It is about the debate itself, and how angry people are, and why are people yelling so much at town hall meetings.
What good does it do to yell and disrupt meetings?
Maybe it makes them feel better.
I think it shows how our culture has deteriorated in recent years. There is just not as much civility as there used to be.
There are some other good stories about the debate and other political issues as well.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26039.html
Could we talk about the debate itself and why there is so much rancor?
So much anger?
Just think locally about how much anger there has been over the lowes deal.
2 Timothy 3
ReplyDelete1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:
Lovers of their own selves? I think that has been going on since man evolved thumbs.
ReplyDeleteEvolved thumbs? Link to the transitional fossils, please.
ReplyDeleteWell, when we were single celled ameobas, I don't thimk there were big thumbs sticking out, so they must have evolved sometime! I left the fossils in my other pants when I took them off to love myself.
ReplyDelete"must have"????For people who demand proof, scientists(evolutionists) sure assume a lot.
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, I forgot that we were all made 6,000 years ago exactly the way we are today. How silly of me.
ReplyDeleteonly a bible thumper could turn a joke about pleasuring one's self into a theological debate.
"must have"????For people who demand proof, scientists(evolutionists) sure assume a lot."
ReplyDeleteNah, we just take it on "faith" that evolution is true. We don't need tons of fossil records and carbon dating and skulls from cromagnon man, etc etc.
What? Oh, we DO have all that evidence?
nevermind!
Yea any scientist who dares to question all that evidence gets fired and blacklisted.
ReplyDelete12:10 You are 100% correct; It is obvious that evolutionists have "faith" in the original existence the missing transitional forms.
ReplyDeleteFossil records? None from any transitory stages.
Carbon dating? More assumptions. Carbon dating is very fallible, and also assumes a lot.
Cro-magnon skulls? The Australopithecus are clearly apes. Homo erectus(heh,heh) homo habilus, so varied they are clearly junk categories mixing what have been proven to be some human and some ape fossils.
Darwin himself wrote "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain: abd this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
NatGeog and Discovery magazines don't sell copies if they print this - they only sell copies when they claim in superfont "DARWIN PROVED CORRECT!!!!!"
I guess the world must really be only 6000 years old, and the evil atheists must have put all those fossils out there to confuse people.
ReplyDeleteOr maybe it was...
O, I don't know...
SATAN!
Fossils are fossils, and I'm not debating their existence. Intermediate, transitional fossils are what are missing.
ReplyDeleteWay to hit pop culture references at the height of their popularity. SNL ca. 1988?? Got any Where's the beef jokes?
There are not only two possibilities.
ReplyDeleteI really doubt the earth is just 6000 years old.
I also really doubt its millions and millions of years old either.
There has been some evolution.
All dogs came fromm one canine perhaps. There's a lot of different kinds of dogs.
The problem comes when people try to make the theory of evolution a reasonable explanation for the origin of life. That is where the athiests live by faith.
The 6K is hard for people, especially when we're indoctrinated since school it's millions and millions.
ReplyDeleteI agree there cannot be only one evolutionary 'tree,' more like a forest, with many trees representing the different species; like your dog example.
To disagree with 6000 years is inconsistent with the Bible, but won't deter your salvation. But the "Goo-to-you" idea of evolution from blue-green algea to human is ridiculous.
So, if you believe we were created by a god who then abandoned us to our own free will, where is your proof? You want proof from the science side so badly, where is your prof that a god exists?
ReplyDeleteI want proof from science because they insist on having proof, then turn around and hypocritically make myriad assumptions.
ReplyDeleteHere is a good page on the age of our Earth.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#howold
Well, skip to this part:
ReplyDeletecovetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4Traitors, heady, highminded,
yeah.. but.. what?
ReplyDelete1:48
ReplyDeleteHere's another good one
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible
I can match you link for link - that's the nature of the scientific study and statistics.
I would hope you accept God's word over scientific assumptions, but I certainly would not judge you if you don't.
Maybe both theories are correct.
ReplyDeleteI think both are correct.
ReplyDeleteI dont see any contradiction really.
The order of creation in Genesis is the same order that evolution says.
The problem is when evolution is used to explain the origin of life.
Whether God created the world in 6 - 24-hour long days, or 6 bajillion years, is irrelevant to me.
The real questions is, Did God create, or are we all just flukes of nature?
Wait, does the bible really say the Earth is only six thousand years old, because that's ridiculous? I consider myself a Christian, but if the bible says that, how can that be true? And if that's not true, what else in the bible is not true?
ReplyDeleteThe bible does not say how old the earth is.
ReplyDeleteSome people make assumptions, and that is how that idea has been spread. Often when the bible just doesnt say anything on a particular topic, people take things out of context to make it answer the question.
I prefer to just say "it doesn't say," when I feel like it doesnt say. :)
But please, lets not get into the "whether the bible is true" debate again.
OK - But it does say. Follow creation through all lineage.
ReplyDeleteWell, we all know that millions of species of animal cannot fit on one boat, so what makes you think the 6 thousand year old Earth is any more true than that?
