What is wrong in Texas, in the USA?

reply to post by AlreadyGone


Give it a rest about the 57 states. I did not vote for Barry and do not support his ideas but we all know the 57 was a reference to the
primary contest. The democrats recognise delegations to their national convention from 50 States and several other areas where Americans live under US law. Washington DC, & Porto Rico for example. The candidate was making reference to each area where delegates are selected and everyone who follows elections knows it perfectly well.

There are lots of things to grip about , aim higher!

reply to post by Donny 4 million


The Bible as a whole was not written by Jews. You said the Bible was written by Jews, but the part that actually makes the Bible the Bible was written by Christians. Yes, Genesis is taken from the Jewish Torah. That much is true. However, when we started down this tangent you did not say Genesis, you said the Bible. And in the end it doesn't matter who it was written by. You claim we are Anti-Semitic for supporting evolution, yet Anti-Semitism refers to hatred toward the Semites, a type of people. At no point did we attack the Jewish people. We simply mentioned that creation as described in Genesis is not what science supports as all animals, including Man required millions of years to get to where they are today. Note: This does not mean that evolution says anything about how life started. However, its explanation for how life progressed does not support the events related in Genesis.

[edit on 5-3-2010 by Xcalibur254]

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

The Bible as a whole was not written by Jews. You said the Bible was written by Jews, but the part that actually makes the Bible the Bible was written by Christians. Yes, Genesis is taken from the Jewish Torah. That much is true. However, when we started down this tangent you did not say Genesis, you said the Bible. And in the end it doesn't matter who it was written by. You claim we are Anti-Semitic for supporting evolution, yet Anti-Semitism refers to hatred toward the Semites, a type of people. At no point did we attack the Jewish people. We simply mentioned that creation as described in Genesis is not what science supports as all animals, including Man required millions of years to get to where they are today. Note: This does not mean that evolution says anything about how life started. However, its explanation for how life progressed does not support the events related in Genesis.

[edit on 5-3-2010 by Xcalibur254]

There is enough fertilizer in your last post to keep the Garden of Eden (Hebrew) going till the second coming.
Will you never cease. Now you are hijacking the Hebrew concept of Noah's Ark and trying to pin it on Larry the cable guy. Maybe you and your comrades are not anti-Semites. Maybe you are just confused Semites,
you tell me. Then we can work on the Communist aspect of this thread.
Right now as it stands you are all anti-Christian. Your false science is only trumped by your bigotry.

Bigotry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry - Similar

Now here is something worth debating when it comes to evolution.
I have never denied evolution on this thread or any other.
What I may have said is scientist are dumb. Here is an example of that.
When you read this author take a special look at the sentence where a SCIENTIST says
" we are a SMALL community"

Ancient Primate Fossil Roils Scientific Community - AOL News
Mar 5, 2010 ... (March 5) -- Paleontologists say Ida, the fossil trumpeted as a missing link in human evolution, is probably more akin to an extinct ...

www.aolnews.com/science/article/ancient-primate-fossil-roi... - Similar

reply to post by Donny 4 million


How is it "false science" when the theories we have are able to explain the data better than any other explanations? That's what a scientific theory is. We make observations and collect data, analyze that data, and then decide what that data shows. All the data we have shows that evolution is what occurs in the world. It follows the scientific method, and in fact Darwin's methodology was rather exceptional. So, at this point we have mountains and mountains of data that has been analyzed by thousands of scientists and the vast majority have stated that it supports evolution. That's why science works, it allows for other scientists to check your work and see if it actually shows what you're saying. There's nothing false about it. Also, the link you posted doesn't work.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


As I have endlessly stated here--I have no problem with the concept of evolution.
I have a problem with those that think their poop don't stink.
The ones that think they are the know all end all of all there is.
The ones that steal others information and peddle it as if it is their own.
Ones that need to one- up the other and are driven by ego and not discipline.
Ones that cover there butts by exposing things like --to the best of our knowledge.
What you call scientific FACT is overturned daily.
Your thousands of scientists cannot hold a candle to the minds of billions who will never accept them as a replacement for their beliefs. Bank on it. Certainly not in your life time.

Folks like in the article above. Did you read it?
A lot scientist and there followers has screwed their credibility now don't ya think. I do not want what was forced down the throats of the Russian Christians by the Leninists. Do you know who Lenin was. Are your ideologies like his? Look up his views. Are they yours?
A little honest declaration goes a long way. Keeps one from getting trapped.


[edit on 6-3-2010 by Donny 4 million]

reply to post by Donny 4 million


As I stated before the link you posted doesn't work. Also, of course science changes daily. If we knew everything there wouldn't be a point in science. However, as we learn more about our universe theories have to be updated because new data has been discovered. Usually this does not discount a theory completely and in many cases strengthens it. So, I fail to see how science constantly changing is a bad thing.

reply to post by Donny 4 million


More fantastic evidence that you simply don't understand the scientific method, and yet choose to decry science. Fantastic. And we wonder what's wrong with Texas? If you are indicative of the majority of Texans, I think we've found the reason.

reply to post by Donny 4 million


I finally read your article and it shows the scientific method at work. Often scientists present competing theories that at the time may both account for the evidence, but over time more evidence is found for one of the two and this becomes the accepted theory. The same thing happened with evolution. Darwin was only one person that presented a theory on evolution, you also had people like Lamarck and Wallace present theories, but Darwin's is the version that was able to best explain the evidence and was thus accepted.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

As I stated before the link you posted doesn't work. Also, of course science changes daily. If we knew everything there wouldn't be a point in science. However, as we learn more about our universe theories have to be updated because new data has been discovered. Usually this does not discount a theory completely and in many cases strengthens it. So, I fail to see how science constantly changing is a bad thing.

