If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   There be dragons   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 53
    More: Stupid, Komodo dragon, Dana Rohrabacher, Book of Revelation, blind eye, Jim Sensenbrenner, Ken Ham, Mount St. Helens, factual basis  
•       •       •

6764 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Aug 2013 at 1:09 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



53 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-16 08:08:51 AM  
www.websophist.com
 
2013-08-16 08:23:30 AM  
I would like to be there when the first hominid capable of thought and speech came across some form of exposed dinosaur skull. I'd also like to have some form of hominid->English translator, so I can know what they're saying.

Of course I might end up saying "It's a dragon", and thus set in motion everything that got to this point. The perils of time travel...
 
2013-08-16 08:31:36 AM  
I'd call him a kook, but apparently ridiculing the obviously ridiculous makes me "smug" and "arrogant."
 
2013-08-16 08:48:50 AM  
See, Noah was a dumbass. He should've built a couple of harnesses to those dragons so they could tow the Ark.
 
2013-08-16 09:03:38 AM  

kronicfeld: I'd call him a kook, but apparently ridiculing the obviously ridiculous makes me "smug" and "arrogant."


I've been called "enlightened".  But I know plenty of seemingly intelligent individuals, with good paying jobs and relatively stable lives and even with a decent education, who subscribe to this.
 
2013-08-16 09:11:54 AM  
There was a time in America when mentally ill people got treatment instead of getting on television.
 
2013-08-16 01:11:33 PM  
Here I thought my pants were on fire, but it was just someone blowing smoke up my ass.
 
2013-08-16 01:12:53 PM  
static.comicvine.com
 
2013-08-16 01:13:03 PM  
I'd like to believe in dragons too; just not in such a short time frame. Unless 'biblical times' means millions of y---nope, its doesn't.


/So I'm only half crazy?
 
2013-08-16 01:13:47 PM  
It must have been fun, sitting around the goat herder's fire at night, coming up with a whopper bigger than the one just told.
 
2013-08-16 01:14:25 PM  

FlashHarry: [www.websophist.com image 463x355]


...Barry?

Is that shopped to be an Obama joke or something?
 
2013-08-16 01:14:33 PM  
Were you there????
 
2013-08-16 01:16:19 PM  
What about dungeons?
 
2013-08-16 01:16:41 PM  
Yes, but what does the bible say about bananas that fit in your hand?
 
2013-08-16 01:16:52 PM  
Of course dragons existed, I've slayed several thousand in my adventures. They drop the best loot.
 
2013-08-16 01:18:38 PM  
thebizzare.com

And Jesus shouted, "Fus ro dah!" And lo did Daenerys Targaryen giveth her dragons unto THE LORD.
 
2013-08-16 01:19:19 PM  
Little dragons still alive
 
2013-08-16 01:22:47 PM  

kronicfeld: I'd call him a kook, but apparently ridiculing the obviously ridiculous makes me "smug" and "arrogant."


"Smug" or Smaug?
 
2013-08-16 01:30:44 PM  
If we're going to put forward that T-rex slowly turned into a chicken, then I can totally see a dragonesque thing being somewhere along the line of that transition.  And that would be AWESOME.
 
2013-08-16 01:31:05 PM  

Dafatone: FlashHarry: [www.websophist.com image 463x355]

...Barry?

Is that shopped to be an Obama joke or something?


Yes it is, Other Barry. Yes it is.
 
2013-08-16 01:31:11 PM  
For the record, their are young earth creationists who try to force the biblical genealogies into being the de factor measure of time (they aren't) and there are creationists who either believe the earth and universe are ancient or (like myself) could not care less about how old or young it is.

Young earth creationists can hold up a picture of the Mona Lisa and ask, "How old?" Some will say "She's probably in her teens" and others will say "That painting is roughly 500 years old." Both are correct as the painting has the appearance of youth. They'll argue that God made the earth with the appearance of age so that creation would be ready for man. From a strictly theological standpoint, that may be alright. But God is not one to deceive, so they cannot then turn around and say that God placed the dinosaur bones in the ground or the transient starlight of distant stars we know to be long gone (super novae) in space to "test our faith."

For what it's worth, anyone who wants to believe that life arose from non-life and intelligence from non-intelligence is free to do so. As expansive as 4.5 billion years is, I just don't see how it can occur in that short amount of time, especially without something greater than what we know about our universe being involved. I'd like to believe it is an informed choice, as I believe everything in our observation and experience leads us to that conclusion.

