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 11
    More: Stupid, Komodo dragon, Dana Rohrabacher, Book of Revelation, blind eye, Jim Sensenbrenner, Ken Ham, Mount St. Helens, factual basis  
•       •       •

6763 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-08-16 09:11:54 AM
3 votes:
There was a time in America when mentally ill people got treatment instead of getting on television.
2013-08-16 02:28:53 PM
2 votes:
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 02:18:22 PM
1 votes:
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 01:58:08 PM
1 votes:

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 01:31:11 PM
1 votes:
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 01:30:44 PM
1 votes:
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 01:14:25 PM
1 votes:

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


...Barry?

Is that shopped to be an Obama joke or something?
2013-08-16 01:13:47 PM
1 votes:
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 08:48:50 AM
1 votes:
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 08:31:36 AM
1 votes:
I'd call him a kook, but apparently ridiculing the obviously ridiculous makes me "smug" and "arrogant."
2013-08-16 08:08:51 AM
1 votes:
www.websophist.com
 
Displayed 11 of 11 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report