BillVol wrote:Someone on here said that most track people are Democrats. Why is that?
Ha! Mayhem to ensure . . . By stereotype, Dems are progressives, liberals, people who embrace change. By stereotype, Reps are conservatives, reactionaries, people who embrace the status quo (or even a return to 'simpler times' (sic) . . . remember how we treated all people back then? ).
Change is inevitable, therefore Dems are always in a position to accept that change and Reps are not. Track and field is constantly evolving; records are to be broken (Joe Dimaggio's 56-game hitting streak notwithstanding!) and T&F fans eagerly anticipate that, therefore they are Democrats. [Don't tell lonewolf, who really is a Dem, but insists he's a Rep. I know this because he's always right, therefore he must, by definition, be a Dem ]
dbirds wrote:I think our nation was more conservative in the first half Of the 20th century - before abortion, gay rights and no prayer in schools. Back when our nation was closer to its Judeo-Christian roots!
Say what?!?! The founding fathers were radical liberals!!!
dbirds wrote:Modern Christianity? Either they believe in Jesus or not
What do you mean by "believing in Jesus"?
His existence? His teachings as told by strangers that did not know him anywhere between 40 and 150 years after his death? His resurrection described in three different ways in the Gospels? His divinity?
All of the above has been debated by Christian theologians for centuries with hardly any consensus.
I do not think you can correlate/equate religion with politics. I do not believe religion should ever be introduced into politics. I do believe unacceptable behaviour, by cultural common sense, is pertinent.
I am a fairly well behaved individual without being overtly religious. I suppose I am an an agnostic, afflicted by a fundamental Christian upbringing, the absolute veracity of which has been eroded by education and common sense.
I do not criticize true believers of whatever religion, even if I personally believe some have some pretty kooky ideas. I believe the main benefit of religion is to induce a positive standard of behaviour in society. I do not doubt that it gives comfort to believers in traumatic circumstances. I applaud the charitable work of various religious organizations.
Virtually all "religions" are essentially "cults", originating with a "prophet" by one name or another that share a common trait of a diety by one name or another, whether or not there is evidence of the existence of said diety. Religions evolve do/don't lists to prescribe human behavior, which becomes culturally distorted and misinterpreted. Religion has been the root cause of uncountable wars and unfathomable atrocites.
And, it is a huge business providing employment for millions of people, either religous practicioners or providers of goods and services to religion.
I feel I left something out but gotta go to a family July 4th thing.
A lot of Christians have brought a back name to Jesus by the way they live and act but Jesus was a great man, the son of God and the savior of mankind. Every "discrepancy" That you speak of can be explained if you really know the Bible and the content of that era. I'd encourage you to read it more thoroughly (as I continue to do), eternity in heaven is too important to miss!
dbirds wrote:A lot of Christians have brought a back name to Jesus by the way they live and act but Jesus was a great man, the son of God and the savior of mankind. Every "discrepancy" That you speak of can be explained if you really know the Bible and the content of that era. I'd encourage you to read it more thoroughly (as I continue to do), eternity in heaven is too important to miss!
I have read it, a lot more than you might think. The difference between us is that I also read biblical scholarship that examines it. Such scholarship has existed primarily only the last two centuries. Oh yes, if you want to debate the Bible with me, I stand at your service, but refrain from patronizing me with statements such as "read it more thoroughly." What is thorough means something entirely different to you than it does to me.
I think praying before reading helps one interpret it better. I have read other historical documents that support. Read something by lee strobel Or ken ham, they have studied it much thoroughly than I have.
dbirds wrote:I think praying before reading helps one interpret it better. I have read other historical documents that support. Read something by lee strobel Or ken ham, they have studied it much thoroughly than I have.
I know plenty about Ken Ham and the entire creationist movement. It ignores everything that natural sciences learned.
Estimates based on the evidence currently available. They may well be revised as more information is collected, but they are not bogus.
The estimate is variable, but not by a very large degree. At the Hayden Planetarium (where Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson is director), the estimate age of the universe is 13 billion years. When Dr. Carl Sagan presented Cosmos (1980), the estimate was 15 billion. As for the earth, I've heard and read estimates of anywhere between 4.3 billion and 4.8 billion, with the Moon perhaps 500 million years younger, some of its material having come from the Earth after an object the size of Mercury or Mars (or somewhere in between) smashing into it.
Cooter Brown wrote:The average person is borderline functionally retarded.
Actually, psychological studies have concluded that the average person, at 100 IQ, is surprising adept at succeeding in life and people with IQs (admittedly, an obsolete term) of 85 fully blend in with 'normal' society.
dbirds wrote:They can't find any fossils to corroborate these dates. Bunch of crazy guesses. A lot of scientists think they are a lot smarter than they really are
This is so absurd, there is no reasonable response. Do you realize that the geological strata establishing ages at different levels started with Hutton still in the 18th century, long before Darwin, long before Lyell, long before isotope dating?