The creationists are BACK

[Dr.Drock]

Enormous animal, has "swords", eats grass, tough skin, lived in the area, makes a point to talk about the "nose", has a tail, seems pretty obvious that the author is talking about an elephant.

Mankind could kill the elephant and an elephant does not have a tail that moves like a cedar tree. An elephant has a small tail.
Has swords? tough skin? It does not say that.

Mankind was killed far more often by the elephant than vice versa, the tail can move like a cedar tree in the wind. Yes it talks about the animal having a sword, aka a tusk. The story talks about his nose going through snares unabated, aka a thick-skinned trunk.

 

[Jack Fate]

I think the same geniuses who promote man made global warming....er, ah, I mean climate chage, are the same ones who want us to believe in evolution.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I think the same geniuses who promote man made global warming....er, ah, I mean climate chage, are the same ones who want us to believe in evolution.

Not in the slightest, but if that's the story you need in your head to keep the "evil science" fairy tale going then go right ahead.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

One mention of that enormous time period would make it that long?

That excuse doesn't sound like a good one, especially when these people only thought the earth was a few thousand years old anyways.

The point is there are billions of years not mentioned. So, would you be happy if they had a reference to, I dunno, brachylophosaurus?

In terms of respecting what the Bible says with regards to science? Yes I would be happy with that, hell ecstatic. As long as it wasn't talking or had someone living inside it, as the Bible says about other animals.

How would you know if the brachylophosaurus was referenced? The term wasn't coined until the 18th century.

 

[Jack Fate]

I've already stated that religion and aspects of religion SHOULD be taught in school, I dunno why that isn't good enough for you guys.

But in a fact-based class like science, let's keep it scientific fact-only.

The only "facts" you have are the ones you believe, which keep changing because we keep learning. You don't have all the facts, and until you do then ID should be taught right along with what you call scientific fact. If it's good enough for Einstein, it's good enough for our children.

No, the facts I know are the ones that have been proven. Not a single shred of creationism has been.

Einstein's having a religious view or not doesn't mean it was proven by science.

When did science prove God is not the Creator.

 

[newpolitics]

Fuck off and fucking die. There are no consequences, and if you try to visit consequences upon people for their faith, in the US, you will go to prison. If you survive.

Our constitution does not provide that people must hide away to practice their religion. Quite the opposite. Move to North Korea, you piece of shit. And stay the fuck away from other people's children.

Allie is an amazing individual, she really does her best to pretend to take Jesus's teachings seriously when she's on this board then talks to people like this.

I think the christian God is nonsense (and all other man made gods for that matter) and I'm a better christian than her.

Her behavior is learned.
And this woman conducts work for children's services for the government.
SCARY

OMG... that's really scary, but it fits her. She's a nazi.

 

[newpolitics]

The only "facts" you have are the ones you believe, which keep changing because we keep learning. You don't have all the facts, and until you do then ID should be taught right along with what you call scientific fact. If it's good enough for Einstein, it's good enough for our children.

No, the facts I know are the ones that have been proven. Not a single shred of creationism has been.

Einstein's having a religious view or not doesn't mean it was proven by science.

When did science prove God is not the Creator.

When did ANYTHING prove that god is the creator?

 

[peach174]

Enormous animal, has "swords", eats grass, tough skin, lived in the area, makes a point to talk about the "nose", has a tail, seems pretty obvious that the author is talking about an elephant.

Mankind could kill the elephant and an elephant does not have a tail that moves like a cedar tree. An elephant has a small tail.
Has swords? tough skin? It does not say that.

Mankind was killed far more often by the elephant than vice versa, the tail can move like a cedar tree in the wind. Yes it talks about the animal having a sword, aka a tusk. The story talks about his nose going through snares unabated, aka a thick-skinned trunk.

I don't know what you are reading but it doesn't say that in Job in my bible.Mine says pierces his nose with a snare.
And that only God could kill him with his sword. He who made him can bring near his sword. Not that the animal had swords.

