Totally off-topic but I find it really interesting that scientists have been trying forever to disprove biblical happenings and they can't; but in the process they've been able to prove that biblical events really could have - and in some cases definitely did - happen.
Gotta shake your foundation when you're trying to disprove something and you end up proving it instead.

Name some.

Name some.[/b][/quote]
The parting of the Red Sea.
The burning bush.
The twin cities (forget their names) - well that was an archeological find actually, but still, they're scientists in their own right.

The parting of the Red Sea.
The burning bush.
The twin cities (forget their names) - well that was an archeological find actually, but still, they're scientists in their own right.[/b][/quote]
Now show me the scientific research that proves that the Red Sea was miraculously parted and that God burnt a bush.

Damn man, go look it up yourself. I'm not your concierge. I told you which ones, do a google search. Try looking on Discovery's site.

Yeah just as the bible says, the one before they conveniently updated it, the earth is at the center of the universe and the sun and stars orbit around it.

You are the one making the claim. You present the evidence. Or at least post a link.

The Great Flood

"WOOLLEY IN HIS OWN WORDS
Starting then below the level at which the graves had been found we sank a little shaft, no more than five feet square at the outset, into the underlying soil and went down through the mixed rubbish that is characteristic of old inhabited sites a mixture of decomposed mud brick, ashes, and broken pottery, very much like that in which the graves had been dug. This went on for about three feet and then, suddenly, it all stopped; there were no more potsherds, no ashes, only clean water-laid mud, and the Arab workmen at the bottom of the shaft told me that he had reached virgin soil; there was nothing more to be found, and he had better go elsewhere. I got down and looked at the evidence and agreed with him, but then I took my levels and discovered that 'virgin soil' was not nearly so deep down as I had expected, for I had assumed that the original Ur was built not on a hill but on a low mound rising only just above the surrounding swampy land; and because I do not like having my theories upset by anything less than proof I told the man to get back and go on digging. Most unwillingly he did so, again turning up nothing but clean soil that yielded no sign of human activity; he dug through eight feet of it in all and then, suddenly, there appeared flint implements and fragments of painted al'Ubaid pottery vessels. I got into the pit once more, examined the sides, and by the time I had written up my notes was quite convinced of what it all meant; but I wanted to see whether others would come to the same conclusion. So I brought up two of my staff and, after pointing out the facts, asked for their interpretation. They did not know what to say. My wife came along and looked and asked the same question, and she turned away remarking casually, "Well, of course, it's the Flood." That was the right answer.
- C. Leonard Woolley: Excavations at Ur.
New York: Apollo Editions, 1965, p. 27"

http://mcclungmuseum.utk.edu/specex/ur/ur-flood.htm

I can't think of any off the top of my head right now, but there are also things in the writings of religions other than Christianity that some have sought to "disprove" and have done the exact opposite.

Mind you, almost every religion I have done any reading on has contradicts itself, in one way or another, within it's own writings. That is not to say that there is, or isn't a "GOD", it is that man has a tendency to embellish and add his own ideas where he sees fit to do so.

I'm not quite sure what the purpose of your post is.

Are you trying to suggest that that passage is scientific proof of God flooding the Earth?

Now to the original reason for this thread.
It was a "great" campaign speech. For 95% of the first half-hour he did a beautiful job tooting his own horn and that of his admin. It was nice of him to use the second half to actually address the congress with the state of the union. Of course he did go into some things that still had nothing to do with what he was supposed to be talking about.

The dig merely showed conclusive evidence that there had been a huge flood that lasted for quite a long time, as the bible states. As for whom left the faucet running, I couldn't tell ya.

Each attempt to clarify
Serves only to confuse
And it feels just like a fracture
But it looks more like a bruise

And my heart can’t bear the weight
Of one more empty “I told you”
And I’ve strained my eyes to blindness
Trying to find a point of view



None of this matters, we all die in the end
so fuck the politicians and fuck the gods

where does any Abrahamic text say this - the septuagint or masoretic texts?..don't talk out of your ass.

and which pre-updated version do you have that says this...you speak greek/hebrew?

best of luck -
aeon

where does any Abrahamic text say this - the septuagint or masoretic texts?..don't talk out of your ass.

and which pre-updated version do you have that says this...you speak greek/hebrew?

best of luck -
aeon[/b][/quote]
Each attempt to clarify
Serves only to confuse
And it feels just like a fracture
But it looks more like a bruise

And my heart can’t bear the weight
Of one more empty “I told you”
And I’ve strained my eyes to blindness
Trying to find a point of view

The parting of the Red Sea.
The burning bush.
The twin cities (forget their names) - well that was an archeological find actually, but still, they're scientists in their own right.[/b][/quote]
there is no possible way to make the claim that these things "definately did happen"

you could say
"are widely believed to have happened"
"are thought to have happened"
"are said to have happened"

etc.

there is no way to prove them as factual events that actually occured. for someone to suggest that "the parting of the Red Sea actually happened" as depicted in the Bible, is beyond lunacy.

Adams was da bomb, yo! But Pat Henry was the real bad ass.[/b][/quote]
Paine man myself.

And James Madison, of course.

I'm very surprised that nobody has touched on how Bush made it VERY CLEAR about his stand against public health care.

I believe Tommy Douglas may have rolled over in his grave.

maybe everyone agrees with it?

maybe everyone agrees with it?[/b][/quote]
Sure... I could tell when the Democrats boo'd that remark.

maybe everyone agrees with it?[/b][/quote]
:okthumb:

Sure... I could tell when the Democrats boo'd that remark.[/b][/quote]
i guess took your post to mean that you were commenting on peoples lack of reaction in this thread. now you are talking about Democrats reaction during the speach in the audience.

i must be confused. you seem to be trying to bait someone and i can't figure out who it is.

is this a Canadian riddle?

