PDA

View Full Version : Jason Bourne for POTUS!



KC//CRIMSON
9/10/2008, 06:48 PM
C6urw_PWHYk

Matt Damon basically Jason Bourne'd Governor Sarah Palin in the face today while in Toronto promoting ONEXONE a Canadian children's charity. His major concern seems to be what happens when John McCain kicks the bucket in office if the Republicans win?:

"You do the actuary tables, there's a one out of three chance, if not more, that McCain doesn't survive his first term, and it'll be President Palin. It's like a really bad Disney movie, "The Hockey Mom.' Oh, I'm just a hockey mom from Alaska, and she's president. "She's facing down Vladimir Putin and using the folksy stuff she learned at the hockey rink. It's absurd."

I know one thing... Sarah Palin is NOT ****ing Matt Damon!

sooner_born_1960
9/10/2008, 06:50 PM
There is also about a one in three chance brack is elected president, and we're in the same boat.

LosAngelesSooner
9/10/2008, 07:19 PM
grrrr....

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2394992&postcount=187

Don't steal me thundar, bub.




;)

LosAngelesSooner
9/10/2008, 07:20 PM
Matt Damon cracks me up.

"I really need to know if she thinks dinosaurs lived here four thousand years ago. That's an important...I wanna know that, I really do. Because she's gonna have the nuclear codes." - Matt Damon

Funny chit.

GottaHavePride
9/10/2008, 07:34 PM
Matt Damon cracks me up.

"I really need to know if she thinks dinosaurs lived here four thousand years ago. That's an important...I wanna know that, I really do. Because she's gonna have the nuclear codes." - Matt Damon

Funny chit.

From my dad - a gun totin' NRA member for life: "You know, if he ran with Robin Williams as his Vice President, I'd vote for him."

Jerk
9/10/2008, 07:48 PM
Matt Damon cracks me up.

"I really need to know if she thinks dinosaurs lived here four thousand years ago. That's an important...I wanna know that, I really do. Because she's gonna have the nuclear codes." - Matt Damon

Funny chit.

I like it when Democrats mock anyone who is religious (and they are always Christian).

It goes over real well in 'fly-over' land on election day.

OKC-SLC
9/10/2008, 07:53 PM
I like it when Democrats mock anyone who is religious (and they are always Christian).

It goes over real well in 'fly-over' land on election day.

you'd think democrats would have learned at least two things from the 2000 and 2004 elections:

1) Most Americans like Christians in the Oval Office

2) Celebrities do not attract voters.

Entertain me, Matt. Hell, I liked the 'cougar' line in Oceans EleventyBillion or whatever that was. You're a fairly funny guy. Entertain me.

GottaHavePride
9/10/2008, 07:54 PM
There's a difference between your normal, everyday Christian and someone who literally believes the Earth is 4,000 years old.

SoonerStormchaser
9/10/2008, 07:56 PM
http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com/libertas/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/damon-team-america.jpg

LosAngelesSooner
9/10/2008, 07:57 PM
I like it when Democrats mock anyone who is religious (and they are always Christian).

It goes over real well in 'fly-over' land on election day.Yeah, because there's nothing to mock about someone actually believing that the Earth is only 4-6 thousand years old. :rolleyes:

LosAngelesSooner
9/10/2008, 07:58 PM
you'd think democrats would have learned at least two things from the 2000 and 2004 elections:

1) Most Americans like Christians in the Oval Office

2) Celebrities do not attract voters.

Entertain me, Matt. Hell, I liked the 'cougar' line in Oceans EleventyBillion or whatever that was. You're a fairly funny guy. Entertain me."Most" Americans watch American Idol. Doesn't mean I'm a-gonna.

Call me elitist, but I'm just better than you.




;)

KC//CRIMSON
9/10/2008, 07:59 PM
you'd think democrats would have learned at least two things from the 2000 and 2004 elections:

1) Most Americans like Christians in the Oval Office

2) Celebrities do not attract voters.

Entertain me, Matt. Hell, I liked the 'cougar' line in Oceans EleventyBillion or whatever that was. You're a fairly funny guy. Entertain me.

3) Having a brother who is also a governor comes in real handy.

GottaHavePride
9/10/2008, 07:59 PM
NSFW AL ALL.


mrZcztxRquo

OKC-SLC
9/10/2008, 08:04 PM
There's a difference between your normal, everyday Christian and someone who literally believes the Earth is 4,000 years old.

Sure there is. But I don't think that's the point, or joke, or whatever, that he's trying to make.

OKC-SLC
9/10/2008, 08:08 PM
[QUOTE=LosAngelesSooner;2395358]"Most" Americans watch American Idol. Doesn't mean I'm a-gonna.QUOTE]

The fact of the matter is that there are several things popular among Americans. Included are Christianity and watching ***tty TV shows. Problem for the dem campaigners is that they simply cannot make an emphasis of the fact that they think Christians are dumb. These people vote, and stuff.

OKC-SLC
9/10/2008, 08:09 PM
3) Having a brother who is also a governor comes in real handy.
Doesn't hurt.

Neither does winning elections.

Jerk
9/10/2008, 08:13 PM
Sure there is. But I don't think that's the point, or joke, or whatever, that he's trying to make.

Exactly. The point is that everything is about perception. If I say, "Gee, those Cincy Bearcat players were fast! Maybe they thought they were being chased by the police!" Am I saying this because they were black or because they were thugs who could run?

GottaHavePride
9/10/2008, 08:13 PM
Sure there is. But I don't think that's the point, or joke, or whatever, that he's trying to make.

Really? I thought that was EXACTLY the point he was trying to make. If by some chance a reactionary fundamentalist Christian - who believes the earth is 4,000 years old and so on - was to become President, that person would be incapable of reaching understandings with foreign, non-Christian cultures. So at that point you might as well punch our ticket for World War 3.

OKC-SLC
9/10/2008, 08:16 PM
Really? I thought that was EXACTLY the point he was trying to make. If by some chance a reactionary fundamentalist Christian - who believes the earth is 4,000 years old and so on - was to become President, that person would be incapable of reaching understandings with foreign, non-Christian cultures. So at that point you might as well punch our ticket for World War 3.
I agree with this.

I think to raise that question when talking about Palin is to suggest that because she's a conservative she might be such a fundamentalist.

Has he raised that question about Obama? Hell, I've actually heard Obama declare that he's a Christian many times and I don't know that I've heard Palin say it once.

Jerk
9/10/2008, 08:17 PM
I read this somewhere else and it sums this up nicely:


You know, he's right.

It is pretty scary thinking that the chief executive of the largest land mass state in the union, which supplies this nation with a large portion of it's energy, is a prime target for terrorists and is a stone throw away from Russia could wind up with the "nuclear codes".

Let's give the "nuclear codes" to a community organizer who has spent his entire national political career running for president, whose best friend is a terrorist and whose spiritual adviser thinks that America got what it deserved on 9/11. That'd make me feel much safer.

KC//CRIMSON
9/10/2008, 08:20 PM
Doesn't hurt.

Neither does stealing elections.


bravo!

GottaHavePride
9/10/2008, 08:21 PM
I agree with this.

I think to raise that question when talking about Palin is to suggest that because she's a conservative she might be such a fundamentalist.

Has he raised that question about Obama? Hell, I've actually heard Obama declare that he's a Christian many times and I don't know that I've heard Palin say it once.

Well, I think it's pretty clear he supports Obama. However, I don't think he was using that example solely on the basis of her Christianity, and more that she hasn't been in the national eye long enough for most of the country to really know anything about her.

