This question has been pestering me for the past few days. Anyone have an answer?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/2.asp

Edit: Read the part titled, "What Happened to the Dinosaurs?" Gave me a few lulz

:D HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!.....

Ok, now seriously.

That's pretty much spot on.

A Christian that believes in the literal creation as described in Genesis, will say that the bible refers to them as the "Leviathan" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan).

Of course, that's a pretty ridiculous claim since the description of the Leviathan does not fit any dinosaur we know, and even if it did, what about the thousands of other species that would be roaming around - all very different?

Not to mention the silly crap they believe... like they were all vegetarians initially, all friendly with humans, etc.

That's pretty much spot on.

A Christian that believes in the literal creation as described in Genesis, will say that the bible refers to them as the "Leviathan" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan).

Of course, that's a pretty ridiculous claim since the description of the Leviathan does not fit any dinosaur we know, and even if it did, what about the thousands of other species that would be roaming around - all very different?

Not to mention the silly crap they believe... like they were all vegetarians initially, all friendly with humans, etc.

hundreds of thousands.

hmm lets see the bible was written a few thousand years ago, and dinosaurs died a few million years ago.

hence no dinosaurs in the bible.

you couldnt figure that out yourself?

Yeah but in the bible it tells how god created the world in seven days and on one of those days he created the first two people (adam and eve). Now, if during these seven days people were created, and if according to science and common sense people came AFTER the dinosaurs...

Does the bible mean to say that every species of dinosaur and every creature that has been proven to have existed before humans live and die in those few days? Are scientists, atheists, and the nazis just creating fossils, skeletons, and facts in a dark basement somewhere in an attempt to overthrow god?

No, I think that the bible should be relocated to the fiction section. But what do you think?

Yeah but in the bible it tells how god created the world in seven days and on one of those days he created the first two people (adam and eve). Now, if during these seven days people were created, and if according to science and common sense people came AFTER the dinosaurs...

Does the bible mean to say that every species of dinosaur and every creature that has been proven to have existed before humans live and die in those few days? Are scientists, atheists, and the nazis just creating fossils, skeletons, and facts in a dark basement somewhere in an attempt to overthrow god?

No, I think that the bible should be relocated to the fiction section. But what do you think?

It should be in a completely separate spiritual section with a lot of others. Most if not all of it shouldn't be taken literally

It had a tail like a cedar tree....so its a BRACHIOSAURUS! What the fuck does that have to do with anything?! One tail like a Cedar Tree is the explanation of over 500 different species? Bullshit. And the phrase "He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. " Tail and stones here are obvious references to the giant's manhood. So many delusional apologists, so little time.


PS. http://www.hmnh.org/images/archaeopteryx.jpg no intermediate species?

Gen 2:8

'And God did create the dinosaurs, and saw that they were super-cool.'

Lol...
"The scientists did not dig up any remains with labels to say how old they were."
CARBON DATING, WHORE!

That's pretty much spot on.

A Christian that believes in the literal creation as described in Genesis, will say that the bible refers to them as the "Leviathan" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan).

Of course, that's a pretty ridiculous claim since the description of the Leviathan does not fit any dinosaur we know, and even if it did, what about the thousands of other species that would be roaming around - all very different?

Not to mention the silly crap they believe... like they were all vegetarians initially, all friendly with humans, etc.

They have Behemoth too!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behemoth

Very funny article.

I bet Huckabee believes in shit like this.

God sent two of every (seven of some) land animal into the Ark (Genesis 7:2-3; 7:8-9)—there were no exceptions. Therefore, dinosaurs must have been on the Ark. Even though there was ample room in the huge ship for large animals, perhaps God sent young adults into the Ark that still had plenty of room for them to grow.

Hilarious.

One question: If Dinosaurs and man lived together WHY DO WE NOT FIND THEIR FOSSILS TOGETHER. If evolution is false, why do we not find a modern rabbit, mouse, raven, human, dog, elephant, cat, tiget, rat, bat, pig, chicken etc. (the list goes on and on and on) skeleton laying with the dinosaurs???

Wanna disprove evolution? Go to a dig site and find a T-Rex with a modern cow skeleton in it's mouth.....

Very funny article.

I bet Huckabee believes in shit like this.


I bet Ron Paul does too.

I bet Ron Paul does too.

I would honestly be shocked. I will bet you that Ron Paul does not. In fact if you can provide me with evidence that Dr. Paul believes dinosaurs existed alongside of humans, the earth is 6000 years old, and dinosaurs were on the ark......

I WILL NEVER POST HERE AGAIN.

Well he does not believe in evolution and he is a Christian. It seems pretty reasonable to assume that he buys into the Cristian creation myth.

Any sources saying he is a creationist and does not believe in evolution?

According to a former aid to Congressman Paul, the candidate who’s shaking polls and unnerving neo-cons attends an Episcopalian church. He identifies himself as a Protestant. He did not identify himself in the California debate as one who does not believe in the theory of evolution.

http://fellowprisoner.wordpress.com/2007/05/21/why-it-doesnt-matter-whether-ron-paul-or-any-president-is-christian/

This is my source for the above. Just found it after a quick google. I think it is a xtain site at that.

Yes, and it seems he lied then, as I showed you in your thread in Politics. Here is my post in that thread:

http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=9345833&postcount=15


The specific link I cite is:

http://www.thedailybackground.com/2007/12/21/ron-paul-just-another-texas-republican-who-doesnt-believe-in-evolution/

Which has a video of Ron Paul admitting he does not believe in evolution.

Wow...

I missed that post in the thread. I don't believe he thinks dinosaurs and humans lived together, or that dinosaurs were on the ark.

Why don't you believe that? He is a Protestant Christian that denies evolution. What other story is there for a protestant Christian to believe? He denies evolution, but denies the bible too - the foundation of his Protestant beliefs? He believes some other weird creation myth?

No offense, but that is just naive.

I have no objections to hijacking this thread. Creationists have to believe the human race is inbred; end of story. Continue bitching about Ron Paul please

'this supposed dinosaur age'
lawl

There aren't any dinosaurs in the Bible.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/2.asp

Edit: Read the part titled, "What Happened to the Dinosaurs?" Gave me a few lulz
I love how they never mention carbon dating.

Man, I really respected Ron Paul untill I saw that link.

"Creationists, of course, would not be surprised if someone found a living dinosaur"

Ahahahah. Nothing more said.

