Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Joel_A on July 15, 2009, 06:08:56 AM
-
An actual state elected senator actually believes the Earth is 6000 yrs old. WTF?
-
Allot of "Christians" believe this do to common misunderstanding of what Genesis teaches. By no means does the Bible profess that the earth is only 6000 years old.
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
just unbelievable ignorance. A damn shame that people still believe this, and even mroe so for people in positions of leadership who do. Unbelievable.. the worlds gonna come to a fuckign end soon at this rate.
-
this is why atheist care.
-
An actual state elected senator actually believes the Earth is 6000 yrs old. WTF?
So, Egypt existed before the Earth? Damn ignoramuses.
-
Allot of "Christians" believe this do to common misunderstanding of what Genesis teaches. By no means does the Bible profess that the earth is only 6000 years old.
GC/DEA_AGENT
Of course it doesn't because we know Earth isn't 6000 years old. If we didn't know that christians would be saying a different thing...
-
Of course it doesn't because we know Earth isn't 6000 years old. If we didn't know that christians would be saying a different thing...
Only the one's who haven't studied the Bible in depth would. The Christians I know, have always concurred with what the Bible teaches.
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
An actual state elected senator actually believes the Earth is 6000 yrs old. WTF?
Only in a America...
Doesn't the Chinese have recorded history that predates that?
-
Only in a America...
Doesn't the Chinese have recorded history that predates that?
Satan's work...
-
this is why atheist care.
And exactly what does a belief in a 6000-year-old Earth do to an atheist?
just unbelievable ignorance. A damn shame that people still believe this, and even mroe so for people in positions of leadership who do. Unbelievable.. the worlds gonna come to a fuckign end soon at this rate.
I must have missed the memo where belief in a young Earth disqualifies someone from being a STATE SENATOR.
-
And exactly what does a belief in a 6000-year-old Earth do to an atheist?
I must have missed the memo where belief in a young Earth disqualifies someone from being a STATE SENATOR.
Yes, me too. Which is exactly my greivance ;)
:(
-
Yes, me too. Which is exactly my greivance ;)
:(
Classic case of missing the forest for the trees. Isn't this woman talking about obtaining uranium for her state, for the presumed use of making a nuclear power plant?
Yet, you guys are bent out of shape about her statement about the Earth being 6000 years old!!! That's rich!!
Of course, for all the griping about that blurb, if you believe the Earth is far older, her POINT (which some seems to have missed by a country mile) is made even further. She's taking a stand against the tree-hugging contingent who are against nuclear power.
-
I must have missed the memo where belief in a young Earth disqualifies someone from being a STATE SENATOR.
it should...stupid people should be (in her case) spayed
-
it should...stupid people should be (in her case) spayed
If that's the case, you'd better post a guard on your family jewels.
The idea that someone's ability to be an effective state senator is based on he/she believes the age of the earth to be is downright ridiculous.
-
I don't think there judging her on her belief per se. Its more the closing her eyes and refusing to see the truth part.
-
If that's the case, you'd better post a guard on your family jewels.
The idea that someone's ability to be an effective state senator is based on he/she believes the age of the earth to be is downright ridiculous.
no..the knowlodge of the age of the earth has a direct correlation with education level which has a direct correlation with intelligence...
when A = B = C then A = C :-\
kapees..
she is plain ole stupid and better suited to be an ingredient in dog food ;)
-
Classic case of missing the forest for the trees. Isn't this woman talking about obtaining uranium for her state, for the presumed use of making a nuclear power plant?
Yet, you guys are bent out of shape about her statement about the Earth being 6000 years old!!! That's rich!!
Of course, for all the griping about that blurb, if you believe the Earth is far older, her POINT (which some seems to have missed by a country mile) is made even further. She's taking a stand against the tree-hugging contingent who are against nuclear power.
Who the fuck is "you guys" ??? Dude, chill out.
It just disturbs me that some one in her position is so uneducated about the world. Now you wouldn't want someone in a leadership position who thought the earth was flat, now would you? There is a serious need for education for survivability in the modern world, especially if we care about future generations like she mentions...so the least that is required for our leaders is to be properly educated.