At least Obama, for good or bad, has been in this race long enough that probably 95% of the dirt anyone's likely to find on him has already been uncovered. Same with McCain and Biden. Not so with Palin.

mdklatt
9/10/2008, 08:22 PM
I think to raise that question when talking about Palin is to suggest that because she's a conservative she might be such a fundamentalist.


She attended a fundamentalist church most of her life and thinks creationism should be taught as science. It's not much of a stretch to think she's a fundie.

OKC-SLC
9/10/2008, 08:33 PM
I don't know what kind of church she attended.

But she does believe creationism should be taught alongside evolution in schools, I have heard that. So do I. And I am not a fundamentalist.

Why choose that particular "question" to illustrate what he doesn't know about Palin? Could it [gasp] have been an attempt to belittle his candidate's opponent on camera?


Look, I guess I think a 30-something Hollywood actor's making a witty remark trying to needle Palin while on camera is weak. I'd think that even if I agreed with Damon's politics. And I can appreciate that you guys support Obama, and that you're willing to overlook the silliness of Hollywood-types' criticizing republican candidates and conservatives in general. But please don't act like you don't understand where I'm coming from.

mdklatt
9/10/2008, 08:42 PM
I don't know what kind of church she attended.


Assembly of God



But she does believe creationism should be taught alongside evolution in schools, I have heard that. So do I.


Creationism is a religious belief. It has no place in a science class.

AggieTool
9/10/2008, 08:42 PM
I don't know what kind of church she attended.

But she does believe creationism should be taught alongside evolution in schools, I have heard that. So do I. And I am not a fundamentalist.

I don't mind creationism being taught in a philosophy or religions of the world class, but in science class, ONLY evolution should be taught since it's principles can be demonstrated in a lab environment with the scientific method applied.

LosAngelesSooner
9/10/2008, 08:44 PM
I agree with this.

I think to raise that question when talking about Palin is to suggest that because she's a conservative she might be such a fundamentalist.

Has he raised that question about Obama? Hell, I've actually heard Obama declare that he's a Christian many times and I don't know that I've heard Palin say it once.
I think the piece of the puzzle that you're missing is that she has said, on record, that she's a strict creationist. The 4,000 year old Earth/Dinosaur thing, however, is an internet hoax made up by a blogger much like the Obama secret Muslim thing.

But that's why he's asking it. He's not making a leap in logic simply because she's "Christian."

Tulsa_Fireman
9/10/2008, 08:45 PM
They should teach creationism in schools. And call it "ninja fighting", and make kids punch each other in the throat for candy.

OU-HSV
9/10/2008, 08:45 PM
I get annoyed when I see celebs thinking the majority of people give two sh*ts about who they're voting for or who they back.
Anyone who votes based on a "celebs" comments like this probably shouldn't be voting at all...and quite frankly they may not even be smart enough to find their way to their voting station anyway.
And that goes both ways, whether it's Opra or Dennis Miller or whoever from whichever side. It's stupid.
It's obvious who Matt supports...it's also obvious he doesn't mention anything about Obama's "lack of experience" in a criticizing manner as he mentions Palin's "lack of experience".

LosAngelesSooner
9/10/2008, 08:47 PM
I don't mind creationism being taught in a philosophy or religions of the world class, but in science class, ONLY evolution should be taught since it's principles can be demonstrated in a lab environment with the scientific method applied.Or in a Literature or Creative Writing class.

OKC-SLC
9/10/2008, 08:47 PM
Creationism is a religious belief. It has no place in a science class.

I agree with this. I don't believe it has a place in a science class. If I said that, I misspoke. I don't know the best way to do it. But I don't believe the one-sided presentation in school is optimal.

I am Christian. I also have a strong science background. I believe in creationism and I believe in evolution. I think the true coming-about of this present world is a hybrid of the two. Maybe 90% one and 10% the other, maybe 50-50, I don't know.

But I don't think it's 100% correct to present only the evolutionary concepts. There are holes in this explanation of the world just as there are clearly holes in the faith-based creationism teachings. That's all.

SoonerBorn68
9/10/2008, 08:48 PM
nm

LosAngelesSooner
9/10/2008, 08:50 PM
perhaps you should delete that post as well, SB68

Tulsa_Fireman
9/10/2008, 08:52 PM
Whatever happened to even-keeled, cover the bases? This is what science says, and other, unnamed sources give responsibility for the inception of scientific principles such as the Big Bang, life, et cetera, to a supremem diety.

End of discussion, continue the science.

SoonerBorn68
9/10/2008, 08:54 PM
I didn't delete anything. Somebody else did. I stand by all my comments. I'm just having fun watching ya'll drop turd bombs on one guy.

mdklatt
9/10/2008, 08:56 PM
But I don't think it's 100% correct to present only the evolutionary concepts. There are holes in this explanation of the world just as there are clearly holes in the faith-based creationism teachings.

Why stop at teaching Biblical creationism then? How Greek mythology?
Scientology? Pastafarianism (http://www.venganza.org/)?

OKC-SLC
9/10/2008, 08:57 PM
I think the piece of the puzzle that you're missing is that she has said, on record, that she's a strict creationist.

Palin and I differ a bit on this issue. There is too much scientific evidence of evolution to ignore it.

LosAngelesSooner
9/10/2008, 08:58 PM
I didn't delete anything. Somebody else did. I stand by all my comments. I'm just having fun watching ya'll drop turd bombs on one guy.
I didn't say that you DID, I suggested that you SHOULD.

I deleted my post, which you quoted, after SLC posted his most recent post since what he said negated what I said. You should delete your post in which you quote me. http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2395462&postcount=32

OKC-SLC
9/10/2008, 08:59 PM
Why stop at teaching Biblical creationism then? How Greek mythology?
Scientology? Pastafarianism (http://www.venganza.org/)?

I get it. You don't believe in Creationism.

LosAngelesSooner
9/10/2008, 09:01 PM
I get it. You don't believe in Creationism.This is America. You don't HAVE to believe in Creationism or even in the Creation Story or even in Evolution as an instrument of God's Will (which is the Catholic Church's stance on the issue, btw)

OKC-SLC
9/10/2008, 09:07 PM
This is America. You don't HAVE to believe in Creationism or even in the Creation Story or even in Evolution as an instrument of God's Will (which is the Catholic Church's stance on the issue, btw)

Yes, I understand this.

LosAngelesSooner
9/10/2008, 09:11 PM
Yes, I understand this.
So then, this being America, you should also understand that no "Philosophy" about WHY creation happened should be taught in science classes and if you choose to teach a philosophy about WHY creation happened in a philosophy or literature class, you need to teach at LEAST all the MAJOR theories about the "why" behind the how.

Thus, Ragnarok. ;)

tbl
9/10/2008, 09:11 PM
Yet again, evolutionists act like their theory has zero flaws and is undisputed fact. To think that there are intelligent Christians (or even theists) out there that can acknowledge the scientific principles of the big bang yet not believe in evolution just boggles the mind. Look, I've pointed it out before that there is a HUGE fallacy with atheistic evolutionary theory and that comes down to Big Bang cosmology. Einstein had a very difficult time accepting the theory that he essentially discovered because he realized what the implications were. In the end he ended up becoming a theist (of sorts) by believing in a pagan impersonal god, but most of the astrophysicists out there are theists to a certain degree, simply because they cannot get around the fact that the entire universe was created in a single instant.... just like the Bible says.

It doesn't matter how far you delve into string theory or any of the other ideas to discover the creation event, they will never get around the fact that the entire universe was created in a single instant and everything we see around us today came from nothing; a scientific impossibility.

mdklatt
9/10/2008, 09:13 PM
I get it. You don't believe in Creationism.

