 Not sure about you but 666 comes to mind! |
Christian Creationism Exhibit at Tulsa Zoo a Top Priority for Mayoral Candidate – FOXNews.com — Yes, with war, swine flu, economic meltdown all in play, this idiotic exhibit is TOP priority. What is wrong with this woman?
A mayoral candidate in Tulsa, Okla., is reportedly putting a Christian creationism exhibit in the Tulsa Zoo among her top priorities, along with addressing crime and budget issues. Republican Anna Falling says the people of Tulsa must recognize that God needs to be honored in the city, Tusla World reported. “If we can’t come to the foundation of faith in this community, those other answers will never come,” she told the paper. As part of that effort, Falling has resurrected a failed push for an exhibit at the Tulsa Zoo that would tell the Genesis story of God creating the world in six days and resting on the seventh, originally proposed by Christian activist Dan Hicks in 2005
TAX all organized religion. NOW. TODAY. ALL that have tax free status now. TAX them ALL. TODAY. FOREVER.
Alfred1 said, on September 7th, 2009 at 6:43
The evidence is clear and overwhelming, Christianity is attacked because it a valid and sound explanation for all things, unlike other religions, and everyone knows it.
======================================
I love your scene of humor. Deep down I know you are an atheist. You just love to tease individuals with typical religious arguments about why Christianity has any validity.
An example:
Billions of people believing in a construct is not a truth, it is little more than an unscientific thought experiment.
She’s a politician, for christ’s sake! What the hell did you expect?!
#44 I am pretty sure that Matthew Alper’s and others research into the god part of the brain have been refuted. Social construction still seems to be the underlining principle in religion.
>In contrast, Coulter, Falling, Palin, are >desirable…wife material.
Maybe Palin… but Coulter. Seriously? You might have had me with Michelle Malkin.
@ Alfred #44:
“The brain is hardwired to believe in God…”
Is that why the Sumerians, ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans and many other cultures in early written history invented their gods? Written history shows us that humans have a tendency to invent gods, and stories of god. That doesn’t make them real but they all had faith that they were indeed real. You believe you were born a sinner because a talking snake tricked a woman into eating fruit from a tree?
but there is some hardwiring for kiddies to believe what they are told. Its the rebellion of teen years that allow some to break away from convention and think for themselves.
Ever wonder why 95% of any religion is made up of people born into that faith?
Revealed truth or sociology?
Re Alfred1: “How stupid would it be to deduce the buildings in NYC, manifesting intelligent design as they do, just evolved.”
Alfred, how stupid would it be to be unable to distinguish between the evolution of self-replicating life, and conglomerates of minerals that were evolved and replicated by that life.
#47 While I find Obama entertaining I’m not so deluded, conditioned, or foolish as to believe that politicians are anything but clowns. Apart from that I was only trying to use a little humour, christ, hell… I guess it was too little.
God is a symbol and as such has always exsisted. The exsistence of certain symbols such as god is independent of era or culture. When symbols lose their meaning they become irrelevant and cease to exsist. As such god has never lost it’s value, usefulness, or meaning. In fact the absolute symbols are among the most useful. Go ahead and try to explain something, anything, without nothing or everything.
Christians are a bunch of crazy superstitious freaks.
#49 Alfred1 said “I beg Coulter is a great person to be with…and a tigress at night.”
Was the “beg” a Freudian slip?
They need a zoo for the creationists.
How to break Alfred1’s brain:
First, his axiom:
“All complex entities must have had an intelligent designer.”
Which means that God, being a complex entity, must have had a designer. And the designer must have had a designer, etc.
If that is not true, then the axiom is not true. But Alfred1’s axiom cannot be true *without* that axiom.
This is just one of the many ways to mess with people who have no concept of what evolution is.
They think it has to do with “randomness” creating things? Unbelievable…
#54–ammarammadingdong===read that post when you are sober and lets us know how you resolve the conflicts when you can think straight.
Is this Alfred guy pulling our legs? I thought Andy Kaufman died 25 years ago.
Alfred1 — There you go. I just demonstrated that the one “rational” argument you have instantly dissolves.
Formerly, you had said that your axiom (that all complex entities must be intelligently created) necessitates the belief in God.
Now you’re saying “forget the axiom” and are substituting all these *other* principles in its place (i.e., simply positing the existence of an “infinite God” out of the blue).
You went from saying “God is necessary because of [the axiom]” to saying “God is necessary because we must accept the proposition of an ‘Infinite God'”.
It might be fun to simply posit your conclusion in your premise, but it has nothing to do with rational thought.
But the point, Alfred1, is that you and the creationists claim to have access to a purely logical argument that does *not* require simply positing an “infinite God” as a premise.
This is why you and the creationists point to your axiom (that all complex entities must have been intelligently designed). Because you’re trying to prove that God is necessary *based on that axiom*.
As you’ve demonstrated, that axiom doesn’t work. In fact, you must deny the axiom as soon as you utter it — because you do not want *all* complex entities to have an intelligent designer. You need to have an exception to that axiom to protect the God you have secretly smuggled into the premise.
This is why you have to posit an *additional* axiom or premise — namely, that there is such a thing as an “infinite God”.