Now pointing to her case specifically, I think it matters EVEN MORE! She says "we've been living here for 6000 yrs old before there were any environmental laws... and yet the eart hasn't been done away with" LMAO! Is she really comparing the abilities of humans to change their environments 6000 years ago to modern day humans? It doesn't seem like she has any idea history, geology, or environmental science to make an educated decision on such an issue. It's very fucking ironic that she talks about the standard of living of future generations when she's proposing digging the earth for our natural 'capital' (unrenewable resource) without knowing its environmental consequences.
now I'm not very educated on the issue myself, but I'm not in a position to make the sorts of decisions that affect us all and future generations! And I have a right to complain! :)
-
If that's the case, you'd better post a guard on your family jewels.
The idea that someone's ability to be an effective state senator is based on he/she believes the age of the earth to be is downright ridiculous.
it is you who is missing the point, you cherry pick so fucking much and make strawmen like it is your job.
someone in her position should not be making such ridiculous statements that go against all of science and knowledge. The fact that she is so ignorant about this subject would leave you to either conclude, it is an isolated case, or she is stupid. I would assume she is stupid as it is pretty much general knowledge and that number 6000 is cited by creationists. So it is not a random geuss, she concurs with creationists who denounce science, hence she is dangerous and not someone who should be in power. If she allows her beliefs to shape reality or faith better yet then she is close minded.
-
Who the fuck is "you guys" ??? Dude, chill out.
It just disturbs me that some one in her position is so uneducated about the world. Now you wouldn't want someone in a leadership position who thought the earth was flat, now would you? There is a serious need for education for survivability in the modern world, especially if we care about future generations like she mentions...so the least that is required for our leaders is to be properly educated.
It depends on what the leadership position is. In this case, hers is that of a STATE SENATOR, the responsibilities and duties of such are UNAFFECTED by the believed age or shape of the planet.
Now pointing to her case specifically, I think it matters EVEN MORE! She says "we've been living here for 6000 yrs old before there were any environmental laws... and yet the eart hasn't been done away with" LMAO! Is she really comparing the abilities of humans to change their environments 6000 years ago to modern day humans? It doesn't seem like she has any idea history, geology, or environmental science to make an educated decision on such an issue. It's very fucking ironic that she talks about the standard of living of future generations when she's proposing digging the earth for our natural 'capital' (unrenewable resource) without knowing its environmental consequences.
now I'm not very educated on the issue myself, but I'm not in a position to make the sorts of decisions that affect us all and future generations! And I have a right to complain! :)
You are making a grandiose amount of assumptions, based on a 45-second sound byte, which makes absolutely no sense and is even sillier than your dismissing her ability to perform her job, simply because of how old she believe the planet to be.
By that logic, people with major health problems should be going (or have gone) to Dr. Ben Carson, one of the best neurosurgeons on the planet (the first ever, I believe, to successfully separate twins conjoined at the head). He happens to believe in a young Earth as well. Are you now going to cry for his practice to be shut down?
it is you who is missing the point, you cherry pick so fucking much and make strawmen like it is your job.
There is nothing to cherry pick, O whiny one. You (and a couple of other posters) are getting all hot under the collar about a sub-minute sound byte, which is hardly indicative of this woman's job qualifications.
someone in her position should not be making such ridiculous statements that go against all of science and knowledge. The fact that she is so ignorant about this subject would leave you to either conclude, it is an isolated case, or she is stupid. I would assume she is stupid as it is pretty much general knowledge and that number 6000 is cited by creationists. So it is not a random geuss, she concurs with creationists who denounce science, hence she is dangerous and not someone who should be in power. If she allows her beliefs to shape reality or faith better yet then she is close minded.
Creationists don't denounce science, blathering one. Again, I make the reference to Dr. Ben Carson, the director of neurosurgery at John Hopkins Hospital, who happens to believe in Creation.
I suppose he's "dangerous" and should get canned from his job, too. ::) .
The "close-minded" hat fall squarely on your cracked skull, the fracture on which appears to increase in size, with every buffoonery-loaded post.
-
It depends on what the leadership position is. In this case, hers is that of a STATE SENATOR, the responsibilities and duties of such are UNAFFECTED by the believed age or shape of the planet.
You are making a grandiose amount of assumptions, based on a 45-second sound byte, which makes absolutely no sense and is even sillier than your dismissing her ability to perform her job, simply because of how old she believe the planet to be.
By that logic, people with major health problems should be going (or have gone) to Dr. Ben Carson, one of the best neurosurgeons on the planet (the first ever, I believe, to successfully separate twins conjoined at the head). He happens to believe in a young Earth as well. Are you now going to cry for his practice to be shut down?
