I really do pity the American people if that is the choice they must make for the next leader of the free world, I really do.
Do they want the antichrist Obama who has failed to convince me (and many others) that he is not a closet muslim doing the devil's work?
Or do they want the mad mormon Romney, who loves his money, and pays just 13% tax. He is soft on immigration, abortion, and homosexuality in spite of his mormonism.
I had hoped Sarah would stand, but alas, she opted not to do so. Likewise Mick Huckabee. Godly Ron Paul has much to offer, but I fear his campaign is now fading, and same goes for Godly Rick Santorum who does not have the money or the connections of the wretched mormon.
My worst nightmare is that BHO gets a second term and then his true colours will be revealed. I am not 100% certain that he is the Beast foretold in the Book of Revelation, but I think there is at least a 70% chance that this may be so.
The fact that you refer to the me by their surnames and the one woman by her first name says it all ...
ReplyDeleteme = men
ReplyDeleteOh, and since I doubt he'll miss a chance to read this post and teh comments ...
ReplyDeleteHi Bill,
With regard to evidence that humans evolved you said.
" I would then be forced to re-examine my interpretation of the Genesis account of creation."
OK. Let's assume (just assume) that such evidence were provided.
Reconsider, hypothetically, your interpretation of Genesis.
How would it differ?
(Reposted from the other thread, so you don't miss it, Bill)
It is indeed a great pity that S Palin did not stand. In doing so she would have done a lot to help Barak Obama win another term.
ReplyDelete"It is indeed a great pity that S Palin did not stand"
ReplyDeleteRon Paul looks better in a frock :)
Or is that Ru Paul? Hard to tell them apart.
First, Garven, Sarah Palin is dumb beyond belief. Second,Catholic Newt Gingrich could win. But, this would turn out badly as the 16th richest man in the world is donating to his campagin under the condition that he goes to war with Iran. Also since American politics are a joke and the American people know it they will go with the least terrible choice of Barrak Obama.Also Mitt Romney is also half mexican(i mention this for your reaction) and would probably not be as bad as the other republican canidates seeing as the very Irish and liberal state of massachusetes loved him as govenoor. Ron Paul wants to legalize these things;Pot,Cocaine,gay marriage, and abortions. He wants to end the american SS program and medicare program and he also wants end american foreign policy(which is actually awesome)and topple americas military spending down to about 1/10th its size.Since the fun loving southerners loving blowing up brown countries, saying plastine is gods gift to the jews, and of course that the USA can push evreyone around.....ron paul cannot be elected.So please dont pity us pity the bible belt...we the west and east coast are more secular then a lot of Europe.
ReplyDeleteoooppps...i ranted
ReplyDeleteHi Kaptain Kobold,
ReplyDeleteIf proper and rigorous evidence was presented that evolution was true, then I would revisit my interpretation of Genesis and would have to concede that the creation account was allegoral.
I like to think I have an open mind, but there are far too many holes in the theory of evolution. All the indication in the Bible is that it was intended to be a literal account, and since the evidence appears to support that position, I continue to believe it.
Going back to the topic of this post of Garvan's, I don't much like any of these candidates for president but Newt Gingrich is probably the best of them. I don't think Obama is the antichrist, but I do think he has some dangerous ideas. If we are looking for the anitchrist, that nutter running Iran is a better candidate if you ask me.
"If proper and rigorous evidence was presented that evolution was true, then I would revisit my interpretation of Genesis and would have to concede that the creation account was allegoral. "
ReplyDeleteSo interpretation of the Bible is based on actual evidence rather than just faith then? Only a few weeks ago you said that you accepted the creation account purely on faith. Now you're saying that your acceptance is open to interpretation based on evidence which may be presented to you, and that your belief it is a literal account is based on that. Yes?
Oh, I should add that there's more to this, but I'm taking it slowly. Just so we both know where we are at any given point.
ReplyDeleteI have a problem with Obama: he's signed up to an anti-blasphemy deal with a cabal of Muslim-majority states. What chance of free speech in our London colleges if they got there way here? Even worse than now!
ReplyDeleteLong may "Jesus & Mo" flourish!
http://www.jesusandmo.net/
"I really do pity the American people if that is the choice they must make for the next leader of the free world"
ReplyDeleteThat's OK - if they're both rubbish we'll just have a different country's leader as Leader Of The Free World.
How about the Queen?
Bill said...
ReplyDelete"If proper and rigorous evidence was presented that evolution was true, then I would revisit my interpretation of Genesis and would have to concede that the creation account was allegoral."
