The creationists are BACK

[Gadawg73]

These people who always have to give their resume as part of their debate are usually full of shit. They have to display their alleged accomplishments to cover their inability to present a substantive rebuttal.
I pay them no mind.
These fucking libs think they have a whole bunch of rights no one else has. And they think their rights can be used to suppress the rights of others. They play the game of lowest common denominator. Libs are successful only when they can dumb down society.
This judge's ruling is an example of that dumbing down.

Usually does not count in my world.
And you are one that also knows that I have put up 50K before.
How about it?
And I vote Republican 40 years so your "libs" argument is a joke.
If you pay me no mind then what about all of your posts?
50K?

$50K? What the fuck are you yammering about?
You? GOP? Please.
You may say you vote GOP, but you post liberal.
One thing about those on the Left is do not pay attention to anything they say, but watch very closely what they do.....
You are a lefty. Admit it and have a nice day.

Are you claiming that those that believe in evolution are liberal because of that belief?
Those that believe in the scientific method and that has proven evolution is true in every trial, test and analysis are liberal?
And the Bush appointed Federal Judge in Pennsylvania that is a conservative Republican is a liberal because he called out the creationists/ID crowd as FRAUDS and liars in the Dover case?
You have NO clue what a conservative is. You believe your religous beliefs define your politics.
I believe my religion has NOTHING to do with my politics.
Religion is BELIEF only. Nothing about politics and science in religion.
No church I have ever been to has ever defined their members by their science or political beliefs.
Yours may operate that way and you may vote as your church instructs you to but I don't.
I vote fiscal conservatism. I vote against FRAUDS and the creation/ID crowd are FRAUDS.
You are uninformed, lazy and never do your homework. Check EVERY post on fiscal matters and The Constitution here and see all of my posts as a supporter of the T party, low taxes, less regulation on business (I own 3), cuts in all social programs, cuts in social security and Medicare and a supporter of Republican candidates.
But none of that matters to a blind ideologue like you. The only thing that matters to you when you label someone else is if they believe in evolution or not.
They can be conservative on every other issue but if they believe in evolution that makes them a "lefty liberal" in your eyes.
You are not very smart.

 

[logical4u]

Beg to differ...the experiments with fruit flies clearly show genetic mutation with subsequent changes do in fact happen. How do you explain no mention of Dinosaurs running around with Moses?

Is that a serious question?? I really hope not. Uh, maybe because dinosaurs were already extinct by the time Moses inhabited the planet?

How come the authors of the Bible never mention the millions of years worth of life that existed on the planet, including the dinosaurs, before the current interglacial warming period we find ourselve in right now?

Because they, the authors of the Bible, simply were not aware they existed. So God must not have been the author or it didn't create the dinosaurs.

The people were not there when the Lord did his creation. His time is not our time. We do not "know" how long a "Lord's day" is. The Bible is a book of human spiritual growth. The order has been verified by 'science', but all the details are not there. In the book of Enoch (not in the Bible), it has some clues: the giants and monsters battled after the giants (nephelim) forced men into slavery. If the men could not provide the meat required by the giants, they ate the men. The slaughtered and the oppressed cried to heaven for justice and the angels petitioned the Lord to stop the slaughter. The Lord caused the nephelim to do battle with each other and then sent the angels to battle with the fallen angels.
The dinosaurs, minotaurs, centaurs, etc were not mentioned by name in the Bible. There were satyrs mentioned and monsters. In the book of Jubilees (not in the Bible) there is more detail and explanations about how the monsters came to be. It is serious reading and if you are not spiritually strong, I would not recommend it (and if you are, prepare yourself for attack from evil). There are some really bad things still on earth.