Why don't you believe that? He is a Protestant Christian that denies evolution. What other story is there for a protestant Christian to believe? He denies evolution, but denies the bible too - the foundation of his Protestant beliefs? He believes some other weird creation myth?

No offense, but that is just naive.

OMG....you got me there. He has to believe humans and dinosaurs lived together for at least the first thousand years of the 6000 year old earth.

I was a Christian who denied evolution and still did not believe that humans and dinosaurs lived together. I was a Christian who denied much of the bible as accurate. I was more of a thinking Christian, then I thought to much and became an atheist.

I digress...

I don't think Paul believes that Dinosaurs and humans lived together either. Really don't.

Man, I really respected Ron Paul untill I saw that link.

He is entitled to his beliefs so long as he does not try to impose these beliefs on everyone else through legislation. I respect HIS beliefs b/c he respects my right to live free of them.

I think he believes in the Constitution more than he does in the bible.

OMG....you got me there. He has to believe humans and dinosaurs lived together for at least the first thousand years of the 6000 year old earth.

Did I say he had to? No I did not.

You making a ridiculous parody of what I actually said is not going diminish my point, nor make yours any better.

You've yet to give any compelling reason why any reasonable human being would assume that Ron Paul denies both the Bible and evolution. Could he deny both? Sure. But like it or not, the smart money is that he doesn't.

He is entitled to his beliefs so long as he does not try to impose these beliefs on everyone else through legislation.

Why do you trust he would do that when according to you he's infected with a mind virus that prevents him from thinking logically?

You guys are all retarded... live in the now.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/2.asp

Edit: Read the part titled, "What Happened to the Dinosaurs?" Gave me a few lulz

I can't even find words to describe the epic amount of pure stupidity and ignorance that is bursting that article at the seams..

Did I say he had to? No I did not.

You making a ridiculous parody of what I actually said is not going diminish my point, nor make yours any better.

You've yet to give any compelling reason why any reasonable human being would assume that Ron Paul denies both the Bible and evolution. Could he deny both? Sure. But like it or not, the smart money is that he doesn't.

Read it again:

I was a Christian who denied evolution and still did not believe that humans and dinosaurs lived together. I was a Christian who denied much of the bible as accurate. I was more of a thinking Christian, then I thought to much and became an atheist.

Not exactly compelling, but your "smart money", or as I like to call it your COMPLETE supposition, would be lost where I was concerned. Furthermore, there are MANY christians here on Totse who do not believe in a 6000 year old earth. Far more than exist who do. Where is your "smart money" again? While I was a Christian I don't think I heard a single one in my church utter the phrase 6000 year old Earth, or dinosaurs and humans living together. This is just of course a reflection on my own personal experiece both as a Christian and here on Totse. In fact, I have never met a young earth christian in the flesh. Have you? Have you personally met more Xtians who are old Earth or more who are young Earth? That is what I thought. Why is it "smart money" again?

Why do you trust he would do that when according to you he's infected with a mind virus that prevents him from thinking logically?

I think, yet again, you are being argumentative just for the sake of argument but I will humor you. I believe his belief in the constitution or his constitution meme has trumped the christian meme. He has held true to the constitution where most everything is concerned, I personally believe he is one of those who realize, as our founding fathers did, that church and state should not be together for the betterment of both.

I do believe his theistic views hamper his logic. He probably believes that two grown men getting married is ANY of his personal business, for example. I do not think christianity completely prevents all logic thought, and don't think I have said that. I do believe that it does in general hamper most peoples ability to think logically and exercise critical problem solving skills. I believe Dr. Paul (as well as some others) is an exception (for the most part).

Another good point would be to say that no atheistic presidents are running and will not run for some time to come.

I thought I finally contended in the thread or threads you are speaking of that christiany can be logical. I then argued that it was not sound logic and that it hampers regular logical thought.

I have already been through this which is why I think you are arguing just to argue. I hope that clears some things up for you, about my beliefs and why I still back Ron Paul. Thanks for asking.

Read it again:

I already did. That changes absolutely nothing of what I said. Yes, in your case, my money would be lost; in most, it would not be... hence why it's a "smart" bet, not a certainty.


Furthermore, there are MANY christians here on Totse who do not believe in a 6000 year old earth. Far more than exist who do. Where is your "smart money" again?

If the totse population represented the Christian population in the U.S. you might have a point. Since it doesn't, you don't.

Not to mention that we're talking specifically of Protestant Christians - not all Christians.

To say that the the majority of Protestant Christians in the U.S. deny both the bible and evolution, is utterly ridiculous and you know it. Like it or not, the smart money is that he does not.


In fact, I have never met a young earth christian in the flesh. Have you? Have you personally met more Xtians who are old Earth or more who are young Earth? That is what I thought. Why is it "smart money" again?

Yes. I have met many. However, whether I have or I haven't does not change anything. I don't personally know any Chinese people, yet they are a humongous part of the population.

If the totse population represented the Christian population in the U.S. you might have a point. Since it doesn't, you don't.

You have presented ZERO evidence to support your claim. You offer pure supposition claiming a majority of protestants believe that dinosaurs and humans lived together. Probablity is what makes it the smart money....right?

Assertions made without evidence (Your supposition), can be dismissed without evidence.

To say that the the majority of Protestant Christians in the U.S. deny both the bible and evolution, is utterly ridiculous and you know it. Like it or not, the smart money is that he does not.

I agree it is ridiculous, I do know it, and that is why I did not say that.(I used the term old earth and young earth, of which niether represent a denial of the bible) To say that the majority of Protestant Christians believe dinosaurs and humans lived together is equally ridiculous.

Yes. I have met many. However, whether I have or I haven't does not change anything. I don't personally know any Chinese people, yet they are a humongous part of the population.

I am just curious......do you meet more christians who are old earth or who are young earth? Just a point, I think a bit superior to your pure OPINION that Ron Paul is a young Earth Christian.

You have presented ZERO evidence to support your claim. You offer pure supposition claiming a majority of protestants believe that dinosaurs and humans lived together. Probablity is what makes it the smart money....right?

Assertions made without evidence (Your supposition), can be dismissed without evidence.

Great! Asking for evidence is a reasonable request, and the proper course of action. Telling me to read what you said again when it doesn't change anything, isn't. Here's the evidence:

"Among Evangelical Christians, 89% believe the Bible is literally true and just 4% say it is not. Among other Protestants, 70% believe the Bible is literally true. That view is shared by 58% of Catholics."