There is literally tons of evidence that evolution is a fact.
"I like to think I have an open mind,"
You clearly do not.
"but there are far too many holes in the theory of evolution."
Please give examples to back up your statement.
"All the indication in the Bible is that it was intended to be a literal account."
Not the case, only extremist fundamentalists would believe that.
"and since the evidence appears to support that position, I continue to believe it."
What evidence? You must learn to provide valid evidence.
"I don't think Obama is the antichrist, "
So you do have some ability for rational thought, well done.
"but I do think he has some dangerous ideas."
Please provide examples.
If we are looking for the anitchrist,"
"that nutter running Iran is a better candidate if you ask me."
There is no antichrist.
The situation in Iran has a more complex history than many in the west bother to become informed about, previous western intervention in the '50's destabilised the country and set up a chain of events that directly led to the present situation.
I obviously can not speak for the majority of Iranians, but I have talked with some who seriously detest their corrupt political system.
The President of Iran is not actually the leader of the country, he is subordinate to the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei. He is the highest ranking political and religious authority in the country.
Iran is a good example of what happens when religion becomes too powerful in a society.
You were a mormon at one stage weren't you garv. Converted by a wind that blew through the room during a visit from a couple of missionaries as I recall. If only you'd been researching windows back then, you might have been more aware of the consequences of leaving them open.
ReplyDeleteLet me clarify. I believe the Bible when it says God made the world in six days. There is every reason to interpret that verse literally, it is not intended to be allegorical (contrary to what liberals teach). Scientific evidence supports the account of creation provided in Genesis.
ReplyDeleteIf however, the weight of the scientific evidence supported an allegorical account, I would prayerfully take that into account and read Genesis again. I cannot say for certain whether I would change my mind (science has been wrong on occasion!), but I would certainly think about it some more.
However, this discussion is a little irrelevant in any case since science supports Genesis and Genesis supports science.
"
ReplyDeleteHowever, this discussion is a little irrelevant in any case since science supports Genesis and Genesis supports science."
If this is true why does the entire biology(for all intents and purposes those with phds support evolution at a rate of 99.99%)accept evolution. Also need i point out that in the most creationist 1st world nation(usa) 60% of the scientific community is atheist.
"If however, the weight of the scientific evidence supported an allegorical account, I would prayerfully take that into account and read Genesis again. I cannot say for certain whether I would change my mind (science has been wrong on occasion!), but I would certainly think about it some more."
ReplyDeleteSo you are willing to accept the possibility that, given sufficient evidence, you could accept the Genesis account as being an allegory as opposed to literal history?
Yes?
Bill said...
ReplyDelete"Let me clarify. I believe the Bible when it says God made the world in six days. There is every reason to interpret that verse literally, it is not intended to be allegorical (contrary to what liberals teach)."
There is every reason to think that it is allegorical and only a fool would take it as fact.
"Scientific evidence supports the account of creation provided in Genesis."
You are lying, there is no evidence that the mythological story has any basis in reality.
If you actually believe your ridiculous assertion that there is evidence for the biblical account then you need to provide evidence.
Do note that half baked garbage from cretinist nut job sites will not be considered as evidence.
"If however, the weight of the scientific evidence supported an allegorical account, "
It does, you can believe me, I am an atheist, not some lying religionist.
"I would prayerfully take that into account and read Genesis again. I cannot say for certain whether I would change my mind "
I would hope that you would show the flexibility of thought to do this.
"(science has been wrong on occasion!),"
No surprise there, science is a human activity and humans get things wrong, the advantage of science is that things are continually questioned and tested and so is self correcting, religion is based on myths and fictions so tends to compound error upon error.
"However, this discussion is a little irrelevant in any case since science supports Genesis and Genesis supports science."
No, really you should not tell such blatant lies. Science does not in any was support the fictional account in the bible.
You are either a liar, a fool, or possibility both. In future please do not insult our intelligence by making such outrageously stupid claims and expecting any one to to believe you. It really is offensive and totally crass behaviour on your part, you should attempt to show more respect to others, even if you have so little self respect that you are willing to believe worthless and intellectually bankrupt creationist drivel.
"f this is true why does the entire biology(for all intents and purposes those with phds support evolution at a rate of 99.99%)accept evolution."
ReplyDeleteHi agrf,
Can we not sidetrack Bill into the usual 'Is/Is Not' of scientific evidence please? He's not going to accept evidence because his mind is closed to it, so the discussion is pointless. The line of discussion I am trying is based on a different approach.
alright.