 

[logical4u]

So you folks support the teaching of creation as science? Who's version?
The version at the Creation Museum in Kentucky?
Where 350,000 kids a year are taught that ALL science now being taught in the universities and colleges is FRAUD.
Where they are taught the earth is NO MORE than 6000 years old and where humans and dinosaurs roamed together. One exhibit has squirrels and dinosaurs together and that never happened either.
But if God said it in the Bible then science be damned. The earth HAS TO BE 6000 years old and MAN HAD TO walk with dinosaurs.
And you are a commie, pinko fag atheist if you object and call these frauds FRAUDS.
You numbskulls here have always had my full support for religous tolerance. I stand to the death for that. But there should be NO TOLERANCE WHATSOEVER for religously motivated FRAUD and the creation museum and the entire creation/ID movement has been proven in court to be FRAUD.
Parents need to bring lawsuits against any and every organization out there that encourages fraud to be taught as science in public schools using public funds.
No wonder we are losing good Christians at our churches. They see your support of such nonsense and immediately recognize faulty, fraudulent science and are turned away by the lies and deception supported by many churches.
This is a Christian theme park pretending to be a museum.
Sad that many Christians are too stipud to know any different.
Bottom line is when myths such as creation/ID presented as scientific fact are advanced and foisted upon others, particularly as part of our judicial and political systems, that is where I DRAW THE LINE.
Otherwise, what's the difference between us and a fundementalist society like Iran?
Nothing.

I think this is sufficiently dumbed down for you to comprehend:

"What is interesting is that this extensive list includes three animals that we no longer recognize. These three are (in the original Hebrew language) tanniyn, b@hemowth (yes, it’s spelled correctly—at least as close as we can get in Roman characters), and livyathan.
Although we alter the spelling of behemoth and Leviathan slightly, we still use those same words in bibles today. However, tanniyn is always translated into another word when we write it in English. Tanniyn occurs 28 times in the Bible and is normally translated “dragon.” It is also translated “serpent,” “sea monster,” “dinosaur,” “great creature,” and “reptile.” Behemoth and Leviathan are relatively specific creatures, perhaps each was a single kind of animal. Tanniyn is a more general term, and it can be thought of as the original version of the word “dinosaur.” The word “dinosaur” was originally coined in 1841, more than three thousand years after the Bible first referred to “Tanniyn.” To make things clearer, we constructed the following table comparing the scientific names with the Biblical names tanniyn, behemoth, and Leviathan.

“Dinosaur” Names,
Then and NowName and date first written in the Bible
Scientific Name (best estimate) and date the name appeared:
Tanniyn (dragon)before 1400 BC
Dinosaur 1841 AD
Behemothbefore 1400 BC
Brachiosaurus 1903 AD
Leviathan: before 1400 BC
Kronosaurus 1901 AD

How we got these new names is interesting. In 1822, Mary Ann Mantell became the first person to discover and correctly identify a strange bone as part of a large, unknown reptile. Her husband, Dr. Gideon Mantell, later named this creature an “Iguanodon.” From that time forward, these forgotten animals were given names chosen by the people who rediscovered them. Of course, the Bible, written between approximately 1450 BC and 95 AD, does not include any of these names."
Dinosaurs and the Bible

WTF does "mentioning" have to do with MAN WALKING WITH DINOSAURS 6000 YEARS AGO?
Are you that stupid? Do you believe man walked with dinosaurs 6000 years ago or not?
Which is it? All you do is beat around the bush with BS.
The creation/ID side AND YOU fully support the teaching school kids that man walked with dinosaurs 6000 years ago. And that is FRAUD.
You may support fraud but stay STAY AWAY from any children with your fraud.

What "scientific" evidence or any evidence do you have that man did not walk with dinosaurs?

 

[logical4u]

"
Reading the Bible carefully, you will realize that no living creature matches the descriptions of behemoth and Leviathan. However, if you grab your kid’s dinosaur book, you will notice several possible matches for each one. Let’s examine those.

Behemoth has the following attributes according to Job 40:15-24

• It “eats grass like an ox.”
• It “moves his tail like a cedar.” (In Hebrew, this literally reads, “he lets hang his tail like a cedar.”)
• Its “bones are like beams of bronze,
  His ribs like bars of iron.”
• “He is the first of the ways of God.”
• “He lies under the lotus trees,
  In a covert of reeds and marsh.”

