief, was last night appointed to succeed the unlamented Mr Rumsfeld. Maybe the more pragmatic Republican old guard can come to the rescue of this disastrous presidency in its most catastrophic adventure. But it has been the American voters who have at last made this possible. For that alone the entire world owes them its deep gratitude today.

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1942796,00.html)

[sammysux]

Yea!! great job america! Get ready for illegal alien amnesty! Welcome terrorists in your homes and live your lives in fear! The terrorists have won the war! were gonna pull out of iraq and afganistan with our tail between our legs! good job!

Unfucking believable!

Signed,

Dick Cheney

[Warham]

That article is rubbish.

[redfire]

But, as it points out, that the Dems tried to push some Conservatives. But, if Pelosi wont work with them, we wont see any REAL differences for 2 years.

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by Warham
That article is rubbish.

Not nearly rubbish like your post and the one above it....

:rolleyes:

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by sammysux
Yea!! great job america! Get ready for illegal alien amnesty!

uh, you mean the same illegal alien amnesty that bush proposed?

[FORD]

Originally posted by sammysux
Yea!! great job america! Get ready for illegal alien amnesty! Welcome terrorists in your homes and live your lives in fear! The terrorists have won the war! were gonna pull out of iraq and afganistan with our tail between our legs! good job!

Unfucking believable!

Agent Z?? Is that you? ;)

[Hardrock69]

IF you are talking about an idiot, yeah that is him.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
Not nearly rubbish like your post and the one above it....

:rolleyes:

I won't even get into the factual errors in the article, not to mention the ridiculous mention of Bush not believing in the theory of evolution, as if that has anything to do with how well a person functions as president.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
That article is rubbish.

Loser says what?

[Warham]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Loser says what?

My name wasn't on any ballot.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
My name wasn't on any ballot.

Nice try, LOSER!

Who won? Oh yeah, the Democrats!

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DCGSdUlxPhE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DCGSdUlxPhE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[Warham]

I voted for Democrats on the ballot in my state.

How could I be a loser? :)

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
I voted for Democrats on the ballot in my state.

How could I be a loser? :)

Now you are a loser and a liar!

[Warham]

No, I'm not a liar.

I did vote split ticket.

Lynch was a great Democratic governor for my state, and I voted for him.

[redfire]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Nice try, LOSER!

Who won? Oh yeah, the Democrats!


What about Dems that are conservative? Do they have your approval or not? By the way, you do need to thank the Rep of Connecticut for voting for Lieberman who is going to caucus with Dems. Right? Am I wrong in that statement? And is Bob Casey, the anti-abortion, anti-gun control, not a mirror of Rick Santorum, minus being opening divisive? And isn't Jim Webb the mirror of George Allen, minus self-destroying himself?

Personally, it's a victory to me because Dems woke up that you can't push a left-wing candidate in the bulk of the nation. But also that Dems can represent in the south. Now, I'd like to the Reps be able to do the same in '08.

[DEMON CUNT]

I do not have a problem with real conservatives. I believe a balance is essential to a healthy democracy.

I do have a fucking problem with fascism. When one side wants to do away with the other, I have a problem. When the President equates a vote for a Democrat with a vote for the terrorists, I have a problem.

I am so enjoying feeding Warhead's crap back to him.

[Nitro Express]

The best deal is we sent a message to politicians in general that they better do what we voted them in office to do or we will toss them on their asses out.

The neo cons thought the religiouse right and gun owners would vote for them no matter what and they could do whatever they wanted. WRONG!

[PlexiBrown]

All this means now is that it's the democrats turn to fuck things up. Then someday it will be the republicans turn again. Anyone who puts their faith in a political party is LOST!!

[Nickdfresh]

http://img.timeinc.net/time/time100/images/main_fdr.jpg

"Happy days are here again."

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
That article is rubbish.

So is your brain, as well as Bush's & and the GOP's legacy...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by PlexiBrown
All this means now is that it's the democrats turn to #### things up. Then someday it will be the republicans turn again. Anyone who puts their faith in a political party is LOST!!

I put my "faith" in checks and balances, and divided non-blank-check-for lawless behavior gov't.

[Warham]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
I do not have a problem with real conservatives. I believe a balance is essential to a healthy democracy.

I do have a fucking problem with fascism. When one side wants to do away with the other, I have a problem. When the President equates a vote for a Democrat with a vote for the terrorists, I have a problem.

I am so enjoying feeding Warhead's crap back to him.

You don't know what the world 'fascism' means, fool.

There was a balance before and there's a balance now. The Republicans only held a slight majority on both houses before this election. That's why nothing happened regarding immigration or social security or any of the other major legislation Bush wanted to get through Congress.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
So is your brain, as well as Bush's & and the GOP's legacy...

Bush's legacy hasn't been written yet.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
You don't know what the world 'fascism' means, fool.

There was a balance before and there's a balance now. The Republicans only held a slight majority on both houses before this election. That's why nothing happened regarding immigration or social security or any of the other major legislation Bush wanted to get through Congress.

Fascism is creeping LAWLESSNESS! Which is exactly what the Admin. has been doing for the past five years via "signing-statements" and ignoring the Geneva-Hague conventions, and oh yeah, the FISA Court...

That's exactly how it starts!



Originally posted by Warham
Bush's legacy hasn't been written yet.

You'll need a purple crayon and some toilet paper first...

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Warham
No, I'm not a liar.

I did vote split ticket.

Lynch was a great Democratic governor for my state, and I voted for him.

It's absolutely unfathomable to some of these jokers in here that a person could actually vote for candidates from both major political parties. They have no concept that one can actually vote by the issues and not just whether someone has a 'D' or 'R' after their name.

Why argue...you can't change a rock.

:)

BTW - libs, this post will only make you angry if the above description is YOU! ;)

[Warham]

I don't really care if they label me, Brian. Their use of the term 'neocon' has lost any definition because of the way they use it to describe any Republican.

I would and have voted for both parties if they showed a good record of service. If I lived in CT, I would've voted for Lieberman over the Republican candidate as an example.

[BigBadBrian]

You mean that the Guardian is an extreme left liberal rag?

Say it ain't so.

:rolleyes:

[Warham]

It's left of Nancy Pelosi.

:)

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by Warham
My name wasn't on any ballot.

It wasn't on any ballot in '04 either, but memory serves you gloated like a pig in shit at that time...

[scamper]

Originally posted by Nitro Express
The neo cons thought the religiouse right and gun owners

Three labels in ten words...nice

[Warham]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
It wasn't on any ballot in '04 either, but memory serves you gloated like a pig in shit at that time...

Did I? It seems so long ago after what happened Tuesday. ;)

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by Warham
Did I? It seems so long ago after what happened Tuesday. ;)

Yes. You were young then. Young and free.

[Warham]

Ahhhh...the good old days, when the neocons in power were destroying America as we know it.

Now that the Democrats are back in power, euphoria will come over the country once again.

The press will rejoice the 4.4% unemployment rate, the massive amounts of tax revenue the government is taking in, and all the other entitlements that have passed in the last two years.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Warham
I won't even get into the factual errors in the article, not to mention the ridiculous mention of Bush not believing in the theory of evolution, as if that has anything to do with how well a person functions as president.

It does show that they are a simpleton.

[Warham]

That's painting with a broad brush, and you know that, Sesh.

There are millions of people who do not believe in the theory of evolution and are very bright and objective people.

By your definition, Ronald Reagan was a simpleton. I wouldn't even call Jimmy Carter a simpleton...

[Guitar Shark]

It is ironic that the country is now looking to the Democrats as the last hope for fiscal responsibility.

[Warham]

Ted Kennedy will be leading the charge for fiscal responsibility!

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
It wasn't on any ballot in '04 either, but memory serves you gloated like a pig in shit at that time...

It's amazing that you registered here in Feb of '06 but are calling out facts from the election of Nov '04. Who are you, alias/troll?

Mods?

[Warham]

I know who he is, but I won't reveal my sources. I'm pulling a NY Times.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Warham
That's painting with a broad brush, and you know that, Sesh.