He is a Protestant, and approximately 70% of them believe the bible is literally true.

http://legacy.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Bible.htm


I agree it is ridiculous, I do know it, and that is why I did not say that.(I used the term old earth and young earth, of which niether represent a denial of the bible) To say that the majority of Protestant Christians believe dinosaurs and humans lived together is equally ridiculous.1. If you agree that it's ridiculous, then I've made my point. My point is that since a majority of Protestant Christians believe the bible is the literal word of the Christian god, it is safe money to bet that Ron Paul reads the bible literally and thus believes the Christian Creation story as it is stated in the bible.

2. An old earth does mean a denial of the bible as the literal word of god, since the bible clearly outlines a genealogy that doesn't fit with an old earth.

I am just curious......do you meet more christians who are old earth or who are young earth? Just a point, I think a bit superior to your pure OPINION that Ron Paul is a young Earth Christian.

I don't keep accurate statistical ratings. I can't answer that question. Moreover, it's utterly irrelevant.

I used the term old earth and young earth, of which niether represent a denial of the bible. Old Earth Christians will tell you that they do not deny the bible is the literal word of god.

Gap Creationism
One type of Old Earth creationism is Gap creationism. This view states that life was immediately and recently created on a pre-existing old Earth. One variant rests on a rendering of Genesis 1:1-2 as:

"In the beginning ... [when] the earth became formless and void." (It is argued that the word 'was', hayah, can also be correctly translated as 'became'.)

This is just one example old earth creationism that allows a theist to believe in the literal translation of the bible.

Your statistics of 70% of protestants believe in the literal translation are meaningless in this argument. :)

1. If they believe the gap happens between 1:1 and 1:2 then that changes absolutely nothing since man, plants and animals were created after 1:2. That fails miserably. If you're going to say I'm wrong, how about using an example that works?

2. http://www.gallup.com/poll/14107/Third-Americans-Say-Evidence-Has-Supported-Darwins-Evolution-Theory.aspx

45% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000"

As opposed to 38% that believe "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" and 13% that believe "[I]Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process" [i.e. evolution]

So a majority of the population believes in a young story for the creation (10,000 years or less).

--

All this being said, I don't doubt your resolve to cling to Ron Paul. It's more than obvious that you'd be willing to rationalize his flaws no matter what it takes. Believe what you want. I gladly admit that my opinion that it is safe money to assume that he's a young earth creationist is supported by the evidence I have available, and it could be wrong. If you don't think that with this evidence it's "safe money" then great, rationalize away; I'm not interested.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/2.asp

Edit: Read the part titled, "What Happened to the Dinosaurs?" Gave me a few lulz

I find that so infuriating, lol :(

I asked a friend about this the other day. His reply was, and I quote;

"There weren't any dinosaurs. God put the dinosaur bones there as a test of our faith."

I asked a friend about this the other day. His reply was, and I quote;

"There weren't any dinosaurs. God put the dinosaur bones there as a test of our faith."

Or the old failsafe:

Satan did it!

Gen 2:8

'And God did create the dinosaurs, and saw that they were super-cool.'

Gen 2:9
But for when the LORD saweth that the dinosaurs did not worship him, he hurled a meteor at the earth to smite them all.

If you cannot or refuse to define logical thought and illogical or call them by other names then I suppose it would be hard to accept that people who here voices from invisible creatures who insist they give their money to a man in a dress on a certain day as illogical. I however think it is NOT only illogical, but INSANE.
This represents clearly a type of mental illness that warps logical thought process in a theists mind. More and more theists will begin to seek help for this particular derangement that prohibits logical thought. Google meme complex for more information on the mental illness that is theism.
The theistic meme complex forbids one to apply logic. It is then a mental illness that prevents logic.

Are these menatlly ill theists dangerous enough to lock up in an 18th century asylum. Some are. ... The same religion that spawned the insanity of the inquistion STILL exists relativly unchanged. If left unchecked I am COMPLETELY convinced it will happen again.

The Xtian meme is one propagated by fear (of Hell for example).
The meme itself states that in order for you to avoid Hell you MUST spread the meme.
This makes religion a VERY infectious meme.
Historically, the meme has it's host murder those who oppose the meme itself in horrific fashion.

To sum it up the Xtian meme uses fear to propagate itself amongst young more readily succeptible minds in an effort to elimate other memes (through violence and oppression) and generate wealth to help propagate the Xtian meme.

^^^^This makes the Xtian meme one of the WORST memes known to mankind. That was my point.

***
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr062702.htm
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HJ00078:@@@L&summ2=m&
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/votes/?votenum=257&chamber=H&congress=1091

Ron Paul is clearly very religious. He votes against any bills not in support of religion (latter two links) and supports it every way he can. You trust someone who believes so strongly in that meme that he denies evolution? I seem to recall you making some harsh statements about people who don't believe in evolution. I don't understand how you can hate religion and love evolution so virulently, and yet support Ron Paul with that level of intensity.

That's exactly where I was going. He just thinks Ron Paul is somehow immune to (most of) the "mental illness".

"I believe Dr. Paul (as well as some others) is an exception (for the most part)."

I'm just not sure he ever considered it before: he latched onto being anti-Christianity, and latched onto Ron Paul, and had probably never thought of the two together until you brought it up. His statements before weren't "most" theists are mentally ill or deranged, but all of them. Now he has to give up one or the other cherished ideal, and is forced into the awkward position of saying Ron Paul is, well, you know, kinda insane, not really, he's a good guy mostly... :p

Of course, I don't think any of the candidates are atheist (though I admit I don't know much about them all) - but Ron Paul definitely isn't the least religious, at least.

I don't understand how you can hate religion and love evolution so virulently, and yet support Ron Paul with that level of intensity.

The thing with true believers is that their meme has managed to compartmentalize their mind, so the contradictions can never come into the same vicinity. But if they ever do, then the meme simply encourages the host to go into denial mode.

It's OK though, BrokeProphet, there are plenty of other mentally ill people here too, and they all know what you are going through. :)

I have said time and time again that I do not mind a religious person's insanity as long as they keep it to themselves.

