A woman???

[peewee_RotA]

I don't think quadz quote was bashing any specific religion either, I think it was showing the creationists attitude, regarding something as truth without evidence.

Everyone here suffers from fearing what they don't understand. Well more so of what they refuse to understand because it is contrary to their own beliefs. It takes less than 5 minutes of researching christianity to know that Quadz is miss-using a quote based on an aparent vast ignorence of the religion in question.

"John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

The quote from quadz:
"Once she understands a truth, she bites down on it and won't let go of the truth,"

Ammounts to:
"Once [insert Muslim here] understands the 7 pillars he will never let them go"
Followed by a comment about how you cannot understand pieces of architecture.

The truth is a synonym for Jesus and God's message. You would know this if you bothered to research a religion before bashing it, or defending someone who has done so.

And what about:
"she's pentecostal?? funny half of my friends growing up went to those assembly of God thingies they called church."

And don't think you're going to get away with a drive by of calling an entire overwhelmingly accepted world belief a "Myth". The only reason I used harsh terms is that you're asking to direct the argument in another way, and I'm not going to allow a cheap shot like calling creationism a myth without response, even if I'm not following down that path.

What's being implied here is that Palin is a christian therefore you can never vote for her. Ignoring Barack's past 2 decades as a member of the United Church of Christ. I'm sure that Barack is a creationist too. Is he full of myths? I wonder if he's ever been accused of holding onto the "truth"? Maybe he should be bashed too.

The point is your blatent, condescending, hard words in some attitude that it's ok to be biased as long as it's against a majority. It's not apropriate, and it's transparent when the thread starts out being sexist.

I don't care that you don't want creationism taught in schools. I do care that your premise is "it's myths and lies" and you expect that that kind of verbage is not going to be taken as offensive.


Edit:
This quote is especially potent to my point:
"However I have seen nothing to indicate she has renounced creationism."

As far as requiring a candidate to renounce creationism, that's absolutely absurd! Once again, has Obama renounced creationism. Has Bill Clinton. In fact, have we ever had a single non-Christian president? You might as well add "able to rope the moon" in your litmus test for president. Holding creationism, specifically Christian in this entire conversation and context, against anyone is in fact choosing a candidate based on their religion. Would you instead consider that Creationism is a science? Based on your responses to the subject so far, I doubt you'd be willing to allow this "myth" that much credit. Which brings it back to being a matter of religion and philisophical answer to the question of "where did we come from?" Once again meaning that you are quite tenaciously holding someone's religion against them.

Unless of course you can then somehow backpedal and say that your problem is not with creationists who will not denounce their religion, and is instead only a problem with a desire to teach it in public schools. I think calling it myths and lies is a tough position to back pedal from but I'm willing to watch a good comedy.

[quadz]

Everyone here suffers from fearing what they don't understand. Well more so of what they refuse to understand because it is contrary to their own beliefs. It takes less than 5 minutes of researching christianity to know that Quadz is miss-using a quote based on an aparent vast ignorence of the religion in question.

Er... As I've mentioned elsewhere, I had more religious upbringing than any human being should ever withstand.  Bible study every morning six days a week without fail, whether we were on vacation or what.  Usually additional bible reading at night.  Church twice a week.  If we were snowed in or otherwise unable to reach a church we would hold the service ourselves.  Additional bonus tasks like memorization of the ten commandments in long form, memorization of the beatitudes, memorization of the books of the bible, etc.  Also, in the course of our evening readings, at one point we switched from reading selected passages, to linear reading, we got through the whole KJV from cover to cover, twice.  (The evening reading was separate from the morning reading, which remained focused on specific themes and passages from week to week.)

This went on since infancy.  Then I turned 18.

That was now half a lifetime ago, but I'm inclined to suspect I still recall the bible better than most practicing christians.

The truth is a synonym for Jesus and God's message. You would know this if you bothered to research a religion before bashing it, or defending someone who has done so.

I believe I've done due diligance as far as research into Christianity is concerned.

And don't think you're going to get away with a drive by of calling something an entire overwhelmingly accepted world belief a "Myth".

Nonsense.  There is nothing close to homogenous agreement among Christian denominations, let alone individual Christians, as to how literally to interpret the Bible creation myths.