Some bibles and study bibles will translate the word “behemoth” as “elephant” or “hippopotamus.” Others will put a note at the edge or bottom of the page, stating that behemoth was probably an elephant or a hippopotamus. Although an elephant or hippopotamus can eat grass (or lie in a covert of reeds and marsh), neither an elephant or a hippopotamus has a “tail like a cedar” (that is, a tail like a large, tapered tree trunk). In your kid’s dinosaur book you will find lots of animals that have “tails like a cedar.”

"
We would expect behemoth to be a large land animal whose bones are like beams of bronze and so forth, so whatever a behemoth is, it is large. A key phrase is “He is the first of the ways of God.” This phrase in the original Hebrew implied that behemoth was the biggest animal created. Although an elephant or a hippopotamus are big, they are less than one-tenth the size of a Brachiosaurus, the largest (complete) dinosaur ever discovered.[1] A Brachiosaurus could therefore easily be described as “the first of the ways of God.”
Comparing all this information to the description in your kid’s dinosaur book, you may come to the conclusion that “behemoth” is not a normal animal, it is a dinosaur—the brachiosaurus. We agree with that conclusion! "
Dinosaurs and the Bible

Actually we don't really know what dinosaurs looked like. All we have a fosselized remains that are 65 Million years old or older. Are you trying to say that whomever wrote the Bible actually lived with and saw real dinosaurs?

I am sure some of the people saw great things (it would explain why they were so willing to accept the Lord)!

 

[Gadawg73]

I think this is sufficiently dumbed down for you to comprehend:

"What is interesting is that this extensive list includes three animals that we no longer recognize. These three are (in the original Hebrew language) tanniyn, b@hemowth (yes, it’s spelled correctly—at least as close as we can get in Roman characters), and livyathan.
Although we alter the spelling of behemoth and Leviathan slightly, we still use those same words in bibles today. However, tanniyn is always translated into another word when we write it in English. Tanniyn occurs 28 times in the Bible and is normally translated “dragon.” It is also translated “serpent,” “sea monster,” “dinosaur,” “great creature,” and “reptile.” Behemoth and Leviathan are relatively specific creatures, perhaps each was a single kind of animal. Tanniyn is a more general term, and it can be thought of as the original version of the word “dinosaur.” The word “dinosaur” was originally coined in 1841, more than three thousand years after the Bible first referred to “Tanniyn.” To make things clearer, we constructed the following table comparing the scientific names with the Biblical names tanniyn, behemoth, and Leviathan.

“Dinosaur” Names,
Then and NowName and date first written in the Bible
Scientific Name (best estimate) and date the name appeared:
Tanniyn (dragon)before 1400 BC
Dinosaur 1841 AD
Behemothbefore 1400 BC
Brachiosaurus 1903 AD
Leviathan: before 1400 BC
Kronosaurus 1901 AD

How we got these new names is interesting. In 1822, Mary Ann Mantell became the first person to discover and correctly identify a strange bone as part of a large, unknown reptile. Her husband, Dr. Gideon Mantell, later named this creature an “Iguanodon.” From that time forward, these forgotten animals were given names chosen by the people who rediscovered them. Of course, the Bible, written between approximately 1450 BC and 95 AD, does not include any of these names."
Dinosaurs and the Bible

WTF does "mentioning" have to do with MAN WALKING WITH DINOSAURS 6000 YEARS AGO?
Are you that stupid? Do you believe man walked with dinosaurs 6000 years ago or not?
Which is it? All you do is beat around the bush with BS.
The creation/ID side AND YOU fully support the teaching school kids that man walked with dinosaurs 6000 years ago. And that is FRAUD.
You may support fraud but stay STAY AWAY from any children with your fraud.

What "scientific" evidence or any evidence do you have that man did not walk with dinosaurs?

