It Appears Science has Faulted Once Again in the Face of Overwhelming Religious Evidence

[One Brow]

It's the implied notion that no other types of climate change could possibly occur.

Not sure what you mean. Scientists have been measuring the changes in the past climates for decades. By all measurement, climate has never changed as quickly as it is currently changing. That's the reason for worry.

 

[colton]

Not sure what you mean. Scientists have been measuring the changes in the past climates for decades. By all measurement, climate has never changed as quickly as it is currently changing. That's the reason for worry.

You totally misunderstood my post. I was saying that the guy's view is incomprehensible; his logic doesn't make sense even if you grant a literal interpretation of scripture. His "logic" is apparently that since climate change once occurred through the hand of God, it's impossible that any other type of climate change could occur. That makes no sense.

 

[One Brow]

You totally misunderstood my post. I was saying that the guy's view is incomprehensible; his logic doesn't make sense even if you grant a literal interpretation of scripture. His "logic" is apparently that since climate change once occurred through the hand of God, it's impossible that any other type of climate change could occur. That makes no sense.

Thank you for correcting my understanding.

 

[TroutBum]

But you can't deny the Bible has very historical references in it.

Just like the stories of Sherlock Holmes.

OneBlow took the words out of my mouth, except I was going to say "Twilight". It's a saga.

Now that right there is a genius statement.

Coming from the Queen of genius statements... Get back under the bridge.

I think there is plenty of room in congress for people who believe in god and his Devine Plane (or whatever). Anyone who takes 15 minutes to learn about the history of the bible and how it's been re-written and re-translated dozens and dozens of times over the last thousand plus years into its present form knows that it is basically a collection of fables meant to keep the masses in line. Treating it as an actual historical document to refute modern scientific evidence is a little bit beyond laughable.

No more so than your sad attempt to belittle them for their beliefs. If you did not mean it that way than great but that is how it sounds.

I didn't find it offensive at all, Stoked. Even though I know Candrew from this board, and know that he's not trying to be a douche, I still don't think I'd be offended. As a card carrying Mo, I agree with him -- people who do treat the Bible as if it is straight from the horses mouth, the definitive guide, and the end-all be-all are more than laughable.

(Nate505)
You guys must feel super smart for telling people the bible is not true, feel better now? I bet you do... but it's short lived.
You'll find something else to try to tear down soon... I'm not worried. Anyone build a nearby sandcastle... or real castle... you can get to work on?

Spazz -- doesn't your faith pretty much teach you that the Bible isn't translated correctly, and to pretty much take it with a grain of salt? I know everyone takes different meanings for just about everything, so maybe I'm wrong on this one. Either way, I don't see anyone stomping on anyone's sand castles or tearing anything down.

My silly comment hurt your feelings? Come on now.

I agree that something is not necessarily untrue just because it's far fetched. But what if it has not one, but dozens of far fetched stories? What if the non-story parts are also far fetched? What if the very basis of it is far fetched? When can we decide something is far fetched enough to be safely ignored, regardless of how emotionally attached some people find themselves?

It's a bit egotistical to expect those who don't possess one's specific brand of faith to just accept the imposition of an incredibly far fetched idea in order to spare the feelings of some. Specially when we're in desperate need for real solutions to real problems.

P.S. I'm talking about the senator's nonsense.

I will disagree with this one though. It's not egotistical at all to expect people to be accepting (of most things), but especially where religion is concerned. Nobody is forcing you to convert or to even believe, which would, of course, be egotistical and lame. Instead, they're asking that you just shut your mouth if you don't have a positive thing to say. I know it's hard (trust me, I do), but seriously, we get it -- you don't like religion. Check. Gotcha. Amen. (and I know that you were just talking about the politician in this instance, but you've shown the same regard and stance on every other religious topic on this board)

I also wanted to add the Mormons should be the last people to criticize others for spreading their ideas. You know, coming from a society that sends its children on missions to change people's beliefs and recruit them into their fold.

It's just a bit hypocritical.

Except, you're not trying to spread ideas. You're mostly spreading your FACTS as you see them, with a little bit of douchy know-it-all sprinkled on the side.

 

[Stoked]

I'm not offended either Wells but I do feel that he was attempting to put down those that believe in God. Perhaps I am off base here, and I addmited to the possibility in my original post, but I think that was his intent. SO I calle dhim on it.