To suggest otherwise - that life came from non-life or the universe from nothing (absent an infinite regression of something) really isn't all that different from believing in a blind watchmaker starting it all. If it falls outside of that which is observable, testable, and repeatable then it's not basic science (e.g. "God", "Big Bang", "Spontaneous Generation"). All we can do as look at the evidence, draw our own conclusions, and live accordingly.


But I just KNOW you'll take issue with that, so here we go...
 
2013-08-16 01:35:52 PM  

Jodeo: For the record, their are young earth creationists who try to force the biblical genealogies into being the de factor measure of time (they aren't) and there are creationists who either believe the earth and universe are ancient or (like myself) could not care less about how old or young it is.

Young earth creationists can hold up a picture of the Mona Lisa and ask, "How old?" Some will say "She's probably in her teens" and others will say "That painting is roughly 500 years old." Both are correct as the painting has the appearance of youth. They'll argue that God made the earth with the appearance of age so that creation would be ready for man. From a strictly theological standpoint, that may be alright. But God is not one to deceive, so they cannot then turn around and say that God placed the dinosaur bones in the ground or the transient starlight of distant stars we know to be long gone (super novae) in space to "test our faith."


I've heard many religious folks advance that argument, and usually they mean God CAN'T deceive...which directly contradicts any claims of "omnipotence" on his behalf.

Care to elaborate?
 
2013-08-16 01:38:23 PM  
I stopped reading at creationist.
 
2013-08-16 01:39:48 PM  
http://img163.imageshack.us Uploaded with ImageShack.us


this
 
2013-08-16 01:43:29 PM  
"The Bible speaks about dragons," Isaacs told the show's hosts. "Our authority -- everything we do, we have to measure by the word of God. That is what I believe. So we have to go to the Bible, and the Bible speaks about dragons."

It pisses me off anytime a Christian says "the Bible says" because they don't actually say where in the Bible it says what they claim it says, so you have to take the time to look it up to see if they're full of shiat or not.

Isaacs said that dragons are compared to Satan in the Book of Revelation. And God wouldn't just throw that in without factual basis, he said.

And even when they do tell you where in the Bible "the Bible says", you still have to look it up to see if they're full of shiat or not.

I looked it up.  Dragons are mentioned in Revelation.  If that's all the proof that is required, then that settles it.  They existed.  I'm convinced.

/the existence of dragons based on the Bible also depends which version of the Bible you read
//what's up with the dragons and the owls?
 
2013-08-16 01:45:00 PM  
<-----  There Dragon

There Idiot ----->

 
2013-08-16 01:49:53 PM  
Hoooooly fark balls this is starting to get scary stupid.
 
2013-08-16 01:51:38 PM  

Jodeo: To suggest otherwise - that life came from non-life or the universe from nothing (absent an infinite regression of something) really isn't all that different from believing in a blind watchmaker starting it all. If it falls outside of that which is observable, testable, and repeatable then it's not basic science (e.g. "God", "Big Bang", "Spontaneous Generation"). All we can do as look at the evidence, draw our own conclusions, and live accordingly.


hang a big old nope on that one.

The watchmaker argument is self defeating. The basic assumption is a claim that anything complicated must have been made by something more complicated.  Which of course begs the question of who created the creator which infinitely repeats itself.   Abiogenisis does not take for granted that something complicated must be the product of something even more complicated and as such does not set itself up for an infinite regression.


The difference is that one is a logical fallacy and the other is a theory that at least doesn't fall flat on it's face before it even gets started.
 
2013-08-16 01:51:48 PM  
next up: unicorns, satyrs, and cockatrices
 
2013-08-16 01:52:27 PM  

PunGent: Jodeo: For the record, their are young earth creationists who try to force the biblical genealogies into being the de factor measure of time (they aren't) and there are creationists who either believe the earth and universe are ancient or (like myself) could not care less about how old or young it is.

Young earth creationists can hold up a picture of the Mona Lisa and ask, "How old?" Some will say "She's probably in her teens" and others will say "That painting is roughly 500 years old." Both are correct as the painting has the appearance of youth. They'll argue that God made the earth with the appearance of age so that creation would be ready for man. From a strictly theological standpoint, that may be alright. But God is not one to deceive, so they cannot then turn around and say that God placed the dinosaur bones in the ground or the transient starlight of distant stars we know to be long gone (super novae) in space to "test our faith."

I've heard many religious folks advance that argument, and usually they mean God CAN'T deceive...which directly contradicts any claims of "omnipotence" on his behalf.

Care to elaborate?