There are millions of people who do not believe in the theory of evolution and are very bright and objective people.

By your definition, Ronald Reagan was a simpleton. I wouldn't even call Jimmy Carter a simpleton...

If any of them are unable to understand evolution then he is a simpleton. A shallow thinker who cannot look at evidence but prefers superstition just because they were told it from an early age. Such a person is not fit for office.

[Warham]

Bush didn't become a Christian until he was in his thirties, so I'm not sure that 'superstition' started in his youth.

[Seshmeister]

A drink driving cocaine using drunk who replaces one crutch with another.

Like people like Prince who live immoral lives and then need a set of rules and superstitions in order to overcome their personal problems.

That's fine they are damged peopled doing their thing.

Anyway you are broadening this to religious belief.

There are people who believe that the Big Bang when our universe was created was engineered by a god. I can respect that reasoning. I can even disagree but understand people that believe the existence of Christ or Mohammed.

What I can't accept is people denying the fact of evolution. It's a problem pretty much unique to the US within the Western world although also still prevelant within some primative cultures in the third world. Those people are simpletons.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Warham]

I don't really deny evolution (micro), but what I deny is the 'fact' that it was engineered by chance and nothing more. When science talks about evolution, they do so without invoking any deity, which is fine. Just don't expect Christians to accept that at face value.

[Seshmeister]

Why not?

I bet you accept that your computer allows you to chat on this website without fully understanding the way it has been engineered.

[redfire]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
If any of them are unable to understand evolution then he is a simpleton. A shallow thinker who cannot look at evidence but prefers superstition just because they were told it from an early age. Such a person is not fit for office.

Last time I checked, it is still refered to as Darwin's Theory (keyword) of Evolution, right?

The fact is, if their was evidence of it (not circumstantial evidence), they'd give that person a Nobel prize. Wouldn't they? Evolution seems to be a pretty important idea.

I understand evolution, but it takes just as much faith for a person to believe that as does for me to believe that God created the world. Evolution REQUIRES that the Big Bang theory be true. And the Big Band theory still has one massive hole: What makes the bang? If their is a bang, something has to cause it. And where does that thing, that causes the bang, come from?

And again, that's one of the reasons it's called the Big Bang theory.

I do have a more open ended question that I'd like to get some perspective on. We're all here from a lot of different places, and backgrounds and such. And I keep hearing people throw around the word neo-conservative. And watching Olbermann, I've heard two different people cite it, and be talking about two different things. So what is your definition of Neo-Conservative?

[Seshmeister]

If you wished to understand it you could. You go and read scientific empiral books on the subject, you don't suddenly make a leap of faith that it was created supernaturally.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by redfire
Last time I checked, it is still refered to as Darwin's Theory (keyword) of Evolution, right?


That is an oft quoted complete misunderstanding of the word 'Theory' as it is used in science.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
It's amazing that you registered here in Feb of '06 but are calling out facts from the election of Nov '04. Who are you, alias/troll?

Mods?

It's really academic at this point, you punk ;)

[redfire]

Really, so why is that word still there? I do understand it. But I also know that the key differences between current primates and the human being are far too different. That's why the theory is continually adjusted and redefined. Just like the Big Bang.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
I won't even get into the factual errors in the article, not to mention the ridiculous mention of Bush not believing in the theory of evolution, as if that has anything to do with how well a person functions as president.

It has a shitload to do with it, you idiot! We live in 2006. Science is the future.

I just can't believe how stupid so many people are.

Anyone see that South Park last night? The time Child rocks!

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by redfire

I understand evolution, but it takes just as much faith for a person to believe that as does for me to believe that God created the world.

Why?

You have a book written by men thousands of years ago. Evolution has been completely proved scientifically.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
You don't know what the world 'fascism' means, fool.


:rolleyes:

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
It's amazing that you registered here in Feb of '06 but are calling out facts from the election of Nov '04. Who are you, alias/troll?


Your mom. Now come here and eat my asshole like you always have, you whiny little shit.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by redfire
Really, so why is that word still there? I do understand it. But I also know that the key differences between current primates and the human being are far too different. That's why the theory is continually adjusted and redefined. Just like the Big Bang.

Dude you need to go do some reading.

Prmates and humans just share a common ancestor. Men did not evolve from primates.

You are talking about millions of years here. Compare a wolf to a Chiwawa. That's a couple of hundred years.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Seshmeister



Compare a wolf to a Chiwawa. That's a couple of hundred years.

Ya mean Chihuahua, I believe :D


To put it into terms everyone would understand.

Replace Chihuahua with Hagar

And Wolf with Roth.

:cool:

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
It's absolutely unfathomable to some of these jokers in here that a person could actually vote for candidates from both major political parties. They have no concept that one can actually vote by the issues and not just whether someone has a 'D' or 'R' after their name.

Why argue...you can't change a rock.

:)

BTW - libs, this post will only make you angry if the above description is YOU! ;)

Unbelievable coming from you.

People just like you in here have pushed the most divisive bullshit I've ever heard. Anyone who challenged gw&friends was a "commie-lib"

MILLIONS of gw-haters want to vote for good republican values, but they can't.

No, you didn't get me riled up. I'm just not going to let you spew trash like that, whether you believe it or not. :rolleyes:

[Seshmeister]

As for the theory word this puts it better than I can at this time of night.

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation


Basically by your reasoning if primative people had wriiten in the bible that people float then we would currently be trying to get you down from being stuck to the ceiling of your house.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Seshmeister]

Hey can we have one argument at a time in this thread...:)

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
Bush didn't become a Christian until he was in his thirties, so I'm not sure that 'superstition' started in his youth.

And he still had the mind of a child.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
It wasn't on any ballot in '04 either, but memory serves you gloated like a pig in shit at that time...

Exactly.

Now notice the phony "but...but...but I voted for one Democrat and stuff. I did...I did!" bullshit.

Bitch please!

Now that the stench of defeat hits his party Warhead denies their acquaintance three times before the cock crowed.

Nice try! You ain't fooling us at all!

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
If any of them are unable to understand evolution then he is a simpleton. A shallow thinker who cannot look at evidence but prefers superstition just because they were told it from an early age. Such a person is not fit for office.

AMEN!

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
You don't know what the world 'fascism' means, fool.

There was a balance before and there's a balance now. The Republicans only held a slight majority on both houses before this election. That's why nothing happened regarding immigration or social security or any of the other major legislation Bush wanted to get through Congress.

Whatever, bitch.

The legislation that Bush really wanted did indeed go through. The Patriot Act is a perfect example of this.

Just like gay Marriage, Immigration and Social Security are simply hot button issues that get talking point driven people just like you out to vote.

Too bad you lost!

[redfire]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition.

And they don't necessarily stand in agreement do they? That's why it say "they don't necessarily..."

You apple-gravitational pull example is a bit simplified but noted for the use of gravitational theory. But, that's because it assumes their is always something to be learned, meaning you attach theory in case something changes, due to time and understanding.



Basically by your reasoning if primative people had wriiten in the bible that people float then we would currently be trying to get you down from being stuck to the ceiling of your house.


No, why would you say that? My interpretation of the Bible is not the stereotypical interpretation. The Bible is not meant to be read literally. It's contextual. A person writing in the 700BC's should think that the world is flat, because everyone else did until 1492 (And even later due to disputes over the actual size of the world). So, your statement is unfounded.

My point regarding primates and humans is that the human being is far more complex, in terms of genome and make up, but even in DNA structure and rare mutations. I do have a B.S. in Government (ha, BS in Gov).... anyways, I don't think you're giving me credit for as much science as I did take. If you ever look at the explanations regarding the Big Bang, and Evolution, your head will hurt. They hinge on so many other different theories that have holes as well. And again, to cite your definition of theory when used in terms of science, it doesn't always mean it's not a fact, and it doesn't always mean that it is a fact.


Why?

You have a book written by men thousands of years ago. Evolution has been completely proved scientifically.