 

[newpolitics]

I think the same geniuses who promote man made global warming....er, ah, I mean climate chage, are the same ones who want us to believe in evolution.

Rational thought... its so stupid! I must promote it more I guess to try to convince people it works.

 

[newpolitics]

Why does everyone think the bible is true, because it says it? It doesn't make any sense to me how people reference a book written by humans two thousand years ago as being superior to the smartest humans on the planet today who discover and make sense of things empirically through repeated experimentation, mathematics, and evidence. IT IS TOTALLY RIDICULOUS. You are not virtuous or pious for having 'faith' in this book. Point is, creationism should not be taught in the classroom, because really, the bible has no credibility besides what constantine gave it back in 700 AD. If he had not done that, and who knows if he really did, it would not be a world religion today. Rome's becoming Christian, because of Constantine's supposed conversion right before his death, is the ONLY reason. Funny that it was the Roman Council of Nicea that filtered through the gospels and picked only the four deemed 'correct.' That is highly suspicious to me, especially considering how immediately huge the Roman empire got once they decided on a state sponsored religion... obviously, Christianity was chosen and those gospels chosen because of the social cohesion and political control they could wield over the masses with the gospels, making the state the godhead who was in charge of the Church. The roman empire got so big, that it split apart!!!

The most telling passage from the New T: "I am the only way to the father." Please... what this really means is: you have to be completely subservient to the church, or else you will be killed, by the state. don't riot, make noise, rebel... everything the state says is gospel... bullshit. It's social control. Plain and simple. Christiantiy has no relevance in todays culture. There is too much freeflow of information, and the logic just doesn't stand up, that because God's son died on a cross... if we believe in him, we will be saved. It is so utterly ridiculous to me. It doesn't even make sense.

 

[BlindBoo]

"
Reading the Bible carefully, you will realize that no living creature matches the descriptions of behemoth and Leviathan. However, if you grab your kid’s dinosaur book, you will notice several possible matches for each one. Let’s examine those.

Behemoth has the following attributes according to Job 40:15-24

• It “eats grass like an ox.”
• It “moves his tail like a cedar.” (In Hebrew, this literally reads, “he lets hang his tail like a cedar.”)
• Its “bones are like beams of bronze,
  His ribs like bars of iron.”
• “He is the first of the ways of God.”
• “He lies under the lotus trees,
  In a covert of reeds and marsh.”

Some bibles and study bibles will translate the word “behemoth” as “elephant” or “hippopotamus.” Others will put a note at the edge or bottom of the page, stating that behemoth was probably an elephant or a hippopotamus. Although an elephant or hippopotamus can eat grass (or lie in a covert of reeds and marsh), neither an elephant or a hippopotamus has a “tail like a cedar” (that is, a tail like a large, tapered tree trunk). In your kid’s dinosaur book you will find lots of animals that have “tails like a cedar.”

"
We would expect behemoth to be a large land animal whose bones are like beams of bronze and so forth, so whatever a behemoth is, it is large. A key phrase is “He is the first of the ways of God.” This phrase in the original Hebrew implied that behemoth was the biggest animal created. Although an elephant or a hippopotamus are big, they are less than one-tenth the size of a Brachiosaurus, the largest (complete) dinosaur ever discovered.[1] A Brachiosaurus could therefore easily be described as “the first of the ways of God.”
Comparing all this information to the description in your kid’s dinosaur book, you may come to the conclusion that “behemoth” is not a normal animal, it is a dinosaur—the brachiosaurus. We agree with that conclusion! "
Dinosaurs and the Bible

Actually we don't really know what dinosaurs looked like. All we have a fosselized remains that are 65 Million years old or older. Are you trying to say that whomever wrote the Bible actually lived with and saw real dinosaurs?

You're not very bright are you? She wasn't saying that at all, but I'm guessing by this point, it's not worth explaining to you.

It's quite obvious that the author of that book of the bible was describing a living animal. So the question remains, did the author of that particular book of the bible live with dinosaurs, or rather, do you believe they did?