It doesn't matter whether I do or don't. The teach-the-controversy argument begs the question of why Creationism should be the de facto alternative to Evolution. Even a total refutation of Evolution would not make Creationism would be any more credible.

SCOUT
9/10/2008, 09:13 PM
I think the piece of the puzzle that you're missing is that she has said, on record, that she's a strict creationist. The 4,000 year old Earth/Dinosaur thing, however, is an internet hoax made up by a blogger much like the Obama secret Muslim thing.

But that's why he's asking it. He's not making a leap in logic simply because she's "Christian."

You have claimed this before, backed off it and now have claimed it again. Would you mind providing a link to that record?

Jerk
9/10/2008, 09:16 PM
If you don't believe in the fall of man, which is taught in the first several chapters of Genesis, then it throws off the whole story of death and redemption. It would be kind of confusing to have to go through the Bible and pick and chose which verses are written as an inspiration from God.

But I'm not here to argue theology.

I would like to just say, as a right wing gun nut, that I sincerely hope for more Hollywood celebs to come out and make fun of the things which half the nation perceive are about them.

mdklatt
9/10/2008, 09:16 PM
Look, I've pointed it out before that there is a HUGE fallacy with atheistic evolutionary theory and that comes down to Big Bang cosmology.

You do know that cosmology and evolution have nothing to do with each other, right?

LosAngelesSooner
9/10/2008, 09:17 PM
Except you've got the facts behind the Big Bang theory wrong.

Otherwise...good argument! :D

LosAngelesSooner
9/10/2008, 09:19 PM
If you don't believe in the fall of man, which is taught in the first several chapters of Genesis, then it throws off the whole story of death and redemption. It would be kind of confusing to have to go through the Bible and pick and chose which verses are written as an inspiration from God.

But I'm not here to argue theology.

I would like to just say, as a right wing gun nut, that I sincerely hope for more Hollywood celebs to come out and make fun of the things which half the nation perceive are about them.If "half the nation" believes in a strict interpretation of Creationism, then half the nation justifies the need for abortion.


BAM!!!

:D

tbl
9/10/2008, 09:20 PM
Not necessarily. I'm talking about the scientific community as a whole and the overwhelming evidence for a creator in all disciplines. My main point is atheistic evolutionary theory. In order to buy into that, you have to go to the origins of everything and believe everything is naturalistic, and that starts at the big bang... correct? Big bang cosmology is one of the most irrefutable evidences for a Creator. I didn't get into the many flaws in biological evolutionary theory but instead went to the source of it all.

OKC-SLC
9/10/2008, 09:21 PM
So then, this being America, you should also understand that no "Philosophy" about WHY creation happened should be taught in science classes and if you choose to teach a philosophy about WHY creation happened in a philosophy or literature class, you need to teach at LEAST all the MAJOR theories about the "why" behind the how.

Thus, Ragnarok. ;)

LAS, this is the third post that seems to allege that I ever said I believed evolution should be taught in science class. I never said this and have never believed it. I have in fact said the opposite. Twice now.

I believe that when the topic of the earth's origins is discussed in schools, evolution should not be presented as a monopoly. This is especially prudent in a nation where a majority of citizens believe in at least some component of creationism.

To sum up and clarify for the record:
1) I think Matt Damon makes funny movies.
2) I think Matt Damon is attempting to ridicule Sarah Palin in the above video clip.
3) Sarah Palin is a strict creationist. [edit: she is said to be a strict creationist]
4) I believe that the world is a result of two major happenings: creation and evolution.
5) I believe that if you are going to teach about the origins of the world in schools, evolution should be presented as one of the means. Creationism should be taught as well. NOT in a science class.

I don't think anybody in this thread is dumb, or ignorant, or beneath me because they don't believe what I do.

tbl
9/10/2008, 09:22 PM
Except you've got the facts behind the Big Bang theory wrong.

Otherwise...good argument! :D

Do I? Enlighten me... Maybe you've found the Rosetta Stone that all atheists need to prove that the entire universe was created by purely naturalistic means. If you have, you need to get it published.

SoonerBorn68
9/10/2008, 09:22 PM
If "half the nation" believes in a strict interpretation of Creationism, then half the nation justifies the need for abortion.


BAM!!!

:D

See what I mean Jerk? It'll be much easier than you think.

Jerk
9/10/2008, 09:23 PM
See what I mean Jerk? It'll be much easier than you think.

That's what dems do to their own future voters.

AggieTool
9/10/2008, 09:27 PM
Not necessarily. I'm talking about the scientific community as a whole and the overwhelming evidence for a creator in all disciplines. My main point is atheistic evolutionary theory. In order to buy into that, you have to go to the origins of everything and believe everything is naturalistic, and that starts at the big bang... correct? Big bang cosmology is one of the most irrefutable evidences for a Creator. I didn't get into the many flaws in biological evolutionary theory but instead went to the source of it all.

There is a belief that covers that...it's called "Deism".

As a Deist, I believe god is truly omnipotent and incomprehensible to man.

The idea that a guy can stand on a pulpit and tell us what god thinks is crazy. We're nothing but bacteria in a petri dish to god.

Think about it, anything that can create the whole universe in one big bang can't really care if we eat meat on Fridays or point our *** to the west when we pray.:O

How arrogant to think WE'RE the focus of god's attention.:D

Veritas
9/10/2008, 09:29 PM
First, LAS, you keep saying that Palin is "on record" as being a "strict creationist." Prove it. I can't find that phraseology anywhere.

Two, **** Matt Damon, and **** Hollywood celebs and their over-publicized opinions. I've always wondered why these incredibly wealthy people always throw their support behind the guy that is going to take the most money out of their pockets. Today I figured it out: they don't know anything about money. And why would they? Most wealthy people are so because they excel at using their earning to generate more earnings. Actors, however, excel at pretending to be other people. Their success has little to do with money management and wise decision making.

I think Oprah sucks, but her endorsement of Obama, as much as I disagree with it, is more valid than any celebridiots due to the fact that she's built a business empire and clearly demonstrates financial wisdom.

KC//CRIMSON
9/10/2008, 09:33 PM
^^He's f-ing Matt Damon!^^

mdklatt
9/10/2008, 09:33 PM
My main point is atheistic evolutionary theory. In order to buy into that, you have to go to the origins of everything and believe everything is naturalistic, and that starts at the big bang... correct?

Maybe God created the universe (Big Bang) and then moved on to another universe. Maybe God was destroyed in the Big Bang. Maybe, maybe, maybe...the number of possible explanations only limited by the human imagination, none of them backed up by observable facts. The Big Bang doesn't even attempt to explain who or created the universe or why. Evolution doesn't address the creation of the universe, or even the genesis of life. It's simply a coherent framework that ties together all of the observed facts of how life changes over time. It is one of the most successful theories in science.

mdklatt
9/10/2008, 09:35 PM
I've always wondered why these incredibly wealthy people always throw their support behind the guy that is going to take the most money out of their pockets. Today I figured it out:

They're not greedy, selfish dillholes and are willing to contribute to the society that has allowed them to be successful?

OKC-SLC
9/10/2008, 09:36 PM
^^He's f-ing Matt Damon!^^
heh.

OKC-SLC
9/10/2008, 09:40 PM
It doesn't matter whether I do or don't. The teach-the-controversy argument begs the question of why Creationism should be the de facto alternative to Evolution. Even a total refutation of Evolution would not make Creationism would be any more credible.

I do not believe it's an either-or. I believe that Creationism may explain how life began, and Evolutionism may explain how it's changed...


Evolution doesn't address the creation of the universe, or even the genesis of life. It's simply a coherent framework that ties together all of the observed facts of how life changes over time. It is one of the most successful theories in science.

Kind of like what you're driving at here.