You're conflating omnipotence with omnivolitionality. Omnipotence means that, whatever God wills to do, he has the power to do. Omnivolitionality means that there are no limits to what God can will to do. Omnivolitionality has never been orthodox Christian theology. God's will is limited by his own nature. God's rational nature is the ground of the rational order of the universe, so he cannot will that, for example, there be a flat sphere. God is also supremely good, so he cannot will to tell a lie. To will these things would make him less than God.
 
2013-08-16 01:54:35 PM  

Egoy3k: Jodeo: To suggest otherwise - that life came from non-life or the universe from nothing (absent an infinite regression of something) really isn't all that different from believing in a blind watchmaker starting it all. If it falls outside of that which is observable, testable, and repeatable then it's not basic science (e.g. "God", "Big Bang", "Spontaneous Generation"). All we can do as look at the evidence, draw our own conclusions, and live accordingly.

hang a big old nope on that one.

The watchmaker argument is self defeating. The basic assumption is a claim that anything complicated must have been made by something more complicated.  Which of course begs the question of who created the creator which infinitely repeats itself.   Abiogenisis does not take for granted that something complicated must be the product of something even more complicated and as such does not set itself up for an infinite regression.


The difference is that one is a logical fallacy and the other is a theory that at least doesn't fall flat on it's face before it even gets started.


You're confusing functional complexity with ontological complexity.
 
2013-08-16 01:58:08 PM  

leonel: Hoooooly fark balls this is starting to get scary stupid.


I was listening to an AM Christian radio program on a road trip and was amazed by what I was hearing. A young lady was being interviewed by the show hosts and she was explaining how she had to defend Christianity and creationism while she was in a college science class.  She said there were other Christians in the class but she was the only one courageous enough to speak up and defend the faith.  She went on to encourage the listeners to not send their kids away from home to receive higher education.  It was eye opening.  I do not have a problem with religion but that radio spot really made me mad.
 
2013-08-16 02:01:19 PM  
Thamks, Huff Science.
 
2013-08-16 02:02:09 PM  
FTFA: "...along with discoveries of fossils of giant prehistoric fossils..."

/yo dawg...
 
2013-08-16 02:07:12 PM  

Son of Thunder: PunGent: Jodeo: For the record, their are young earth creationists who try to force the biblical genealogies into being the de factor measure of time (they aren't) and there are creationists who either believe the earth and universe are ancient or (like myself) could not care less about how old or young it is.

Young earth creationists can hold up a picture of the Mona Lisa and ask, "How old?" Some will say "She's probably in her teens" and others will say "That painting is roughly 500 years old." Both are correct as the painting has the appearance of youth. They'll argue that God made the earth with the appearance of age so that creation would be ready for man. From a strictly theological standpoint, that may be alright. But God is not one to deceive, so they cannot then turn around and say that God placed the dinosaur bones in the ground or the transient starlight of distant stars we know to be long gone (super novae) in space to "test our faith."

I've heard many religious folks advance that argument, and usually they mean God CAN'T deceive...which directly contradicts any claims of "omnipotence" on his behalf.

Care to elaborate?

You're conflating omnipotence with omnivolitionality. Omnipotence means that, whatever God wills to do, he has the power to do. Omnivolitionality means that there are no limits to what God can will to do. Omnivolitionality has never been orthodox Christian theology. God's will is limited by his own nature. God's rational nature is the ground of the rational order of the universe, so he cannot will that, for example, there be a flat sphere. God is also supremely good, so he cannot will to tell a lie. To will these things would make him less than God.


You're conflating lying with evil.
 
2013-08-16 02:10:59 PM  
Creationis-

1.bp.blogspot.com
the-evan.com
 
2013-08-16 02:16:30 PM  

Son of Thunder: You're conflating omnipotence with omnivolitionality. Omnipotence means that, whatever God wills to do, he has the power to do. Omnivolitionality means that there are no limits to what God can will to do. Omnivolitionality has never been orthodox Christian theology. God's will is limited by his own nature. God's rational nature is the ground of the rational order of the universe, so he cannot will that, for example, there be a flat sphere. God is also supremely good, so he cannot will to tell a lie. To will these things would make him less than God.


Abraham and Isaac might have a slightly different view of God's propensity to deceive.
 
2013-08-16 02:18:22 PM  
FTFA:   Isaacs said that dragons are compared to Satan in the Book of Revelation. "And God wouldn't just throw that in without factual basis," he said.

