The ONE qst. that should be asked of every GOP candidate

[Maryland Patriot]

I'm agnostic, but it appears the all Liberals believe in ...NOTHING, as far as what the beginning was!....Is that settled science?

Well, what IS "settled science" is the fact that most likely, Jesus did NOT ride through the streets of old Judea on a dinosaur.

and man defines the parameters for a day. not the Bible. The Bible just mentions a day.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm agnostic, but it appears the all Liberals believe in ...NOTHING, as far as what the beginning was!....Is that settled science?

Well, what IS "settled science" is the fact that most likely, Jesus did NOT ride through the streets of old Judea on a dinosaur.

Can you cite a reference in any Bible or religious writing of that happening?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well, yes it does.

If the person who doesn't bother carrying Health Insurance becomes catastrophically ill or injured, the Doctors and Hospitals are going to cost shift his bills onto you.

Then he goes on Welfare and Medicaid.

All of which costs you. A lot.

I am quite possibly the most conservative person in here but we need to have a mandatory participation in Health Insurance.

that has already been happening for years, and its been cheaper to cover them then now under obamacare, and lets be honest here, the idea behind obamacare is to insure those on welfare, so chances are this worthless person is already on welfare.
It would actually serve society more if that person were to just die. Hate to be cold but if they serve no purpose in society, then they are not a benefit to keep around.

"Worthless Person"? Judging someone you don't know so harshly gives us an insight into the mind and heart of a Callous Conservative.

It may be cheaper (loss expensive is the proper term) for the Federal Government to treat the uninsured, but it is the most costly of all other services provided by county and state governments.

First, if somebody does nothing, provides nothing, only exists by using others resources, what value do they have for a society. How many of these people can society carry before the weight is to great and society fails.
you say that the federal government can do things cheaper?
History tells us that you are wrong, please give an example of the government doing more for less than any private concern.

Government put men on the moon.

"First" Let's presume an 18 year old female is pregnant, has learned from her doctor that the fetus has serious congenital medical conditions which will render the child dependent on the support of others for his or her life.

Then she is convinced to keep this child by a right to life advocate who will have no fiscal or emotional ties to the child should he or she survive for decades.

By your definition this child is worthless.

How about this scenario:

A 16 year old girl is impregnated by her mother's brother. He mom was abandoned by her husband and has two other children under the age of 12. Mom kicked her out when she learned of he pregnancy, claiming her brother would never do such a thing.

By your definition, "First, if somebody does nothing, provides nothing, only exists by using others resources, what value do they have for a society", the 16 year old is worthless too.

Scenerio one. I wouldnt convince her to have the child. But, yes in a society what purpose does that child serve.
next, why isnt mom responsible, or the uncle, or even the father that abandoned her, why am I as a taxpayer responsible for the care of this girl and her child for life. but as far as what purpose does that child serve? none yet, maybe one day, however what purpose does the rest of that family serve? none if they are expecting society to care for then.

Now how about the millions of "families" that have lived on welfare as a generational type of income. They do nothing, the produce nothing the provide no value to society. Should we keep catering to those millions in order to make sure one that might deserve help gets it?

First, I put to rest your second point. Under AFDC there were serious problems with welfare abuse; today TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) has replaced
AFDC and allows individual states to develop aid programs to put such recipients to work and limits the time aid is received.

Why isn't mom responsible? Your second point once again fails to understand or consider her circumstances. As someone who managed VAWA grants I have an understanding of and empathy for victims of Domestic Violence. Maybe mom was molested by her brother, beaten by her scofflaw husband and overwhelmed by life in general. A circumstance we ran into quite often.

 

[nat4900]

The actual answer is that government can't fix problems....they usually patch it over for a while at the same time they are making the underlying problem 100 times worse......

Ahhhhh, yet another proponent of Yemeni style of "less government"

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm agnostic, but it appears the all Liberals believe in ...NOTHING, as far as what the beginning was!....Is that settled science?

Well, what IS "settled science" is the fact that most likely, Jesus did NOT ride through the streets of old Judea on a dinosaur.

Can you cite a reference in any Bible or religious writing of that happening?