IF..........I F..........what Ron Paul is saying is true, then he would leave much of this shit up to the states as per the Constitution. If he wants to believe in the insane notion that God winked us into existence and turn a blind eye to evolution that is fine by me AS LONG AS he keeps that shit to himself when he makes votes as PRESIDENT....not as a congressmen.

I would like to point out you had to dig a bit to find those quotes. Congrats on your work. I would also like to point out to Rust that you too can rationalize your belief that Paul believes humans and dinos lived together but you lack any proof in that regard. I would like the question asked in a Poll "Do you believe men and dinosaurs libed together" That poll would help your fucking case. Other polls you are using involve too much supposition on your part and seem to be strawman more than substantial.

I have said:
"Are these menatlly ill theists dangerous enough to lock up in an 18th century asylum. Some are....."

I do not think Ron Paul is dangerous enough in his theistic derangement to be locked up. This quote requires no refutation on my part.

"If you cannot or refuse to define logical thought and illogical or call them by other names then I suppose it would be hard to accept that people who here voices from invisible creatures who insist they give their money to a man in a dress on a certain day as illogical. I however think it is NOT only illogical, but INSANE."

Ideally I wish Paul did not apply to this definition, but he does. So do nearly ALL the candidates and it perfectly applies to EVERY major frontrunner. He has expressed a desire to honor the seperation of church of state. Which SHOWS he is at least capable of talking about logic when it comes to his insane illogical religious meme.

"This represents clearly a type of mental illness that warps logical thought process in a theists mind. More and more theists will begin to seek help for this particular derangement that prohibits logical thought."

I had said in that thread, before and since that thread that the insanity that is theism does not PREVENT ALL LOGICAL THOUGHT. I meant in that sense that it prohibits or hinders logical thought where it interfers with the meme.

"To sum it up the Xtian meme uses fear to propagate itself amongst young more readily succeptible minds in an effort to elimate other memes (through violence and oppression) and generate wealth to help propagate the Xtian meme.

^^^^This makes the Xtian meme one of the WORST memes known to mankind. That was my point."

I still stand behind this. This does not affect my argument that I think Ron Paul is a good candidate. AGAIN, all the presidental nominees are infected with this meme. This is what the meme does.

Show me a realistic canditate who is a true republican or libertarian who believes we need to shrink government and strictly obey our founding doctrines (constitution) and is a devout atheist, and I will support that person more than Paul.

Truth be told Paul's devout theism is the only major negative he has, in my opinion. His comments lead me to believe that he is capable of SEPERATING his religoious views from his duties as a PRESIDENT.

I do not HAVE to justify why I think a theist like Ron Paul will make a good president to you all. I have to find the candidate I think theism (insanity) will affect as little as possible and who supports my views with the understanding that all candidates are infected with the meme. The things this man has said has lead me to believe that he is such a candidate.

Do any of you require any further clarification? :)

I would also like to point out to Rust that you too can rationalize your belief that Paul believes humans and dinos lived together but you lack any proof in that regard. I would like the question asked in a Poll "Do you believe men and dinosaurs libed together" That poll would help your fucking case. Other polls you are using involve too much supposition on your part and seem to be strawman more than substantial.


I'm not rationalizing anything because the evidence we do have, however small you might think it is, supports my view. Definitely not the view you're taking.

Could he not believe in either? Sure. But like it or not, statistically speaking with the evidence we have, there is a higher chance he believes in young earth creation. Period.


He has expressed a desire to honor the seperation of church of state. Which SHOWS he is at least capable of talking about logic when it comes to his insane illogical religious meme.

Actually, he has stated he believes there is no constitutional basis for Separation of Church and State, nor does he believe that it is supported in the writings of the "Founding Fathers".

Somewhere along the way IIRC in the Bible it says that the bad angels who had sex with the women because they were so damn sexy created monster offspring who had to be destroyed by God as they were eating everything even each other.

Maybe this was God and the meteorites?

I'm not rationalizing anything because the evidence we do have, however small you might think it is, supports my view. Definitely not the view you're taking.

First and foremost you are supposing. You are supposing based on polls. I have presented you with information showing different poll results than yours and given you information on how poll questions are used to elicit certain answers.

I call into question the validity of your evidence. Present me with a poll that asks this one simple question "Do you believe dinosaurs and humans lived together". Until you have the results of a poll like that you have nothing but assumption. You assume a person who answers the question "Yes I think the bible is true and god created us" TRULY believes or understands that (according to you) would mean dinosuars and humans lived together.

Understand this.

You have a fistful of shit you continue to attempt to pass as evidence. Please stop.

I am tired of arguing opinion (and make no mistake that it is) with you.

As far as Paul is concerned...he has stated and believes that the Federal government should NOT be invovled in religions or churches. Every candidate is a Christian. My options are limited.

Understand this or fail to, I care not.

The fact of the matter is, how ever shitty you think my evidence is - no matter how much hyperbole you use to dismiss it - it's a whole lot more than what you have, which is absolutely nothing.

Two polls that show the majority of Americans believe in a young earth creation and in the literal word of the Bible, is a lot more to go by than your blind allegiance to Ron Paul.

Is it absolute proof? No.
Is it the best evidence ever? No.
Is it better than nothing (i.e. what you have). You better fucking believe it.

Again, the smart money, based on the small evidence we have available, is that he believes in a young creation of the universe and the literal word of the bible.

Deny that if you want, you're only making it obvious the lengths you're willing to go to support him.

P.S. Your options aren't limited; you can write in a candidate.

I have successfully discovered the FIRST mention of dinosauraus in HUMAN religion history. without much further ado here it is:


http://www.krishnamedia.org/ImageFolio/ImageFolio.cgi?action=view&link=Krishna_Gallery&image=talavana.jpg&img=96&search=HITS&cat=all&tt=&bool=


Scroll down, He kills "Dhenukasarua"

Almost dinosaur, LOL.

Anyways, to me hinduism is the most interesting religion of all.
Many reasons for it..

First and foremost.. It is not abrahmic.

You can choose to be a atheist and be hindu.. yep.

Check out... en.wikipedia.org/hinduism

The fact of the matter is, how ever shitty you think my evidence is - no matter how much hyperbole you use to dismiss it - it's a whole lot more than what you have, which is absolutely nothing.

You have nothing save supposition, which I find (and you should as well) unacceptable as evidence.