When you say this, you are 100% wrong. It hasn't been proven, point of fact, scientifically. It's been suggested, and it's just as good a suggestion as any as to how. But not why.

Science answers the most easily explained questions with the highest degree of certainty. But the more complex your question gets, the lower your degree of certainty for an answer becomes. Sciences does not explain philosophy or theology. And philosophy and theology doesn't explain "the how".

And yes, the Time Child does rock! Though I did think they over-simplied the storyline.

[Seshmeister]

Democrats all voted for the 'Patriot' Act too though.

Without reading it apparently.

I wouldn't get too carried away...

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Democrats all voted for the 'Patriot' Act too though.

Without reading it apparently.

I wouldn't get too carried away...

Oh, I very aware that Dems voted for that. I am also aware that the spectre of 911 was used to manipulate many of our elected officials. Emotional blackmail. Just like the "a vote for the dems is a vote for the terrorists" bullshit.

I don't vote for democrats unless I believe in them.

I didn't vote for Cantwell because she spouts left wing rubbish and supported the illegal invarion of Iraq.

[redfire]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Oh, I very aware that Dems voted for that. I am also aware that the spectre of 911 was used to manipulate many of our elected officials. Emotional blackmail. Just like the "a vote for the dems is a vote for the terrorists" bullshit.

I don't vote for democrats unless I believe in them.

I didn't vote for Cantwell because she spouts left wing rubbish and supported the illegal invarion of Iraq.

And I really think that was reflected in the midterm voting. That's the way I felt. And seeing Bush humbled for the first time in 8 years was amazing. I really hope people woke up to ignoring tv ads, and simply listened to the candidates and looked at their background, and previous records.

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Democrats all voted for the 'Patriot' Act too though.

Without reading it apparently.

I wouldn't get too carried away...

Not my man Jerry "Nads" Nadler! That man rocks so much he's a member of the NAACP!!!

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by redfire
And they don't necessarily stand in agreement do they? That's why it say "they don't necessarily..."

You apple-gravitational pull example is a bit simplified but noted for the use of gravitational theory. But, that's because it assumes their is always something to be learned, meaning you attach theory in case something changes, due to time and understanding.



No, why would you say that? My interpretation of the Bible is not the stereotypical interpretation. The Bible is not meant to be read literally. It's contextual. A person writing in the 700BC's should think that the world is flat, because everyone else did until 1492 (And even later due to disputes over the actual size of the world). So, your statement is unfounded.

My point regarding primates and humans is that the human being is far more complex, in terms of genome and make up, but even in DNA structure and rare mutations. I do have a B.S. in Government (ha, BS in Gov).... anyways, I don't think you're giving me credit for as much science as I did take. If you ever look at the explanations regarding the Big Bang, and Evolution, your head will hurt. They hinge on so many other different theories that have holes as well. And again, to cite your definition of theory when used in terms of science, it doesn't always mean it's not a fact, and it doesn't always mean that it is a fact.



When you say this, you are 100% wrong. It hasn't been proven, point of fact, scientifically. It's been suggested, and it's just as good a suggestion as any as to how. But not why.

Science answers the most easily explained questions with the highest degree of certainty. But the more complex your question gets, the lower your degree of certainty for an answer becomes. Sciences does not explain philosophy or theology. And philosophy and theology doesn't explain "the how".

And yes, the Time Child does rock! Though I did think they over-simplied the storyline.

I agree the Big Bang stuff makes your head hurt. How many people got through 'The Brief History of Time'?

I haven't come across any big hole in evolution though?

You are saying the Bible is contextual and not literal thank fuck.:)

So if it is not the word of god because why would god be contextual and throw in stuff which is patently contradictory and untrue then that's the biggest hole of all.

Basically all you are left with is that the Bible is true because it was written a long time ago when people knew far less. L Ron Hubbard suddenly seems a better source of a 'why'.

At least it's more contextual...

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Oh, I very aware that Dems voted for that. I am also aware that the spectre of 911 was used to manipulate many of our elected officials. Emotional blackmail. Just like the "a vote for the dems is a vote for the terrorists" bullshit.


The same thing happens here maybe to a lesser extent but still.

Politicians wonder why they are becoming increasingly thought of as shitbags and voter turnout keeps going down.

Maybe it's because of spineless shit like happened over there and here after 9-11.

The system of primaries in the US suits them big style and makes it even worse because it turns it into a sport. If I'm watching my football team and the referee gives a decision of course I'm biased. This partisan shit protects a lot of them while they do what it takes to keep in power.

[redfire]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
So if it is not the word of god because why would god be contextual and throw in stuff which is patently contradictory and untrue then that's the biggest hole of all.


Is that a sentence? Cause I think you mean something else. And if you could clarify that, I could respond more accurately. I'll try though.

God didn't throw in anything. The Bible is written by men, under divine influence, whether they knew it or not. Find me something contradictory, because I haven't. And I'm quite versed in Greek and Hebrew, and quite versed in the contex of each book written. You'll have to cite something specific for me to respond to your accusation that it is contradictory.

As for evolution verses the Big Bang, I find the Big Bang highly more likely. But, like I said, for evolution to be true, the Big Bang has to be true. But the Big Bang doesn't need for evolution to be true. Does that make sense. That is a undisputed fact. The Big Bang gives evolution the proper amount of time required to be realistic. But without the Big Bang, Evolution wouldn't have enough time.

Furthermore, when you talk about evolution, their are two types, micro and macro. So you really have to be specific about which one you're talking about. You can prolly wikipedia both of those terms and get a fairly accurate definition.

So, I mean, we can continue the discussion of the origin of species if you want, and pretty sure neither of us will be persuaded to change our minds. But it might be good to show others how to have a civilized discussion of two opposite and quite polarizing ideas. :) :gulp:

[Seshmeister]

Absolutely, you are correct the only point of any discourse on something like this is for the people reading it probably not us.

Where to start on this...:)

Ok say a 2 pronged thing because any more will get confusing. You mention the Big Bang as being necessary for evolution a couple of times. I don't really follow that. Do you dispute the scientific age of the Earth or do you go for the hardcore literal bible one?

Secondly as regards the bible I'll resist the stock answer of cutting and pasting the hundreds of contradictions for the moment.

Ok let's start at the start.

Page 1. (Well if it's a big one:) )

Genesis 1:10

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.


So 'men under divine influence' (you obviously can't give any evidence to support the divine bit but lets roll with it) write thousands of years ago that the moon is a light when it isn't.

It's just a big rock reflecting the sun's light.

Under divine influence your invisible friend got some Jewish guy to write that a long time ago.

Is he just fucking with us?

Or is it contextual as you say which is a concept I'm struggling with in conjunction with the divine inluence business.

Cheers

:gulp:

[Seshmeister]

Incidently to get the genesis quote I typed 'Genesis Light' into Google which the top answer comes from http://christiananswers.net

I can wholeheartedly recommend http://christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/video.html

The video there is the funniest thing I've seen in a long time.:D


Did dinosaurs really become extinct millions of years before the existence of humans? This ground-breaking educational film reveals historical and archaeological evidence that dinosaur and man once co-existed. This popular motion picture is enjoyed by both young and old. Be sure to see the companion book, The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Bible, as well as our very large and unique dinosaur Web site.


http://www.fiftiesweb.com/tv/flintstones-fw.gif

WILMA!


Ha I just sprayed my drink when they mentioned the Loch Ness Monster.

This is hysterical!

But also by google rankings the most popular source of christian knowledge about evolution on the internet. Please watch it. See compelling evidence like 'A cave painting could be a dinosaur. People used to tell stories about big monsters.'

Forget the fossil record a hundred foot long reptile hissed at Alexander the Great!:)

Emperors in China had their chariots pulled by dinosaurs!:D

Depending on my mood I vary between being depressed by the retardness of this kind of thing or finding it very very funny. TTonight I'm in a funny mood.:)

Cheers!

