The Davinci Code - Blasphemous Feminist Garbage

[. ._]

I don't see how we're that much different than chimps. We're just as dumb. Maybe dumber!

I mean, we SHIT in our drinking water sources. Yeah, we're smart.

-istp

[Dust Devil]

They are taught things like: Bears evolved into whales. I am not making this up

Yes, you quite obviously are.

No, categorically I am not.

Ya so there costermonger!

Just Kidding

Foghorn what is your source? other than the voices in your head.

[costermonger]

No, categorically I am not.

Let's see one source where a respected scientist (ie. not one wacko who's lunatic ravings you're attributing to the entire scientific community) claims that whales evolved from bears.

[Dust Devil]

No, categorically I am not.

Let's see one source where a respected scientist (ie. not one wacko who's lunatic ravings you're attributing to the entire scientific community) claims that whales evolved from bears.

This makes me wonder, Can bears swim?

[costermonger]

The fact that you state and use the word in your sentence, disqualifies you from being an atheist..
Sorry, play again....

The word is part of the vernacular and was being used as part of an expression, not as a noun in it's traditional sense. Nice try though, but it's sort of like saying anybody who uses "Hello" as a greeting is a Satanist.

[goates]

They are taught things like: Bears evolved into whales. I am not making this up

Yes, you quite obviously are.

No, categorically I am not.

Regarding the so called Gospel of Judas. It was proven a fraud 1700 years ago when first written, as contrary to the actual Gospels written in the first century. Funny how these things just keep on resurfacing though, like i said before, its about as original a tactic for dismissing the Bible as throwing dirt.

Was it proven wrong 1700 years ago, or was it thrown out because it went against what the newly forming Church believed? The whole "history is written by the victors" thing comes to mind here.

[fogghorn]

No, categorically I am not.

Let's see one source where a respected scientist (ie. not one wacko who's lunatic ravings you're attributing to the entire scientific community) claims that whales evolved from bears.

Evolutionists say "the whale's past is extremely obscure. All we know is that sometime ... some smallish, four-footed land animals began a series of extraordinarily rapid evolutionary changes. In the geologically short span of 50 million years they learned to swim instead of walk, and to reproduce offspring able to swim from the moment they left the womb." (The Living World of the Sea, William J. Cromie, p.268-269.)



The above author may be a wacko, but these textbooks are being used and their material is being taught, in CDN highschools. Maybe this guy is not refering to bears, but he is refering to land mammals becoming whales. There is no evidence of this, just wild speculation, yet if a student were to openly and repeatedly question this dogma, (and religion of evolutionism as propounded by our education system) he would be branded the wack job and ostracized. Much along the lines of the early Christians who were more than ostracized, but slaughtered prior to the council of Nicea, 325 a.d. I find some really glaring propostitions in Brown's fictional tome. His theme that Christianity was put in place by the powerful first century Christians, ( the most powerful being the apostles, who were all crucified or stoned to death for their steadfast belief in a myth - that's some kind of power they had) to subjugate and demoralize women, is one of the most laughable. Women were very prominent in the Old and New Testament of the Bible, much more so than in the secular world. We wont even talk about what Islam has done to/for women. Yet Davincis author finds it necessary to single out Christianity as the great oppressor of women of all time. If that were the case, why were women the first people to come upon the empty tomb of Christ as recorded in Mark 16. If women were such losers, why would the authors of the fictional gospels (as per Dan Brown) have women be the first to discover the proof of the resurrection. That single discovery is the underpinning of the entire Christian faith, without it, it means nothing. So why did these authors not put men in the place of prominence of finding the tomb, if it were not factual?

[altiplano]

We're not some brainiacs on the nerd patrol. We're not members of the factinista. We go straight from the gut. That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. Now, I know some of you are going to say, "I did look it up, and that's not true." That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works.

[Dust Devil]

No, categorically I am not.

Let's see one source where a respected scientist (ie. not one wacko who's lunatic ravings you're attributing to the entire scientific community) claims that whales evolved from bears.

Evolutionists say "the whale's past is extremely obscure. All we know is that sometime ... some smallish, four-footed land animals began a series of extraordinarily rapid evolutionary changes. In the geologically short span of 50 million years they learned to swim instead of walk, and to reproduce offspring able to swim from the moment they left the womb." (The Living World of the Sea, William J. Cromie, p.268-269.)



The above author may be a wacko, but these textbooks are being used and their material is being taught, in CDN highschools. Maybe this guy is not refering to bears, but he is refering to land mammals becoming whales. There is no evidence of this, just wild speculation, yet if a student were to openly and repeatedly question this dogma, (and religion of evolutionism as propounded by our education system) he would be branded the wack job and ostracized. Much along the lines of the early Christians who were more than ostracized, but slaughtered prior to the council of Nicea, 325 a.d. I find some really glaring propostitions in Brown's fictional tome. His theme that Christianity was put in place by the powerful first century Christians, ( the most powerful being the apostles, who were all crucified or stoned to death for their steadfast belief in a myth - that's some kind of power they had) to subjugate and demoralize women, is one of the most laughable. Women were very prominent in the Old and New Testament of the Bible, much more so than in the secular world. We wont even talk about what Islam has done to/for women. Yet Davincis author finds it necessary to single out Christianity as the great oppressor of women of all time. If that were the case, why were women the first people to come upon the empty tomb of Christ as recorded in Mark 16. If women were such losers, why would the authors of the fictional gospels (as per Dan Brown) have women be the first to discover the proof of the resurrection. That single discovery is the underpinning of the entire Christian faith, without it, it means nothing. So why did these authors not put men in the place of prominence of finding the tomb, if it were not factual?

so why doesn't Darth Vader remember c3po from when he was a little boy? It's because it's A FUCKIN STORY!!!!!!!!!!