I never said science is stupid, Did I?. You hopefully can finally accept the fact that I have no problem with evolution. Can't you?

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

More fantastic evidence that you simply don't understand the scientific method, and yet choose to decry science. Fantastic. And we wonder what's wrong with Texas? If you are indicative of the majority of Texans, I think we've found the reason.

Well I see you at least could find the info.
Chalk that up for you. You just don't address it.
It shows that scientist can be full of crap and get away with it until another scientist comes along with some buddies and tells him he is full of crap. Then the whole process begins again. LOL LOL

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Pretty interesting debacle at least. I am glad I never heard about a 47 million year old missing link I would have wet myself. lol
This is reminiscent of the ancient tribe in the Philippines 15 years ago or so.
I will see if I can find that doozee for ya.
Not worth it. Any way the tribe was the Tasaday

[edit on 6-3-2010 by Donny 4 million]

reply to post by davesidious


Extremists learn from moderates? I suppose that's true in a way, but the "moderate" isn't the one doing the evil deed, is he? I think not...

The only one responsible for the actions of that extremist is, shockingly enough, the extremist him, or her, self.

Blaming the entire group for the actions of what is, in reality, a small portion of the whole is a rather extreme view, wouldn't you agree?

reply to post by seagull


If we step back from religion and look at it from the perspective of non-believers, we see it as unnecessary. Religion doesn't bring anything to anyone that simply being well-balanced can't. If it did, atheists would constantly be screwed-up people when compared to the religious. That is clearly not the case.

We also then have religious extremists, who are taught to be extreme through misinterpreting or perverting religion.

It makes a lot of sense to forego this unnecessary mindset that is intrinsically susceptible to perversion, which leads to extremism. It's simply not needed. Humans don't need that mumbo-jumbo crap any more. We're not living in the deserts, and we have a legal system. That's all the bible provided, and we don't need it any more. The same goes for any religion that seeks to control its adherents.

It's bollocks.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by seagull

 

If we step back from religion and look at it from the perspective of non-believers, we see it as unnecessary. Religion doesn't bring anything to anyone that simply being well-balanced can't. If it did, atheists would constantly be screwed-up people when compared to the religious. That is clearly not the case.

That's fine, you are, so far as I'm concerned most welcome to that view. It hurts me not in the slightest.

Most people who believe are just as well balanced as you, sir. I certainly am. Each and everyone of us draw strength from something.

Atheists can be just as screwed up as anyone, religious or not...believing in God isn't a real factor.

We also then have religious extremists, who are taught to be extreme through misinterpreting or perverting religion.

Extremists exist who aren't religious, too. Hmm...

It makes a lot of sense to forego this unnecessary mindset that is intrinsically susceptible to perversion, which leads to extremism. It's simply not needed. Humans don't need that mumbo-jumbo crap any more. We're not living in the deserts, and we have a legal system. That's all the bible provided, and we don't need it any more. The same goes for any religion that seeks to control its adherents.

You are welcome to hold that view. I don't share it, nor do many others who are no more extreme than you claim to be...

Legal systems that claim to be non religious, yet are as corrupt as you imply religion is.

I've no more use for dogmatic religion than you. My belief is my own, no one elses. So we're agreed on that. My contention with you is your habit, and others who share your views, of attempting to fit every believer into your stereotyped little box labeled "extremist". When that is simply not the case.

It's bollocks.

No, it isn't.

It is simply another way of looking at the world. In and of itself, no more evil than atheism/agnosticism. We've reached the point of agreeing to disagree. So with that, I bid you adieu, until we disagree/agree again...

reply to post by seagull


I think you'll be hard pressed to find a religious extremist who are not religious. It's far too easy to get someone to kill themselves, and others, by telling them that God (or the FSM or whatever) is OK with it, and that they'll be rewarded. We don't have that luxury without religion. Only religion can "promise" that.

I didn't lump all believers in with the extremist believers. I never did that. I just said that without the former, there wouldn't be the latter.

And no, religion is not a way to know the world. It is a way to think about the world, in an entirely conjectural way, no dissimilar to simply making up your own stories to explain everything. If religion was a tool for learning, we wouldn't have science.

reply to post by davesidious

The folks whats got religon out number you by the milloins feller.
Enjoy your minority.

reply to post by Donny 4 million


And? What do numbers have to do with this? If most folks thought 1+1=3, does that make it right?

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by davesidious

 

The folks whats got religon out number you by the milloins feller.
Enjoy your minority.

Just because the majority say something does not make them right.
It does not mean that something is a good idea because majority support it.

I would like to point out believing in evolution is not a minority in most technology advanced countries.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0aabe5c614c5.jpg[/atsimg]
*funny joke goes here*


I know it is only like 23% of people in Canada believe in the young earth BS.
(too many obviously)