For example, if one questions the rare scientist in the field of biology or cosmology, who still somehow retains his or her faith, you may hear a response like, "Well, of course we know the creation stories aren't literally true. And indeed, it appears God so finely tuned the laws of physics that we can find no evidence divine intervention was even needed since the big bang. But we believe God exists, so maybe He was responsible for setting this finely tuned big bang in motion."

On the other end of the spectrum, we find fundamentalist Young Earth creationist literalists, who profess to believe man was formed of the dust of the ground and the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Pretty big difference.  And unlike the genuine scientists, the fundamentalists seem to be the ones most inclined to make statements about clinging doggedly to "absolute truths."  Not surprising, since the scientists, particularly in fields like biology and cosmology, are of necessity aware of how mountains of evidence have completely unraveled the Bible's creation myths over the past few centuries.

I'm sure that Barack is a creationist too. Is he full of myths? I wonder if he's ever been accused of holding onto the "truth"? Maybe he should be bashed too.

Who knows.  Has Obama suggested teaching non-evidence-based creationism in science class?

I don't care that you don't want creationism taught in schools. I do care that your premise is "it's myths and lies" and you expect that that kind of verbage is not going to be taken as offensive.

Offensive?  What would happen if you instead asserted that the big bang is a myth, or that evolution is a myth?  It would seem I would have a couple choices:

  1. Get all "offended" about it
  2. Point out the vast amounts of evidence supporting both theories, and inquire as to what counter-evidence you have that contradicts what you have chosen to call a myth.

I can say with some confidence I'd choose response 2.

Unfortunately, if your beliefs are faith-based instead of evidence-based, then option 2 is unavailable to you, and maybe you're only left with option 1.  But that is NOT. MY. FAULT.

[metaL]

The truth is a synonym for Jesus and God's message. You would know this if you bothered to research a religion before bashing it, or defending someone who has done so.

LOL.  The truth would be more like, you are very misled and are unaware of it.  I think there's a word for this...

And what about:
"she's pentecostal?? funny half of my friends growing up went to those assembly of God thingies they called church."

And don't think you're going to get away with a drive by of calling an entire overwhelmingly accepted world belief a "Myth". The only reason I used harsh terms is that you're asking to direct the argument in another way, and I'm not going to allow a cheap shot like calling creationism a myth without response, even if I'm not following down that path.

Don't think I'll get away with it? right bud. I didn't even call it a myth (until now, muhuhahaha!), nor did I take any argument anywhere.  I made a quick interjection that expressed an opinion of mine.  Excuse me if I'm not enthusiastic about praising a set of beliefs that involve me burning in eternal damnation following death on earth.  How terrible of me.

What's being implied here is that Palin is a christian therefore you can never vote for her.

No, this is your take as to what happened.  You are incorrect.  Get over it.  That's like me stating that since you're saying that I can't get away with expressing my opinion, you are therefore contradicting freedom of speech, and thus bashing the first amendment of the constitution, which means you're degrading the human race by denouncing our basic rites. lmao, just a pathetic attempt to make your opposition look bad..  Have you considered politics peewee?

The point is your blatent, condescending, hard words in some attitude that it's ok to be biased as long as it's against a majority. It's not apropriate, and it's transparent when the thread starts out being sexist.

Whine a little more? the only thing that's "blatent" here is that you're upset and are blowing things out of proportion.  If you ask me, its not very "apropriate"

Would you instead consider that Creationism is a science?

Wow, HAHAHA, science aims to seek the truth.  You tried to mix oil and water here, and you failed.  How surprising.

[jägermonsta]

the car didn't break down. we bombed the living shit out of it and invaded with tanks and ground troops...

there's a distinction.

Sigh... the car was the US.