Yes Virginia, there are stupid questions.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Two questions.
1) your undeniable proof that relgion is only myth and can not be based on any truth.
2) explain how science requries less faith than creation (you know, the myths Christians believe)

Im sure this will be easy.
If you have time, can you also explain the many times science new it was right, it was factual, to be believed only to have the theory disproved in favor of a new theory that is now right, factual and to be believed.
example, global warming, then cooling now warming.

I'm not criticizing religion. I'm criticizing the Ge3nesis myth. The Bible is a book of beautiful poetry, amazing spirituality, sex, violence, allegory, parable and invaluable life lessons. What it is not is a science textbook.

Teaching the Creation myth in a philosophy class is perfectly acceptable. Teaching it as a geology lesson, a biology lesson, an astronomy lesson is false teaching.

But it does tell us about the hydrological cycle, long before scientist realized it. It talks about hypothermal vents 3000 years before their discovery by science. It also contains statements that are consistent with sciences such as paleontology, astrology, meteorology, biology, anthropology, geology and even physics.

So although it isn't a science book, it is scientifically accurate.

I do beleive in creation over a random accidentle act where trillions of things fell exactly in to place to create all we are.
However, as far as the Bible talking about hypothermal vents, or any other thing, They can be explained or reasoned as simple observation by a laymen. its possible that man knew about these things for thousands of years before science stepped up and studied it, named it and explained it.
that takes little faith on the part of science or the Bible.
the biggest leap of faith comes in the creation itself, even some of the works of Jesus with the sick or dying, or even dead at the time could today be explained with science and medical research. (although that medical science did not exist back then) Raising someone from the dead is not as uncommon as one might think today. Back then, we all would have been Gods.

So tell me how could hypothermal vents which are thousands of feet underwater be observed 3000 years ago?

Underwater volcanoes at spreading ridges and convergent plate boundaries produce hot springs known as hydrothermal vents.

Scientists first discovered hydrothermal vents in 1977 while exploring an oceanic spreading ridge near the Galapagos Islands. To their amazement, the scientists also found that the hydrothermal vents were surrounded by large numbers of organisms that had never been seen before. These biological communities depend upon chemical processes that result from the interaction of seawater and hot magma associated with underwater volcanoes.

Hydrothermal vents are the result of seawater percolating down through fissures in the ocean crust in the vicinity of spreading centers or subduction zones (places on Earth where two tectonic plates move away or towards one another). The cold seawater is heated by hot magma and reemerges to form the vents. Seawater in hydrothermal vents may reach temperatures of over 340°C (700°F).

Hot seawater in hydrothermal vents does not boil because of the extreme pressure at the depths where the vents are formed.

The bible talks about these underwater fountains.

Is it possible that these underwater fountains at that time were in less shallow waters? maybe not even the exact same thing that was discovered recently. The earth is constantly changing.
I dont have all the answers, Im just like everyone else, I make a guess based on the facts at hand.
I only questioned if it was possible that the vents were in an easier place to observe a couple thousand years ago.
I have a deep belief in religion, however I also think science has proven that many of its theories are fact, even though they still call them theories.
Science in my opinion is discovering how God, or someone else created everything here. Somebody had a hand in it, I dont think it just magically happened.

You can theorize all you want about how they knew things that took science thousands of years to learn but one thing is clear. The Bible is scientifically accurate.

For thousands of years, people believed that the earth was flat. But God said 2,600 years ago in Isaiah 40:22 that God is enthroned above the sphere of the earth.

For thousands of years, people believed something held the earth up. Hindus believed huge elephants did it. The Greeks believed Atlas did it. The Egyptians believed five columns held the earth up. The Bible never says that anything is holding the planet up.

For thousands of years, people believed that the number of stars were finite. But Jeremiah 33:22 says the number of stars can’t be counted.

The Bible talks about mountains and springs under the sea and it talks about the paths (currents) of the sea. .

 

[nat4900]

Glad the original question raised the hackles of the "moral-right-wing-cadre".......and as Neil de Grasse Tyson once stated, "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it...."

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I'm agnostic, but it appears the all Liberals believe in ...NOTHING, as far as what the beginning was!....Is that settled science?

Well, what IS "settled science" is the fact that most likely, Jesus did NOT ride through the streets of old Judea on a dinosaur.

Can you cite a reference in any Bible or religious writing of that happening?