Veritas
9/10/2008, 09:41 PM
They're not greedy, selfish dillholes and are willing to contribute to the society that has allowed them to be successful?
Then let them do so out of their own bank accounts and of their own volition rather than by endorsing a government mechanism to do so.

swardboy
9/10/2008, 09:41 PM
She attended a fundamentalist church most of her life and thinks creationism should be taught as science. It's not much of a stretch to think she's a fundie.

Annenberg Foundation has debunked this myth. She mentioned in one debate she would like to see students get both sides, but interviewed later said she didn't think creationism should be taught.

Soonrboy
9/10/2008, 09:41 PM
I've never understood why people believe that creationism should be taught in the schools. Isn't this the purpose of church?

mdklatt
9/10/2008, 09:45 PM
She mentioned in one debate she would like to see students get both sides, but interviewed later said she didn't think creationism should be taught.

You mean she flip-flopped?

mdklatt
9/10/2008, 09:50 PM
Then let them do so out of their own bank accounts and of their own volition

Isn't that what they're doing by voting Democrat?

mdklatt
9/10/2008, 10:05 PM
I do not believe it's an either-or. I believe that Creationism may explain how life began, and Evolutionism may explain how it's changed...


Evolution does explain how life changes. That's why it's a captial-T Theory and not "just a theory" as so many people dismissively refer it. If you're going to include all the "may explains", there is no valid scientific reason to stop at Creationism. So who gets to decide? Conveniently enough, it's the Christian-dominated school boards who are pushing teach-the-controversy in the first place. But I guarantee that if little Caleb goes home one day and starts telling Mommy School Board Member how his science teacher is comparing Evolution to what it says in the Koran--teach the controversy!--gaskets will blow.

GottaHavePride
9/10/2008, 10:08 PM
I agree with OKC-SLC. The Christian creation beliefs are perfectly OK to be taugh in schools in philosophy or comparative religion classes. In fact, I would think any class of that sort that DIDN'T include it was very, very shady.

I also don't think it belongs in science classes, for the simple reason that it's not scientific. As soon as someone manages to replicate God's act of creation in a laboratory setting, I'll accept it as scientific fact. ;)





I also agree with AggieTool. Scary, huh?

mdklatt
9/10/2008, 10:14 PM
I agree with OKC-SLC. The Christian creation beliefs are perfectly OK to be taugh in schools in philosophy or comparative religion classes. In fact, I would think any class of that sort that DIDN'T include it was very, very shady.


Absolutely. We had a unit on world religion in my world history class in 11th grade. The Big 3 were featured prominently, be we also talked about the major Eastern religions.



As soon as someone manages to replicate God's act of creation in a laboratory setting, I'll accept it as scientific fact.

"As soon as I see a monkey turn into a man I'll believe in Evolution" retort in 5...4...3....

SoonerRedHead
9/10/2008, 10:20 PM
Really? I thought that was EXACTLY the point he was trying to make. If by some chance a reactionary fundamentalist Christian - who believes the earth is 4,000 years old and so on - was to become President, that person would be incapable of reaching understandings with foreign, non-Christian cultures. So at that point you might as well punch our ticket for World War 3.

Matt should go mano y mano with the foreign non-Christian cultures and persuade them to reach an understanding.

That sounds like a plan.

mdklatt
9/10/2008, 10:24 PM
Matt should go mano y mano with the foreign non-Christian cultures and persuade them to reach an understanding.


Any foreign leader who wasn't from a fundamentalist Muslim country (and I'm not even so sure about that) would take Matt ****in' Damon more seriously than a Young Earth Creationist.

SoonerRedHead
9/10/2008, 10:30 PM
Any foreign leader who wasn't from a fundamentalist Muslim country (and I'm not even so sure about that) would take Matt ****in' Damon more seriously than a Young Earth Creationist.

Then tell Matt to give them the left bank....oops, thats not enuff, .....tell Matt to them Jimmy Carter, oops thats not enuff....talk happened thats not enuff...

tell Matt to give them everything, that will do.:)

JohnnyMack
9/10/2008, 10:38 PM
This thread needs more cowbell.

Fraggle145
9/11/2008, 01:30 AM
Not necessarily. I'm talking about the scientific community as a whole and the overwhelming evidence for a creator in all disciplines. My main point is atheistic evolutionary theory. In order to buy into that, you have to go to the origins of everything and believe everything is naturalistic, and that starts at the big bang... correct? Big bang cosmology is one of the most irrefutable evidences for a Creator. I didn't get into the many flaws in biological evolutionary theory but instead went to the source of it all.

I disagree that the big bang is evidence for a creator. It could just as easily be evidence for a solution that hasnt been discovered yet.

That said, evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the big bang. It is about how nature is selective for sucessful phenotypes and ultimately genotypes. If you read Darwin he makes no notions about how it started and actually says there are many things he cant explain.

Fraggle145
9/11/2008, 01:32 AM
I've never understood why people believe that creationism should be taught in the schools. Isn't this the purpose of church?

Thats what I always thought. :confused:

Fraggle145
9/11/2008, 01:40 AM
I do not believe it's an either-or. I believe that Creationism may explain how life began, and Evolutionism may explain how it's changed...


Evolution does explain how life changes. That's why it's a captial-T Theory and not "just a theory" as so many people dismissively refer it. If you're going to include all the "may explains", there is no valid scientific reason to stop at Creationism. So who gets to decide? Conveniently enough, it's the Christian-dominated school boards who are pushing teach-the-controversy in the first place. But I guarantee that if little Caleb goes home one day and starts telling Mommy School Board Member how his science teacher is comparing Evolution to what it says in the Koran--teach the controversy!--gaskets will blow.

Exactly it doesnt have to be. Evolutionary theory makes no posits on the beginning of life only on how it has been affected by or selected on by its environment.

I agree with mdklatt's second point tho, where do we begin and end in the creation debate in schools? there is some evidence for the big bang, but well how it happened nobody knows. How many viewpoints is anyone willing to allow... certainly not anything but there own, because then they get all pissy.

I think its important to know if the person who could be POTUS believes that evolution didnt happen, because IMO that means they are will to throw all biological science out the window as all of it since ~Darwin (~1850s) is based in evolutionary theory.

LosAngelesSooner
9/11/2008, 02:51 AM
[quote=Veritas;2395542Most wealthy people are so because they excel at using their earning to generate more earnings. Actors, however, excel at pretending to be other people. Their success has little to do with money management and wise decision making. [/quote]Uhm...you're SO wrong on this I can't even begin.

Well, yes I can...Paul Newman.



Dude, just because you don't KNOW about all the investments and additional businesses these celebrities are into doesn't mean that they aren't into them.

Here's another one: P. Ditty.

LosAngelesSooner
9/11/2008, 02:53 AM
They're not greedy, selfish dillholes and are willing to contribute to the society that has allowed them to be successful?The thing is, this is really the reason why they feel that way. That...and most of them have traveled the world and don't live 50 miles from where they were born, so they're both more worldly and more compassionate.

But some people on here would rather just picture all "Hollywood Celebrities" as vain, egocentric trainwrecks like Lindsay Lohan.

LosAngelesSooner
9/11/2008, 02:58 AM
I do not believe it's an either-or. I believe that Creationism may explain how life began, and Evolutionism may explain how it's changed...For the sake of accuracy, we need to understand that "Creationism" believes that God created the Earth SIX THOUSAND YEARS ago as told in the book of Genesis, the Grand Canyon was created over a period of a couple of months through flooding and that Dinosaurs either DIDN'T exist or Jesus rode around on them. (look it up) ((except for the Jesus riding around, part. That's just a funny image))

"Creation (Evolution) as a tool of God" means that the Earth is roughly 4.5 Billion years old, evolution occurred, but all of this was made possible and guided by an all powerful being whom we cannot possibly imagine or understand.