There is nothing to cherry pick, O whiny one. You (and a couple of other posters) are getting all hot under the collar about a sub-minute sound byte, which is hardly indicative of this woman's job qualifications.
Creationists don't denounce science, blathering one. Again, I make the reference to Dr. Ben Carson, the director of neurosurgery at John Hopkins Hospital, who happens to believe in Creation.
I suppose he's "dangerous" and should get canned from his job, too. ::) .
The "close-minded" hat fall squarely on your cracked skull, the fracture on which appears to increase in size, with every buffoonery-loaded post.
im not sure you have any idea what you are talking about. To believe in a young earth you have to denounce facts. IE carbon dating, radiometric dating rather, the geometric column, evolution, cosmology, all of science is against a young earth.
Therefore doctor ben carlson is either lying, or will not accept anything that goes against his faith.
Ill research ben carlson.
creationism is anti science.
-
OMG this dude is a tart
"Back to Benjamin Carson–I’m more than pleased to know that this distinguished man speaks openly and honestly about his faith in God and belief in a Creator and Designer. He looks to the facts and wonders at Darwin’s own assertion that within fifty to 100 years of his lifetime fossil remains would be found of the entire evolutionary tree, displaying an indisputable step-by-step evolution of life from amoeba to human. As Carson points out, this does not exist:
It’s just not there. But when you bring that up to the proponents of Darwinism, the best explanation they can come up with is “Well…uh…it’s lost!”…I find it requires too much faith for me to believe that explanation given all the fossils we have found without any fossilized evidence of the direct, step-by-step evolutionary progression from simple to complex organisms or from one species to another species. Shrugging and saying, “Well, it was mysteriously lost, and we’ll probably never find it,” doesn’t seem like a particularly satisfying, objective, or scientific response"
ya real scientific ben, does he even realize that even without the fossil record evolution is fact and demonstratable? does he realize that medicine relies on evolutionary findings.
"Dr. Carson’s basic message was that “evolution and creationism both require faith. It’s just a matter of where you choose to place that faith.”
WOW, its obvious he has comparmentalized his brain, evolution has nothign to do with god, it requires no faith as it is from peer reviewed journals.
Im speachless that a man in his position and obvious intelligence could say such stupid things, but this is what faith does, it errodes the mind.
-
OMG this dude is a tart
"Back to Benjamin Carson–I’m more than pleased to know that this distinguished man speaks openly and honestly about his faith in God and belief in a Creator and Designer. He looks to the facts and wonders at Darwin’s own assertion that within fifty to 100 years of his lifetime fossil remains would be found of the entire evolutionary tree, displaying an indisputable step-by-step evolution of life from amoeba to human. As Carson points out, this does not exist:
It’s just not there. But when you bring that up to the proponents of Darwinism, the best explanation they can come up with is “Well…uh…it’s lost!”…I find it requires too much faith for me to believe that explanation given all the fossils we have found without any fossilized evidence of the direct, step-by-step evolutionary progression from simple to complex organisms or from one species to another species. Shrugging and saying, “Well, it was mysteriously lost, and we’ll probably never find it,” doesn’t seem like a particularly satisfying, objective, or scientific response"
ya real scientific ben, does he even realize that even without the fossil record evolution is fact and demonstratable? does he realize that medicine relies on evolutionary findings.
No, it doesn't. Medicine has been practiced for centuries, with succesful results LONG before the theory of evolution even surfaced. In fact, one such practitioner of medicine ripped apart one of evolution's tenets, spontaneous generation.
That, of course, would be one Louis Pasteur, who came up with vaccines to cure some of the deadliest diseases, known to man during his time. And, "evolutionary findings" had JACK to do with his discoveries.
"Dr. Carson’s basic message was that “evolution and creationism both require faith. It’s just a matter of where you choose to place that faith.”
WOW, its obvious he has comparmentalized his brain, evolution has nothign to do with god, it requires no faith as it is from peer reviewed journals.
Im speachless that a man in his position and obvious intelligence could say such stupid things, but this is what faith does, it errodes the mind.
Evolution has nothing to do with God, which is EXACTLY why the theory was touted, in the first place and why so many atheists bow before the shrine of Darwin, as it were.