Doesn't matter. You're against the war so matter what I say you're going to say it was a waste of money. I believe the war necessary and justified so no matter how much you whine about money being wasted I don't see it that way. Sure money was earned during Cliton's years in office, why? He sat on a desk and got a blow job. That's all that happened... while that was going on terrorist regimes grew stronger and planned one of the biggest attacks on the US ever... So Mr. Texas steps in and takes care of business. A evil dictator is removed from power, extreme terrorist groups are falling apart. Job well done. If it were up to Bill we would of left them alone and today they would be stronger then ever continuing to plan & carry out schemes to hurt us. I think you owe some people your thanks else you can just take it for granted like most Americans are doing... OMG I CAN'T TALK ON THE TELEPHONE OR WRITE EMAIL WITHOUT THE GOVERNMENT EASE DROPPING?!?! OMG WE'VE KICKED A BIG BEES NEST NOW WE'RE EVEN MORE UNSAFE THEN EVER?!! If you're not doing anything wrong then I don't think you have anything to worry about. If the US Government wants to hear me talking to my girlfriend about how she's going to stop and get tampons on the way home from work then so be it, I don't give a fuck. You people think we're giving up our rights? I don't think it's that extreme. The day some left sided crack head takes my guns away, that's when I'll be giving up a right because at that point my safety is in jeopardy.

[reaper]

A evil dictator is removed from power, extreme terrorist groups are falling apart.

yeah they're falling apart.. the Iraq war created the opposite effect.  it actually caused more people to hate America, and created more terrorists.

But they are all coming to Iraq, so we're killing them there, what a plan!

 

Bush made his reasons clear for going to war, he thought Iraq was directly linked to Al Qaeda, which was false.  If it were true, Iraq may have been a threat that warranted war - we can't have Iraq give billions to Al Qaeda, but that was simply not the case.  Either he believed in such a link between the terrorist group that attacked America and Iraq, or he just didn't make a good case for war.  Either way the war was a terrible blunder.

[Whirlingdervish]

I don't believe the war itself was a complete mistake, just the haphazard manner in which we've handled it.

All told, it has had plenty of positive effects and we might just end up with another democratic ally of sorts in the middle east, as a result of it. The thing is, I would have appreciated more candor in the run-up to it so that we as americans understood exactly what it was that our government was intending to do, and what they were getting us into. (they represent us, I think they could keep us informed as opposed to lying and then fabricating materials to back those lies)

In the actual act of making war, we could have been more efficient had we planned intelligently, and held our people much more accountable for the weapons and money that we infused Iraq with.

It's not like we haven't seen and documented the long term effects of dumping cash and automatic weapons into wartorn regions, with rival militias fighting it out for supremacy.. It won't be pretty if they can't manage to come together peacefully in Iraq, after we hand it back over, and form a working government based on power sharing and one which includes checks on those powers.

I'd hate to think we spent all these lives and all this money and time and attention to end up creating new militant groups and shuffling around which group of warlords controls which oilfield.

 

[DaHanG]

And don't think you're going to get away with a drive by of calling an entire overwhelmingly accepted world belief a "Myth". The only reason I used harsh terms is that you're asking to direct the argument in another way, and I'm not going to allow a cheap shot like calling creationism a myth without response, even if I'm not following down that path.

Is it a myth that the world is flat? Yes. The definition of myth has to do with a proposition or story being a falsehood. Creationism is a falsehood, and there is no denying it. The fact that it's a myth has nothing to do with a certain number of people believing it, no matter how many or how few.

What's being implied here is that Palin is a christian therefore you can never vote for her. Ignoring Barack's past 2 decades as a member of the United Church of Christ. I'm sure that Barack is a creationist too. Is he full of myths? I wonder if he's ever been accused of holding onto the "truth"? Maybe he should be bashed too.

You're sure and you're wrong, he's an evolutionist. You're the only one bringing up Christianity, which is quite a bit different than creationism, in which there are myths of creation from all over the world. Palin happens to believe the Christian one, but whatever version she believes is irrelevant to the discussion.

I don't care that you don't want creationism taught in schools. I do care that your premise is "it's myths and lies" and you expect that that kind of verbage is not going to be taken as offensive.

It's a myth by definition....

Would you instead consider that Creationism is a science?

 

I recommend dropping the ego and reading a book. You have a lot of catching up to do.

[Whirlingdervish]

For creationism to be science it would have to be based upon observation of things that are measurable, it would require intelligent deduction based on those observations, and then it would need to allow for some ability to test and reproduce the findings that this creates.