Supposition being the ONLY thing you have to support your argument, I do not call it a smart, valid or good argument. I will commit to memory your fondness of accepting suppostiion in argument, Rust, and will correct you anytime you try to not accept my or anyone else's PURE supposition as the ENTIRE basis for an argument.

Let me give you an example based on your supposition: It can now be argued that the majority of Americans think the best way to cure leprosy is by rubbing the blood of doves into your open wounds as per Leviticus's LITERAL teachings. The majority of Americans believe the Earth is flat and the center of the Universe as per the Bible's LITERAL teachings.

I do not have evidence that suggests 60% or 70% or America do or do not believe dinosaurs and humans lived together. You need to realize that you do not either. You are done.

P.S. I could write in my candidate? Give me a fucking break. You should know better than that so I will not explain it to you.

Exaggerate all you want, the fact remains that I have at least something. You don't. Is my evidence amazing? No. It is, however, a lot more than nothing. You know this, which is why you keep ignoring your complete lack of anything supporting your position, and will probably continue to do it now. You want to cling to Ron Paul no matter what.

Continue to do so if you want, I'm not the only that is seeing right through this.

P.S. Yes. You can write in your candidate. What? The possibility is of him winning is extremely small? Same for Ron Paul.

The fact is, if you want to stand up to what you believe in, you can.

The fact is, if you want to stand up to what you believe in, you can.

That is what I am doing.

I do not need to justify my support of Ron Paul to you. As if you COULD and did win this argument I would not be able to "cling" to him any longer.

You believe your PURE suppostition that IS the BASIS of YOUR entire argument means something if you like, it means NOTHING to me. I have already informed you how your suppostition is retarded, you choosing not to see that does not make it any less retarded.

P.S. Ron Paul has a better shot than the NON-EXISTENT athiest candidate. Seems the smart money would be on Paul in this one. I guess I did have to explain that to you....how sad.

Until this guy runs..........guess I am shit out of luck.
http://thinkingmeat.com/newsblog/?p=715
That website also talks of a contest with a prize of 1,000 to a person who can identify an atheist politician in office.

No, you're standing up for a supposition; a "PURE supposition" to quote you since everything we have concerning his views on this subject, however small you might continue to claim (exaggerate) it is, supports my position, not yours.

Calling my position "retarded" when you're in an even worse position (having, literally nothing supporting it) is not only hilarious but very telling of your desperation.

P.S. Did I say it had to be an atheist candidate? No, I did not. Does the person have to be a "candidate" for you to write him in? No, he does not. If you think Ron Paul is the only person, or candidate, espousing libertarian (barely libertarian I should say, since he doesn't even believe that Separation of Church and State has any basis) then you're sorely mistaken.

LOL...

I simply do not know if Ron Paul believes dinosaurs and humans lived together. I certainly hope not. I PERSONALLY do not think he does. I suppose that b/c hke seems intelligent and you would have to be pretty stupid to believe that. This again is my PERSONAL opinion.

YOU seem to feel your opinion is more justified than mine. You are the one clinging to your argument based soley on your suppostion (as it is, not as I call it). I find it amusing.

P.S. Our entire argument in post script has stemmed from me stating that I wish Paul was not a thiest, but I must accept it as there are no other candidates to choose from who are atheist.

Voting for someone who nobody else in America knows is a waste of time. You know it and I know it. I am still sad I have to explain this to you.

Is there a term for this mental illness you are exhibiting in memetics?

Is there a term for this mental illness you are exhibiting in memetics?


Is there one for your faggotry?

No, I feel that two polls conducted by credible polling organizations that give us the statistics of how many Americans believe the bible literally and how many believe in young earth creationism, is better than absolutely nothing. That is not a supposition or an opinion, no matter how desperate you are to label it as such. It, again, is a lot more than what you have.

Do you have any evidence at all? No. Do I? Yes. Is it the best? No. Is it better than nothing? Yes. You keep deliberately ignoring this, and it's quite pathetic.

P.S. Wrong. The argument stemmed from you saying your choices were limited, when they are not. There are many other recourses. You not taking them is another matter.

You can write in another candidate or another person that holds similar "libertarian" views, without the idiotic anti-evolution beliefs.

Is there one for your faggotry?

How should I know? You're the expert, Dr. But if you don't mind the patient voicing his opinion, may I suggest you contemplate your own "faggotry", which is demonstrated by your badmouthing of rust in this thread here (http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2085167&page=2)? Just like a certain brand of Christian, you appear to be exhibiting symptoms of hypocrisy.

No, I feel that two polls conducted by credible polling organizations that give us the statistics of how many Americans believe the bible literally and how many believe in young earth creationism, is better than absolutely nothing. That is not a supposition or an opinion, no matter how desperate you are to label it as such. It, again, is a lot more than what you have.

Based on your SUPPOSTION from the polls that believing in young earth creationism translates directly into the SAME people believing dinos and humans lived together is bullshit.

I could do the exact same thing you are doing with those same polls to prove that the same people who believed in a literal interpratation of the bible, must believe that the blood of doves smeared over the body cures leprosy.

Your evidence is supposition and nothing more. It is not more than I have b/c I have my supposition also. Welcome to your opinion and I will be welcome to mine. :)

I am about to get off work....I would be pissed at you for wasting my time with this but it is not MY time it is company time. Till another day.

Based on your SUPPOSTION from the polls that believing in young earth creationism translates directly into the SAME people believing dinos and humans lived together is bullshit.

It does translate to the same thing because they also believe in the literal word of god. That means that they believe Genesis account literally - where the Christian god created Earth, humans and dinosaurs included, within 6 days. Unless magically the dinosaurs died in a matter of hours - which is a ridiculous argument even for you and Ron Paul - you have no point.

Even then, even if you can think of a way they they don't translate to the same thing (and I don't doubt your capacity to delude yourself into achieving that), that would still not make the two beliefs equal statistically speaking. To think Ron Paul just happens to fall into this new magical category is, like the rest your nonsense, a ridiculous thought.

It does translate to the same thing because they also believe in the literal word of god. That means that they believe Genesis account literally - where the Christian god created Earth, humans and dinosaurs included, within 6 days. Unless magically the dinosaurs died in a matter of hours - which is a ridiculous argument even for you and Ron Paul - you have no point.

Even then, even if you can think of a way they they don't translate to the same thing (and I don't doubt your capacity to delude yourself into achieving that), that would still not make the two beliefs equal statistically speaking. To think Ron Paul just happens to fall into this new magical category is, like the rest your nonsense, a ridiculous thought.