Faith has hardly erroded Carson's mind, as he is the first to successfully separate twins conjoined at the head. And, his list of accomplishments are as long as a Monday morning.
Once again, you managed to dine on your own toes, in your silly attempts to paint anyone who doesn't adhere to your godless philosophies and tenets as being unable to be successful scientists (or politicians, or any other esteeem position of prominence or leadership).
-
No, it doesn't. Medicine has been practiced for centuries, with succesful results LONG before the theory of evolution even surfaced. In fact, one such practitioner of medicine ripped apart one of evolution's tenets, spontaneous generation.
That, of course, would be one Louis Pasteur, who came up with vaccines to cure some of the deadliest diseases, known to man during his time. And, "evolutionary findings" had JACK to do with his discoveries.
Evolution has nothing to do with God, which is EXACTLY why the theory was touted, in the first place and why so many atheists bow before the shrine of Darwin, as it were.
Faith has hardly erroded Carson's mind, as he is the first to successfully separate twins conjoined at the head. And, his list of accomplishments are as long as a Monday morning.
Once again, you managed to dine on your own toes, in your silly attempts to paint anyone who doesn't adhere to your godless philosophies and tenets as being unable to be successful scientists (or politicians, or any other esteeem position of prominence or leadership).
you know nothing of vaccines so stop making yourself look like a fool, most the the new vaccines take advantage of evolutionary principles.I didnt say you could not be both, i cited dyson and others long ago. However, if you let it affect scientific findings and approach, then yes you are a bad scholar in that respect.
evolution looks nothing like what darwin proposed. Sure his basic ideas were right, but many of them wrong. Genetics, molecular biology, cell biology etc etc.... have added enourmous evidence to evolution something darwin could never envision.
"Faith has hardly erroded Carson's mind, as he is the first to successfully separate twins conjoined at the head. And, his list of accomplishments are as long as a Monday morning"
non sequitor, he is unable to view evolution without bias, thus he is not thinking rationaly about this topic. His argument against evolution is ridiculous and any biology student could answer it. What he is proposing as proof is impossible to supply, making his position fallacious.
try again ::)
the fact that you argue evolution is not fact and have admitted that you are closed minded should be enough to assume you will never accept proof no matter how obvious.
-
most the the new vaccines take advantage of evolutionary principles.I didnt say you could not be both, i cited dyson and others long ago. However, if you let it affect scientific findings and approach, then yes you are a bad scholar in that respect.
[/quote]
This is one little thing that validates the Bible as being Authored by God. The Jews while under the Mosaic law (Old Testament),they were way ahead of the medical professionals in that day. Where did they get that info?
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
most the the new vaccines take advantage of evolutionary principles.I didnt say you could not be both, i cited dyson and others long ago. However, if you let it affect scientific findings and approach, then yes you are a bad scholar in that respect.
This is one little thing that validates the Bible as being Authored by God. The Jews while under the Mosaic law (Old Testament),they were way ahead of the medical professionals in that day. Where did they get that info?
GC/DEA_AGENT
if that is your argument then why didnt god give us some real useful info? if he will conceed simple things like wash your hands, then why not explain genetics, why not even talk about bacteria.
poor argument.
makes no sense, and what medical info is in the bible that is beyond comprehension of man at that time?
-
if that is your argument then why didn't god give us some real useful info? if he will conceed simple things like wash your hands, then why not explain genetics, why not even talk about bacteria.
poor argument.
God did give the Israelites all sorts of info for their benefit (handwashing being one of those). Once the earth and it's inhabitants are cleansed, then I'm sure God will open knowledge up to everyone. But first, everyone has to be capable of understanding these things. Imperfect humans cannot grasp fully what they should, do to the imperfection in us. Once imperfection is gone, again, God I'm sure will enlighten whom ever wants it. Also, genetics, bacteria, etc. has nothing to do with what is needed for salvation.
makes no sense, and what medical info is in the bible that is beyond comprehension of man at that time?
You named it, "washing hands/bathing/washing garments AFTER handling deadbodies". The surrounding nations in the world at that time did not know to do this, with exception of the Israelites. Where did the Israelites get this? Now you can argue that the Jews were ahead of their time, but you still have to ask, why did they give the credit to God?
-
if that is your argument then why didnt god give us some real useful info? if he will conceed simple things like wash your hands, then why not explain genetics, why not even talk about bacteria.
poor argument.