I dont think he means that the Bible said it happened, I think it was a reference to the fact that if the Bible was correct, dinosaurs would most likely have been around when Jesus walked ( or road his ass) on earth.
which goes back to my comment about the measurement of a day.
God created the animals before he created man, the only time reference we have is a day, based on our own definition of the time it takes for the earth to make one rotation.
However what if the reference to a day was Gods interpretation based on the time it took the universe to make a rotation around some yet unknown point of reference. Gods day could be a billion years in our days.
you have to consider that man wrote the Bible, its possible that the use of the word day to separate time periods is wrong.
The use of the word day in the Bible, in Genesis was only used to describe the lighted part of a 24 hour period, it is our assumption that that is also what God was referring to when it was written that he created on day one or day two.
How long is Gods day.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I'm not criticizing religion. I'm criticizing the Ge3nesis myth. The Bible is a book of beautiful poetry, amazing spirituality, sex, violence, allegory, parable and invaluable life lessons. What it is not is a science textbook.

Teaching the Creation myth in a philosophy class is perfectly acceptable. Teaching it as a geology lesson, a biology lesson, an astronomy lesson is false teaching.

But it does tell us about the hydrological cycle, long before scientist realized it. It talks about hypothermal vents 3000 years before their discovery by science. It also contains statements that are consistent with sciences such as paleontology, astrology, meteorology, biology, anthropology, geology and even physics.

So although it isn't a science book, it is scientifically accurate.

I do beleive in creation over a random accidentle act where trillions of things fell exactly in to place to create all we are.
However, as far as the Bible talking about hypothermal vents, or any other thing, They can be explained or reasoned as simple observation by a laymen. its possible that man knew about these things for thousands of years before science stepped up and studied it, named it and explained it.
that takes little faith on the part of science or the Bible.
the biggest leap of faith comes in the creation itself, even some of the works of Jesus with the sick or dying, or even dead at the time could today be explained with science and medical research. (although that medical science did not exist back then) Raising someone from the dead is not as uncommon as one might think today. Back then, we all would have been Gods.

So tell me how could hypothermal vents which are thousands of feet underwater be observed 3000 years ago?

Underwater volcanoes at spreading ridges and convergent plate boundaries produce hot springs known as hydrothermal vents.

Scientists first discovered hydrothermal vents in 1977 while exploring an oceanic spreading ridge near the Galapagos Islands. To their amazement, the scientists also found that the hydrothermal vents were surrounded by large numbers of organisms that had never been seen before. These biological communities depend upon chemical processes that result from the interaction of seawater and hot magma associated with underwater volcanoes.

Hydrothermal vents are the result of seawater percolating down through fissures in the ocean crust in the vicinity of spreading centers or subduction zones (places on Earth where two tectonic plates move away or towards one another). The cold seawater is heated by hot magma and reemerges to form the vents. Seawater in hydrothermal vents may reach temperatures of over 340°C (700°F).

Hot seawater in hydrothermal vents does not boil because of the extreme pressure at the depths where the vents are formed.

The bible talks about these underwater fountains.

Is it possible that these underwater fountains at that time were in less shallow waters? maybe not even the exact same thing that was discovered recently. The earth is constantly changing.
I dont have all the answers, Im just like everyone else, I make a guess based on the facts at hand.
I only questioned if it was possible that the vents were in an easier place to observe a couple thousand years ago.
I have a deep belief in religion, however I also think science has proven that many of its theories are fact, even though they still call them theories.
Science in my opinion is discovering how God, or someone else created everything here. Somebody had a hand in it, I dont think it just magically happened.

You can theorize all you want about how they knew things that took science thousands of years to learn but one thing is clear. The Bible is scientifically accurate.

For thousands of years, people believed that the earth was flat. But God said 2,600 years ago in Isaiah 40:22 that God is enthroned above the sphere of the earth.

For thousands of years, people believed something held the earth up. Hindus believed huge elephants did it. The Greeks believed Atlas did it. The Egyptians believed five columns held the earth up. The Bible never says that anything is holding the planet up.

For thousands of years, people believed that the number of stars were finite. But Jeremiah 33:22 says the number of stars can’t be counted.

The Bible talks about mountains and springs under the sea and it talks about the paths (currents) of the sea. .

I dont argue your statement about the scientific value of the Bible, however as a Christian I have found it easier to argue any point if first we look at the possible alternatives. just like Nische, the more you try to disprove, the more you end up believing. (my words, not his)

 

[M14 Shooter]

Glad the original question raised the hackles of the "moral-right-wing-cadre"......"

