Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist...

dollarsbill

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#344 Mar 1, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Why did your god rest on the seventh day. Was he over worked? The FSM and IPU are allways on duty.
Are you so ignorant that you don't know the definition of "rested"?
Thinking

Gillingham, UK

#345 Mar 1, 2013
So your god needs to rest because of satanic ignorance?
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
More Satanic ignorance.
Thinking

Gillingham, UK

#346 Mar 1, 2013
She's always there for you, in a non-judgmental type stylee.[sic]
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>I keep forgetting about the IPU.

dollarsbill

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#347 Mar 1, 2013
Thinking wrote:
So your god needs to rest because of satanic ignorance?
<quoted text>
Your illiteracy is haunting you.

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#348 Mar 1, 2013
Cisco Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't fool him.
Haven't you ever seen Fred Flintstone eating a Brontasaurus burger?
And how about Fred's pet dinosaur Dino?
Wilma was hot

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#349 Mar 1, 2013
Thinking wrote:
She's always there for you, in a non-judgmental type stylee.[sic]
<quoted text>
Thank up IPU

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#350 Mar 1, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you so ignorant that you don't know the definition of "rested"?
Cease work or movement in order to relax, refresh oneself, or recover strength.

So was your god tired, did he need to chill out and suck down a couple of cold cosmic beers?

dollarsbill

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#351 Mar 1, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Cease work or movement in order to relax, refresh oneself, or recover strength.
So was your god tired, did he need to chill out and suck down a couple of cold cosmic beers?
Ok, so you were just playing ignorant.

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#352 Mar 1, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
Your illiteracy is haunting you.
Satan stuck demons up your butt, there we are even

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#353 Mar 1, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, so you were just playing ignorant.
Are you going to answer the question and remove a doubt about your intelligence???
Job

United States

#354 Mar 2, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>God created man and animal, at the same time, according to the bible, True??
Cool, why is it that human fossilized remains are never found with dinosaur fossilized remains"
Given that carbon dating can be flawed, why is it that no human remains date back as far as dinosaurs???
As far as why they were never found together, we have to consider population of humans and geography at the time. A significantly smaller population of humans during the time before the flood is probable, and would have reduced the chances of that happening. And where humans congregated versus where dinosaurs congregated would play a factor as well.

However, the Bible does refer to what probably is a dinosaur referred to as "Leviathan". There are also various pictures on caves indicating that humans did see them at times.
Job

United States

#355 Mar 2, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
hypotheses (n)- A statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability.
Dr. Watson provided provide no scientific facts or principles as the basis for his statement.

2. The writers of the editorials in Medical Hypotheses were not named and therefore not necessarily people knowledgeable about what constitutes a scientific hypothesis.

3. Medical Hypotheses is a medical journal, originally intended as a merely a forum for unconventional ideas without the traditional filter of scientific peer review.
Dr. Watson’s comments clearly do not fit the definition of a scientific hypothesis.

4. <quoted text>
I think you are referring to Professor Rose’s comment that Dr. Watson should keep out of “areas in which he is not well qualified”. Your question is why such an eminent scientist as Dr. Watson would not be qualified to comment on the genetics of intelligence.
Professor Rose acknowledged Dr. Watson’s expertise in “molecular biology”(he won the Noble prize for determining the molecular structure of DNA). The study of genetics as a branch of biology as it relates to human characteristics (such as intelligence) would be a different branch of the study of genetics that Dr. Watson probably would not be as familiar with.
1. I didn't ask you if he you think he made a 'scientific' hypothesis. I asked you if you think he made a 'hypothesis'.

As far as qualifications, is Richard Dawkins qualified to make this comment?

“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).”

or

“To be fair, much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as you would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries”

He gives no scientific evidence for any of these. And he is no theologian.

2. They probably were not named for personal protection.

3. Are scientists only allowed to make a 'scientific' hypothesis? Did Watson make a (non scientific) hypothesis? Or merely a statement?

4. No, that's not my question. My question is 'who' would be qualified?

In addition, when you say 'probably', are you suggesting that you're not certain?
Job

United States

#356 Mar 2, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
Who doesn’t seem to be addressing Genesis?
“many theological interpretations of origins can readily embrace an evolutionary outlook”
I think “theological interpretations of origins” clearly means interpretations of Genesis.