That’s fine, but now your argument is: “Because there is an infinite God, there must be a infinite God.”
Walter Ralston Martin?
ROTFL
So, I pull up the blog, open this post and just by the title and the near 70 comments, I can guess that Alfred1 has at least a dozen posts.
As I count, I can see that I was way off. He’s hit 20. John, you have to admit Alfred1 is hit count gold.
Too bad I don’t follow the debates closely enough to comment while the subject is hot but I just have to throw in my 2 cents. In my opinion, the popular creationism explanation doesn’t pass the smell test. It’s like Christians have decided that, on this issue, they don’t mind looking like they don’t know what they’re talking about. Perhaps many are trying to find some way to be different than society or maybe it’s a way to look like there’s an elite among Christians or it could be a way to invite persecution. What ever it is it’s clouding their common sense.
For the current explanation to be true (earth is only around 6000 years old) to be true then God would have created the universe complete with history. So, all the creationists are going around trying to explain how things that appear to be much older really aren’t. Like how long does it take to petrify wood? -Umm, before or after the flood?- On the surface of it does this seem sensible?
But, just to show that there isn’t agreement any any organization or group the competing creationist view is that the earth was created billions of years ago and that the creation account was era’s and not days. So, one explanation isn’t true to science and another explanation isn’t true to the religion.
I was told that anyone can look and see the path to God through the creation clearly enough that there’s no excuse for not seeing it. But these two explanations for creation are laughable.
But it’s ok, through a weird ironic twist the creationism explanations come from a desire to be accepted; to be seen as thinkers and elite. So, the desire to add to the story is very strong. But if you were a true follower of God and he didn’t tell you how old the earth is then my question is why would it matter?
I’ve said it here before: Don’t wrassle with hogs. They roll you around in the mud and poop and all that happens is you get disgusted and they have fun. Not that I’m saying Alfie is a pig. Not at all. Pigs are rather smart…
#49 “A tigress at night.”
It is generally believed that Ann Coulter is a 40-year old virgin and is generally presented as such.
She has no reputation as any sort of sex pot.
FYI.
#70 — jackpot!
For a laugh, take your hand and cover half her face, cover the right half and squint at her.
Then move your hand over to cover the left side and have another look.
See, she’s not crazy at all!
# 11 srgothard said,
“Maybe you should watch “Expelled” or swing by the Creation Museum in Kentucky once before you assume that Creationism is idiotic. Just give it one shot.”
Well, I gave it a shot (the movie, I’m no where near Kentucky) as you suggested. Summary is …
1- Communists were atheists, you don’t want to be one of those do you?
2 – Geniuses are often dismissed as crackpots, creationists are dismissed as crackpots, therefore creationists are Geniuses.
3 – And of course, the argument that they have all the evidence on their side if only someone would listen. Those darn evolutionists just wont answer the questions raised.
As to the first two, the fact they have to make that kind of absurd argument tells me the quality of thinking going on here.
As to the last one, it’s astonishing because it doesn’t take much searching to see all the time spent on answering creationists and for that matter this movie specifically.
I took your suggestion and saw this movie, take my suggestions and check out http://www.expelledexposed.com/ and see what I mean.
And that’s just one site. I’ve yet to run into an claim made my creationists that isn’t soundly answered by multiple voices. Again, google tells the lie in that claim about being ignored.
I can’t teach you formal logic, only one of its rules…
Oh the irony of Alfred1 trying to use logic…
The God of the Bible is not finite, therefore there can be no regression from Him to “a greater infinity,” that is impossible.
except that there are different “sizes” of infinities. http://scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-infinity-comes-in-different-sizes
Here’s an example that uses religious imagery so it has to be true! http://math.uchicago.edu/~mileti/museum/infinite.html
I think I love Alfred. He is so clearly a liberal troll.
It is impossible for there to exist a person so self-unaware as to say:
1) “You must stick to the rules of formal logic!”
and then, immediately:
2) “The infinity of God is not something I posit — it’s what scripture teaches!”
(true story!)
This Republican chick creeps me out about as much as the Burger King guy.
#79 Wretched Gnu is not Unix
He’s not a closet liberal, he was outed a long time ago. 😉
Creationism or Evolution are equally misguided efforts at explaining how we came to be. The powers of change are magnificent and obviously follow some very clearly defined rules, otherwise something as big as the universe couldn’t possibly come into being – if it were even a little imperfect and you multiplied that imperfection to near infinity… Structure on the other hand doesn’t necessarily denote intention or design. The scientist sees what he doesn’t understand and percieves ‘chaos’, a religous persons sees what he doesn’t understand and percieves ‘god’, two different flavours of the same ignorance, your symbols are ineffective.
#59 Bobbo,
I might suggest that your capacity to interpret what I wrote is your problem, but I know you understand my meaning. You disagree, that’s ok. But in order to learn something it’s better to make the effort in understanding, than to simply suggest it’s drunken confusion. Just because you think you got a handle on something doesn’t make it true. I make a meager effort to share my opinion, poor contribution as it is, and I know I’m just farting in the wind with this group, or I probrably wouldn’t participate at all.