That would be on your end. As far as their lifestyles were concerned, the Israelites knew about genetics, in terms of how to raise livestock and maximize their crops. As for bacteria, there's a reason the Israelites had the Levitical health laws, too: TO MIMIMIZE sickness and disease. By adhering to those practices and avoiding those, done by some of their neighbors, they avoided pestilence and lived healthy and vital lives.
-
That would be on your end. As far as their lifestyles were concerned, the Israelites knew about genetics, in terms of how to raise livestock and maximize their crops. As for bacteria, there's a reason the Israelites had the Levitical health laws, too: TO MIMIMIZE sickness and disease. By adhering to those practices and avoiding those, done by some of their neighbors, they avoided pestilence and lived healthy and vital lives.
Also, the Bible has always harmonized with true science. The theory that the earth was a body in space and traveled around the sun was offered by Nicholaus Copernicus (1473-1543). Yet some 3,000 years before Copernicus’ time, the Bible showed that the earth was a body in space: “He stretcheth out the north over empty space, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.” Magellan (1480-1521) proved the earth was round when he sailed around the world. But some 2,200 years before Magellan’s time the Bible showed the earth was round by speaking of God as “he that sitteth above the circle of the earth.” (Job 26:7; Isa. 40:22).
The Bible and archaeology? Perfect agreement. The Bible says man was created perfect, that, because of Adam’s sin, he degenerated, not evolved upward. Archaeology has found the Bible modern, the evolutionists old fogies. Said one authority: “The culture of Egypt starts on a magnificently high level and is later reduced to a tremendous degree by a consistent record of degeneration.” Of the jewelry and metal work of Egypt’s twelfth dynasty, a modern encyclopedia says: “European goldsmiths have rarely surpassed this work.”
The Bible and chemistry? Agreement again. The Bible speaks of gold and glass. It tells of acid-base reactions: “As one that taketh off a garment in cold weather, and as vinegar upon soda, so is he that singeth songs to a heavy heart.” It speaks of the source of iron and copper: “Iron is taken out of the earth, and copper is molten out of the stone.” (Prov. 25:20; Job 28:2).
The Bible and zoology? Accurate knowledge of animal habits is shown by the Bible. Even in the nineteenth century men often asserted that birds of prey hunted by smell. Audubon, with experiments, proved they hunted by sight. But Bible readers never needed Audubon’s experiments to know the truth, for Job 39:29 says of the bird of prey: “He searcheth out food, far away his eyes do pierce.”
The Bible and health? Here the Bible is more modern than many moderns. For it does not advise early retirement, a life of ease, laziness or idleness. The Bible recommends hard work. Just in the past few years doctors are awaking to the need of work, the danger of easy living and rest. Science Digest for November, 1954, reported on the words of Dr. W. Melville Arnott, professor of medicine in the University of Birmingham, England: “Work, even hard work, is good for a person---while rest may be damaging. None of the known effects of work, Dr. Arnott states, can harm healthy tissues. On the contrary, all the effects are good. Rest, on the other hand, can produce profound and damaging changes.” So the Bible’s advice, both spiritually and physically, holds true: “Sloth brings the sleep that has no awaking.” (Prov. 19:15).
The Bible and disease? Some 3,000 years before modern knowledge of causes of disease, the Bible contained a prohibition on eating pig, rabbit and fish, which, respectively, are subject to trichinosis, tularemia and tapeworm.
Likewise the principle of quarantine for certain diseases is recognized by the Bible.
The Bible and medicine? Still modern! But how modern is the twentieth century’s superstitious cures, its quack cures? Here's what one doctor said: “It is very surprising to me that the Bible is so accurate from the medical standpoint. Where treatment is mentioned, as for boils, wounds, etc., it is correct even by modern standards.
Also in the present day, $750,000,000 [give and take], are wasted annually on worthless medicines and methods of treatment. Many superstitions are still believed by large numbers of people, such as, that a buckeye in the pocket will prevent rheumatism; that handling toads will cause warts; that wearing red flannel around the neck will cure a sore throat; that an asafetida bag will prevent diseases; that every time a child is sick it has worms; etc., but no such statements are found in the Bible.” (The Physician Examines the Bible, by C. Raimer Smith.)
So then, the Bible contains alot of info when studied sincerely. Accurate and ahead of the times when the info was written.
CG/DEA_AGENT