Ben Sargent by Ben Sargent

?fh=f0b77f842fc3d6f93bb1a299b4229446

Comments (37) Jump to Comments Form

  1. IrishEddieOHara

    IrishEddieOHara said, about 1 year ago

    Yeah, I know. The whole world just “happened”. No Creator. Nothing but a primordial soup left by the so called “big bang” and then over years, the whole thing turns into life.

    And you teach that fantasy as “science”???

    Sheeeeesh!!!

  2. oldlegodad

    oldlegodadGenius_badge said, about 1 year ago

    Every body who just loves my wit click previous day right now.I don’t want to type that all again..oxoxo

  3. DHLEAKY

    DHLEAKYGenius_badge said, about 1 year ago

    IrishEddieOHara says:

    Yeah, I know. The whole world just “happened”.
    Yes it did, about ten BILLION YEARS AGO. BUT, if your mind cannot comprehend anything farther back than 6001 years, and you are happy with that, so be it. JUST DO NOT JAMB IT DOWN OUR THROATS BY TRYING TO MAKE IT THE LAW OF THE LAND.

  4. acellist

    acellistGenius_badge said, about 1 year ago

    Each viral component is in itself an enormous collection of huge numbers of viral components all working together…

  5. Dale Hopson

    Dale HopsonGenius_badge said, about 1 year ago

    acelist, like the picture on the box of Wheat Thins with Rachel Ray holding a box of Wheat Thins with a picture on the box of Rachel Ray holding a box of Wheat Thins with a picture on box of Rachel Ray holding a box of Wheat Thins with a picture on the box of Rachel Ray holding a box of Wheat Thins with a picture on box of Rachel Ray…?

  6. oldlegodad

    oldlegodadGenius_badge said, about 1 year ago

    Dale they copied that from the condensed milk can, Carnation? Pet? I fergit.

  7. acellist

    acellistGenius_badge said, about 1 year ago

    DH, perspicuity is yours, Mr. Rara Avis!

  8. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 1 year ago

    IrishEddie - Classic. You’ve brutally oversimplified billions of years of development, but you think that a story of creating everything 6,000 years ago written down by a bunch of ignorant nomadic herders, passed down verbally for generations, then repeatedly translated, mixed up, and retranslated equates to science? Even the Catholic Church supports evolution. The only ones who don’t are hard-core Biblical literalists, who can’t even resolve the contradictory creation stories in Genesis.

  9. Corosive Frog

    Corosive Frog said, about 1 year ago

    Those who came up with Genesis (I mean, wrote it down after it had been passed down via spoken word for generations) did the best they could with the knowledge they had back then.

    I do believe a God created the world. There are many kinds of discourses and truths and we need them all. But making a science out of creationism is forcing religion into being like a science. It’s tossing it in a box labelled “science” that doesn’t fit. Science explains how stuff works or evolve while religion explains why there is anything in the first place. We need both these questions, not downsize them into one.

    Think about the important role of faith in religion. To believe in God is what makes a christian. When God will be proven as science, there won’t be so much merit into believing in God. Maybe God doesn’t want us to prove His existence scientifically to see if we really have faith in Him.

  10. alife

    alife said, about 1 year ago

    Sandy Cheeks is from Texas :D
    SpongeBob ref.

  11. Fairportfan

    Fairportfan said, about 1 year ago

    Where are the elephants and Great A’Tuin?

  12. Simon_Jester

    Simon_Jester said, about 1 year ago

    I’ve often wondered something….

    Why is it that ‘Intelligent Design’ types like Irish Eddie tend to be some of the biggest chearleaders out there for social Darwinism?

  13. 1MadMan

    1MadMan said, about 1 year ago

    And just where did God come from Irish? It’s a lot easier for me to believe in proven science than in than an imaginary being that created everything from nothing. What do you suppose he (or she) did before creating the universe, just float around in a void? Your are right, it does take faith… BLIND faith.

  14. IrishEddieOHara

    IrishEddieOHara said, about 1 year ago

    Isn’t interesting that you don’t want creationists teaching the theory of creation anywhere NEAR a school classroom, even if Christianity is taken out of the equation and a neutral idea of God is inserted. But you will insist that the theory of evolution be taught as an absolute fact rather than a theory, and will allow no challenges to it.

    I call that hypocrisy.

  15. dtriedel

    dtriedel said, about 1 year ago

    Evolution is a theory; creationism is a belief. One is science, the other is religion.

  16. Simon_Jester

    Simon_Jester said, about 1 year ago

    First post, Eddie sarcastically derides Darwins theory as a ‘fantasy’, and by implication, anyone who buys into it.

    Second post, he whines about how the poor innocent
    intel-design folks ‘aren’t allowed anywhere NEAR a classroom.’

    I call that more textbook bullying behavior.