This is true, only if you do not read all of the responses, and/or ignore those that do not fit your preconceptions.

 

[nat4900]

The Bible is scientifically accurate.

Indeed, especially passages such as these:

"I permit NO woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to be kept silent".....Timothy 2:11
(that one is for you Hillary haters)

"whoever putteth away a wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery..." Luke 16:18
(should someone tell Newt Gingrich?"

 

[nat4900]

just like Nische, the more you try to disprove, the more you end up believing. (my words, not his)

Is that guy "Nische" in any way related to Nietzsche?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm agnostic, but it appears the all Liberals believe in ...NOTHING, as far as what the beginning was!....Is that settled science?

Well, what IS "settled science" is the fact that most likely, Jesus did NOT ride through the streets of old Judea on a dinosaur.

Can you cite a reference in any Bible or religious writing of that happening?

Yes Virginia, there are stupid questions.

 

[Nosmo King]

I am not enthralled with gun play. I was when I was seven, but I out grew that.

And why do you assume I'm Gay or a "wuss"? I'm a man, not a savage. I think, I'm not a Conservative. I read, I'm not a fan of the childhood fantasies.

If you are the paradigm of manhood in 2015 America, I weep for the future for it will be bleak.

You must read romance novels. For sure you dont think. You emote. You repeat slogans and talking points you picked up on popular media somewhere. You've never formulated a coherent argument and successfully defended it on this site. Not once.
Now, remind us how believing in Creationism should be a bar to becoming president. Recall that not a few of our presidents have been devout Christians.

Believing in Creationism betrays a shadowed, stunted and ridged mind open to myth rather than fact, allegory rather than evidence, conformity rather than independent thought. It reflects a mind that would happily march civilization backward, a mind that eschews logic for fairy tale and a mind that does not welcome progress.

Creationism is a myth perpetuated by the ignorant, those without knowledge. It is not a position someone wanting to lead this nation into the future should embrace, especially given the secular nation. Imposing the values of ignorance upon us is insulting at best, approaching cultural treason at worst.

You probably dont get the irony in your post. So let me spell it for you:
You doubtless believe that the Genesis story has zero basis in fact. You doubtless believe the "scientific" view of creation and evolution, as you were taught in school.
But here's the thing: Scientists do not agree on creation or evolution. There are wide disparities so there are no "accepted" theories. There is little evidence for many assumptions made.
Yet despite this you demonize people as closed minded, even though you wll not begin to consider the arguments against your own beliefs. You call people stunted and ridged (probably mean rigid) even though your own beliefes were formed some time in junior high school and havent changed since. Nor are they consonant with actual scientific evidence. You conform to a generally received belief even while you condemn others for exactly that kind of thinking.
There is probably more evidence for Creationism than there is against it. But your narrow minded bigoted brain could not begin to process it.

Genesis is myth. It is the musings of a Bronze Age philosopher to explain the natural world to people who did not have the methodology to make rational observations, hypothesizes, experiments upon those hypothesizes and observe the results of those experiments. Genesis is folly without scientific merit. Teaching mythology in science class is folly.

LOL!
Have you ever read Genesis? Do you actually know what's in it?
There is more scientific merit in Genesis than in Darwin's theory.

Every culture has a creation myth. Why should the myth laid out in Genesis be so exceptional? It is just as false as every other cultural explanation, meritless and false.

 

[Wry Catcher]

just like Nische, the more you try to disprove, the more you end up believing. (my words, not his)

Is that guy "Nische" in any way related to Nietzsche?

Best graffiti I've seen in a men's room (in the Pub, a drinking establishment near the University of San Francisco, a Jesuit School) below his classic, "God is dead":

"Nietzsche is Dead!"
God

 

[Maryland Patriot]

that has already been happening for years, and its been cheaper to cover them then now under obamacare, and lets be honest here, the idea behind obamacare is to insure those on welfare, so chances are this worthless person is already on welfare.
It would actually serve society more if that person were to just die. Hate to be cold but if they serve no purpose in society, then they are not a benefit to keep around.

"Worthless Person"? Judging someone you don't know so harshly gives us an insight into the mind and heart of a Callous Conservative.

It may be cheaper (loss expensive is the proper term) for the Federal Government to treat the uninsured, but it is the most costly of all other services provided by county and state governments.