I hate the Steelers!

 

[BlindBoo]

The only "facts" you have are the ones you believe, which keep changing because we keep learning. You don't have all the facts, and until you do then ID should be taught right along with what you call scientific fact. If it's good enough for Einstein, it's good enough for our children.

No, the facts I know are the ones that have been proven. Not a single shred of creationism has been.

Einstein's having a religious view or not doesn't mean it was proven by science.

When did science prove God is not the Creator.

When did science prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not the Creator?

 

[geauxtohell]

Oh, please tell us how you want to teach sex ed without religion? Is that: you cannot control your own body (but diet control is a must, and exercise regularly, on your own), so here are the methods of birth control because you will never be anything more than someone's sexual toy. ? Religion is the moral compass that people desire and will impose (on others) if given none.

More pragmatically, maybe you should tell us how you can teach sex ed with religion.

How about: you are special. There is not another person in the world, just like you. When you want have a sexual partner choose wisely, and act honorably, by marrying them, first! Your responsiblity to your future children is to bring them into the world, healthy. This means that you do not take unecessary risks of multiple sexual partners that can disease your body and your future children. If you are female, you are born with the eggs of your children inside of you and anything you put in your body can affect those eggs and the health of your future children. If you do not want children, you need to protect those that want children by not having sex as a child and spreading disease. If you wait to have sex, until you are an adult of average life span you will be able to have sex for 50 years, plus. Be a child and enjoy childhood pleasures, because once you are an adult, you will need those memories to keep your sanity from the silly people that think you should be able to act sexually as an adult starting in kindergarden. Now here are the facts on how the body works: .....

All good and fine. None of that mandates religion or necessitates that religion be taught along side of sex ed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No empirical data gives the slightest suggestion that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time.

However, no worthy point blocks the value that ID or Creationism should not be taught in the comparative religions class room.

 

[geauxtohell]

a Muslim student should be covered to call their classmates to prayer.

Would you be equally accepting of that? Umm asked and answered....
Is she going to say the words "Let us pray"?

Originally she was, but that is not what she ended up saying.

I would have objected to any prayer in this light. Until I read that the court of appeals had sided with the young woman, I would have thought the law was on my side.

As this was overturned from a previous ruling against this individual, I would assume there is at least some room for debate on this issue (at least legally).

However, as it stands, the courts have spoken.



And he was overturned.



The rule of law is in place to prevent the rule of mob. In other words, simply because something is popular doesn't make it legal or right.



Their argument had nothing to do with being inconvenienced.

This is much ado about nothing. This agnostic person will move forward to his next idiotic crusade where he will become offended because he views religion as offensive and he will find another judge sympathetic to his pathetic need to be recognized.
I see however ,he's got people like you on his side.
Merry Christmas!!!! Does that offend you? Good....Happy Easter.

You mistake me for an agnostic or an athiest.

I am neither.

Your reply says nothing.
You haven't provided any facts on which to base your claim.
You merely have an opinion and you keep insisting this is the rule of law. Sorry, but this judge rendered an opinion based on his interpretation of the First Amendment and a personal bias.
I am with the people on this. They say they want the girl to have her chance. She deserves it. She's not harming anyone.
You mention mob rule..Where?....Would you refer to people in a town who wish to allow the display of a Manger Scene in their town square in a state where a judge ruled these were Unconstitutional as a "mob"?
Bad law is bad law no matter where it takes place. And this ruling is not only bad law, it was unjust. We have the right to demonstrate through civil disobedience when we think a law or ruling is unjust.
People in a community have rights too. 3,000 against one does not make it right for the one to make the 3,000 suffer.
This judge if elected should be run out of office. He was dead wrong.
If you think this is going away, think again. People want what they want. If the town thinks it's a good idea to let a kid say a short prayer before a graduation ceremony, so what. No one got hurt.
People like you make a big deal out things like this because you think you are being anti-establishment. Your not.

Lighten up, Francis.

First, the ruling was over-ruled, which means the girl got to lead a prayer in the middle of her graduation speech.