2. "If the Bible is the Word of God -- and it is, then it must be firmly believed that the world and all things in it were created in six natural days and that the long geological ages of evolutionary history never really took place at all." - Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research
"The final and conclusive evidence against evolution is the fact that the Bible denies it." - Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research
“Since the 1920s, literalist creationism in America has contested scientific theories, such as that of evolution…”- National Center for Science Education
<quoted text>

3. You wrote…
“You don't just pick up and read a science book, and voila!, proof that science supports evolution. That's similar to suggestions that if someone reads a history book, or a book on archaeology, they will see that the Bible is myth.”
If you were to read a science book you would understand that evolution is a scientific fact backed up incontrovertible scientific evidence. Whether or not you would think that contradicts the Bible would depend upon your interpretation of the Bible.

4. It’s the creationists that want to teach that the Bible contradicts science, and since there is no scientific evidence for any creationist theory it is not appropriate to teach it in a science class.
1. Yes, I understand that. Thus my statement:

Actually, he seems to allude to when referring to theology. But the question still stands. Where's the contradiction between science and the literal interpretation of Genesis?

2. What "exactly" puts the nail in the coffin for a six day creation?

3. That's rather vague. Exactly what/which science book will reveal evolution to be a scientific fact backed up by incontrovertible evidence? Exactly what is this evidence?

4. It's not a problem of Creationism being taught in the classroom, it's a problem of religion. It's not that Creationism and/or intelligent design is unscientific, but that it inevitably leads to belief in a creator. And evolutionists don't want religion/Christianity to get a foothold in the science classroom. Evolution is based on the assumption that "naturalism" is the foundation of our existence.

If evolutionists wish to remove Christianity/religion from society, which is probably the case since such a large number of them are atheists and agnostics, then it makes sense that they would want to keep Creation science out of the schools.
Job

United States

#357 Mar 2, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>

1. <quoted text>
Do I agree with what?

2. <quoted text>
Certainly the magnitude of the response by the scientific community was affected by the socially and politically offensive nature of the comments but the lack of scientific evidence was the determining factor in the unanimity of the rejection of them.
1. Do you agree with this statement from the article I linked:

"These are facts, not opinions and science must be governed by data. There is no place for the "moralistic fallacy" that reality must conform to our social, political, or ethical desires."

For one, they claim that Watson did utilize "data". Apparently he was not at least completey "data-less". They also claim that we should not allow our views of reality to be prejudiced by social, political, or ethical desires. Do you agree with that?

2. It's obviously suggested that Watson is not qualified to make such a comment. And for the record, I'm not disputing that. But if this is the case, then we can assume that there are those in position that 'are' qualified. And if they came to the same conclusion at some point, would you say that these qualified people should not come under the same type of fire the "unqualified" Watson came under. If someone did happen to provide data to at least examine further, do you think they would recieve a more positive response from the scientific community?

But then that would beg the question, how would the scientific community address the inevitable "back lash" that will occur even from an alleged qualified individual?
Alan Boyd

Jonesborough, TN

#358 Mar 2, 2013
Romans Road "above" hit the nail right on the head, good read. They left a good link on how to get to Heaven. Sadly, many could care less.

So here's a link about Hell, for those who are heading there....

Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#359 Mar 2, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I didn't ask you if he you think he made a 'scientific' hypothesis. I asked you if you think he made a 'hypothesis'.
The word hypothesis is a scientific term. I already told you I think he gave a personal opinion.
Job wrote:
As far as qualifications, is Richard Dawkins qualified to make this comment?
“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).”
or
“To be fair, much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as you would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries”
He gives no scientific evidence for any of these. And he is no theologian.
Richard Dawkins is not only qualified to make those comments but he is absolutely correct. Although those comments may be offensive to you and other creationists the fact that they are true takes precedence over the fact that they may be offensive to a few.