Are you serious?
Do you really believe man walked with dinosaurs? Is that your standard?
We can all just make up what we want and the other guy has to prove you wrong.
As long as it fits your religous beliefs that is your standard.
But when science is tested and proven correct you change from the standard you use to fit your religous beliefs and create another one for everyone else.
How convenient but fraudulent.
Where is any evidence he did. News flash there my man: YOU have to prove your theories. To date you are an Ofer.

 

[logical4u]

Why does everyone think the bible is true, because it says it? It doesn't make any sense to me how people reference a book written by humans two thousand years ago as being superior to the smartest humans on the planet today who discover and make sense of things empirically through repeated experimentation, mathematics, and evidence. IT IS TOTALLY RIDICULOUS. You are not virtuous or pious for having 'faith' in this book. Point is, creationism should not be taught in the classroom, because really, the bible has no credibility besides what constantine gave it back in 700 AD. If he had not done that, and who knows if he really did, it would not be a world religion today. Rome's becoming Christian, because of Constantine's supposed conversion right before his death, is the ONLY reason. Funny that it was the Roman Council of Nicea that filtered through the gospels and picked only the four deemed 'correct.' That is highly suspicious to me, especially considering how immediately huge the Roman empire got once they decided on a state sponsored religion... obviously, Christianity was chosen and those gospels chosen because of the social cohesion and political control they could wield over the masses with the gospels, making the state the godhead who was in charge of the Church. The roman empire got so big, that it split apart!!!

The most telling passage from the New T: "I am the only way to the father." Please... what this really means is: you have to be completely subservient to the church, or else you will be killed, by the state. don't riot, make noise, rebel... everything the state says is gospel... bullshit. It's social control. Plain and simple. Christiantiy has no relevance in todays culture. There is too much freeflow of information, and the logic just doesn't stand up, that because God's son died on a cross... if we believe in him, we will be saved. It is so utterly ridiculous to me. It doesn't even make sense.

You are what IMHO is called Biblically illiterate. You are ranting about the Bible with no clear understanding of how it came about or why the books that are in there are there, and why those that are not in the Bible are kept in a reference library for those that want to know. The 'smartest' people today have very little wisdom (a gift from the Holy Spirit). If the 'church' was all about controlling the masses, why does it focus on the individual?

"Science" has basically proven the order of 'creation' stated in the Bible is accurate. It has not "disproved" any of the creation statements in the beginning of Genesis. I find it amusing that you want to tell everyone how the Bible is not true, when 'scientific' and archeological discoveries seem to verify the Book. The Bible was written by men that were influenced by the Lord. There is no other way they could have known what is written there.

Muslims say that Mohammed was visited by an angel in a dark cave and that the quran is written from those encounters with that angel, yet, there is no slamming the quran with the hatred and resentment that match Biblical attacks. Why is that? Why is it only the Bible, that enrages you so?

 

[logical4u]

More pragmatically, maybe you should tell us how you can teach sex ed with religion.

How about: you are special. There is not another person in the world, just like you. When you want have a sexual partner choose wisely, and act honorably, by marrying them, first! Your responsiblity to your future children is to bring them into the world, healthy. This means that you do not take unecessary risks of multiple sexual partners that can disease your body and your future children. If you are female, you are born with the eggs of your children inside of you and anything you put in your body can affect those eggs and the health of your future children. If you do not want children, you need to protect those that want children by not having sex as a child and spreading disease. If you wait to have sex, until you are an adult of average life span you will be able to have sex for 50 years, plus. Be a child and enjoy childhood pleasures, because once you are an adult, you will need those memories to keep your sanity from the silly people that think you should be able to act sexually as an adult starting in kindergarden. Now here are the facts on how the body works: .....

All good and fine. None of that mandates religion or necessitates that religion be taught along side of sex ed.

It is the "belief" of how we are each unique and special "in the Lord's eyes" that makes this so. You do not need to teach one Christian faith over another. The Bible is the reference for all Christian faiths. Without the Lord, we have no morals, no spirituality, we are just animals. This country was built on Christian communities that built it into a civilization. Christians have respect for life. They also believe in defending was is theirs. Without that this country becomes a different culture. I don't know about you, but there is no other culture that I would rather have, than one that offers liberty for the individual, over status for your parents lineage.