ReplyDeleteKK said...
ReplyDelete"Can we not sidetrack Bill into the usual 'Is/Is Not' of scientific evidence please? He's not going to accept evidence because his mind is closed to it, so the discussion is pointless. "
A fair point, I think his mind is closed to almost all rational thinking, or thinking much about anything for that matter. He does come across as a very shallow person of rather low intelligence with a very limited capacity for independent thought.
He does need shaking up a bit and forcing out of his complacent unquestioning mindset, I only hope that that is possible.
Amazing.
ReplyDeleteBilly no mates said...
ReplyDelete'I believe the Bible when it says God made the world in six days'
First, there are two creation stories in Genesis:
(1) verses 1:1 to 2:4a;
(2) 2:4b to 2:22.
The first is recognised by scholars as the work of the Priestly source, based on a Mesopotamian myth encountered by the Jews in Babylon. So, the creation account that has the world created in six days, which every Christian learns as a child, did not even exist prior to the sixth century BCE.
The second account predated the other in Judaism but was never considered important, except for the creation of Adam, then later Eve.
'There is every reason to interpret that verse literally'
What reasons...name them...and why they mean literal interpretation?
"it is not intended to be allegorical (contrary to what liberals teach)'
According to who and why?
Does that mean the vast majority of xians are deluded?
'Scientific evidence supports the account of creation provided in Genesis.'
Name these 'evidences'
'If however, the weight of the scientific evidence supported an allegorical account, I would prayerfully take that into account and read Genesis again'
And while at it work out how come the Earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals?
'I cannot say for certain whether I would change my mind (science has been wrong on occasion!)'
But science will change to explain data...even if that means that previous assertions were wrong.
That is what makes science such a powerful and trusted tool.
It is a self regulatory step that you cannot make Bill...that is clear.
'but I would certainly think about it some more'
You do that Bill..you do that!
'However, this discussion is a little irrelevant in any case since science supports Genesis and Genesis supports science.'
No it does not...both explanations are poles apart and there is NO support from science for a tawdry fairy story.
Bill had so much naive conviction allied with a greater intellectual poverty.
ReplyDeleteYes Kaptain Kobold, I would be willing to consider that possibility.
ReplyDeleteThe rest of you people are really winding me up and doing my head in. I can't see any point in debating with people who just want to hurl insults.
Ahh I see the playground bullies are picking on the little guys again with same old, same old.
ReplyDeleteDo you even realise you are guilty of exactly the same deficiencies that you claim Bill is?
Your behaviour doesn't half glorify your pious stance concerning the impartiality and reason of modern scientific method. (When I say it "doesn't half" I mean that literally, it doesn't half.)
You must all be very proud.
Confident in your conviction that your right, rejoicing in the tried and tested debating skills such as insult and bullying which you wield like a cudgel.
But as ever such tactics are dare I say it? weak and doomed to failure.
Try discussing the subject with him without insult and ridicule if your capable. If you cant...he's already won.
"Yes Kaptain Kobold, I would be willing to consider that possibility."
ReplyDeleteExcellent.
You accept that, given evidence you feel is sufficient, you could reinterpret Genesis as being allegory rather than literal fact.
Next question. How does that change in the perception of Genesis affect the rest of the message held in the Bible? Does it change it, or does the message remain unchanged?
This is off-topic but... I've been skimming some creationist tripe this morning and it happens to mention that
ReplyDelete"wood is one of the five traditional Chinese ‘elements’"
So that were Garv got it from - he'd been listening to Wong's woo!
Funny, if Garv had cracked that line you would have been calling him a racist?
ReplyDelete"Funny, if Garv had cracked that line you would have been calling him a racist?"
ReplyDeleteSo is there a reason you consistently let Garvan's persistent racism and sexism pass without comment?
Bill said...
ReplyDelete" The rest of you people are really winding me up and doing my head in. I can't see any point in debating with people who just want to hurl insults."
I do not consider that I have insulted you Bill. If you can avoid insulting my intelligence by making ludicrous ill informed statements I will be glad to have a civilized debate with you.
Anonymous said..."Ahh I see the playground bullies are picking on the little guys again "
Asking him to account for and justify his empty statements is not insulting him, it is an attempt to train him to be more intellectually rigorous. Personally I consider that it would be good for him to learn to think more deeply about things. This is not bullying, it may be harsh but is is fair. I respect him enough that if he is behaving like a deluded cretin I will say so, I will not humor him by pretending that blatant lies and distortions of facts are in any way acceptable.