Sorry I have to be the one to fill you in on the facts of this case.

I don't give a shit about the "establishment" whatever the fuck that means. I am not some kid with a chip on his shoulder.

I just want to see the law applied equally and fairly.

 

[geauxtohell]

You have a problem with people who reference the founding fathers? Gee, that's too bad. Why don't you try and shut me up.

No. You apparently have a problem with reading comprehension. I have never said I have a problem with people referencing the founding fathers. Knock yourself out, internet tough guy.

That girl has a right to speak about anything she wants at her graduation. All someone has to do is find a corrupt judge, which is what they did. She has done nothing wrong.

The judge isn't "corrupt" for making a ruling you don't agree with.

 

[AllieBaba]

Actually we don't really know what dinosaurs looked like. All we have a fosselized remains that are 65 Million years old or older. Are you trying to say that whomever wrote the Bible actually lived with and saw real dinosaurs?

You're not very bright are you? She wasn't saying that at all, but I'm guessing by this point, it's not worth explaining to you.

It's quite obvious that the author of that book of the bible was describing a living animal. So the question remains, did the author of that particular book of the bible live with dinosaurs, or rather, do you believe they did?

I hate the Steelers!

It doesn't matter for the purpose of this question. The premise was that there's no reference to brachio whateverus in the bible.

I proved that there are references to dinosaurs in the bible. If the Bible was written by God or under his guidance, one presumes he actually created those creatures, so I guess yes, he did see them.

Next.

 

[AllieBaba]

You have a problem with people who reference the founding fathers? Gee, that's too bad. Why don't you try and shut me up.

No. You apparently have a problem with reading comprehension. I have never said I have a problem with people referencing the founding fathers. Knock yourself out, internet tough guy.

That girl has a right to speak about anything she wants at her graduation. All someone has to do is find a corrupt judge, which is what they did. She has done nothing wrong.

The judge isn't "corrupt" for making a ruling you don't agree with.

The judge is corrupt if he makes a ruling that is in opposition to the Constitution, however.

Or just stupid. Who knows.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, the facts I know are the ones that have been proven. Not a single shred of creationism has been.

Einstein's having a religious view or not doesn't mean it was proven by science.

When did science prove God is not the Creator.

When did science prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not the Creator?

Science didn't. So is that your faith base?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Oh, that's right, you're the *alleged* PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR who helped to write the PI Guide for Dummies and wait, aren't you a renowned expert on wolf behavior, physics and Everything Else as well? I forgot how incredibly important you are...I'm so glad you reminded me. Again. I'm not sure how that jibes with your (repeated) assertion that you don't have to prove yourself.

But that relates directly to dick size. The smaller your dick, the less logical and more likely to constantly make things up about yourself to make yourself seem more prepossessing.

Anyway, that's all quite entertaining...except for the law part. You know even less about the law than you do about physics, religion, and the nature of the snowy plover. The law does not support requiring people to hide in their homes to worship. If you have one, trot it out. Meanwhile, please show me where in the Constitution it says you have the right to dictate to others how to worship, or to prevent them from worshiping as they please.

I'll wait with my Weak Milk.

These people who always have to give their resume as part of their debate are usually full of shit. They have to display their alleged accomplishments to cover their inability to present a substantive rebuttal.
I pay them no mind.
These fucking libs think they have a whole bunch of rights no one else has. And they think their rights can be used to suppress the rights of others. They play the game of lowest common denominator. Libs are successful only when they can dumb down society.
This judge's ruling is an example of that dumbing down.

Usually does not count in my world.
And you are one that also knows that I have put up 50K before.
How about it?
And I vote Republican 40 years so your "libs" argument is a joke.
If you pay me no mind then what about all of your posts?
50K?

$50K? What the fuck are you yammering about?
You? GOP? Please.
You may say you vote GOP, but you post liberal.
One thing about those on the Left is do not pay attention to anything they say, but watch very closely what they do.....
You are a lefty. Admit it and have a nice day.