I sign on for the second theory, but not the first. I think the first is bat-**** crazy.

And before you go telling me I'm wrong just because you like using the WORD "Creationism" to describe what you believe when you actually believe the second theorem (Creation/Evolution as a tool of God), doesn't make you any more incorrect in your useage of the term "Creationism."

LosAngelesSooner
9/11/2008, 03:00 AM
Then let them do so out of their own bank accounts and of their own volition rather than by endorsing a government mechanism to do so.So you criticize them for endorsing a government mechanism which will take more money out of their own bank accounts by telling them to go out and take more money out of their own bank accounts?

hmmm...

MrJimBeam
9/11/2008, 05:48 AM
Any foreign leader who wasn't from a fundamentalist Muslim country (and I'm not even so sure about that) would take Matt ****in' Damon more seriously than a Young Earth Creationist.

Guess that's why Euro's love Brack. They both pretend to be someone they're not.

JohnnyMack
9/11/2008, 06:21 AM
I'm with LAS on this. Sorry but if you believe the earth is around 6500 years old, you're nuttier than squirrel ****. No further discussion necessary.

Hot Rod
9/11/2008, 07:08 AM
Ah, celebrities using their "power" to share their thoughts on the presidential campaign...

Never ceases to amaze me.

LosAngelesSooner
9/11/2008, 07:21 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LgJQ8UQWGU&feature=user

Jerk
9/11/2008, 08:45 PM
Guess that's why Euro's love Brack. They both pretend to be someone they're not.

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/4512/europezb4.jpg

soonerhubs
9/11/2008, 08:46 PM
To call someone crazy for believing that God is not bound by the same Mortal laws that we are is, in my humble opinion, to call everyone who has a belief in a higher being, crazy.

If He makes the best wine, a process that takes years, in a few seconds, I'd put money that time is not an issue for the Master.

John 2:6-10 (21st Century King James Version)
6And there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews, holding twenty to thirty gallons apiece.

7Jesus said unto them, "Fill the waterpots with water." And they filled them up to the brim.

8And He said unto them, "Draw some out now, and bear it unto the governor of the feast." And they took it.

9When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, not knowing from whence it had come (but the servants who drew the water knew), the governor of the feast called the bridegroom

10and said unto him, "Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine, and when men have drunk well, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now."



What's next? Do you call us crazy for believing he made the Waters calm with his words and then walked on that water? And some of us wonder why we fail to see miracles? :rolleyes:

I'm amazed at how faith is ignored in this day and age.


I'm not here to refute evolution, laws of geographical erosion, or any other proof that the Earth is billions of years old, because I personally think that these types of doctrine (or theory or "laws") aren't exactly pertinent to yours or my salvation. (Save the Mormon jokes for another thread.)

Christ is my Master, and I believe that there are numerous things that we think we have figured out so well, about this world, that we aren't even close to the mark on. That's why it's a science because theories, concepts, and propositions are always challenged and revised in our search for evidence that supports truths, even in this era of post modernistic view points.

On the other hand, to take Faith out of the equation is not my style. I personally don't think someone's belief in Creation should be such a "crazy red flag" for either candidate. Because they both cite deity, so by your logic they are all crazy morons who should be put in a padded room.

Fraggle145
9/11/2008, 09:28 PM
To call someone crazy for believing that God is not bound by the same Mortal laws that we are is, in my humble opinion, to call everyone who has a belief in a higher being, crazy.

If He makes the best wine, a process that takes years, in a few seconds, I'd put money that time is not an issue for the Master.

John 2:6-10 (21st Century King James Version)
6And there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews, holding twenty to thirty gallons apiece.

7Jesus said unto them, "Fill the waterpots with water." And they filled them up to the brim.

8And He said unto them, "Draw some out now, and bear it unto the governor of the feast." And they took it.

9When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, not knowing from whence it had come (but the servants who drew the water knew), the governor of the feast called the bridegroom

10and said unto him, "Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine, and when men have drunk well, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now."



What's next? Do you call us crazy for believing he made the Waters calm with his words and then walked on that water? And some of us wonder why we fail to see miracles? :rolleyes:

I'm amazed at how faith is ignored in this day and age.


I'm not here to refute evolution, laws of geographical erosion, or any other proof that the Earth is billions of years old, because I personally think that these types of doctrine (or theory or "laws") aren't exactly pertinent to yours or my salvation. (Save the Mormon jokes for another thread.)

Christ is my Master, and I believe that there are numerous things that we think we have figured out so well, about this world, that we aren't even close to the mark on. That's why it's a science because theories, concepts, and propositions are always challenged and revised in our search for evidence that supports truths, even in this era of post modernistic view points.

On the other hand, to take Faith out of the equation is not my style. I personally don't think someone's belief in Creation should be such a "crazy red flag" for either candidate. Because they both cite deity, so by your logic they are all crazy morons who should be put in a padded room.

That is not what Im saying. I think that someone that cant recognize that science has at least figured something out, because of their faith is not to be trusted. I'm not calling them crazy for believing in god, I'm calling them crazy because they refuse to recognize what is right in front of them from a science perspective.

No science doesnt explain everything and it cant explain the beginning of the universe, making both a creation or some other solution equally plausible. However, when someone overlooks science because they dont like what it says about hypotheses and theories that have been well tested then that I think is crazy.

soonerhubs
9/11/2008, 09:34 PM
Your premise still makes all of the candidates that believe in God crazy, in my opinion.

achiro
9/11/2008, 10:34 PM
She attended a fundamentalist church most of her life and thinks creationism should be taught as science. It's not much of a stretch to think she's a fundie.

Link?

achiro
9/11/2008, 10:35 PM
Really? I thought that was EXACTLY the point he was trying to make. If by some chance a reactionary fundamentalist Christian - who believes the earth is 4,000 years old and so on - was to become President, that person would be incapable of reaching understandings with foreign, non-Christian cultures. So at that point you might as well punch our ticket for World War 3.

:rolleyes: I'm sure we've never had a prez that believed that the Bible was the word of God.:rolleyes:

achiro
9/11/2008, 10:35 PM
There's a difference between your normal, everyday Christian and someone who literally believes the Earth is 4,000 years old.

There is? One believes that the Bible is literal, others don't but don't act as if it's some far out there thing for people to believe that it's literal.

Fraggle145
9/11/2008, 10:48 PM
Your premise still makes all of the candidates that believe in God crazy, in my opinion.

how? :confused: If someone believes in god or christianity or whatever that is just fine. When they believe that the world is 6000 years old that is basically saying that all science is crap. And I think that is crazy.

mdklatt
9/11/2008, 11:14 PM
Link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_palin#Personal_life



Palin was born into a Catholic family. When she was 4 years old, her family joined the Wasilla Assembly of God, a Pentecostal church in which Palin worshipped until she was 38 years old, where Palin, in a speech before the church, described herself as "getting saved". Palin's children were baptized at that church. When she is in Juneau, she attends the Juneau Christian Center, another Assemblies of God church. Her current home church is the Wasilla Bible Church, an independent congregation. Although initial press reports said that she was the first Pentecostal ever to appear on a major-party ticket, Palin no longer considers herself a Pentecostal, describing herself as only a "Bible-believing" Christian.

mdklatt
9/11/2008, 11:17 PM
I'm amazed at how faith is ignored in this day and age.


I'm amazed at how science is ignored in this day and age.