  17. oldlegodad

    oldlegodadGenius_badge said, about 1 year ago

    Off the wall supposition as a Christian: What is “dark matter” that holds the universe together against the forces of gravity?

    GOD?

  18. NoFearPup

    NoFearPupGenius_badge said, about 1 year ago

    I don’t recall hearing anybody in the Evangelical-Fundamental-Christian community who believes the Earth is flat… Could this be (gasp!) an un-founded, bigoted, false charge?

  19. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 1 year ago

    IrishEddie–better do your research, as I have, before you start throwing around words like “hypocrite.” Read, for example, the Dover case, where a conservative Republican Bush appointee judge absolutely hammered “intelligent design” into the ground as religion, not science. You are welcome to believe anything you want, and for that matter put it in schools, but you are not entitled to put religious beliefs in the science classroom. I went to a Catholic school – we had religion classes and science classes, we didn’t mix them up. Creationism is not a scientific theory in any sense of the word, because it violates the fundamental principle that scientific hypotheses must be testable. (Intelligent Design is dressier creationism.) The main thrust of ID is that there is some stuff we can’t explain (yet), and therefore it must be God doing it. Pretty lame. If they were saying angels push the moon around the Earth instead of gravity, you’d say they were nuts, but you accept this approach?

    My God is bigger than the creationists. I think He created an immense, ancient universe that managed to generate intelligent life through natural processes built into His universe, without having to reach in and mess around with it. What’s wrong with assuming God created evolution?
    And NoFearPup - it’s called a “joke.”

  20. HUMPHRIES

    HUMPHRIESGenius_badge said, about 1 year ago

    motive… you were lucky in the earlier years; ie my sixth grade teacher stated, in class, that being left handed was a sign of the devil. Yes I do write left handed.

  21. acellist
  22. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 1 year ago

    HUMPH - sorry to hear that. I went to Southern Catholic schools, which were much more liberal. Being vastly outnumbered forced them to be more ecumenical. (My uncle was a leftie forced to write right-handed; my brother is moderately ambidexterous.)

  23. 1MadMan

    1MadMan said, about 1 year ago

    My question was not answered Irish. So just where did your ‘God’ come from and what did he do before creating the universe?

  24. DHLEAKY

    DHLEAKYGenius_badge said, about 1 year ago

    Corosive Frog says:
    When God will be proven as science, there won’t be so much merit into believing in God.
    Your convoluted thinking has brought you to the real truth of your faith theme.
    THERE WON’T BE ANY MERIT IN BELIEVING IN GOD. That is why nearly all Scientists have reached that conclusion, and why reality will set in as you creep along to the same conclusion. You are almost there.

  25. oldlegodad

    oldlegodadGenius_badge said, about 1 year ago

    Hummpy…give her a break. It was her Latin lessons. Sinister translates LEFT…and for some strange reason, Asian and Muslim societies also consider left hands unclean. Can’t eat with them, only wipe nether regions. Really advanced civilizations, eh wot?

  26. NoFearPup

    NoFearPupGenius_badge said, about 1 year ago

    To God in eternity all posers must appear “Flat”.

  27. DHLEAKY

    DHLEAKYGenius_badge said, about 1 year ago

    NoFearPup says:

    To God in eternity all posers must appear “Flat”.
    Did you mean posTers? Please explain what is meantby?

    NoFearPup says:

    To God in eternity all posers must appear “Flat”.

  28. HUMPHRIES

    HUMPHRIESGenius_badge said, about 1 year ago

    old71, don’t remember that in my latin, perhaps some research will find something in a dusty corner. Know about the practice of left hand being the butt wipe, that leaves the right clean for the food bowl(theives have right hand cut off, leaves them in a fix)

  29. NoFearPup

    NoFearPupGenius_badge said, about 1 year ago

    Oh, why do I try? (eyes roll and roll and roll again, ouch!) A “poser” = someone who appoints themselves to an un-attained office or position (my definition). This is a person who speaks confidently about something they personally know nothing about. And “flat” means one-dimensional. And yes that means you DHLEAKY! I guess I’m gonna catch heck now…!

  30. HUMPHRIES

    HUMPHRIESGenius_badge said, about 1 year ago

    NoFear, NO, no “heck”. Just some advice; peek in a mirror.

  31. oldlegodad

    oldlegodadGenius_badge said, about 1 year ago

    Now, Now, Children Play Nice.

  32. Corosive Frog

    Corosive Frog said, about 1 year ago

    I think one of the reasons why creationnism has “ressurected” is because we have come to consider the scientific way of thinking as the only valuable one. So some people who needed God (who doesn’t? Someone who pretends not to need something spiritual, something beyond the material world, is either a liar, extremely arrogant or didn’t had much trouble in life) felt that in order to keep their God, they had to conform His word to science, because science is seen as the only valuable way to see reality.