BOOYASHAKALAKAALLALAAHHHHHH!

It does translate to the same thing because they also believe in the literal word of god. That means that they believe Genesis account literally - where the Christian god created Earth, humans and dinosaurs included, within 6 days. Unless magically the dinosaurs died in a matter of hours - which is a ridiculous argument even for you and Ron Paul - you have no point.

Even then, even if you can think of a way they they don't translate to the same thing (and I don't doubt your capacity to delude yourself into achieving that), that would still not make the two beliefs equal statistically speaking. To think Ron Paul just happens to fall into this new magical category is, like the rest your nonsense, a ridiculous thought.

Your evidence is supposition and nothing more. It is not more than I have b/c I have my supposition also. Welcome to your opinion and I will be welcome to mine.

Dinosaurs died by brutal anal sex.

True story.

Funniest part....

"Creation scientist"

That had me laughing for 10 mins.

Your evidence is supposition and nothing more. It is not more than I have b/c I have my supposition also. Welcome to your opinion and I will be welcome to mine.

Polls are not opinion, or suppositions. Keep trying, though! Ron Paul needs all the propaganda he can get.

It would be cool to get a T-rex chained down, and then taunt it with a taser.

Polls are not opinion, or suppositions. Keep trying, though! Ron Paul needs all the propaganda he can get.

I know that. So do you. Allow me to educate you:

You are giving one poll result identifying people as believing (A) and supposing that means these people also think (B).

I can use the same poll result identifying people as believing (A) and suppose that it means (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (I), etc.

I am not reaching or twisting anything. I am not trying. This shit is so painfully simple it rights it self. Your inability to admit this painfully simplistic concept, speaks of either your intelligence, or your stubborness.

1. The only supposition I'm making is that those who answered the poll were telling the truth when they said they believed the Bible is the literal word of god. That's the only reasonable one to make.

Whether they would also have to believe in the OT cure for leprosy (that's arguable, actually, since you've already been told that "leprosy" doesn't mean the disease you are taking it to mean in another thread, yet you dishonestly continue to make the claim here), doesn't change anything. Yes, they would have to believe that cure works (assuming it means the disease)... what does that prove? That literal belief in the bible is silly? I agree! Thanks! It sure as fuck doesn't mean they don't believe in the literal Genesis account of creation.

2. Even ignoring point 1, you still have no point because I can choose to base myself only on the second poll, which only asks about young earth creationism. I can ignore the first poll about literal belief in the Bible (and thus any cures of diseases it may contain), and concentrate on the poll on young earth creationism which shows the majority of Americans believe in a young creation, making it statistically more sound to say that Ron Paul is a young earth creationist.

Could those young earth creationists believe that in those 10,000 years the dinosaurs managed not to live at the same time? Maybe, but to say that this fringe belief is statistically more probable (or as probable) than traditional young earth creationism, is ridiculous.

Keep insulting my intelligence. It's delightfully ironic!

"Where are the dinosaurs?"

Right behind that curtain over there *points over there*.

1. The only supposition I'm making is that those who answered the poll were telling the truth when they said they believed the Bible is the literal word of god. That's the only reasonable one to make.

You are giving one poll result identifying people as believing (A) and supposing that means these people also think (B).

Whether they would also have to believe in the OT cure for leprosy (that's arguable, actually, since you've already been told that "leprosy" doesn't mean the disease you are taking it to mean in another thread, yet you dishonestly continue to make the claim here), doesn't change anything. Yes, they would have to believe that cure works (assuming it means the disease)... what does that prove? That literal belief in the bible is silly? I agree! Thanks! It sure as fuck doesn't mean they don't believe in the literal Genesis account of creation.!

Might want to go back and read that thread.

http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2084815&page=4

I will not argue that point here b/c haregeist brought it up, admitted fault, and apologized.


2. Even ignoring point 1, you still have no point because I can choose to base myself only on the second poll, which only asks about young earth creationism.

Ah you must mean this one:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/14107/Thi...on-Theory.aspx

45% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000"

That is what you posted. So less than half? 50/50 shot then? What are you arguing exactly?

Could those young earth creationists believe that in those 10,000 years the dinosaurs managed not to live at the same time?

Yes they could, to state otherwise is mere supposition on your part.

Your entire basis for arguing is this:
You are giving one poll result identifying people as believing (A) and supposing that means these people also think (B).

Is it not?

Wouldn't it be simpler for you to find a poll that DIRECTLY asks the question at hand?

How many of your young earth creationist believe god put the dino bones there to test us?

How many believe he killed them before he made man?

How many......I think you get my point and why your supposition fails.

You are giving one poll result identifying people as believing (A) and supposing that means these people also think (B).

A encompasses B.

A: Believe that god created all humans and animals in a period of 6 days, 10,000 years ago or earlier.

B: Belief that the animals created withing those 6 days lived with the humans created within those six days.

Unless you're suggesting Ron Paul believes that the dinosaurs died within hours of being created, you have no point. If you do, I'll gladly change my position to that. It would be equally, if not more, idiotic of him.


Might want to go back and read that thread.

http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2084815&page=4

I will not argue that point here b/c haregeist brought it up, admitted fault, and apologized.I stand corrected.


Ah you must mean this one:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/14107/Thi...on-Theory.aspx

45% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000"

That is what you posted. So less than half? 50/50 shot then? What are you arguing exactly?Wrong. Less than half in the original poll, yes, but the other "half" is comprised of beliefs like evolution, which Ron Paul doesn't believe in. We can remove evolution as a possibility.

So no, not a 50/50 shot. What I said was entirely correct.


Yes they could, to state otherwise is mere supposition on your part.I didn't state otherwise, I explicitly stated they could. Perhaps you'd like to quote that part as well?

The point I made was that while one could desperately try to rationalize the beliefs, that doesn't mean that they would still be as statistically prevalent as traditional young earth creationism, which is what you would need in order to be correct. You know this, which is why you once again do a selective quote/reply of my statements; ignoring the parts that don't convenience you.

Hell even if you could prove that these rationalizations are just as prevalent, or more so, rationalizations like "the bones were put there as a test") then great! I have no problem changing my position to those inane rationalizations. As if that idiotic belief were somehow better for Ron Paul...

A encompasses B.