47straight
9/11/2008, 11:56 PM
For the sake of accuracy, we need to understand that "Creationism" believes that God created the Earth SIX THOUSAND YEARS ago as told in the book of Genesis, the Grand Canyon was created over a period of a couple of months through flooding and that Dinosaurs either DIDN'T exist or Jesus rode around on them. (look it up) ((except for the Jesus riding around, part. That's just a funny image))

"Creation (Evolution) as a tool of God" means that the Earth is roughly 4.5 Billion years old, evolution occurred, but all of this was made possible and guided by an all powerful being whom we cannot possibly imagine or understand.

I sign on for the second theory, but not the first. I think the first is bat-**** crazy.

And before you go telling me I'm wrong just because you like using the WORD "Creationism" to describe what you believe when you actually believe the second theorem (Creation/Evolution as a tool of God), doesn't make you any more incorrect in your useage of the term "Creationism."



Who died and made you noah webster?

:texan:

soonerscuba
9/12/2008, 12:47 AM
One time when I was really high I started to think about something that I have thought about many, many times since. Assuming we came from a single or relatively small number of primordial cells, why are humans at the top of the evolutionary system and nothing is even close in comparison? I mean, why have we not found a gorilla sharpening a piece of rock, stabbing another animal and making himself a vest? These are concepts that have existed for tens of thousands of years in humans and the higher apes won't get off their lazy asses and make a wheel.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
9/12/2008, 01:12 AM
Obama is a socialist, and consorted with America-hating racists, terrorists and criminals. You compare him to Sarah Palin, and you choose Obama What's wrong with you guys?

texas bandman
9/12/2008, 01:35 AM
I get annoyed when I see celebs thinking the majority of people give two sh*ts about who they're voting for or who they back.
Anyone who votes based on a "celebs" comments like this probably shouldn't be voting at all...and quite frankly they may not even be smart enough to find their way to their voting station anyway.
And that goes both ways, whether it's Opra or Dennis Miller or whoever from whichever side. It's stupid.
It's obvious who Matt supports...it's also obvious he doesn't mention anything about Obama's "lack of experience" in a criticizing manner as he mentions Palin's "lack of experience".

That means most repubs shouldn't vote since they are told who to vote for by Rush Limbaugh. Weak argument.

Blue
9/12/2008, 01:36 AM
Who was around 6000 years ago? What do you know? I will stake my belief on the Bible. One day we'll know.

Blue
9/12/2008, 01:38 AM
One time when I was really high I started to think about something that I have thought about many, many times since. Assuming we came from a single or relatively small number of primordial cells, why are humans at the top of the evolutionary system and nothing is even close in comparison? I mean, why have we not found a gorilla sharpening a piece of rock, stabbing another animal and making himself a vest? These are concepts that have existed for tens of thousands of years in humans and the higher apes won't get off their lazy asses and make a wheel.

Bc evolution is crap? Why don't we see 30% apes and 70% humans? It just happened? Evolution is crap.

soonerscuba
9/12/2008, 02:08 AM
Bc evolution is crap? Why don't we see 30% apes and 70% humans? It just happened? Evolution is crap.
It's thousands of individuals approching a set of evidence backed by the scientific method versus a talking snake in a tree, forgive me for not making that jump in logic.

I have a great deal of respect for the charity and foundation religion gives people, but I personally will put stock in it the day that faith builds and MRI machine, creates a vaccine or fuses an atom. Until that day, I chose science.

Blue
9/12/2008, 02:13 AM
It's thousands of individuals approching a set of evidence backed by the scientific method versus a talking snake in a tree, forgive me for not making that jump in logic.

I have a great deal of respect for the charity and foundation religion gives people, but I personally will put stock in it the day that faith builds and MRI machine, creates a vaccine or fuses an atom. Until that day, I chose science.

And what gives humans that capacity?

Selfishness...It's what makes the world go round.

Blue
9/12/2008, 02:17 AM
I find it completetly "idiotic" how people can gaze at the sunset and sunrise and any natural thing and not see a creator in it. I don't know where that denial comes from.

Rebels you are.

soonerhubs
9/12/2008, 03:35 AM
how? :confused: If someone believes in god or christianity or whatever that is just fine. When they believe that the world is 6000 years old that is basically saying that all science is crap. And I think that is crazy.

I like you Fraggle, and I mean no disrespect. I'm only saying that there are a multitude of religious tenets that can not be explained by science. We can call them miracles or whatever. I personally believe the age of the Earth paradigm can fit into this category just as easily as the hundreds of other miracles Christ performed while in his Mortal ministry.

Do I think this should be taught in schools? No, I personally feel that it's the family's responsibility, (call me a libertarian I guess) but I wouldn't call someone who felt that it should be taught in schools crazy. They are no more crazy than the government leaders who deny the scientifically supported laws of economics by raising taxes. It's only a matter of differing opinions on what helps people better their lives. I personally am glad that these differences exist because as the two parties stay busy picking at each other, I can continue to live free. :D

soonerhubs
9/12/2008, 03:39 AM
I'm amazed at how science is ignored in this day and age.

I'm amazed at how many of us take such a modernistic perspective when there is evidence refuting parts of every theory out there today.

Your faith in science and my faith in religion have more in common than you think.

Blue
9/12/2008, 03:41 AM
Ike gonna be a Cat 3! no a cat 4! No a cat 2! no, wait a minute. Global warming! we've had th coolest summer in decades. No sunspots! Global cooling!

Admit you know nothing.

StoopTroup
9/12/2008, 05:08 AM
I read all of page 1 and scanned over page two....

I now believe that Matt Damon has put all of you here to test me.

achiro
9/12/2008, 07:28 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_palin#Personal_life

To start with, wikipedia? Seriously?
Second, I like how you completely ignored the part I was asking about which was you saying she wanted it taught in school.

AggieTool
9/12/2008, 07:56 AM
I find it completetly "idiotic" how people can gaze at the sunset and sunrise and any natural thing and not see a creator in it. I don't know where that denial comes from.

Rebels you are.

'Cause some of us read science books?:)

soonerhubs
9/12/2008, 08:10 AM
'Cause some of us read science books and take the unscientific step of accepting them as absolute truth?:)

Fixed it.

Gandalf_The_Grey
9/12/2008, 08:47 AM
Isn't there a little bit of irony in people bitching about Matt Damon telling "his" opinions while coming here everyday and starting and posting in threads about "their" opinions?

Hot Rod
9/12/2008, 08:55 AM
Isn't there a little bit of irony in people bitching about Matt Damon telling "his" opinions while coming here everyday and starting and posting in threads about "their" opinions?

I can see your point. However, these celebrities are using their status to push their opinions. In no way will the words we use to voice our opinions on this message board be used in a news story that will be broadcasted on television or on the web.

Hamhock
9/12/2008, 08:59 AM
I can see your point. However, these celebrities are using their status to push their opinions. In no way will the words we use to voice our opinions on this message board be used in a news story that will be broadcasted on television or on the web.

speak for yourself.

mdklatt
9/12/2008, 09:33 AM
Admit I know nothing.

Okay. Have you been drinking again?

mdklatt
9/12/2008, 09:43 AM
To start with, wikipedia? Seriously?

I guess I should've referenced some right-wing editorial like everyone does when "disproving" global warming. :rolleyes:

So, you don't think she ever attended Wasilla Assembly of God or what? Go to the article. There are little numbers scattered all through it. Click the numbers. They take you to references that document the claims in the article.




Second, I like how you completely ignored the part I was asking about which was you saying she wanted it taught in school.

And I'm supposed to know that from "Link?"

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html


On Aug. 29, the Boston Globe reported that Palin was open to teaching creationism in public schools. That's true. She supports teaching creationism alongside evolution, though she has not actively pursued such a policy as governor.