"If dragons in fact were entirely mythological, if they were a figment of the imagination, and if they never ever did exist, then God just compared our adversary to a make-believe creature that never existed," Isaacs said.


Arrrrgggg.  So very close to an epiphany or rational thought!!!!
 
2013-08-16 02:28:53 PM  
I was going to make fun of this guy, but then I saw that he had beat me to it:

"Isaacs said that dragons are compared to Satan in the Book of Revelation. And God wouldn't just throw that in without factual basis, he said. "If dragons in fact were entirely mythological, if they were a figment of the imagination, and if they never ever did exist, then God just compared our adversary to a make-believe creature that never existed," Isaacs said."

(To paraphrase, "A make-believe book compared a make-believe creature to a make-believe creature, and a make-believe character wouldn't throw that in without factual basis. If the make-believe creature was in fact make-believe, then the make-believe character just compared another make-believe character to a make-believe creature, which is not possible.")

Either this guy is making fun of himself, or he's some kind of next-generation supertroll.
 
2013-08-16 02:58:51 PM  
Came here to see pictures of Jesus riding a dragon.

/was disappointed.
 
2013-08-16 03:31:57 PM  
 
2013-08-16 03:34:00 PM  

Dafatone: FlashHarry: [www.websophist.com image 463x355]

...Barry?

Is that shopped to be an Obama joke or something?


ha! i didn't even notice that!

must've been the week that obama was an "empty suit" instead of a "evil puppet-master illuminatus."
 
2013-08-16 04:30:17 PM  
If you think that's bad, those stupid Muslims believe in genies except they don't even know how to spell it right!! Ha! Stupid mooslems!
 
2013-08-16 05:06:30 PM  
images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-08-16 05:40:36 PM  
I'll have to add this to my list of reasons I've seen people talk about dragons:

Video games
Fantasy novels
Fantasy TV/Movies
Mythology and its origins
Extremely large amounts of mushrooms
Creationism

On second thought, creationism falls under the mythology category, but I can't think of any other mythology where the people actually believed it.
 
2013-08-16 06:23:12 PM  

CourtroomWolf: On second thought, creationism falls under the mythology category, but I can't think of any other mythology where the people actually believed it.


You've obviously never hung around Otherkin.
 
2013-08-16 07:50:18 PM  

Gunny Highway: A young lady was being interviewed by the show hosts and she was explaining how she had to defend Christianity and creationism while she was in a college science class.  She said there were other Christians in the class but she was the only one courageous enough to speak up and defend the faith.  She went on to encourage the listeners to not send their kids away from home to receive higher education.  It was eye opening.  I do not have a problem with religion but that radio spot really made me mad.


Maybe it's good that she was discouraging her co-religionists from going to college.   Apparently there are organizations of such students even at some of the Ivy league schools, pushing to get science courses to present "both sides of the argument".  If there really is a glut of college degrees, maybe it would be better for everybody if the Christians stayed home and went to trade school.
 
2013-08-16 07:58:26 PM  

HindiDiscoMonster: fruitloop: "The Bible speaks about dragons," Isaacs told the show's hosts. "Our authority -- everything we do, we have to measure by the word of God. That is what I believe. So we have to go to the Bible, and the Bible speaks about dragons."

It pisses me off anytime a Christian says "the Bible says" because they don't actually say where in the Bible it says what they claim it says, so you have to take the time to look it up to see if they're full of shiat or not.

Isaacs said that dragons are compared to Satan in the Book of Revelation. And God wouldn't just throw that in without factual basis, he said.

And even when they do tell you where in the Bible "the Bible says", you still have to look it up to see if they're full of shiat or not.

I looked it up.  Dragons are mentioned in Revelation.  If that's all the proof that is required, then that settles it.  They existed.  I'm convinced.

/the existence of dragons based on the Bible also depends which version of the Bible you read
//what's up with the dragons and the owls?

Dragons still exist...
[dragon-komodo.com image 850x478]
/Well... till they all become handbags and belts that is...


And let us not forget these guys:

i41.tinypic.com
They can make good pets.

/Not handbags, though.
 
2013-08-16 08:18:19 PM  
So that means that he must also believe in giants?
 
2013-08-16 08:19:23 PM  

Slaxl: I would like to be there when the first hominid capable of thought and speech came across some form of exposed dinosaur skull. I'd also like to have some form of hominid->English translator, so I can know what they're saying.

Of course I might end up saying "It's a dragon", and thus set in motion everything that got to this point. The perils of time travel...


Or, you might turn out to be your own grandpa....
 
Displayed 50 of 53 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report