First, if somebody does nothing, provides nothing, only exists by using others resources, what value do they have for a society. How many of these people can society carry before the weight is to great and society fails.
you say that the federal government can do things cheaper?
History tells us that you are wrong, please give an example of the government doing more for less than any private concern.

Government put men on the moon.

"First" Let's presume an 18 year old female is pregnant, has learned from her doctor that the fetus has serious congenital medical conditions which will render the child dependent on the support of others for his or her life.

Then she is convinced to keep this child by a right to life advocate who will have no fiscal or emotional ties to the child should he or she survive for decades.

By your definition this child is worthless.

How about this scenario:

A 16 year old girl is impregnated by her mother's brother. He mom was abandoned by her husband and has two other children under the age of 12. Mom kicked her out when she learned of he pregnancy, claiming her brother would never do such a thing.

By your definition, "First, if somebody does nothing, provides nothing, only exists by using others resources, what value do they have for a society", the 16 year old is worthless too.

Scenerio one. I wouldnt convince her to have the child. But, yes in a society what purpose does that child serve.
next, why isnt mom responsible, or the uncle, or even the father that abandoned her, why am I as a taxpayer responsible for the care of this girl and her child for life. but as far as what purpose does that child serve? none yet, maybe one day, however what purpose does the rest of that family serve? none if they are expecting society to care for then.

Now how about the millions of "families" that have lived on welfare as a generational type of income. They do nothing, the produce nothing the provide no value to society. Should we keep catering to those millions in order to make sure one that might deserve help gets it?

First, I put to rest your second point. Under AFDC there were serious problems with welfare abuse; today TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) has replaced
AFDC and allows individual states to develop aid programs to put such recipients to work and limits the time aid is received.

Why isn't mom responsible? Your second point once again fails to understand or consider her circumstances. As someone who managed VAWA grants I have an understanding of and empathy for victims of Domestic Violence. Maybe mom was molested by her brother, beaten by her scofflaw husband and overwhelmed by life in general. A circumstance we ran into quite often.

and Im forced to pay why? what reponsibility if any does the family have? the mother?
and with TANF you refer to a help out of a situation, but this is not how it works, what about those that have been and will be on assistance for life. TANF is given to a lazy parent until the kids turn 18, by then the kids have their own kids and a sad story, so now mom moves in with the original kids and continues living free, Its a way of life an I want no part in paying for it.
as far as the health insurance goes, did these people not already have medicaid? were there not clinics all over the place for them to go to? Why do they deserve the same level of care that I pay a lot of money to get, when they do nothing? and Im asked to pay for their care too?
how about the phone, or the transportation or the house or the utilities, that check from TANF is only the start of their income. and we workers pay for them to continue to live free.

 

[Boss]

At every scheduled debate for the GOP primaries, each of the candidates should be asked one very simple question....just to separate the sane from the insane:

"Do you believe in creationism or evolution....."

The answer to the above can help dwindle down the number of whomever should even be given a microphone and a podium.

The problem is, your question is like asking... Do you believe in Henry Ford or Chevy Impala?

Evolution has nothing to do with origin. At some point, obviously something created us because we exist. We've also obviously had some evolution happen. So actually, both are very believable.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

just like Nische, the more you try to disprove, the more you end up believing. (my words, not his)

Is that guy "Nische" in any way related to Nietzsche?

half retarded brother from a street hooker his dad found.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

At every scheduled debate for the GOP primaries, each of the candidates should be asked one very simple question....just to separate the sane from the insane:

"Do you believe in creationism or evolution....."

The answer to the above can help dwindle down the number of whomever should even be given a microphone and a podium.

The problem is, your question is like asking... Do you believe in Henry Ford or Chevy Impala?

Evolution has nothing to do with origin. At some point, obviously something created us because we exist. We've also obviously had some evolution happen. So actually, both are very believable.

a stricktly scientific belief in creation is for those that never took probability and statistics.

 

[Wry Catcher]

At every scheduled debate for the GOP primaries, each of the candidates should be asked one very simple question....just to separate the sane from the insane:
"Do you believe in creationism or evolution....."
The answer to the above can help dwindle down the number of whomever should even be given a microphone and a podium.

"Ii is perfectly possible that creation happened in such a way that evolution can be proven sound."

Duh.