    Yeah, science was overrated; from the time of Galileo to WWII, we thought science was leading us to a golden age until science gave us the A-bomb, the H-Bomb, concentration camps, the Cold War with the end of the World not too far away. The world needed spiriual again but just couldn’t imagine a world with many truths so they tried to conform their spirituality to a pseudo-scientific thought pattern. It wasn’t enough to know how stuff works, we had to know why but we had ben taught for centuries that any thought pattern beside science is complete bull so we had to (try to) answer the “Why” with science.

    Have you ever noticed how alien encounter stories are similar to those of apparitions of the Virgin Mary or other saints? That’s how we ended up with religions with a foot in sci-fi and a foot in more conventional religions (raelians and scientlogy, among others) and the Ancient Astronaut Theory.

    But conforming religious thoughts to a scientific pattern, isn’t that the ultimate surreder of religion to science?

  33. DALLASDAN

    DALLASDAN said, about 1 year ago

    Actually down here in Texas, gravity is taught just as a theory with the alternative being that Jesus keeps us grounded.

  34. curiosity1

    curiosity1 said, about 1 year ago

    CF - Normally I’m on the same page as you. But I have to beg to differ on a few points.

    “Someone who pretends not to need something spiritual, something beyond the material world, is either a liar, extremely arrogant or didn’t had much trouble in life)”

    Needing something spiritual, or beyond the material does not imply a need for religion. I, as a devout atheist, derive great joy and satisfaction from helping my fellow man, even as they seek to deprive me of equal existence justified by their religious blinders. I have had problems in my life, maybe not enough trouble. Or perhaps I haven’t had trouble because I haven’t relied on religion or faith to answer my wishes or needs, and instead have relied on myself and my compatriots to produce them. My husband has had great difficulty in his life nearly dying in a motorcycle accident, through recovery and living with a permanent handicap, and he is as faithfully faithless as I despite his experience. The implication that a person without faith is “either a liar, extremely arrogant or didn’t had much trouble in life” (and that they can only pretend not to need it) is very unpleasantly disdainful, rude, and simply misinformed. I have respect for people who have faith until they tell me that my lack of it makes me effectively inhuman.

    “we thought science was leading us to a golden age until science gave us the A-bomb, the H-Bomb, concentration camps, the Cold War with the end of the World not too far away”

    Science did not give us concentration camps - bigotry did. Science did not give us the Cold War - devout ideology did. Science provides real answers to real questions. And generally, when Science fails, it is because those not of a scientific persuasion gain the power to control and threaten the lives of those who are.

    “I think one of the reasons why creationnism has “ressurected” is because we have come to consider the scientific way of thinking as the only valuable one.”

    I would have to add that a significant explanation is that faith is easy, reason takes effort. We, in the US, and consummate examples of laziness. Laziness in action, and in thought. It is easier to blame God when things go wrong, or to thank God when things go right, than to take measures to help ensure that good outcomes occur and bad ones don’t. And yes, s**t happens despite hard work and best efforts.

    It is far simpler to allow one’s thought process to simply stop with what one’s pastor tells one is right than to ask oneself ‘why’ and then seek out the answers with explanations that hold together with rational integrity.

    Why are so many scientists atheists? Because they live in a world which requires that every day they exercise their mind with the same rigor that professional athletes exercise their bodies. That degree of introspection, and extrospection (coined) - analysis of the world around us and of the analysis which has been performed by others - in isolation from pure ideology reinforces the separation between faith and spirituality.

    As has been said by others here…the significant issue with religion is the ease with which it can be imposed on others as the “one true thought” - with no explanation as to why other than “because I said so”. It’s no coincidence that in every cycle of social persecution the thinkers and scientists are frequently the first to leave or the first destroyed.

    Practice your faith in you house of worship and in your home, and don’t tread on me.

    Peace.

  35. HUMPHRIES

    HUMPHRIESGenius_badge said, about 1 year ago

    Dallas, what happened? I thought gravity was a law. Did it get repealed there?

  36. Corosive Frog

    Corosive Frog said, about 1 year ago

    Okay, I used the words “religion” and “spirituality” like they were synonyms and I shouldn’t have…sorry ‘bout that.

    But my point is, science gave bigots means to carry out their plans. Science is a mean rather than a panacea to all mankind’s problems like it was presented in the 1800’s and early 20th century.
    Without something else, at the very least some ethics found through philosophy and spirituality, it can be a loose cannon.

  37. 1MadMan

    1MadMan said, about 1 year ago

    Great discourse curiosity1, pretty much my feelings too. As for the class-room, I would agree to a universal philosophy class for all schools (including sectarian) with an introduction to ALL religions (including atheism). Religious ‘instruction’ should be left up to the church itself, and valuable school time used to prepare students for the real world after graduation.