:gulp:

[redfire]

Ok well the interesting thing about Genesis 1 is in the literary genre.
Give me a moment to establish the background and stuff.... (I'll make it as short and consise as possible)

The Old Testament is written in Hebrew. And the form of Hebrew (classic Hebrew) is not a written language until around the time of Solomon, mid 900's. So whoever is writing the Pentateuch is not doing so until that time, or at the very least, it's not in it's finished form until that point (the earlies being mid 900's). Now, tradition is that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, and while I do attribute the parts that it said he wrote to Moses, other than that I chalk it up to word of mouth, and passing along the story ala The Iliad and Odyssey. Now, if you read Gensis it starts like this.

Verse 1: In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, 2 the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

6 And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7 So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. 8 God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

9 And God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it." And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so. 16 God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

20 And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky." 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make humankind F3 in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, F4 and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." 27 So God created humankind F5 in his image, in the image of God he created them; F6 male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

29 God said, "See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.

31 God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

You have in verse 1 the establishment that their is only 1 God. The divine name in Hebrew YHWH, or Yahweh, is his name. God is a title. Brad Henry, George Bush, YHWY:Governor, President, God. And that is the first note in reading this chapter. Verse 2 The earth was formless and void. Pay attention to those 2 things, cause they're important.

So what does God do,
1 day, he creates light and darkness
2 day, he creates the sky and the waters
3 day, he creates land

So what has he done the first 3 days? He has formed the earth.

4 day, he puts stars, moons, and sun's in the heaven's during the light and darkness
5 day, he creats birds, and sea animals
6 day, he creats land animals

What does he do the next three days? He fills it.

It's linear to the establishment that the earth had been formless and empty.

So why am I going through this? The point is to show that when He was creating, He did it in an orderly fashion.

This is in direct conflict with other religions story of the creation. Most notably the Enuma Elish, in which the gods created humanity as an after thought (after an epic battle between basically the children of 2 gods. And what ends up happening is Marduk kills Tiamat the mother and creates the world from her corpse, and humanity from her blood. And mankind is suppose to be their servants.

Whereas, God creates man at the peak of the story, and gives man dominion of that which He has created. And so man is not created as an after thought, and man is not made to simply serve the gods, but to have a relationship with God. If you know nothing else, just know that I believe God wants to have a relationship with you. That's the only thing that is of any importance.

Now, you can go through those verses for the first chapter of Genesis and count how many times repetition is used. It's for the phrases God saw it was good; there was evening there was morning day "x"; and and God said. The thing about Hebrew is that you don't have punctuations, and to understand that their is a new sentence, or paragraph, that's accomplished with repetition, as well as other literary devises sometimes. So what's the point, well if you never knew anything about the Israelites (they're not Jews until after the return from Babylonian exile in 538 BC), they never fully serve the LORD, YHWH, only. They never are able to stamp out Baal worship (ba-all phonetically, not bale), nor worship or Ashera, or a number of other Canaanite religions. And the author's intent with the first chapter is to show order, and that YHWH is different from every other supposed god.

Now, I will answer your question, but first I wanted to demonstrate that I do know some stuff about this.

You said...


So 'men under divine influence' (you obviously can't give any evidence to support the divine bit but lets roll with it) write thousands of years ago that the moon is a light when it isn't.

A person is writing with the best amount of knowledge that they have. It's what I call progressive revelation. Why does God have to come out of heaven and look for Adam and Eve, doesn't the author know that God is all knowing [rhetorical question]? No, not yet he doesn't. That's why we say the Bible is infallible. And not inerrant.

Now, if you're question is why do I claim it to be the word of God, because it does make that claim. And without that, it would be useless for me to say so.

But their is the historical record. People didn't believe the civilization that were described in the Joshua-Kings books until they started being discovered in the 40's-today.

But when you talk about revelation, and whether it's divine or not, that's where a lot of Christians have trouble defining it.

There are 5 types of examples that I can give you, kinda short but oh well:
1-Dictation, where God is telling the man what to say word for word
2-Guiding, where God gives the man the words, but the man can say some things he wants
3-Open guiding, where God gives the words, and inspiration, but man inserts his own personality in writing it
4-Trance, where the writer under the influence of God goes into a trance and writes what He sees
5-Inspiration, where God does nothing, it's all man

To me, it's sorta like number 3. God gives man the inspiration of what to say, but the man's own personality and world view comes across.

The key to the Bible is that can't counter-read it. You can over-read it, you can under-read it, but you don't read the story of David and Bathsheba and think David did the right thing.

So, that might seem like a cop out, but you asked, so I answered.

[redfire]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
(you obviously can't give any evidence to support the divine bit but lets roll with it)

Actually I can say something about this. Tradition (tradition mind you) holds that the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint (or LXX), was done under amazing results. Greek King of Egypt Ptolemy II Philadelphus, 3rd Century BC, wanted a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures for the library at Alexandria. And legend has it, he sends for 70 scribes to translate the text to Greek, and he puts them in seperate rooms, and they're all able to translate it exactly. And that's how he knew he was dealing with a divine text. Not the best evidence, but a pretty cool story. And when dealing with the OT, their is a reverance for it, so much so that if someone made a mistake, you throw away the paper, cause it was on a huge scroll. You had what's called a kethib-qore, which means read-write. If an error was made, you did one of those things and what you're suppose to read is written off to the side. So, it's a very specific text. So, again, I can believe that it happened, and that they all translated it exactly the same, but I don't know about locking them up and in 3 months or whatever, they emerge with the same translation. Kinda cool story though.

[redfire]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Ok say a 2 pronged thing because any more will get confusing. You mention the Big Bang as being necessary for evolution a couple of times. I don't really follow that. Do you dispute the scientific age of the Earth or do you go for the hardcore literal bible one?


I don't dispute the age of the earth, I do question the means by obtaining the age, but that's just cause it was always taught to me by saying "this is how they do it and just accept it." But, I do think it's very old, lol. First of all, the Bible never claims the date of the earth. Secondly, I wrote a paper, that was well received by my professor, on how God could have used the scientific Big Bang theory to create the world, in part using my aforementioned reading and analysis of Gen 1 as a tool to show God as a God of order, rather than the scientific explanation of the creation of the universe. The hardcore literal one was created a long time ago, and as times change and we learn more about Hebrew, much the less science and technology, we see that we have to adapted our theories, and explanations, or it dies. So my point is earth is old, lol, and I don't think the Bible has a problem with that. Believe me, I'm a bean counter, I know how many years the Bible claims between people from Genesis to Kings, but that's assuming God is using our 24 day time setting, and I don't think he is. God is outside of time, and that's something the Bible does state (2 Peter for reference, though the verse and chapter escape me).

Now, what I was saying about Evolution and the Big Bang is that, if you think evolution is true, then the Big Bang HAS to be true. The Big Bang accounts for the necessary time needed for micro, much the less machro evolution to take place.

But, the Big Bang doesn't need evolution to be true, so that it (the Big Bang) can be true. Like I said, God could have orchestrated the Big Bang, as the technical way of creating the universe. That might seem dumb to you, but so does micro evolution to me. And I've studied both, granted theology a lot more, but I have studied earth science, biology, and physics quite a bit, and those tend to be important ideas in those fields. ;) :gulp:

[FORD]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
It has a shitload to do with it, you idiot! We live in 2006. Science is the future.

I just can't believe how stupid so many people are.

Anyone see that South Park last night? The time Child rocks!

I was going to ask Sesh if they get South Park over in the UK, since I believe he's a Richard Dawkins fan.

A very well done episode. Interesting look at atheism too. ;)

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by FORD
I was going to ask Sesh if they get South Park over in the UK, since I believe he's a Richard Dawkins fan.

A very well done episode. Interesting look at atheism too. ;)

That episode made me laugh out loud, which is rare these days.

"suck my balls K-10, I'm not in the mood"

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by FORD
I was going to ask Sesh if they get South Park over in the UK, since I believe he's a Richard Dawkins fan.

A very well done episode. Interesting look at atheism too. ;)

I've seen a clip but I don't think the whole show has aired here yet.