Maintaining a belief in creationist theories in the spite of all the undeniable scientific evidence is exactly the same as maintaining the belief that the Sun revolves around Earth in spite of the undeniable scientific evidence. It is entirely rational to conclude that a person that believes the Sun revolves around the Earth is “ignorant, stupid or insane”, therefore it is entirely rational to conclude the same thing about those that refuse to accept the undeniable scientific evidence for evolution.

I think a rational person would have to admit that his description of the Bible as being weird is not uncalled for; talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water. Sounds a lot like Harry Potter.
Job wrote:
2. They probably were not named for personal protection.
I’m sure they would need personal protection from the mean old scientists that might correct them and say bad things about them.
Job wrote:
3. Are scientists only allowed to make a 'scientific' hypothesis? Did Watson make a (non scientific) hypothesis? Or merely a statement?
He gave an unsupported personal opinion.
Job wrote:
4. No, that's not my question. My question is 'who' would be qualified?
…a scientist that has training and experience in the branch of genetics that studies the relationship of genes to human characteristics rather than the molecular structure of genes.
Job wrote:
In addition, when you say 'probably', are you suggesting that you're not certain?
I don’t pretend to know the extent of training and experience Dr. Watson might have in branches of biology and genetics other than molecular, which is why I say probably. However, it’s entirely possible that Professor Rose does know Dr. Watson's experience and training in other brances.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#360 Mar 2, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Yes, I understand that. Thus my statement:
Actually, he seems to allude to when referring to theology. But the question still stands. Where's the contradiction between science and the literal interpretation of Genesis?
Your statement was “he doesn't seem to be addressing Genesis”. You statement was clearly incorrect. He is clearly addressing interpretations of Genesis.

The scientific evidence shows that the Earth was not created in 6 literal days, and that animal and human life developed over millions of years and did not appear suddenly, and that there has never been any scientific evidence of a talking snake.
Job wrote:
2. What "exactly" puts the nail in the coffin for a six day creation?
…all of the scientific evidence from all of the various fields of science.

“…several independent lines of evidence indicate that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is about 14 billion years old. Rejecting the evidence for these age estimates would mean rejecting not just biological evolution but also fundamental discoveries of modern physics, chemistry, astrophysics, and geology.”- National Academy of Sciences
Job wrote:
3. That's rather vague. Exactly what/which science book will reveal evolution to be a scientific fact backed up by incontrovertible evidence? Exactly what is this evidence?
You should start with book about elementary biology. You won’t understand much about evolution without a basic understanding of biology. You’ll find many things in that book relating to the principles of evolution. That in turn should raise questions in your mind which should lead you to look for other books that provide a more in depth explanation of the principles of evolution and the evidence that supports them. If questions don’t come up in your mind don’t waste your time reading any more. Believe whatever you choose to believe; if you don’t have any questions in your mind you’re not going to learn anything.
Job wrote:
4. It's not a problem of Creationism being taught in the classroom, it's a problem of religion. It's not that Creationism and/or intelligent design is unscientific, but that it inevitably leads to belief in a creator. And evolutionists don't want religion/Christianity to get a foothold in the science classroom. Evolution is based on the assumption that "naturalism" is the foundation of our existence.
I attended a religious school for during my formative years I learned about evolution in science class and religion in religion class. Creationism is based on revelation and evolution is based on scientific evidence.
Job wrote:
If evolutionists wish to remove Christianity/religion from society, which is probably the case since such a large number of them are atheists and agnostics, then it makes sense that they would want to keep Creation science out of the schools.
I don’t think scientists are trying to remove Christianity from society today any more than Galileo was trying to remove Christianity from society in his day. They are trying to remove revelation from science. Revelation has no place in science.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#361 Mar 2, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Do you agree with this statement from the article I linked:
"These are facts, not opinions and science must be governed by data. There is no place for the "moralistic fallacy" that reality must conform to our social, political, or ethical desires."
For one, they claim that Watson did utilize "data". Apparently he was not at least completey "data-less". They also claim that we should not allow our views of reality to be prejudiced by social, political, or ethical desires. Do you agree with that?
“No evidence that claimed to find people of African descent were less intelligent than Europeans or other racial groups had stood up to scientific scrutiny.”- Prof Steven Rose