 

[logical4u]

WTF does "mentioning" have to do with MAN WALKING WITH DINOSAURS 6000 YEARS AGO?
Are you that stupid? Do you believe man walked with dinosaurs 6000 years ago or not?
Which is it? All you do is beat around the bush with BS.
The creation/ID side AND YOU fully support the teaching school kids that man walked with dinosaurs 6000 years ago. And that is FRAUD.
You may support fraud but stay STAY AWAY from any children with your fraud.

What "scientific" evidence or any evidence do you have that man did not walk with dinosaurs?

Are you serious?
Do you really believe man walked with dinosaurs? Is that your standard?
We can all just make up what we want and the other guy has to prove you wrong.
As long as it fits your religous beliefs that is your standard.
But when science is tested and proven correct you change from the standard you use to fit your religous beliefs and create another one for everyone else.
How convenient but fraudulent.
Where is any evidence he did. News flash there my man: YOU have to prove your theories. To date you are an Ofer.

Isn't that how "evolution" came about? Some people found some fossils and made up a story, without ever connecting the dots. Science has not proved that a species changes into another species. Yet that is exactly what evolution states. All you "believers" put spin on it, claiming mutations and common ancestor (another term for species change), but have no hard evidence it ever happened. Seriously, if everything evolved from a one-celled animal, why do we STILL have one-celled animals?

 

[Gadawg73]

What "scientific" evidence or any evidence do you have that man did not walk with dinosaurs?

Are you serious?
Do you really believe man walked with dinosaurs? Is that your standard?
We can all just make up what we want and the other guy has to prove you wrong.
As long as it fits your religous beliefs that is your standard.
But when science is tested and proven correct you change from the standard you use to fit your religous beliefs and create another one for everyone else.
How convenient but fraudulent.
Where is any evidence he did. News flash there my man: YOU have to prove your theories. To date you are an Ofer.

Isn't that how "evolution" came about? Some people found some fossils and made up a story, without ever connecting the dots. Science has not proved that a species changes into another species. Yet that is exactly what evolution states. All you "believers" put spin on it, claiming mutations and common ancestor (another term for species change), but have no hard evidence it ever happened. Seriously, if everything evolved from a one-celled animal, why do we STILL have one-celled animals?

No, that is not how the scientific method works logical.
If you want to open your eyes and learn tell us how the scientific method is used.
Tell us. Do you know what that is? How is the scientific method used in testing?
Nothing about making anything up. Just the opposite. But let us know if you have a clue about how EVERYTHING is tested.
Explain the scientific method that all scientists use worldwide.

 

[newpolitics]

You have a problem with people who reference the founding fathers? Gee, that's too bad. Why don't you try and shut me up.

No. You apparently have a problem with reading comprehension. I have never said I have a problem with people referencing the founding fathers. Knock yourself out, internet tough guy.

That girl has a right to speak about anything she wants at her graduation. All someone has to do is find a corrupt judge, which is what they did. She has done nothing wrong.

The judge isn't "corrupt" for making a ruling you don't agree with.

The judge is corrupt if he makes a ruling that is in opposition to the Constitution, however.

Or just stupid. Who knows.

No, he's not Allie. He's corrupt if his decision was swayed by bribery (money) or the compromising of integrity, which it wasn't if it was his honest opinion and judgement. It has nothing to do with it's relevance to the constitution, which is an arbitrary entity. You don't even know the meanings of the words you use.

 

[newpolitics]

What "scientific" evidence or any evidence do you have that man did not walk with dinosaurs?

Are you serious?
Do you really believe man walked with dinosaurs? Is that your standard?
We can all just make up what we want and the other guy has to prove you wrong.
As long as it fits your religous beliefs that is your standard.
But when science is tested and proven correct you change from the standard you use to fit your religous beliefs and create another one for everyone else.
How convenient but fraudulent.
Where is any evidence he did. News flash there my man: YOU have to prove your theories. To date you are an Ofer.