ReplyDeleteNot species - "kinds". Whether that includes class, order, or family I don't know. Millions of species, no. Two of every kind, I believe it's possible.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/noahs-ark
Okay, how are kinds different from species? dogs (hundreds of varieties), cats (ditto), frogs (ditto), snakes (ditto), giraffes, lions and tigers and bears, Oh my. What did these animals eat on that boat for 40 days, since animals like to eat other animals? How did the animals get distributed all over the globe, like marsupials in Australia?
ReplyDeleteAnyone who thinks Noah's Ark is a true story is brainwashed beyond any rationality. Oh, and don't forget that Noah was 600 years old when he undertook this task.
And where were all the other boats in the world? Were they all broke?
I think you better stick with the metaphor argument.
God created the world and the first person and animals and then evolution brought us where we are today.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what the last poster said.
ReplyDeleteFrom some earlier comments.
There probably were not millions of species at the time of the flood. They had not "evolved" yet. If you think about it, there may not have been all that many.
One pair of felines and another pair of canines, would account for a lot of species, for example.
Some have used the geneologies in the bible to try to set dates for things, and establish the age of the earth.
They do appear to be in order, but there are some considerations. In Hebrew, the word "father, ancestor, grandfather, etc.," is all the same word. The ancient hebrews did not differentiate between father and great great grandfather, for instance.
It oculd easily be many generations passed between each of the begats recorded. ...
Lots of possibilities there.
someone else mentioned, why were there no other boats. There is the "canopy" theory, which is interesting.
It does say that it had not ever rained. The theory is that, there was a huge cloud as it were, covering the whole earth.
This kept it very warm, and humid. Blocking out harmful rays of the sun. Could have created a perfect environment, which would account for people living a very long time.
Other ancient cultures also have stories about people living hundreds of years.
There may not have been that many people yet. So, maybe there was not a need for boats.
People may not have spread over the entire earth as of that time.
But the technology did exist, so that is kind of interesting.
Ancient hebrew languages is hard to translate.
In the creation account, the word for "day" can also be translated "time" ..
On the flood. It is interesting that virtually ALL ancient cultures have a flood story. Also, there are fossils high up on mountains of animals that live in the ocean.
Not all have flood stories, but the vast majority do. They all have similarities to the Genesis story. Circumstantial evidence perhaps.
I
Do you seriously believe that two canids were on the ark and then in the less than six thousand years since, they have evolved into wolves, hyeanas, coyotes, every species of pet dog, foxes, jackals, etc etc?
ReplyDeleteAnd all feline species we have today came from 2 felines?
And I guess there were only two snakes, or maybe two reptiles that evolved in the last six thousand years into every reptile on earth?
What about the millions and millions of species of insects? Arachnids? mammals? Birds?
Why can't you just admit that Noah's Ark is not meant as a literal story? It is embarrassing that you try to prove it was a real event.
Watch this humorous, yet highly researched take on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq0dBFqJZc0
I think we'll never know the truth until we die and a possibility we may not even know then.
ReplyDeleteThis boat would have had to have been bigger than a super-tanker!
ReplyDeleteThere are MILLIONS of species on the land. There are over three hundred and fifty thousand species of beetle alone. The sheer number of insects would fill several arks, before you even consider the larger creatures. The ark would have to be the single largest ship ever in the history of the world. Modern technology could not possibly create a ship large and stable enough to act as Noah's Ark.
How could the ark cope with all the specialised requirements of food/environment for millions of creatures? The 320 different species of humming-bird, for example, have very high metabolic rates and have to consume large amounts of nectar throughout the day. The Ark would have had to cater for 640 humming-birds, requiring an almost constant supply of fresh nectar. From flowers. Which wouldn't grow in great abundance in a dark, damp boat.
How could the ark cope with disposing of the waste products of those creatures? It must have had an incredibly advanced plumbing and ventilation system, superior to anything to be found on modern ocean liners or large military vessels (eg. aircraft carriers). One problem that dairy farmers have is that vast quantities of fresh dung produce highly toxic gases (falling into the slurry pit can be fatal because of this), and it would have been many times worse on an Ark. Next time you are at a zoo, ask one of the keepers how easy it is to deal with the needs of the few hundred animals they have for a month, and then imagine scaling that up to a gigantic floating zoo with millions of creatures being looked after by one old man and his family.
How did the koalas and kangaroos get back to Australia?
ReplyDeleteHow did the polar bears and penguins get back the north/south poles?
How did the giant tortoises get back to the Galapagos islands?
How did the flightless dodos get back to Mauritius?
How did the army ants get back to the Amazon rain-forests?
http://www.2think.org/hii/flood.shtml
ReplyDeletewell i said early on, i didn't think it was just 6000 years.
ReplyDeletebut what is more reasonable.
noah etc.,
or, that every animal just happened to evolve what it needed in a few million years. for no reason, just random dumb luck.
i dunno.
i think noah is more reasonable.
This could have been 50,000 years ago, and all the land was in one mass, so that is how the animals got wherever they were going.
you may also be underestimating the traveling ability of ancient people..
You think the land moved from being all connectedto what we have now in just 50,000 years?
ReplyDeleteNevermind that you are going against the bible by saying the earth could be "a few million years" old, but you say that one of the silliest, most easily proven false stories in the bible is true and literal when most theologins even say the Noah's Ark story should not be taken literally.
And you wonder why rational people think religion is silly!