This clip of Dawkins meeting Pastor Ted is an interesting look at the redfire approach. Especially when you know that at the time it was filmed Ted was paying a guy a couple of hundred bucks a month to fuck him in the ass and was on meth.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0vgOH9R5yp8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0vgOH9R5yp8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[redfire]

Well, first, I can guarantee you that I read the Bible different from probably 80% of the rest of the people in Tulsa, OK, much the less the Christian faith as a whole. Ted Haggert's approach and my approach are two very different takes on reading the Bible. And that's because just like he actually said, what he was taught about science and faith and their relationship has changed over the years to now. And so, what he was taught about them have changed, and it seems like he hasn't.

Secondly, Ted Haggert doesn't very much about Evolution. Listening to him, it sounds like he had a narrow minded view about it, and that his ideas on it aren't supported by anything other than his general knowledge of it.

Just as science has a well reasoned explanation for basically everything, I have a well reasoned explanation for anything you can throw me regarding the Bible. I might not be right, and neither may science, but I can give you rational contextual answers as to why an author wrote what he wrote. That's one of the fundamental aspects when reading the Bible. What's the author saying to his audience, what is the original audience hearing, and what does that mean to us now.

If you want to read a well reasoned discussion between God and Science, check out this weeks Time Magazine between two scientists. It's not bad, and both do a fairly good job of defending their view points. Like I said, to believe in the micro and macro evolution theory, and the Big Bang theory takes just as much faith. Because I'm sorry, but reading all the explanations as to why evolution can work, and all the explanations as to why the Big Bang can work, I would have to believe those men are right in their theories. And, I'm a smart person. but I can't understand all of it, it's not Greek to me, it's like Akkadian. So, what ever way you go with, you have to believe in something.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by redfire
Well, first, I can guarantee you that I read the Bible different from probably 80% of the rest of the people in Tulsa, OK, .


Didn't move your lips while reading?



;)

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
I've seen a clip but I don't think the whole show has aired here yet.

This clip of Dawkins meeting Pastor Ted is an interesting look at the redfire approach. Especially when you know that at the time it was filmed Ted was paying a guy a couple of hundred bucks a month to fuck him in the ass and was on meth.



The more I see of Dawkins the more I become a fan his. I started reading The God Delusion (http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004/sr=1-1/qid=1163213907/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-1341501-9404637?ie=UTF8&s=books) a couple days go and it is fascinating.

I do have to say that the effeminate Pastor Haggart stood his ground.

Also, modern "Christian" music sounds totally gay.

[redfire]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Also, modern "Christian" music sounds totally gay.

His did yes, but trust me their's better out their. And actually I would say lame, but I'm highly critical when it comes to music.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I don't really deny evolution (micro), but what I deny is the 'fact' that it was engineered by chance and nothing more. When science talks about evolution, they do so without invoking any deity, which is fine. Just don't expect Christians to accept that at face value.

What you deny is that you are using semantics to deny that you deny evolution...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by redfire
Really, so why is that word still there? I do understand it. But I also know that the key differences between current primates and the human being are far too different. That's why the theory is continually adjusted and redefined. Just like the Big Bang.

Actually, humans and a species of primate share over 90%+ of the same DNA.

A typical oversimplification or misunderstanding...

And what is your alternative to Evolution? a theory that is openly scoffed at in scientific circles, so that it's adherents have attempted to shift what is a scientific debate into a political one by using fraudulent science to deceive laymen (i.e. "Intelligent Design")?

And BTW, I am some sort of "believer;" yet I find no contradiction between a God and science, or Evolution. Why do you think Catholics co-opted science into their belief system? This simply gave them a bit more credibility...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Democrats all voted for the 'Patriot' Act too though.

Without reading it apparently.

I wouldn't get too carried away...

And Bush merely used a "signing statement" to effectively null-and-void the additional provisions put on the Patriot Act (by both Dems and Repubs) designed to protect civil liberties that the lying cvnt promised would be enforced so it would pass...

Hence, he ignores part of the law while selectively enforcing only those that grant the Executive branch greater power, hence the adder comes forth from his shell...

[scamper]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Too bad you lost!

This is not a game....

[Switch84]

Originally posted by PlexiBrown
All this means now is that it's the democrats turn to fuck things up. Then someday it will be the republicans turn again. Anyone who puts their faith in a political party is LOST!!


:D SSDD, baby! I did the split ticket thing, too, and got the candidates I've voted for. Georgia is still a Republican stronghold, while my homestate of Michigan is bluer than the Crayola crayon, hahahahahaha!

The bottom line is, if congress can't work with the President (and vice versa) it's going to be for naught. I don't care for the Dems 'everyone's a victim' mindset and playing the blame game.

It doesn't matter who's behind the wheel...if you're driving 70 mph towards a wall, you're still going to crash, baby.

We'll see...

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by scamper
This is not a game....

Which is ususally what you'd expect to hear from the Loser :D

[redfire]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Actually, humans and a species of primate share over 90%+ of the same DNA.

A typical oversimplification or misunderstanding...


It's true that the chimpanzee genome is about 95% identical to the human genome. But the major difference between the two genomes is chromosome 2. Chromosome 2 is the second largest human chromosome, spanning more than 237 million base pairs.... 237 million seems like a lot to me. This coming from my Prentice Hall biology textbook.


And what is your alternative to Evolution? a theory that is openly scoffed at in scientific circles, so that it's adherents have attempted to shift what is a scientific debate into a political one by using fraudulent science to deceive laymen (i.e. "Intelligent Design")?

As for evolution, am I really just suppose to take your word on this? Why should I just accpet what you've said. Freaking read a text book. And read all the thoughts on evolution, and all the concessions on where it's weak, and all the theories that account for these weaknesses. There are so fucking many excuse to explain the theory of evolution.

All I'm saying is it takes faith for me to believe that all the theories on evolution, and the Big Bang, that every single question to disprove those theories is explained with another hypothetical theory. Either way, we don't know for 100% certain.

Is man perfect? To me, no. There's plenty of evidence to support that. And when you deal with an issue like the origin of everything, you're asking a flawed man to reason and explain. And he can't. That's the bottom line to me.

Everyone that wants to rip Intelligent Design, fine. Go ahead, but go reseach, just buy a fucking textbook, and read all the issues behind evolution. The reasons why it's a possiblity and the arguments against it (from science), and then evolutions response to those arguments. And I think you will see that it's not as bulletproof as some make it.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Which is ususally what you'd expect to hear from the Loser

Ha ha!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by redfire
It's true that the chimpanzee genome is about 95% identical to the human genome. But the major difference between the two genomes is chromosome 2. Chromosome 2 is the second largest human chromosome, spanning more than 237 million base pairs.... 237 million seems like a lot to me. This coming from my Prentice Hall biology textbook.

So you're saying that you accept science when you can spin it for your arguments? And yes, the Chromosomes are obviously different, but the relation is also obviously there.



As for evolution, am I really just suppose to take your word on this?

No. You're supposed to listen and read that most scientists have essentially stopped debating at functions such as schoolboard meetings, because idiot "Intelligent Designers" have masked creationism mythology with pseudo-science, and have attempted to engage in base and Sophist courtroom style theatrical arguments where this kind of behavior has no place. In short, they engage in cherrypicking of the facts.


Why should I just accpet what you've said. Freaking read a text book. And read all the thoughts on evolution, and all the concessions on where it's weak, and all the theories that account for these weaknesses. There are so ####### many excuse to explain the theory of evolution.

All I'm saying is it takes faith for me to believe that all the theories on evolution, and the Big Bang, that every single question to disprove those theories is explained with another hypothetical theory. Either way, we don't know for 100% certain.

Is man perfect? To me, no. There's plenty of evidence to support that. And when you deal with an issue like the origin of everything, you're asking a flawed man to reason and explain. And he can't. That's the bottom line to me.

Everyone that wants to rip Intelligent Design, fine. Go ahead, but go reseach, just buy a ####### textbook, and read all the issues behind evolution. The reasons why it's a possiblity and the arguments against it (from science), and then evolutions response to those arguments. And I think you will see that it's not as bulletproof as some make it.