Isn't that how "evolution" came about? Some people found some fossils and made up a story, without ever connecting the dots. Science has not proved that a species changes into another species. Yet that is exactly what evolution states. All you "believers" put spin on it, claiming mutations and common ancestor (another term for species change), but have no hard evidence it ever happened. Seriously, if everything evolved from a one-celled animal, why do we STILL have one-celled animals?

You have no idea how evolution works.

 

[Gadawg73]

Are you serious?
Do you really believe man walked with dinosaurs? Is that your standard?
We can all just make up what we want and the other guy has to prove you wrong.
As long as it fits your religous beliefs that is your standard.
But when science is tested and proven correct you change from the standard you use to fit your religous beliefs and create another one for everyone else.
How convenient but fraudulent.
Where is any evidence he did. News flash there my man: YOU have to prove your theories. To date you are an Ofer.

Isn't that how "evolution" came about? Some people found some fossils and made up a story, without ever connecting the dots. Science has not proved that a species changes into another species. Yet that is exactly what evolution states. All you "believers" put spin on it, claiming mutations and common ancestor (another term for species change), but have no hard evidence it ever happened. Seriously, if everything evolved from a one-celled animal, why do we STILL have one-celled animals?

You have no idea how evolution works.

He doesn't want to know.

 

[AllieBaba]

No. You apparently have a problem with reading comprehension. I have never said I have a problem with people referencing the founding fathers. Knock yourself out, internet tough guy.



The judge isn't "corrupt" for making a ruling you don't agree with.

The judge is corrupt if he makes a ruling that is in opposition to the Constitution, however.

Or just stupid. Who knows.

No, he's not Allie. He's corrupt if his decision was swayed by bribery (money) or the compromising of integrity, which it wasn't if it was his honest opinion and judgement. It has nothing to do with it's relevance to the constitution, which is an arbitrary entity. You don't even know the meanings of the words you use.

You know, don't play word games with me. I do know the meanings of the words, obviously somewhat better than you do. You're too dimwitted to even realize you don't know what you think you know.

Yes, the judge IS corrupt if he rules in opposition to the Consitution. Because he is using his power to do something he knows is illegal..that makes him corrupt. He is further corrupt if he knowingly makes illegal rulings, with the desire of putting in place a different order or at least advancing it.

That is the epitome of corruption.

If you could read, and had actually researched this topic or knew half of what you think you know about my abilities, you would know I don't use words incorrectly...or very, very rarely. If you don't think I'm using a word correctly, most of the time, it's because you don't understand the word, not me.

cor·rupt [ kə rúpt ]

1. immoral or dishonest: immoral or dishonest, especially as shown by the exploitation of a position of power or trust for personal gain

 

[AllieBaba]

Isn't that how "evolution" came about? Some people found some fossils and made up a story, without ever connecting the dots. Science has not proved that a species changes into another species. Yet that is exactly what evolution states. All you "believers" put spin on it, claiming mutations and common ancestor (another term for species change), but have no hard evidence it ever happened. Seriously, if everything evolved from a one-celled animal, why do we STILL have one-celled animals?

You have no idea how evolution works.

He doesn't want to know.

That doesn't establish anything except your own ignorance, btw. I don't believe you know any more about evolution than you do about anything else you stupidly spout about.

You take the topic of evoltion and argue to a point that is never made...when you deign to even elaborate on what you contest. It is perfectly true that evolution does not address creation...not of new species, not of life. And yet you pretend that the argument is about whether or not evolution exists within a species, and further pretend that people who make that observation are denying that a species can adapt.

It's hogwash, and more proof not only of your ignorance and inability to communicate, but also of your dishonesty.

 

[newpolitics]

The judge is corrupt if he makes a ruling that is in opposition to the Constitution, however.

Or just stupid. Who knows.