First off it relies on one very unmeasurable substance in the form of a creator and the hypothesis is skewed from this point forward.

from there it falls into making guesses that are based on only a subset of the observations/elements required to make an intelligent hypothesis about a certain condition (ie: life existing), because there is an unmeasurable element in the experimental/testing process of proving/disproving creationism. (the creator and it's influence are both non-elements because they are assumed into existence as opposed to measured and observed to actually be in existence)

then it takes the final step to being about as far from science as possible, by not being repeated/repeatable to prove that it works the same way in a statistically significant number of test cases.


so NO, I wouldn't consider Creationism a science at all.
It's far more like a belief that people make up results to support after they've developed it, than it is a theory that people test to determine it's accuracy before they place stock in it.


Kinda like that theory about Iraq developing nuclear and biological weapons in quantities sufficient to have a realistic offensive capability.

[DaHanG]

Sure money was earned during Cliton's years in office, why? He sat on a desk and got a blow job. That's all that happened... while that was going on terrorist regimes grew stronger and planned one of the biggest attacks on the US ever... So Mr. Texas steps in and takes care of business. A evil dictator is removed from power, extreme terrorist groups are falling apart. Job well done.

Mr. Texas was on vacation the weeks preceding the attacks. It appeared to be preventable. Then he invaded a country whose government didn't have anything to do with it. The intelligence reports were cherry picked, and he didn't even look at the arguments against invading (maybe because God told him it was the right thing to do? I wonder if God said he would be in and out in a number of months like it was initially proposed), nor did he take the advice from top military experts for the need of a lot more troops if we were to invade.

If the argument is that it's a moral obligation to remove Saddam, that's one thing. But to argue that they had something to do with 9/11 (which I don't think you are) is another, and in which case I don't see why we don't invade North Korea or Iran or stop genocide in Darfur by force since it would be worth the money and blood assuming we would succeed. Is it better to remove an evil dictator from power to who slaughtered tens of thousands (maybe more), or to pour those hundreds of billions of dollars to save millions of lives in third world countries from hunger/starvation/etc. Probably the latter, but I'm not sure. It seems there's a moral dilemma here. Maybe we could even go where the terrorists actually are in Afghanistan and Pakistan (and some all over the world but it's impossible to get them all in one swoop) instead of the tiny fraction of insurgents in Iraq who belong to terrorist groups, and who are pretty much only there because we invaded in the first place.

Of course I still hope we succeed and it looks like we will. Again, I can't resist: "I thought they were all Muslims".

[reaper]

For creationism to be science it would have to be based upon observation of things that are measurable, it would require intelligent deduction based on those observations, and then it would need to allow for some ability to test and reproduce the findings that this creates.

Just because you can't test creationism well through science, doesn't mean creationism isn't he truth.  There is a lot more to thinking than just simple deduction, and the scientific method.

Anyways, I don't disagree with what you said.

Is it a myth that the world is flat? Yes. The definition of myth has to do with a proposition or story being a falsehood. Creationism is a falsehood, and there is no denying it. The fact that it's a myth has nothing to do with a certain number of people believing it, no matter how many or how few.

I believe there is a good chance a "higher power", which you could call god, exists.

Also I think you can pose some interesting questions, which could make some people determine that god doesn't exist, which depends entirely on their perspective. Questions like:
We have a solid theory of existence until we go back in time to the start of the big bang, so why does god not show himself?
etc...

Obviously many say this is because there is no god, which is fine.  But I don't think you can say it's a falsehood until you have a stronger alternative explanation.   As you already know, I think it's likely some higher power exists, and that there could also be simulations within simulations..

The point being, don't say something is known to be false, when you don't really know that it is false, or know how likely your explanation is.  Hard evidence is great in anything, except it doesn't always exist.

[DaHanG]

For creationism to be science it would have to be based upon observation of things that are measurable, it would require intelligent deduction based on those observations, and then it would need to allow for some ability to test and reproduce the findings that this creates.

Just because you can't test creationism well through science, doesn't mean creationism isn't he truth.  There is a lot more to thinking than just simple deduction, and the scientific method.

Creationism isn't true because it's the opposite of evolution. It claims that everything was created in a very short period of time, including life. It is a set of claims that goes beyond that hypothesis of a creator, and these claims have been disproved.

Is it a myth that the world is flat? Yes. The definition of myth has to do with a proposition or story being a falsehood. Creationism is a falsehood, and there is no denying it. The fact that it's a myth has nothing to do with a certain number of people believing it, no matter how many or how few.

I believe there is a good chance a "higher power", which you could call god, exists.