This is an argument of semantics one could apply to anything. You could sit outside and smoke pot all night and speculate if the Earth is just a dingleberry on God's ass, and call that "faith." But at the end of the day, it comes down to scholarship and specialty. And many "Intelligent Designers" are clearly intellectual frauds promoting religion over scientific thought. They have clearly applied a skepticism" to Evolution that they clearly refuse to apply to their own pseudoscience, or religious belief for that matter. And these include gross fabrications.

BTW, how many scientific conferences on "ID" are there? How many peer-reviewed papers?

[scamper]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Which is ususally what you'd expect to hear from the Loser :D

Which is what you hear from extremist. People like you are the problem, with your us against them mentality. You don't give a shit about the country as long as your party wins. Soooo Sad, show some tolerance.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by scamper
Which is what you hear from extremist. People like you are the problem, with your us against them mentality. You don't give a shit about the country as long as your party wins. Soooo Sad, show some tolerance.


LMAO

Yeah, the Republicans are the party of tolerance :rolleyes:

And your "you don't give a shit" rant is fucking laughable.

I don't care WHO is in "power", mensa.....

So long as they don't invade, occupy, kill, torture, and steal IN MY NAME.

I also don't want my government spying on ME without a warrant and probable cause.

I also believe in THE BILL OF RIGHTS, and the right of Habeus Corpus.

So know what the fuck you're talking about Skippy. :rolleyes:


Idiot.

edit for typo

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
I also don't want my government spying on ME without a warrant and probably cause.

Don't worry. They've got better things to do.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And BTW, I am some sort of "believer;" yet I find no contradiction between a God and science, or Evolution. Why do you think Catholics co-opted science into their belief system? This simply gave them a bit more credibility...

Catholics have co-opted a lot of things into their faith they shouldn't have over the last two-thousand years.

[Warham]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT

Now notice the phony "but...but...but I voted for one Democrat and stuff. I did...I did!" bullshit.

Bitch please!

Now that the stench of defeat hits his party Warhead denies their acquaintance three times before the cock crowed.

Nice try! You ain't fooling us at all!

I know, you can't handle it when people around here split their ticket. I still consider myself a conservative Republican and always will, so I'm not sure what I'm denying, fool.

Do you need a blanket to go along with that bottle, Monkey?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Don't worry. They've got better things to do.


Then why go around the FISA courts, and the need for the signing statements?

Or are they just after FORD at this point? ;)

[Warham]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
It has a shitload to do with it, you idiot! We live in 2006. Science is the future.

I just can't believe how stupid so many people are.

Anyone see that South Park last night? The time Child rocks!

No, it has nothing to do with it.

Invoking Bush's belief system has nothing to do with how well he governs, or anybody else for that matter.

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Then why go around the FISA courts, and the need for the signing statements?

Or are they just after FORD at this point? ;)

Yep, the Feds watch this forum everyday, making sure they read up on FORD's latest rants.

[scamper]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
LMAO

Yeah, the Republicans are the party of tolerance :rolleyes:

And your "you don't give a shit" rant is fucking laughable.

I don't care WHO is in "power", mensa.....

So long as they don't invade, occupy, kill, torture, and steal IN MY NAME.

I also don't want my government spying on ME without a warrant and probable cause.

I also believe in THE BILL OF RIGHTS, and the right of Habeus Corpus.

So know what the fuck you're talking about Skippy. :rolleyes:


Idiot.

edit for typo

Yeah you sound tolerant

[Warham]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
The legislation that Bush really wanted did indeed go through. The Patriot Act is a perfect example of this.


Well, gee, Monkey, for Bush's Patriot Act legislation to go through, both parties had to vote to get it to pass, right?

So the Democrats are just like the Republicans, right?

So who lost on Election Day?

[Warham]

Patriot Act

Senate Vote:

Oct 25, 2001

Yeas: 98
Neas: 1

House Vote:

Oct 24, 2001

Yeas: 357
Neas: 66

[redfire]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
So you're saying that you accept science when you can spin it for your arguments? And yes, the Chromosomes are obviously different, but the relation is also obviously there.

No, I don't remember saying that, and I don't even think you can imply that. I said I've seen what science has to offer to explain the formation of the world and it's not as matter of fact as a lot of people make. 237 million seems to be quite a bit to just say the relation is there.


No. You're supposed to listen and read that most scientists have essentially stopped debating at functions such as schoolboard meetings, because idiot "Intelligent Designers" have masked creationism mythology with pseudo-science, and have attempted to engage in base and Sophist courtroom style theatrical arguments where this kind of behavior has no place. In short, they engage in cherrypicking of the facts.

And I have listened and read. I've done that, but have you? Look, I don't have a problem with evolution or the Big Bang being taught, it should be. But the fact is, it's not without it's own problems, and I would like to see that the professor's would also teach the scientific arguments against it. I was, and I appreciated it. Then I did my own studies on it, and admittedly had a hard time keeping track of all the rebuttles from evolution. By the way, can you actually tell me what Sophistry is? I just want to make sure you're not repeating an argument from someone else. Now, as for the rest of Christianity... even just people of a religious faith that believe God created everything, I can't speak for them. But for you to say I'm cherry picking facts, is useless because the other side does it too, ie not stating the scientific arguments for many aspects of evolution.



This is an argument of semantics one could apply to anything. You could sit outside and smoke pot all night and speculate if the Earth is just a dingleberry on God's ass, and call that "faith." But at the end of the day, it comes down to scholarship and specialty. And many "Intelligent Designers" are clearly intellectual frauds promoting religion over scientific thought. They have clearly applied a skepticism" to Evolution that they clearly refuse to apply to their own pseudoscience, or religious belief for that matter. And these include gross fabrications.

BTW, how many scientific conferences on "ID" are there? How many peer-reviewed papers?

Prolly none, but the Bible is not a text for explaining the mysteries of the origin of the universe, otherwise it might spend a little bit more talking about that. Rather, it's a text that is a history on God's relationship with mankind and how one can be reconciled to the LORD. How many scientific conferences on "God's salvation to mankind" are there? How many peer-reviewed papers?

The end of the matter is this, does evolution, scientifically, have holes? If it does, you can rail against me for believing YHWH created the word (ironically that name means He causes to be), but it's no different from my faith, that according to science has holes.

[LoungeMachine]

Question:

Why would a "God' create BILLIONS of galaxies......

And then only create intelligent life on ONE planet?

Just thought I'd throw that in, as it seems to stump Creationistic Bible Thumpers worldwide.

:cool:

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
Well, gee, Monkey, for Bush's Patriot Act legislation to go through, both parties had to vote to get it to pass, right?

So the Democrats are just like the Republicans, right?

So who lost on Election Day?

You should read more of this thread before you fecklessly try to add to the conversation.

Who lost? Still looks like it was the Republicans.

[redfire]

I don't know, why do you drive in a parkway, and park in a driveway?

Maybe it's to show you that you're special. I'm an educated man, but I'm afraid I'm not versed in the creation habits of the Almighty. In plain, God's smarter than me and his thoughts are higher than my thoughts. My finite mind wouldn't be able to understand the infinite. Is that logically based enough for ya. ;)

[LoungeMachine]

Yeah, but they meant to lose.....

They're happy they lost......

They wanted to lose......

Karl Rove is a genious for orchestrating the loss and making it look legit.....


Besides, only Democrats who are secretly Republicans won....

[Dr. Love]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Question:

Why would a "God' create BILLIONS of galaxies......

And then only create intelligent life on ONE planet?

Just thought I'd throw that in, as it seems to stump Creationistic Bible Thumpers worldwide.

:cool:

Good point. Galactic conquest is pointless unless you have some godless aliens to grind out of existence.

Hopefully God put them out there so that we would have something to wipe out when we spread out doctrine.

Hopefully he gave them some WMDs too.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by redfire
I don't know, why do you drive in a parkway, and park in a driveway?




Because if you drive in a driveway they call it "Reckless endangerment" and take away your license for 6 months.