No, he's not Allie. He's corrupt if his decision was swayed by bribery (money) or the compromising of integrity, which it wasn't if it was his honest opinion and judgement. It has nothing to do with it's relevance to the constitution, which is an arbitrary entity. You don't even know the meanings of the words you use.

You know, don't play word games with me. I do know the meanings of the words, obviously somewhat better than you do. You're too dimwitted to even realize you don't know what you think you know.

Yes, the judge IS corrupt if he rules in opposition to the Consitution. Because he is using his power to do something he knows is illegal..that makes him corrupt. He is further corrupt if he knowingly makes illegal rulings, with the desire of putting in place a different order or at least advancing it.

That is the epitome of corruption.

If you could read, and had actually researched this topic or knew half of what you think you know about my abilities, you would know I don't use words incorrectly...or very, very rarely. If you don't think I'm using a word correctly, most of the time, it's because you don't understand the word, not me.

cor·rupt [ kə rúpt ]

1. immoral or dishonest: immoral or dishonest, especially as shown by the exploitation of a position of power or trust for personal gain

I'm not playing wordgames with you. If the judge made a decision to the best of his ability, it can not be corrupt simply because you think it goes against the constitution. Whether it goes against the constitution is usually a very tough question in and of itself, which is why court cases can be so complicated. Everything is not so cut and dry. If he is swayed by a particular interest with the help of money, that is immoral and is corrupt. It doesn't necessarily mean he is corrupt just because it goes against the constitution. You are thinking too much in black and white.

 

[AllieBaba]

I was pretty specific in saying he was either corrupt or stupid.

Stupid would be if he didn't know the constitution.
Corrupt is if he did and made the ruling anyway.

And you said I didn't know what corrupt meant. You were wrong.

 

[newpolitics]

I was pretty specific in saying he was either corrupt or stupid.

Stupid would be if he didn't know the constitution.
Corrupt is if he did and made the ruling anyway.

And you said I didn't know what corrupt meant. You were wrong.

You can't really call someone stupid when you are incapable yourself of doing that job yourself. I don't believe you are capable of being a judge.

 

[AllieBaba]

I was pretty specific in saying he was either corrupt or stupid.

Stupid would be if he didn't know the constitution.
Corrupt is if he did and made the ruling anyway.

And you said I didn't know what corrupt meant. You were wrong.

You can't really call someone stupid when you are incapable yourself of doing that job yourself. I don't believe you are capable of being a judge.

alrighty then.

I would ask what that has to do with anything, but honestly, I just don't care. You might want to stop proving you're an ignorant boob now. We get the point.

 

[FA_Q2]

The only "facts" you have are the ones you believe, which keep changing because we keep learning. You don't have all the facts, and until you do then ID should be taught right along with what you call scientific fact. If it's good enough for Einstein, it's good enough for our children.

No, the facts I know are the ones that have been proven. Not a single shred of creationism has been.

Einstein's having a religious view or not doesn't mean it was proven by science.

When did science prove God is not the Creator.

That is a gross mischaracterization of science. Science disproves nothing. What it does do is collect evidence that lends evidence for one theory or another.

 

[newpolitics]

I was pretty specific in saying he was either corrupt or stupid.

Stupid would be if he didn't know the constitution.
Corrupt is if he did and made the ruling anyway.

And you said I didn't know what corrupt meant. You were wrong.

You can't really call someone stupid when you are incapable yourself of doing that job yourself. I don't believe you are capable of being a judge.

alrighty then.

I would ask what that has to do with anything, but honestly, I just don't care. You might want to stop proving you're an ignorant boob now. We get the point.

You said the judge was either corrupt or stupid.... You don't understand what corrupt means and are trying to make it sound worse than it is... so, as far as stupid goes... I am saying you can't call him stupid if you can't do a better job. I can call President Bush stupid, because I could have probably done a better job than him. But, i'd have a hard time calling judge stupid, or a doctor stupid... since I couldn't possibly pull a job like that without proper training.