“More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief." - Dr. James Watson
Job wrote:
2. It's obviously suggested that Watson is not qualified to make such a comment. And for the record, I'm not disputing that. But if this is the case, then we can assume that there are those in position that 'are' qualified. And if they came to the same conclusion at some point, would you say that these qualified people should not come under the same type of fire the "unqualified" Watson came under. If someone did happen to provide data to at least examine further, do you think they would recieve a more positive response from the scientific community?
But then that would beg the question, how would the scientific community address the inevitable "back lash" that will occur even from an alleged qualified individual?
We live in a country with free speech and very prominent people make statements about things they know nothing about every day. Plumbers sometimes try to give advice about electrical problems. A wise person listens to someone that knows what they are talking about.

If any scientist makes a claim that he/she asserts is based reliable scientific evidence any scientist that disagrees must provide evidence that refutes the evidence presented.
socci

Plattsburg, MO

#362 Mar 2, 2013
Big Al wrote:
The scientific evidence shows that the Earth was not created in 6 literal days, and that animal and human life developed over millions of years and did not appear suddenly, and that there has never been any scientific evidence of a talking snake.

…all of the scientific evidence from all of the various fields of science.
“…several independent lines of evidence indicate that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is about 14 billion years old. Rejecting the evidence for these age estimates would mean rejecting not just biological evolution but also fundamental discoveries of modern physics, chemistry, astrophysics, and geology.”- National Academy of Sciences
<quoted text>
You should start with book about elementary biology. You won’t understand much about evolution without a basic understanding of biology. You’ll find many things in that book relating to the principles of evolution. That in turn should raise questions in your mind which should lead you to look for other books that provide a more in depth explanation of the principles of evolution and the evidence that supports them. If questions don’t come up in your mind don’t waste your time reading any more. Believe whatever you choose to believe; if you don’t have any questions in your mind you’re not going to learn anything.
<quoted text>
I attended a religious school for during my formative years I learned about evolution in science class and religion in religion class. Creationism is based on revelation and evolution is based on scientific evidence.
<quoted text>
I don’t think scientists are trying to remove Christianity from society today any more than Galileo was trying to remove Christianity from society in his day. They are trying to remove revelation from science. Revelation has no place in science.

Just another deceived catholic. The priests are the main advocates of pagan evolution theories having nothing to do with science or truth rather counter-reformation against the Bible and their political empire we sometimes know as marxism.

If you have any evidence to prove the theory we will look at it. Until then it is just your unsupported belief. It only stands in the censored textbooks.

No more quotes about what others believe. Show us the evidence? Just one?

There is none because the earth is just as the Bible says.

Evolution is just another pagan philosophy.

Pagan Roots of Evolution Theories
with professor Paul James-Griffiths
http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/video/31
This is a sourced power-point lecture.
http://creation.com/evolution-ancient-pagan-i...
http://www.resurrectisis.org/PaganEvolution.h...
socci

Plattsburg, MO

#363 Mar 2, 2013
Big Al wrote:
If any scientist makes a claim that he/she asserts is based reliable scientific evidence any scientist that disagrees must provide evidence that refutes the evidence presented.

The claim was made granite - earth's baserocks claimed to be bazzillions of years old - are an igneous from when earth was a molten formation. This was refuted with a published work demonstrating in the lab how granite is not an igneous and formed in less than a minute.

(Radiohalos in Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective. Gentry, R.V., Science 184, 62, 1974)
http://www.halos.com/reports/science-1974-per...


As yet unrefuted proof earth did not form as claimed by evolution theories. Proof earth did not form after any 'big bang'.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Gandhi the greatest non-violent spiritual leade... (Mar '10) 11 min Christian 12
Poll The Greatest Threat to America's Security (Sep '15) 1 hr Gary Coaldigger 4,824
Intelligent People Question Everything 1 hr Big Al 2,005
The False Teachings of the Hebrew Israelites, s... (Jan '14) 1 hr Big Al 423
IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS Gospel 5 hr The morningstar 564
If you see demons or angels you have schizophre... (Nov '09) 16 hr The morningstar 104
Sawoondah 23 hr Barmsweb 2
More from around the web