In an Oct. 25, 2006, debate, when asked about teaching alternatives to evolution, Palin replied:

Palin, Oct. 25, 2006: Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.

....

A couple of days later, Palin amended that statement in an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, saying:

Palin, Oct. 2006: I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum.

achiro
9/12/2008, 10:56 AM
OK not only does that article say she hasn't pursued it as gov(actions speak louder than words), it also quotes her saying that it doesn't need to be part of the curriculum.
But you keep on trying, it makes you look smart.

mdklatt
9/12/2008, 11:03 AM
OK not only does that article say she hasn't pursued it as gov(actions speak louder than words), it also quotes her saying that it doesn't need to be part of the curriculum.


I am a proponent of teaching both.

Is she a proponent of teaching geocentrism in astronomy class? Teach the debate!

Tulsa_Fireman
9/12/2008, 11:13 AM
I guess I should've referenced some right-wing editorial like everyone does when "disproving" global warming.

Like the Old Farmer's Almanac?

Like the members participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change such as Patrick J. Michaels, PhD, Research Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia, Robert Balling, PhD, Professor of Climatology at Arizona State University, James J. O’Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Meteorology and Oceanography at Florida State University, and J. Scott Armstrong, PhD, a professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, an expert on mathematical forecasting?

What about the report delivered at the International Conference on Climate Change from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change that takes both barrels to the theory of anthropogenic global warming?

Stop writing it off. If you was TRULY interested in scientific discourse and discovery and not simply pushing some high and mighty partisan drivel, you'd analyze both sides of the fence for a change.

mdklatt
9/12/2008, 11:52 AM
Patrick J. Michaels, PhD, Research Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia

Former professor at UVA and current corporate shill. Was asked by the governor to quit calling himself the Virginia State Climatologist. Used to be an "expert" for tobacco companies, saying that "the science isn't settled" that cigarettes are bad for you. Sound familiar?




J. Scott Armstrong, PhD, a professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, an expert on mathematical forecasting


I think this is the economist who thinks he knows something about the physical models used in weather and climate forecasting because he's a statistical modeler. Other than the fact that computers and math are involved, the two things are very different. Also makes money from the fossil fuel industry.




What about the report delivered at the International Conference on Climate Change

That is not a legitimate scientific conference by any means. It was a bunch of liars sitting around lying to each other and the media (who mostly ignored the event completely).

http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.html

The Heartland Institute is a total sham. It's funding by fossil fuel companies to obfuscate the realities of climate change and keep the profits rolling in while society sits on its *** watching the Arctic ice cap melt and wondering if there's a problem. In the 90s it was a clearinghouse of pro-tobacco propaganda disguised as research. That money well dried up, so they changed employers. The still use the exact same tactics and even the same "experts" in most cases. What does an expert on the health effects of tobacco smoke know about climatology? Beats me.

"Both sides", what a joke. One side is virtually every credible expert on the subject, with thousands and thousands of published research articles in dozens of different scientific fields that all point to the same basic conclusion. The other side is a handful of cranks who probably should know better (i.e. Richard Lindzen) and a bunch of people who are not experts in anything related to what they're pontificating on--virtually all of whom are funded by the fossil fuel industry to do their "research" (none of which ever passes muster to get published in the legitimate journals in the field).

Again and again and again I ask this one question when this **** comes up, and nobody is able to answer it. The greenhouse effect is a real phenomenon. CO2 is absolutely a greenhouse gas. Atmospheric CO2 emissions are absolutely increasing as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. Given all that, how does adding more of a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere not cause any warming?

mdklatt
9/12/2008, 11:55 AM
If you was TRULY interested in scientific discourse and discovery and not simply pushing some high and mighty partisan drivel

What a joke. The "debate" has absolutely nothing to do with science. The partisan drivel isn't coming from the scientific community.

Tulsa_Fireman
9/12/2008, 02:48 PM
The partisan drivel isn't coming from the scientific community.

I know. It's coming from you.

LosAngelesSooner
9/12/2008, 02:56 PM
To call someone crazy for believing that God is not bound by the same Mortal laws that we are is, in my humble opinion, to call everyone who has a belief in a higher being, crazy.

If He makes the best wine, a process that takes years, in a few seconds, I'd put money that time is not an issue for the Master.

John 2:6-10 (21st Century King James Version)
6And there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews, holding twenty to thirty gallons apiece.

7Jesus said unto them, "Fill the waterpots with water." And they filled them up to the brim.

8And He said unto them, "Draw some out now, and bear it unto the governor of the feast." And they took it.

9When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, not knowing from whence it had come (but the servants who drew the water knew), the governor of the feast called the bridegroom

10and said unto him, "Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine, and when men have drunk well, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now."



What's next? Do you call us crazy for believing he made the Waters calm with his words and then walked on that water? And some of us wonder why we fail to see miracles? :rolleyes:

I'm amazed at how faith is ignored in this day and age.


I'm not here to refute evolution, laws of geographical erosion, or any other proof that the Earth is billions of years old, because I personally think that these types of doctrine (or theory or "laws") aren't exactly pertinent to yours or my salvation. (Save the Mormon jokes for another thread.)

Christ is my Master, and I believe that there are numerous things that we think we have figured out so well, about this world, that we aren't even close to the mark on. That's why it's a science because theories, concepts, and propositions are always challenged and revised in our search for evidence that supports truths, even in this era of post modernistic view points.

On the other hand, to take Faith out of the equation is not my style. I personally don't think someone's belief in Creation should be such a "crazy red flag" for either candidate. Because they both cite deity, so by your logic they are all crazy morons who should be put in a padded room.


Your premise still makes all of the candidates that believe in God crazy, in my opinion.*cough*bull*****cough*

LosAngelesSooner
9/12/2008, 03:01 PM
Who was around 6000 years ago? What do you know? I will stake my belief on the Bible. One day we'll know.


Bc evolution is crap? Why don't we see 30% apes and 70% humans? It just happened? Evolution is crap.
I smell squirrel crap.

LosAngelesSooner
9/12/2008, 03:07 PM
Ike gonna be a Cat 3! no a cat 4! No a cat 2! no, wait a minute. Global warming! we've had th coolest summer in decades. No sunspots! Global cooling!

Admit you know nothing.I know the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. :rolleyes:

JohnnyMack
9/12/2008, 03:12 PM
I know the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. :rolleyes:

http://www.sirlin.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/jesus_dinosaur.JPG

soonerhubs
9/12/2008, 04:12 PM
*cough*bull*****cough*

With all due respect LAS, this type of reply disappoints me.
I know your linguistic and extemporaneous skills must go way beyond a coughed vulgarity. So let me have it.

Why is it crazy to think the Earth is 6,000 years old and not crazy to think Christ walked on water and turned water into wine?

soonerscuba
9/12/2008, 04:32 PM
Why is it crazy to think the Earth is 6,000 years old and not crazy to think Christ walked on water and turned water into wine?
Because of the massive amount of evidence in a wide variety fields says the earth is more than 6,000 years old. I will just be blunt, only fringe kooks believe the earth is 6,000 years old.

Personally, I believe the Jesus stories are silly too, but they do have the benefit of being incidents buried in 2,000 years of history.

Mine's Bigger
9/12/2008, 04:38 PM
Why is it crazy to think the Earth is 6,000 years old and not crazy to think Christ walked on water and turned water into wine?

Allow me-If one is to attempt an attack on common sense one should not be ill-prepared. For common sense is a formidable foe; well-versed in the tactics of logic and reason. Are you up to the task?

