Communism Gaining Ground?

[bigD]

Holy crap, did someone say BBQ!!!???

Mmmmmmmmmm..........

 

[skyking1976]

What was your point??

My point is that that you're trying to put creationism on the same level as evolution.

Why is it so hard to accept "Evolution" as God's way of creating? Simple. Genesis. Genesis 1:1. Genesis Chapter 1:1 through 2:2. God created the earth in 6 days.

Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbth day, and hallowed it."

If God did NOT create the earth in six days, we must throw out Genesis, and every book of the Bible that refers to it - - that'll leave us with only a few books -- might as well throw out the whole thing. In other words, if you deny the voracity of Genesis 1:1, you deny the voracity of the entire Bible.
[/B]

This is simply an illogical arguement. Although evolution is still a theory, creationism (at least the way the bible describes it) has been disproven by science. As science has PROVEN, there are such things as radioactive decay and carbon dating. Examination of various fossils has PROVEN the last dinosaurs walked the earth approximately 7 million years before anything that resembled a human being showed up.

You need to understand that creationism is not a theory. There is not evidence to even consider it anything more than a common idea. Face it. The bible is not a scientific journal. It is meant as a guideline for morality and perhaps a family tree of sorts.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that religion or your faith is wrong because it isn't. The point Typhoon and myself is trying to make to you is that your spiritual belief system is conflicting with your logical thought process. Just imagine for a moment if the book of Genesis never existed. What would you believe?

 

[skyking1976]

Holy crap, did someone say BBQ!!!???

Mmmmmmmmmm..........

You bet I did! I had Bennett's for dinner and it was SOOOOOOOOOOOOO good!
SK

 

[VNugget]

Regarding feminism:

Again, it boils down to who you let define the word. You brought up many examples of NOW snagging the spotlight of the feminist movement, aided by the mass media. And that's fine, I can't dispute any of those. But what signifance do they hold? All they show is "the world according to NOW," as you put it. If you let them redefine our language, then you're just making concessions to them and playing into their hands.

The bottom line is that if you think that women should be able to vote and not be considered their men's property, you would have been a feminist 100 years ago, but you are a nowordforitist today if you let our language be changd to suit NOW.

Regarding your post about choices and extremities:

I don't know if you were being cute or something, but the notion that everything in life can be represented as a cut and dry, black and white situation is downright ridiculous. Taking one side just for the sake of being on a side is even sillier than dogmatism. I'll just assume you were throwing some levity into the conversation.

 

[Snakum]

I was gonna respond but Typhoon is doing an outstanding job without me butting in.

Personally ... it still blows my mind that in 2003 we have educated, otherwise intelligent men who believe in such superstitious nonsense. And further, that they believe their particular brand of silly superstition is the One True Silly Superstition over all the rest, and are willing to kill and die for that patently irrational belief.

For the record, I don't buy into the Pureland Buddhist cults either who have bastardized the original, scientifically valid teaching of a man who lived, taught and then died 2500 years ago. Theirs is a belief no different than the three religions of the book. All are equally nonsense.

Amazing ...



Reverend Thich Minh Thong

 

[Typhoon1244]

...it still blows my mind that in 2003 we have educated, otherwise intelligent men who believe in such superstitious nonsense.

And some of them are pilots!

 

[VivaZapata]

I see you pasted a quote, yet failed to read or at least understand what was quoted. America is a place where the people, or "the chickens" if you prefer, are in charge of everything. Liberals don't like the idea of the people being in charge of anything. They see themselves as the only reasonable, compassionate, sufficiently intelligent life on the planet. They are their own aristocracy. Let's review.

Just ONE example of you, apparently, twisting the words of others and taking things to a completely inapplicable direction to fit your agenda. Very talk radio of you. The "chickens" do not refer to the people, they clearly refer to the capitalist powers that be. In spite of your delusion here, liberals embrace the idea of empowering people.

The free market is the bedrock of American business, so it must have worked pretty well for a long time. There have always been scoundrels among us, and we need to have a legal framwork to keep them in check, to be sure. That's why we need the second half of the first sentence, "and use common sense when writing laws that affect our jobs."

True, however, the free market is not, nor should it be the "bedrock" of public policy.

We need to save American capitalism.

We need to save America FROM laissez faire capitalism.