Also I think you can pose some interesting questions, which could make some people determine that god doesn't exist, which depends entirely on their perspective. Questions like:
We have a solid theory of existence until we go back in time to the start of the big bang, so why does god not show himself?
etc...

Obviously many say this is because there is no god, which is fine.  But I don't think you can say it's a falsehood until you have a stronger alternative explanation.   As you already know, I think it's likely some higher power exists, and that there could also be simulations within simulations..

The point being, don't say something is known to be false, when you don't really know that it is false, or know how likely your explanation is.  Hard evidence is great in anything, except it doesn't always exist.

Is it a myth that the world is flat? Yes. The definition of myth has to do with a proposition or story being a falsehood. Creationism is a falsehood, and there is no denying it. The fact that it's a myth has nothing to do with a certain number of people believing it, no matter how many or how few.

I believe there is a good chance a "higher power", which you could call god, exists.

Also I think you can pose some interesting questions, which could make some people determine that god doesn't exist, which depends entirely on their perspective. Questions like:
We have a solid theory of existence until we go back in time to the start of the big bang, so why does god not show himself?
etc...

Obviously many say this is because there is no god, which is fine.  But I don't think you can say it's a falsehood until you have a stronger alternative explanation.   As you already know, I think it's likely some higher power exists, and that there could also be simulations within simulations..

The point being, don't say something is known to be false, when you don't really know that it is false, or know how likely your explanation is.  Hard evidence is great in anything, except it doesn't always exist.

Again, creationism is a set of beliefs based on a time frame of what god did, not whether or not there is a god that created everything. And the creationist hypothesis is false.



Anyways, found something that reiterates my caution about Sarah Palin's conviction she's doing God's work in the environment/war/etc.:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1vPYbRB7k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k84m2orSOaM

I recommend reading this article as well: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/03/opinion/oe-harris3

[quadz]

Anyways, found something that reiterates my caution about Sarah Palin's conviction she's doing God's work in the environment/war/etc.:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1vPYbRB7k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k84m2orSOaM

PALIN: "It was so cool growin' up in this church... and getting saved here. [...] Believe me, I know what I'm sayin'. Where God has sent me from underneath the umbrella of this church, throughout the state. [...] What I need to do is strike a deal with you guys, as you go out throught Alaska. I can do my part in doing things like workin' really hard to get a natural gas pipeline. About a $30 billion project that's going to create a lot of jobs for Alaskans, and we'll have a lot of energy flowin' through here--and pray about that also! I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built. So pray for that!
But I can do my job there in developing our natural resources, and doin' things like gettin the roads paved, and making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms and their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded.  But really, all of that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart, isn't Right with God. And that's gonna be your job. As I'm doin' my job, let's strike this deal. Your job is gonna be to be out there, reachin' the people, hurtin' people throughout Alaska, and we can work together to make sure God's will be done here."

PALIN: "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country, that our leaders--our national leaders--are sending them out on a task that is from God.  That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

PALIN: "Ephesians 1:17, and this is what I want to pray over you guys, too, 'That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the father of glory may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him.' And that spirit of revelation also including that spirit of prophecy, that God's gonna tell you what is goin' on, and what is going to go on, and you guys are gonna have that within you, and it's just gonna bubble up, and bubble over, and it's gonna pour out throughout the state of Alaska. Again, good good things in store for the state of Alaska, let us pray for God's will to be done here."

Hoo boy.  Then she hands the microphone to Pastor Ed.  And she nods in agreement while he agrees that indeed God wants that gas pipeline.  Why?  Because the rapture is coming!

PASTOR ED: "But there were things, about the natural resources, about the state--there were some things that God wants to tap into to be a refuge for the lower forty-eight!  And I believe Alaska is one of the refuge states.  C'mon, you guys, in the Last Days! And hundreds and thousands of people are going to come to the state to seek refuge, and the church has to be ready to minister to them.... Amen?  [...]  So will you please pray for our governor, and what she's basically requested?"


Mammals are weird, man.

[DaHanG]

Jager, I hope there's at least SOME sense of regret when you cast that vote. 

[QwazyWabbit]

God save us from the Pentacostals.


 

[lidz]

Wow I just read some of those articles with Palin talking about 'God's Will' over and over.  This lady was purely a choice to get the standard GOP voter to fall in line.  Good plan McCain.