A: Believe that god created all humans and animals in a period of 6 days, 10,000 years ago or earlier.

B: Belief that the animals created withing those 6 days lived with the humans created within those six days..

The question asked in your poll did not mention 6 days.
The poll shows that almost half of the U.S. population believes that human beings did not evolve, but instead were created by God -- as stated in the Bible -- essentially in their current form about 10,000 years ago.

The Bible is left up to interpretation. Some believe the 6 days stated in the bible represent time periods or just reference points. Which means BEFORE man was created 10,000 years ago God on "Day" 2 could have waited a billion years.

There are NUMEROUS creationist theories that meet the requirement of God creates man as stated in the bible in their current form about 10,000 years ago i.e. THE CRITERIA OF YOUR SACRED POLL, and do not (by default) HAVE to believe dinosaurs and humans lived together.

You are merely supposing. Here is but ONE (for sake of destroying the power you believe your supposition to have, I really don't need ANY more) example:

One type of Old Earth creationism is Gap creationism. This view states that life was immediately and recently created on a pre-existing old Earth. One variant rests on a rendering of Genesis 1:1-2 as:

"In the beginning ... [when] the earth became formless and void." (It is argued that the word 'was', hayah, can also be correctly translated as 'became'.)

A pre-existing old earth theory that states life was recently created on a pre-existing old earth. WOW. This means these people meet your polls criteria and also believe in a pre-existing old earth (perhaps with dino bones already in it) OMG, I know.

Hell even if you could prove that these rationalizations are just as prevalent, or more so, rationalizations like "the bones were put there as a test") then great! I have no problem changing my position to those inane rationalizations. As if that idiotic belief were somehow better for Ron Paul...

I do not have to prove my rationalizations are any more prevalent than yours. My gap creationist theorist do exist and would have answered yes to your poll. I can present you with more and more creationist theories that fit your poll and do not have to fit your supposition. Your supposition IS flawed and we will both have to agree that (as I have stated before many pages ago) we are arguing mere opinions. :)

No. You are supposing B because of A. You saying A encompases B does not change the fact that you are supposing that.

Wrong. That is not a supposition. That is a valid deductive inference. It follows directly from the definition of A.

If I say, for example, "I believe everything this Book says is true", and the book says "The vanilla tastes good" then I, by definition of the first statement, also believe is true that vanilla tastes good. The only supposition being made here is that the person did not lie. That's it.


There are NUMEROUS creationist theories that meet the requirement of God creates man as stated in the bible in their current form about 10,000 years ago i.e. THE CRITERIA OF YOUR SACRED POLL, and do not (by default) HAVE to believe dinosaurs and humans lived together.Great! And unless you manage to show those other variants would reduce the percentage points of traditional young earth creationism to the point where it is not more statistically prudent to say what I did, then you have no point.


I do not have to prove my rationalizations are any more prevalent than yours. My gap creationist theorist do exist and would have answered yes to your poll. I can present you with more and more creationist theories that fit your poll and do not have to fit your supposition. Your supposition IS flawed and we will both have to agree that (as I have stated before many pages ago) we are arguing mere opinions. :)Wrong. The existence of non-statistically significant fringe opinions does not refute my statements. You would refute them by showing how these other variants are statistically significant and would reduce traditional creationism to a smaller percentage of the American population.

Your argument is tantamount to saying that if you pour milk in to a cup, since there might be minute traces of dust in that cup, then we can't say the glass is mostly filled with milk. It's ludicrous. Could there be dust? Sure. Does that mean the milk doesn't represent the highest percentage of what's inside the cup? No.

Same here. Could you conjure up fringe variants of young earth creationism? Sure. Does that mean that the traditional view isn't the majority? Not unless you manage to prove that those fringe groups affected the percentage so much as to make traditional young earth creationism the minority.

Even then, I have no problem changing my statement. Here:

"It is safe money to believe that Ron Paul is a young earth creationist."

'He doesn't believe man and dinosaurs lived together, he just believes that a space god decided to fool his creation by putting bones of animals that didn't exist in the ground, and deliberately making them old? Great, even better!

---

I'm not really going to indulge you any longer. Take my initial statement as true, or take the modification as true, or just blindly ignore both. I think I've made my points to the other people reading this.

Wrong. That is not a supposition. That is a valid deductive inference. It follows directly from the definition of A..

And mine is any less valid???

One type of Old Earth creationism is Gap creationism. This view states that life was immediately and recently created on a pre-existing old Earth. One variant rests on a rendering of Genesis 1:1-2 as:

"In the beginning ... [when] the earth became formless and void." (It is argued that the word 'was', hayah, can also be correctly translated as 'became'.)

Great! And unless you manage to show those other variants would reduce the percentage points of traditional young earth creationism to the point where it is not more statistically prudent to say what I did, then you have no point..

Ah, but your question did not ask if they were traditional young earth creationism did it. How many of the 45% are traditional?

Wrong. The existence of non-statistically significant fringe opinions does not refute my statements. You would refute them by showing how these other variants are statistically significant and would reduce traditional creationism to a smaller percentage of the American population..

You would first have to show how many of the 45% are answering from traditional creationism. Why must I refute what you have failed to put up for refutation?

Your argument is tantamount to saying that if you pour milk in to a cup, since there might be minute traces of dust in that cup, then we can't say the glass is mostly filled with milk. It's ludicrous. Could there be dust? Sure. Does that mean the milk doesn't represent the highest percentage of what's inside the cup? No.

Strawman.....my argument is my argument. We are not discussing a glass of milk or any other simple argument you attempt to attribute to my position and then knock down.

Even then, I have no problem changing my statement. Here:

"It is safe money to believe that Ron Paul is a young earth creationist.".

There you go. I have chosen to ignore your following comment asserting that he must be someone who believes God put dino bones here to fool us, as I have given you another example of what he could believe (gap creationism) that is no less valid than what you have attempted to argue in your withdrawing statement.

I'm not really going to indulge you any longer. Take my initial statement as true, or take the modification as true, or just blindly ignore both. I think I've made my points to the other people reading this.

If you truly wish to back out of the argument, please dont make further idiotic suggestions when doing so.....like the aforementioned "what paul must believe" statement. Nice try though.

I didn't claim he must be someone who believes god put dinosaurs bones. I made that general statement to point out how silly these variants you keep conjuring are, and how I have no problem modifying that statement to include those equally ridiculous possibilities.