 

[Timebuilder]

This is simply an illogical arguement. Although evolution is still a theory, creationism (at least the way the bible describes it) has been disproven by science. As science has PROVEN, there are such things as radioactive decay and carbon dating. Examination of various fossils has PROVEN the last dinosaurs walked the earth approximately 7 million years before anything that resembled a human being showed up.

Proof, from the mind of a human, has a very specific tint to it. I requires a couple of ideas as immutable. One, the idea that our science is the ultimate knowlege of our environment, and two, that there is no God who says otherwise.

In fact, there is no proof whatsoever for either creationism or evolution. We can say that carbon dating provides "proof", but is our carbon dating an infallible test? Are there factors unknown to us that change the results of carbon dating that could lead us to a false conclusion? Is our interpretation of various fossils a reliable method of tracking changes in organisms? Will we ever find the "missing link" in the "chain of evolution"? Are the "proofs" of evolution sufficent to stand up under the normal scrutiny that we assign to other disciplines? Too many question remain to give solid support to evolution.

It is a theory.

Creationism has no proof either. It is a part of God's "design of faith". Since we walk by faith, and not by sight in our Christian walk, we are asked by God to trust Him. Unlike the trust we must place in our elected officials in the area of national security, which is a case of man trusting in man, our trust in God and His Word is an essential part of our relationship with Him. We can amuse ourselves with our science, and occaisionally pat ourselves on the back for one hundred years of doing the same thing that God's birds were able to do from Day One. The truth is, our knowlege of our universe cannot even be compared to God's total wisdom. To compare our most developed intellect, be it Hawking or someone else, to the mind of God, is unrepentent hubris.

You can call it a myth, if you like. Many people DO like to do just that. If you had proof of creation as described in the Bible, it would mean that God would have chosen to reveal far more of His nature to Man, and we would know Him much the same as other created beings know Him, such as angels. We woyuld not then be required to have faith. We would already know Him in a direct and certain way, a way that He has not deemed right for us right now. Soon, in the grand sceme of things, that will change, just as He has told us it will.

Since scripture has been found to be accurate when compared to the findings in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and since there is no better argument that Man can make for our existence than the description given us in the Bible, it is appropriate that creationism be explained as a "alternate view" that is held by many people. It does not mean that Chemistry and Physics cannot be taught. Even Bob Jones University teaches medicine, but creationism should not be excluded unless it can be proven that the theory of evolution is any more pertinent that the account of creation.

And that has yet to happen.

 

[Typhoon1244]

...the idea that our science is the ultimate knowlege of our environment...

Good grief, T.B.! Do you even understand what science is? The reason we have science is because there is no "ultimate knowledge" of our environment!

You know, it just occurred to me that if someday science managed to prove the existence of "big-G" God--I don't think it's likely, but who knows?--then both sides will simultaneously shout "see? We told you so!"

The faithful and the rational both want the same thing, they're just going about it different ways. If instead of attacking each other they'd just leave each other alone, we'd go much farther as a species!

 

[Timebuilder]

Just ONE example of you, apparently, twisting the words of others and taking things to a completely inapplicable direction to fit your agenda. Very talk radio of you. The "chickens" do not refer to the people, they clearly refer to the capitalist powers that be.

I see. A semantics problem.

The "capitalist powers that be" are everyday Americans.

People who own stock.

The guy on the corner with the 7-11 store, who was born in India and came here to follow the American dream.

The millions who sell stuff on ebay.

WE are the capitalists, not some image of Lionel Barrymore in It's a Wonderful Life.

WE are the chickens in charge of the feed. In our representaqtive rupublic, we elect other chickens as regulators, enforcers, and prison wardens.

In spite of your delusion here, liberals embrace the idea of empowering people.

Sorry, I can't give you a pass there.

Liberals seek to empower themselves and government. Having been one, I can say this with the small authority that my expereince gives to me. Have you been a conservative, and can speak to both sides?

True, however, the free market is not, nor should it be the "bedrock" of public policy.

I expect no other view than this from a liberal.

The bedrock of public policy, in the liberal mind, is an intellectual elite that dictates to the masses. I now reject that idea, as it is counter to the principles that founded this nation.

We need to save America FROM laissez faire capitalism.

Laissez-faire capitalism has been dead longer than I have been alive. It isn't even possible in a representative republic, IMHO. Our problem is that while we try to "empower people", as you said, we are actually taking a capitalist country founded on freedom and rugged individualism, and turning it into a socialist nation where the key activity is the redistribution of wealth, and the celebration of the decline of morality.