Same goes for swimming pools and ferry docks apparently :(

[FORD]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
Good point. Galactic conquest is pointless unless you have some godless aliens to grind out of existence.

Hopefully God put them out there so that we would have something to wipe out when we spread out doctrine.

Hopefully he gave them some WMDs too.

Be careful what you wish for Doc. Didn't you see the Simpsons last week? :D

I think any aliens out there with WMDs would have taken out the BCE already.

So whatever galaxy they're in, they must be blissfully unaware of this fucked up world.

Lucky alien bastards....

[redfire]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Because if you drive in a driveway they call it "Reckless endangerment" and take away your license for 6 months.

Same goes for swimming pools and ferry docks apparently :(

And that's called profiling... and profiling is wrong.

[Seshmeister]

I had never heard of the micro/macro evolution thing.

After looking it up that's because it's just the latest name for superstition. It used to be called creationism, then they called it intelligent design now it's trying to distinguish between micro and macro evolution.


Just more nonsense trying desperately to somehow shoe horn the silly bible stuff into what is now scientfic fact.

The redfire argument as I understand it is now that any scientific inaccuracies in the bible are because of the failings of humans not passing them down by word of mouth for hundreds of years before they were written down.

But then WTF?

Ever played Chinese whispers?

Even if this stuff started out true(an insane jump of faith) and then through human mistakes ended up inaccurate how do you know which bits aren't?

I've stopped wearing clothes of different cloth and eating shellfish just in case...

Cheers!

:gulp:

[redfire]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
The redfire argument as I understand it is now that any scientific inaccuracies in the bible are because of the failings of humans not passing them down by word of mouth for hundreds of years before they were written down.


No, my argument as to explain scientific inaccuracies in the Bible is that if you ask a person in 700 B.C., much the less 700 A.D., if the world is flat, they would say yes. The Bible is not a scientific text book, why doesn't anyone seem to understand that? The people writing what many in the world consider to be a sacred text is a record of God's mighty acts, and how mankind can be reconciled to Him. People that try to make the Bible discuss politics, or science are wrong in doing so. That's not when any of the author's, of any particular book in the Bible, are concerned with. The Old Textament is a history of Israel, the people and nation, and God's involvement and covenant with them. The New Textament is about Jesus, his life and teachings, and the how his followers are to try and apply that to our lives.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Well, gee, Monkey, for Bush's Patriot Act legislation to go through, both parties had to vote to get it to pass, right?

So the Democrats are just like the Republicans, right?

So who lost on Election Day?


Originally posted by Warham
Patriot Act

Senate Vote:

Oct 25, 2001

Yeas: 98
Neas: 1

House Vote:

Oct 24, 2001

Yeas: 357
Neas: 66

Instead of just presenting cherry-picked facts as you usually do, why don't you acknowledge that Bush effectively lied by invalidating parts of the Patriot Act designed to shore-up civil liberties concerns via the use of "signing statements," which is tantamount to being a scoff-law!

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Instead of just presenting cherry-picked facts as you usually do, why don't you acknowledge that Bush effectively lied by invalidating parts of the Patriot Act designed to shore-up civil liberties concerns via the use of "signing statements," which is tantamount to being a scoff-law!

He's waiting for Hannity to issue the thaking points on that one.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by redfire
No, my argument as to explain scientific inaccuracies in the Bible is that if you ask a person in 700 B.C., much the less 700 A.D., if the world is flat, they would say yes. The Bible is not a scientific text book, why doesn't anyone seem to understand that?

So it's all just a fairy tale which is my point.

If it's the word of god why is it full of so much patent bullshit, if it isn't then who cares what ludicrous crap a particular bunch of primative people believed?

[redfire]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
So it's all just a fairy tale which is my point.

If it's the word of god why is it full of so much patent bullshit, if it isn't then who cares what ludicrous crap a particular bunch of primative people believed?

Because it's not a science book, it's bullshit? Cause as a person who's deciding between Law School and Grad School for a post-grad degree in History, that's kinda offensive.

Show me "patented bullshit." You say that Christians that don't believe in Evolution just don't want to look at the scientific evidence, but you're not looking at the Bible. You're taking someone else's word that the Bible is bullshit. Look at it for yourself, unless you're scared to. Read it, all of it. It doesn't take long if you know how to read (top to bottom, left to right, unless you're reading the Hebrew then right to left), and show me the "patented bullshit." Otherwise you're being just as closeminded as a person who doesn't believe in medicine.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Instead of just presenting cherry-picked facts as you usually do, why don't you acknowledge that Bush effectively lied by invalidating parts of the Patriot Act designed to shore-up civil liberties concerns via the use of "signing statements," which is tantamount to being a scoff-law!

How can I cherry-pick the Congressional vote on the Patriot Act, Nick?

Did the Democrats support it or not???

[Warham]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
He's waiting for Hannity to issue the thaking points on that one.

Your Sean Hannity obsession continues. If I had five bucks for every time you said his name, I could retire from my 'minimum wage' job.

:rolleyes:

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Question:

Why would a "God' create BILLIONS of galaxies......

And then only create intelligent life on ONE planet?

Just thought I'd throw that in, as it seems to stump Creationistic Bible Thumpers worldwide.

:cool:

It does??

I don't see any problems with that.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
It does??

I don't see any problems with that.


problems?

who said anything about "problems"


Having conversations with yourself again?





Why would we need BILLIONS of galaxies for ONE ecosystem?


Light show?:rolleyes:

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by redfire
Because it's not a science book, it's bullshit? Cause as a person who's deciding between Law School and Grad School for a post-grad degree in History, that's kinda offensive.

That says more about the US education system than it I would dare.

I think you've suffered from a form of mental abuse from a young age where you have been indoctrinated with superstitions. You may never recover from that and I think it's very wrong that so many people in the US recieve this treatment from those that are meant to be caring for and educating them.

I've already got my law degree and a post grad degree as well BTW.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by redfire
Show me "patented bullshit." You say that Christians that don't believe in Evolution just don't want to look at the scientific evidence, but you're not looking at the Bible. You're taking someone else's word that the Bible is bullshit. Look at it for yourself, unless you're scared to. Read it, all of it. It doesn't take long if you know how to read (top to bottom, left to right, unless you're reading the Hebrew then right to left), and show me the "patented bullshit." Otherwise you're being just as closeminded as a person who doesn't believe in medicine.

It was reading it that made me think this way.

I don't need to read the story of Noah's Ark in Hebrew to know that it's a crock.

[redfire]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
It was reading it that made me think this way.

I don't need to read the story of Noah's Ark in Hebrew to know that it's a crock.

Reading what specifically? You've not answered the question as to why you say it's a crock.

As for saying I've been indoctrinated to what I believe, that's wrong. It's true that the family is a socializing factor for a person's worldview, but having read the Bible and studying the history and cultures of the times, and having taken biology, earth-science, chemistry and physics, I choose the Bible. If you don't like it, sorry. I am educated, and you can call it whatever you want, but at least I know what I believe and why I believe it. Not to say that you don't, but you're insulting me when you say I believe something only because I was brought up that way.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by redfire
No, I don't remember saying that, and I don't even think you can imply that. I said I've seen what science has to offer to explain the formation of the world and it's not as matter of fact as a lot of people make. 237 million seems to be quite a bit to just say the relation is there.


That's exactly what you did. You used 'faith-based' DNA science to differentiate between the genetic link of humans to chimpanzees.

But Evolution is all wrong?



And I have listened and read. I've done that, but have you? Look, I don't have a problem with evolution or the Big Bang being taught, it should be. But the fact is, it's not without it's own problems, and I would like to see that the professor's would also teach the scientific arguments against it. I was, and I appreciated it. Then I did my own studies on it, and admittedly had a hard time keeping track of all the rebuttles from evolution. By the way, can you actually tell me what Sophistry is? I just want to make sure you're not repeating an argument from someone else. Now, as for the rest of Christianity... even just people of a religious faith that believe God created everything, I can't speak for them. But for you to say I'm cherry picking facts, is useless because the other side does it too, ie not stating the scientific arguments for many aspects of evolution.