The clues were the glaring absence of me saying that Ron Paul believes that, and the question mark, suggesting the statement was a question (He believes X?).

You calling it a "idiotic suggestion" when I said no such thing, is quite hilarious to me. Too funny for me to pass up.

I didn't claim he must be someone who believes god put dinosaurs bones. I made that general statement to point out how silly these variants you keep conjuring are, and how I have no problem modifying that statement to include those equally ridiculous possibilities.

The clues were the glaring absence of me saying that Ron Paul believes that, and the question mark, suggesting the statement was a question (He believes X?).

You calling it a "idiotic suggestion" when I said no such thing, is quite hilarious to me. Too funny for me to pass up.

Trying on a new argument now? That is what I find funny. I have made my point, though you appear to have some difficulty publicly accepting it, matters not to me. Your done.

I am getting off of work. Talk to you later.

I was correcting your misrepresentation (willful or mistaken) of what I actually said.

I did not say that Ron Paul had to believe the bones were a test from god, as you erroneously claimed I did.

That's all I said. I'm not indulging your arguments not because "I'm not willing to accept your points (hilarious given that I accepted I was wrong in the case of the Leprosy argument - which means I do "publicly accept" when I'm actually wrong), but because you're not worth the tedium. That, however, does not mean I like my statements being erroneously represented.

Ah, but your question did not ask if they were traditional young earth creationism did it. How many of the 45% are traditional?
Good point (sort of :p). I'd say it's pretty obvious that most of them are - when have you met an American young earth creationist who wasn't? I, for one, have not even heard of one. Living in the middle of the Bible belt, I'd say I've met literally hundreds of the "traditional" sort, and even more online.

But the poll doesn't say anything about it, so if you happen to have greater personal experience with "gap" creationists we're pretty much at an impasse. :p

One more point is that "gap" view is un-Biblical - at least, you can find many Christian sites refuting it. I will certainly produce a few if required but at the moment I am too lazy.

I was correcting your misrepresentation (willful or mistaken) of what I actually said.

I did not say that Ron Paul had to believe the bones were a test from god, as you erroneously claimed I did.

I again find it funny you wish to start a new argument as you concede (in a fashion) the first, and at the same time act as if YOU are indulging ME.

You said:

Even then, I have no problem changing my statement. Here:

"It is safe money to believe that Ron Paul is a young earth creationist."

'He doesn't believe man and dinosaurs lived together, he just believes that a space god decided to fool his creation by putting bones of animals that didn't exist in the ground, and deliberately making them old? Great, even better!

Your question mark of the end hardly makes this statement any less of an accusation, and the fact that you answer your own loaded "question" makes it even more of an accusation. I will contend that you did not say God put the bones there to test man. You said Ron Paul believes a space god decided to FOOL man. Sorry the way I always heard it was TEST man.

You are finished, here. You have contended my point and if you wish to end the discussion please do so without any further argumentation on new topics or shit talking. That is if you TRULY wish to end the discussion.

-----

My point was (before I allowed myself to be drawn into yet another foolish argument).........THIS:
Even then, I have no problem changing my statement. Here:

"It is safe money to believe that Ron Paul is a young earth creationist."

......was all you needed to say to prove MY POINT that you do not KNOW nor do you have any evidence BEYOND supposition of your gallup poll that Ron Paul believes dinos and humans live together.

This was all you needed to say and you did so we are done

Either your reading comprehension skills suck, or your symptoms are worse than I thought. :(

Either your reading comprehension skills suck, or your symptoms are worse than I thought. :(

Tell me Hare.....when you suck cock.......does your own mental illness OCD affect your ability to do so? Do you fondle the balls counterclockwise everytime, a certain number of times or some shit?

I already explained to you that I was using the "loaded" question as way to show how I don't care if he ends up believing in any other of those idiotic variants of yours, since they are just as stupid, if not more stupid, than what I originally said.

As far as ending the discussion, I wanted to do that ages ago! But I also don't want you misrepresenting my statements. Hence why I decided to correct you.

If you're not willing to be corrected then fine, this is my last post here. I'll leave with a suggestion: look up the definition of a rhetorical question.

P.S. The fact that I was willing to change my statement isn't a testament to you having proven your point, it's a testament to the downright torture it is to speak with someone "infected" with the Ron Paul "meme", as you would say.

Fine rhetorical question.....whatever.....

My point was (before I allowed myself to be drawn into yet another foolish argument).........THIS:

"Even then, I have no problem changing my statement.

It is safe money to believe that Ron Paul is a young earth creationist."

......was all you needed to say to prove MY POINT that you do not KNOW nor do you have any evidence BEYOND supposition of your gallup poll that Ron Paul believes dinos and humans live together.

This was all you needed to say to prove the point I made pages ago, and you did so we are done

The fact that I was willing to change my statement isn't a testament to you having proven your point, it's a testament to the downright torture it is to speak with someone "infected" with the Ron Paul "meme" (as you might put it).

It's much easier to change what I said and still make my point, which was to show the amazing amounts of idiocy oozing from Ron Paul.

The fact that I was willing to change my statement isn't a testament to you having proven your point, it's a testament to the downright torture it is to speak with someone "infected" with the Ron Paul "meme" (as you might put it).

It's much easier to change what I said and still make my point, which was to show the amazing amounts of idiocy oozing from Ron Paul.

LOL.

Nothing but ad hominem.

Your original point of "smart money says ron paul believes dinosaurs and humans lived together" has changed to "safe money says he is a young earth creationist" after days of me prodding you in that direction.

That was my original point and I have made it, that is why you offer nothing now but ad hominem. If you wish to end the discussion, please just do so with some dignity.

Oh yeah, THATS how the dinosaurs got wiped out. Homer went back in time with a toaster and sneezed on them.

In The Beginning (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5001/5001_01.asp)

There Go The Dinosaurs (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1038/1038_01.asp)

The really sad part is that those rediculous comics are seriously intended to be taken as true. What's even sadder is that many people actually do so.

I love how they pretend like they are putting this information out there as if it were an effort to open people's eyes.

It is not.

It is used to keep a theists eyes closed. Shit like this is only to reaffirm peoples belief in God and the bible and keep the money rolling in.

You have to be pretty fucking stupid to never question the bible, and even more stupid to allow what you do question to be thwarted by the likes of total bullshit like this.