Healthcare is not a political issue. It is a humane issue.
One citizen should not be treated better than another because they can afford better treatment. But that's the American way, isn't it? More money, more benefits.

Here's an interesting audio clip (only 4:11 long). You'll be surprised who is speaking, and his significance to the healthcare issue.

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-851-4972/p..._douglas/clip11

i think you are taking an extreme view of things. the argument against social vs private health care is old. both systems are equally flawed.

thank god that we can at least have the choice of paying to world class health care, which judging by the total number of Canadians who come to the US for treatment, must be a good thing.



Last edited by JR at Jan 22 2004, 08:07 AM

Better car, better house, better schools, better clothes, better food, better life after retirement.....yep - in America, the vast majority of the time, the harder you work the better off you are. Is it somehow different in Canada? :unsure: When I worked for a Canadian company, anyone who had any $$ had supplemental insurance because the national plan took too long to get appointments, elective surgery, etc. Seems in Canada citizens are also treated better when they can afford better also. :awinky:

Unfortunately, there are WAY too many times those who don't work at all are treated better than those who do, for instance: Medicaid, food stamps, government housing, etc. :angry:

Our government has screwed up almost everything they've gotten their hands on - national health care will be no different.

Sure... I could tell when the Democrats boo'd that remark.[/b][/quote]


Maybe they will go to Canada.

I think Bush's quote about keeping gov;t out of health care was right on the mark. I know non-Americans cannot understand the concept of private health care - but it is what makes our health care best in the world.

Should never be messed with.

And one citizen shouldn't have a better house, car, or yacht because he or she can afford them? Or does this only apply to medical care?

Food is far more important than healthcare. We all need to eat very frequently or we will die, whereas in many cases, disease can take years to kill us off.

If you want a humane issue, shouldn't the state provide food first, even before healthcare?

Food is far more important than healthcare. We all need to eat very frequently or we will die, whereas in many cases, disease can take years to kill us off.

If you want a humane issue, shouldn't the state provide food first, even before healthcare?[/b][/quote]
Just starve all the poor folks to death and then there won't be any medical care issues.





Wait who will do my yard and clean the house then?

Why why why?????????????

Why does the human animal want to fuck with Darwinism?

Survival of the fittest

I saw Bush talking out of both sides of his mouth re: social health care.

On one hand he supports private health savings accounts, and says that he's against socialized health care.
But then he calls for a computerized system of everyone's medical records.

If folks can't see the contradictions in that, or how he's trying to appease both sides, I'm stunned.
Remember Gore's call for a medical id card and national database of medical records? Same thing - only the people who opposed it then are eerily silent now. Why? Just because it's a republican stating it? Bah.

viiiiick, please do not tell me you are actually attempting to endorse social darwinism.

viiiiick, please do not tell me you are actually attempting to endorse social darwinism.[/b][/quote]
:D :okthumb:

Not an attempt and not an endorsement, simply a personal belief

"Begging hands and bleeding hearts can only cry out for more"

viiiiick, please do not tell me you are actually attempting to endorse social darwinism.[/b][/quote]
If he isn't, I am... :nyanya:

The human herd could use a bit of thinning.

Instead, socialists would rather take more and more away from the productive members of the herd to support the non-productive members of the herd. And worse yet, the non-productive members of the herd are breeding out of control while the productive members are having no more offsprings than they can reasonably afford to raise and turn into responsible productive adults.

Cool, I support human slavery as well.

If those niggers were not so inferior and weak they wouldnt be enslaved. Right?

Cool, I support human slavery as well.

If those niggers were not so inferior and weak they wouldnt be enslaved. Right?[/b][/quote]
Who said anything about race?

Or slavery?

Come on, surely you can come up with some sort of intelligent arguement for why people who get an education, work hard and make good decisions about their life should support lazy listless dumbasses who would rather suck off of the government tit.

Or is trying to bring race into it the best you've got?

What the fuck does that have to do with social darwinism.

So basically what you are saying is that when I said "social darwinism", you had no idea what the fuck I was talking about.



Last edited by [Labret] at Jan 22 2004, 11:45 PM

Social Darwinism was postulated by Herbert Spencer.

Simply put , it is the weeding out of the perceived weakest in a gene pool by the society itself.

The Nazis loved it.

Richard Dawkins at Oxford also thought it had some merit.

Cool, I support human slavery as well.

If those niggers were not so inferior and weak they wouldnt be enslaved. Right?[/b][/quote]
Well, if the Africans had the boomstick when the white man came over, chances are a lot fewer Africans would have been taken alive to the Americas.

:D :okthumb:

Not an attempt and not an endorsement, simply a personal belief

"Begging hands and bleeding hearts can only cry out for more"[/b][/quote]
There's no bread, let 'em eat cake
There's no end to what they'll take

RUSH OWNS

Know your place in life is where you want to be,
Don't let them tell you that you owe it all to me.
Keep on looking forward; no use in looking 'round;
Hold your head above the ground and they won't bring you down.

Anthem of the heart and anthem of the mind
A funeral dirge for eyes gone blind
We marvel after those who sought
The wonders of the world, wonders of the world,
Wonders of the world they wrought.

Live for yourself - there's no one else
More worth living for
Begging hands and bleeding hearts will only cry out for more

Well, I know they've always told you
Selfishness was wrong
Yet it was for me, not you, I came to write this song


Above Lyrics were inspired by the book "Anthem" by Ayn Rand

I'm more of an Ayn Rand fan than a Rush fan - Alex Lifeson got busted New Years eve