I have listened and I have read also, and when it comes down to it, no one on the ID side of the debate seems to have any scientific credentials worth a damn, and their arguments are silly.

They are guilty of much the same thing as 9/11_Conspiracists, of "cherry-picking" questions about Evolution and often out-of-context...


Prolly none, but the Bible is not a text for explaining the mysteries of the origin of the universe, otherwise it might spend a little bit more talking about that. Rather, it's a text that is a history on God's relationship with mankind and how one can be reconciled to the LORD. How many scientific conferences on "God's salvation to mankind" are there? How many peer-reviewed papers?

What does this have to do with Evolutionary theory?


The end of the matter is this, does evolution, scientifically, have holes? If it does, you can rail against me for believing YHWH created the word (ironically that name means He causes to be), but it's no different from my faith, that according to science has holes.

All science "has holes." You can pick anything out as criticism, but you cannot say it invalidates what is scientific fact, the preponderance of evidence is so grossly in favor, creationism seems childish.

And if your religious beliefs are strong, than science shouldn't really threaten them...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
How can I cherry-pick the Congressional vote on the Patriot Act, Nick?

Did the Democrats support it or not???

What Bill the Democrats supported is not the actual selective Patriot Act being enforced, same with the torture bill that McCain sponsored...

Are you really this dumb, or just lying at this point?

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Are you really this dumb, or just lying at this point?

All of a sudden Warhammy Hagar cannot take responsibility for his fascist political party or the President that he loved so much.

Now he's claiming to be a "conservative" instead of a Republican and saying ...but the Democrats...but the Democrats...but the Democrats... Nothing buy responsibility-free politics for this guy!

Hopefully he'll be signing up for the military so he can go help clean up that mess in Iraq that he voted for.

But in reality it up to the Dems to clean it up all of a sudden. What's the Dem's plan for Iraq? They ask.

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Yeah, well all you libs, just you wait. When Hillary is President and she's caught in the Oval Office getting a blowjob from Obama, that'll prove that intelligent design is REAL!!!!

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by redfire
Reading what specifically? You've not answered the question as to why you say it's a crock.


I assumed it was obvious.

A guy and his sons spend 120 years building an ark and then place every animal in the world on it and live in it for a year whilst the sea rises to the height of the highest mountains.

Where do you want to start with this nonsense?

Insects?

As an idea of how many insects Noah would have had to take on the ark, here is a list of insect orders with the number of species in each (source - Natural History Museum):


COLLEMBOLA: 6000 eg. springtails
THYSANURA: 370 e.g.. silverfish
EPHEMEROPTERA: 2100 eg. mayflies
ODONATA: 5500 eg. dragonflies
PLECOPTERA: 2000 eg. stoneflies
BLATTODEA: 3700 eg. cockroaches
ISOPTERA: 2300 eg. termites
MANTODEA: 1800 eg. mantids
DERMAPTERA: 1800 eg. earwigs
ORTHOPTERA: 20500 eg. grasshoppers
PHASMATODEA: 2500 eg. stick insects
PSCOPTERA: 3200 eg. bark lice
PHTHIRAPTERA: 3000 eg. biting lice
HEMIPTERA: 82000 eg. aphids
THYSANOPTERA: 5000 eg. thrips
MEGALOPTERA: 250 eg. alderflies
RAPHIDIOPTERA: 175 eg. snakeflies
NEUROPTERA: 5000 eg. ant-lions
COLEOPTERA: 400000 eg. beetles
MECOPTERA: 400 eg. scorpion flies
SIPHONAPTERA: 2400 eg. fleas
DIPTERA: 120000 eg. fruit-flies
TRICHOPTERA: 10000 eg. caddisflies
LEPIDOPTERA: 150000 eg. butterflies
HYMENOPTERA: 130000 eg. ants, bees

giving a grand total of approx. 965420 different species of insect, about a million (and these are just the species known to western science. There could be another several million unknown species). Given a male and female, make that at least two million insects aboard the ark, ranging in size from a millimetre, up to six inches in size, many having extremely specialised requirements for life, (not to mention quite an appetite for eating other insects...).

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by Seshmeister

MEGALOPTERA: 250 eg. alderflies


Every species in this insect order gives EXCELLENT head.

[Guitar Shark]

Really, I would have thought you'd be partial to COLEOPTERA. Because, well.. you know.

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Really, I would have thought you'd be partial to COLEOPTERA. Because, well.. you know.

Some of the species in this order...well, let's just say they can be reeeeal snooty. Friggin' divas. What, they're too good to eat my ass? Bitchs, man. Bitches.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Question:

Why would a "God' create BILLIONS of galaxies......

And then only create intelligent life on ONE planet?

Just thought I'd throw that in, as it seems to stump Creationistic Bible Thumpers worldwide.

:cool:

The real question that stumps creationists is who created God. Trying to explain the complex questions of the universe by creating something far less likely.

The thing about the incredible amount of stars is that without it our scientific understanding of the universe doesn't work.

If there was just the Sun hell even I would maybe believe in some higher power.:)

Two reasons for this off the top of my head are.

1) The Goldilocks 'not too hot not too cold thing.'

The chances of the Earth being just the right distance from the Sun to support life are pretty damn low, at least in the way we naturally think of probablity in non cosmic terms. Most stars are also twins like the fictitious one in Star Wars Tatooine. In the real non Star Wars universe these systems are far less suited to life because they lead to much less circular orbits of the planets around them. The Earth has a very circular steady orbit. Without that every 'year' a planet changes in temperature far too much to support life as we understand it.

There are at least a billion billion planets in the known universe.

That means if it is a billion to one that an Earth type planet to just fit the exact requirements for life then there are a billion planets that can. I think these huge numbers are what confuses a lot of religionists just like they can't get their head around long time periods for evolution.

In other words if there weren't billions of stars then we wouldn't exist.

2) Nuclear Fusion.
Our Sun isn't hot enough to create any elements apart from Hydrogen and Helium. Without huge supernova stars exploding. creating clouds of elements which then form planets through gravity then all you have is Hydrogen and Helium. No water or carbon or metals or whatever so no life.


So basically like evolution, fossil records and everything else science tells us then if there was this 'god' thing then time after time it is also trying to give evidence that he/she doesn't exist.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by redfire
Reading what specifically? You've not answered the question as to why you say it's a crock.

As for saying I've been indoctrinated to what I believe, that's wrong. It's true that the family is a socializing factor for a person's worldview, but having read the Bible and studying the history and cultures of the times, and having taken biology, earth-science, chemistry and physics, I choose the Bible. If you don't like it, sorry. I am educated, and you can call it whatever you want, but at least I know what I believe and why I believe it. Not to say that you don't, but you're insulting me when you say I believe something only because I was brought up that way.

I'm sorry but I don't agree with the fake bullshit 'it's ok to question any opinion about music politics or whatever but it's rude to question someones religious beliefs thing.'

It's been manufactured as a way to protect the obvious failings and illogicalities of successful religions.

In the same way that there are muslims that will threaten to behead you if you say the Koran is bullshit, the milder version(at least in the last couple of hundred years) of Christianity is this politeness crap.

Both are used as a shield to protect the religions.

If you believe anything remotely close to a literal interpretation of the bible you are badly educated. You have no understanding of science, empirical evidence or logic. If you do not believe in what you call 'macro evolution' then your biology classes were either taught by superstitious people or you weren't listening.

Did you attend religious schools?

I'm angry on your behalf as if this is the 'science' you have been taught then it's tantamount to child abuse.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Keef]

America..What has happened.. where did we foul?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7Z_08o108E

Belated Thanksgiving, you fucking parrots

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
2) Nuclear Fusion.
Our Sun isn't hot enough to create any elements apart from Hydrogen and Helium. Without huge supernova stars exploding. creating clouds of elements which then form planets through gravity then all you have is Hydrogen and Helium. No water or carbon or metals or whatever so no life.
[/B]

Good job reminding the adam and eve lovers that our bodies and the whole solar system have already been inside a star and exploded out again in the remote past.