Kaptain Kobold,
ReplyDelete"How does that change in the perception of Genesis affect the rest of the message held in the Bible? Does it change it, or does the message remain unchanged?"
The message of the Bible does not change. Yesterday, today and forever, Jesus is the same. Sometimes human beings are wrong on issues relating to interpretation, but the central message of scripture cannot be clearer. God created the world, Christ died to redeem your sins, and you must repent and be born again. That is a basic message of the Bible that is not open to interpretation through "science" "linguistics" or any other method. But please, do not think for one second that I am anything other than rock steady in my belief that evolution is wrong and that God created the world in six days around 6000 years ago. I do not claim to be a scientist, but science, as I understand it, supports the account in Genesis.
Dr. Beak,
I don't think any creationist claims wood is an element, where did you get that information from?
Yellowcat,
You accused me of telling "blatant lies". That qualifies as an insult in my book.
"The message of the Bible does not change"
ReplyDeleteOK. A summary. You believe in a literal Genesis. But if you were convinced by enough evidence of the reality of evolution you would amend that to being an allegorical Genesis. This would not change your view of the message of the Bible.
So if there was evidence of evolution which convinced you sufficiently, you would accept an allegorical Genesis and still consider yourself to be a saved Christian, yes?
"So is there a reason you consistently let Garvan's persistent racism and sexism pass without comment?"
ReplyDeleteYes, the same one that you didnt pull Dr Beak up on his "alleged" racist comments.
I dont believe it was said seriously. This blog is hardly an episode of Question Time like.
Bill said...
ReplyDelete"The message of the Bible does not change. Yesterday, today and forever, Jesus is the same."
This dusty stagnation that religion is prone to is a major fault.
"Sometimes human beings are wrong on issues relating to interpretation, but the central message of scripture cannot be clearer. God created the world, Christ died to redeem your sins, and you must repent and be born again. That is a basic message of the Bible that is not open to interpretation through "science" "linguistics" or any other method."
You are entirely wrong there it is open to discussion and debate, everything is.
You can take nothing as 'gospel', especially a flawed and inconsistent document such as the bible."
"But please, do not think for one second that I am anything other than rock steady in my belief that evolution is wrong and that God created the world in six days around 6000 years ago."
That may be your belief but is is wrong, if you post such outrageously ludicrous and entirely unfounded statements it would at least be polite to to cite your sources so that we can attempt to correct your erroneous thinking.
" I do not claim to be a scientist, but science, as I understand it, supports the account in Genesis."
The account in genesis is not supported by science, to claim that your mythology is supported by science is an outright blatant lie. Only a person lacking in education or suffering from an abnormality of mind could make such a statement.May be Bill you could clarify which applies to you?
Lack of education or mental abnormality, I would of course also consider the possibility of both.
To point this out to you is not an insult, rather an attempt to get you to elucidate us on your thinking so that we may try and understand you.
A problem can only be effectively dealt with if its causes can be understood.
You need to have a more open mind, allow a bit of reality into your life.
I realize that you may find it comforting to believe in a loving heavenly father but the stark reality is that there is none, the universe does not care about you. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
Accept that and free your self.
There is Bill good evidence that you, a primate, a great ape shares common ancestry with other apes and primates.
ReplyDeleteTo call you an ape is not an insult but a statement of fact. Humans are a species of ape.
However it would also be valid to call you a fish, a particular type of fish, a sarcopterygian.
In taxonomy a particular species is considered to be included in the groups that gave rise to it.
The earliest tetrapods, of which you are one, evolved from these lobe-finned fishes in the Devonian, so it is as perfectly acceptable to call you a lobe-finned fish as it is to call you an ape.
I really fail to see, given the glorious depth of deep time and our magnificent, extraordinary evolutionary history why any one would want to believe in the tawdry mythology of the bible.
"There is Bill good evidence that you, a primate, a great ape shares common ancestry with other apes and primates."
ReplyDeleteOnce again, can we restrain from side-tracking Bill, please. We're not discussing the actual evidence - we're discussing the results of him being presented with evidence he accepts, based on a comment he made elsewhere. Essentially I am seeking clarification on a particular point, but I am taking it slowly to avoid any misunderstanding about what I am asking.
Ok Kaptain
ReplyDeleteUN PRESIDENT TIM KALEMKARIAN, US PRESIDENT TIM KALEMKARIAN, US SENATE TIM KALEMKARIAN, US HOUSE TIM KALEMKARIAN: BEST MAJOR CANDIDATE.
ReplyDelete