Hamhock
9/12/2008, 04:48 PM
Because of the massive amount of evidence in a wide variety fields says the earth is more than 6,000 years old.


didn't you forget to say indisputable evidence?

shaun4411
9/12/2008, 04:58 PM
god will spite you all

soonerscuba
9/12/2008, 04:58 PM
didn't you forget to say indisputable evidence?
Light from stars hits the earth that is much older than 6,000 years. If you believe in a literal creation this is impossible.

Tulsa_Fireman
9/12/2008, 04:58 PM
It's been 6000 years since I seen some boobies.

shaun4411
9/12/2008, 05:05 PM
Light from stars hits the earth that is much older than 6,000 years. If you believe in a literal creation this is impossible.

frankly i find it difficult to buy the idea that only earth has life. with all the stars in this galaxy , and all the other galaxies, and the galaxy clusters that we already know of.. its too statistically likely.. its like...say there is a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance right? well, there are many trillions of stars... so that 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001% equates to a large absolute value when factoring in the trillions of possibilities.

LosAngelesSooner
9/12/2008, 06:51 PM
With all due respect LAS, this type of reply disappoints me.
I know your linguistic and extemporaneous skills must go way beyond a coughed vulgarity. So let me have it.

Why is it crazy to think the Earth is 6,000 years old and not crazy to think Christ walked on water and turned water into wine?There are too many facts which support the age of the Earth and Universe and NO facts which support the 6,000 year old Earth theory.

There are very few facts which disprove or prove that Jesus did either miracle.

From a scientific standpoint the first has been proved. The second example has neither been proved nor disproved.

LosAngelesSooner
9/12/2008, 06:55 PM
god will spite you allGod created us in His image so we could expand our knowledge and education in order to eventually uncover the mysteries of the Universe in order to more fully appreciate both His and our complexity and depth.

NOT so we could blindly cling to stories that Bronze Age sheepherders told each other in order to explain things which they had no ability to understand.

To think that the stories WE made up in order to explain Creation are ultimately correct regardless of the countless, indisputable clues God is giving us is IMMENSELY arrogant.

soonerhubs
9/12/2008, 07:39 PM
There are too many facts which support the age of the Earth and Universe and NO facts which support the 6,000 year old Earth theory.

There are very few facts which disprove or prove that Jesus did either miracle.

From a scientific standpoint the first has been proved. The second example has neither been proved or disproved.

I totally respect that point of view. Thanks for a coherent argument for your perspective. Although I disagree with you, I can admit I'd never thought of it that way.

LosAngelesSooner
9/12/2008, 07:44 PM
It was ruder and more disrespectful at first, but I decided to rephrase it.

;)

Anyway, my apologies. I'll go back and delete the first part. Sometimes intended humor can be lost via the Internet due to a lack of tone and body language.

swardboy
9/12/2008, 07:44 PM
Did Adam have a navel?

LosAngelesSooner
9/12/2008, 07:50 PM
And an apple.

But that was for lunch.


BUH-DUM...BUM!!!!

soonerhubs
9/12/2008, 08:30 PM
I apologize myself for taking things to literally. I suppose that's a pattern of behavior on my part. ;) :D ;)

Hamhock
9/13/2008, 10:25 AM
Light from stars hits the earth that is much older than 6,000 years. If you believe in a literal creation this is impossible.


sort of like God creating man as an adult, not as an embryo?

there are a lot easier examples you can use to make fun of me than the light from stars. as someone already said, if i believe He can make water from wine or raise a man from the dead, the idea that He created the stars, with the light already reaching earth, is not a stretch at all.

LosAngelesSooner
9/13/2008, 02:36 PM
Really?

We mere mortals turn water into wine and raise people from the dead on a daily basis using our pesky science.

I don't know of ANYONE making light age slower or faster or whatever else Creationist crap your spewing.

P.S. - How is the Easter Bunny doing?

Tulsa_Fireman
9/13/2008, 02:38 PM
I don't know of ANYONE making light age slower or faster or whatever else Creationist crap your spewing.

Light ages?

I thought that was reserved for Budweiser.

Blue
9/14/2008, 03:26 AM
Really?

We mere mortals turn water into wine and raise people from the dead on a daily basis using our pesky science.

I don't know of ANYONE making light age slower or faster or whatever else Creationist crap your spewing.

P.S. - How is the Easter Bunny doing?

What a condescending piece of dung you are. How does it feel to be smarter than everyone else? You're in for a rude awakening my friend. I'm aware of my faults. You'll be humbled soon enough.

Sorry to bump this crap, but this post by LAS can't be let go.

Vaevictis
9/14/2008, 05:37 AM
Assuming we came from a single or relatively small number of primordial cells, why are humans at the top of the evolutionary system and nothing is even close in comparison?

Because any rational species would annihilate such a competitor at the first opportunity.

LosAngelesSooner
9/14/2008, 05:54 AM
What a condescending piece of dung you are. How does it feel to be smarter than everyone else? You're in for a rude awakening my friend. I'm aware of my faults. You'll be humbled soon enough.

Sorry to bump this crap, but this post by LAS can't be let go.:rolleyes:

Humble me.

Please.

AggieTool
9/14/2008, 10:16 AM
:rolleyes:

Humble me.

Please.

I thin he's saying the invisible sky-god will smite you.

You know, like any good Christian would say.:D

GrapevineSooner
9/14/2008, 10:30 AM
Getting back on track, this must be the site that Damon lifted his quotes from (http://www.thomhartmann.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&func=view&catid=58&id=255278&Itemid=104).


On Creationism:
The simple yet elegantly awkward moose proves God's creation and not evolution is the source of all life. How could something as oddly shaped and silly looking as a moose evolve through so-called "natural selection?" Is evolution a committee? There is nothing natural about a dorky moose! Only God could have made a moose and given it huge antlers to fight off his predatory enemies. God has a well known sense of humor, I mean He made the platypus too.

On oil exploration and drilling in the ANWR:
God made dinosaurs 4,000 years ago as ultimately flawed creatures, lizards of Satan really, so when they died and became petroleum products we, made in his perfect image, could use them in our pickup trucks, snow machines and fishing boats.
Now, as to the ANWR, Todd and I often enjoying caribou hunting and one year we shot up a herd big time, I mean I personally slaughtered around 40 of them with my new, at the time, custom Austri an hunting rifle. And guess what? That caribou herd is still around and even bigger than ever. Caribou herds actually need culling, be it by rifles or wolves, or Exxon-Mobil oil rigs, they do just great!

On Alaskans serving overseas in Iraq:
Well, God bless them, and I mean God and Jesus because without Jesus we'd be Muslims too or Jewish, which would be a little better because of the superior Israeli Air Force.

You'd have to be a raging partisan idiot to actually believe this quotes are anything but SATIRE!! Which is to say, I think Matt Damon is a ****ing idiot.

LosAngelesSooner
9/14/2008, 02:37 PM
Matt Damon was probably too lazy to look up the facts as well. He's not stupid, but he should have taken the time to do a little research before he opened his yap (even though what he said was freakin' funny...and mostly true).

There are so many better things to criticize Whacko Palin about. But that renowned, obvious joke-page article isn't one of 'em.

mdklatt
9/14/2008, 04:57 PM
You'd have to be a raging partisan idiot to actually believe this quotes are anything but SATIRE!! Which is to say, I think Matt Damon is a ****ing idiot.

What are if you don't think Matt Damon was being deliberately facetious to make his point?

picasso
9/15/2008, 05:18 PM
well his smugness aside. didn't he endorse Obama back in '06? hmmmm, talk about supporting experience. and, he says the Palin choice was political?????? no **** Matt? how about Obama? what is the real reason that dude is in the race anyway?

pffffffffft, it sounds like he's another OB supporter crapping his pants over the popularity of Palin. and he still needs to be kicked in the nuts after School Ties.

:)