[cyyz]

so why doesn't Darth Vader remember c3po from when he was a little boy? It's because it's A FUCKIN STORY!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, he never met c3p0... Secondly, C3 was a protocol droid, just like R2 was an astromech, they're a dime a dozen these droids, you wouldn't ever notice them from a distance or at a glance(and differentiate), secondly, 20 years of ruling(2nd in command) the universe you might forget about a stupid droid you built... But maybe it's just me...

[Dust Devil]

Are you saying he never met C3PO because he ceased being anikin when he turned to the dark side? I think since Anikin built c3po he would have closer ties to him than say your average trash compactor or binary load lifter

[cyyz]

Are you saying he never met C3PO because he ceased being anikin when he turned to the dark side? I think since Anikin built c3po he would have closer ties to him than say your average trash compactor or binary load lifter

I'm really tired, but I don't recall him ever meeting 3P0

Scenes where they were close but not quite,

Corvette(Ep 4) when they boarded, droids "escaped" he never saw.
Hoth(ep 5) he was marching in with the Snow Troops, but they had already let the falcon escape when he came in,
Cloud city(ep 5) 3p0 was dissasembled so he hadn't "seen him" he was on chewies back in the bag...

[Dust Devil]

No they saw eachother when Han was being frozen in carbonite. Chewy turned around so he could have a look.

[Guido]

No they saw eachother when Han was being frozen in carbonite. Chewy turned around so he could have a look.

Yeah, but there were tons of droids who looked like C3PO - remember on the deathstar there was one almost totally identical, but black, and I seem to remember a silver one as well. I'm sure he wasn't the only gold protocol droid...


edit - holy crap, I just realised what a nerd I am...

[cyyz]

No they saw eachother when Han was being frozen in carbonite. Chewy turned around so he could have a look.

"chewy turned around?" So was 3p0 still in the backpack, or half assembled/backwards by then? Not fully loaded?

Also, I think anakin had bigger issues on his mind at the moment, freezing han, waiting for luke. Etc.

Okay, but lets say he remembered 3p0, what then, what of it??? "what's up dog, long time no see, toss him into the smelters??"

Maybe he was ignoring him, you've been to a mall seen someone you didn't want to see you and just ignored them and hoped they don't recognise you?

He killed his wife(metaphorically speaking) whats the big deal about ignoring or not caring about 3p0 and still 20 years... long time, I don't think it would have been a big deal to him.....

damn you DD for this...

[Dust Devil]

All valid points. I think we'll have to petition george for some answers. I would like to think that Vader might give him a "hey what's up man" 3PO was essentially his first major creation and he took alot of pride in it. but Galactic Civil War can change a guy I suppose

[costermonger]

Maybe this guy is not refering to bears1, but he is refering to land mammals becoming whales2. There is no evidence of this3, just wild speculation,

1. He's absolutely not refering to bears. Nothing anything like bears in any way. So your original statement was quite obviously made up, as I pointed out originally. He's talking about artiodactyls, a group of hoofed land mammals that served as an evolutionary intermediary, who's descendants include whales and hippos.

2. Mammalian fossils found on land predate marine species fossils quite significantly - it's obvious that marine mammals evolved from land species. Hence the oxygen respiration, live births, social lifestyles, etc.

3. Yes, there absolutely is proof. The simplest of which would be that whales have vestigial limbs. Despite having no use whatsoever for them, whales all have pelvic bones, and the larger species are very commonly found with femoral remnants - underdeveloped, unused legs that are most commonly contained completely within the whale's body, but on occasion they're found to protrude from the body to actually form rear limbs. They're completely functionless, but they're there. Why? Because once upon a time whales or their ancestors had legs. Millions of years later, there's very little left of those legs, but the proof is there, and it's there in every species of cetacean - dolphin, whales, etc.

[goates]

No, categorically I am not.

Let's see one source where a respected scientist (ie. not one wacko who's lunatic ravings you're attributing to the entire scientific community) claims that whales evolved from bears.

Evolutionists say "the whale's past is extremely obscure. All we know is that sometime ... some smallish, four-footed land animals began a series of extraordinarily rapid evolutionary changes. In the geologically short span of 50 million years they learned to swim instead of walk, and to reproduce offspring able to swim from the moment they left the womb." (The Living World of the Sea, William J. Cromie, p.268-269.)



The above author may be a wacko, but these textbooks are being used and their material is being taught, in CDN highschools. Maybe this guy is not refering to bears, but he is refering to land mammals becoming whales. There is no evidence of this, just wild speculation, yet if a student were to openly and repeatedly question this dogma, (and religion of evolutionism as propounded by our education system) he would be branded the wack job and ostracized. Much along the lines of the early Christians who were more than ostracized, but slaughtered prior to the council of Nicea, 325 a.d. I find some really glaring propostitions in Brown's fictional tome. His theme that Christianity was put in place by the powerful first century Christians, ( the most powerful being the apostles, who were all crucified or stoned to death for their steadfast belief in a myth - that's some kind of power they had) to subjugate and demoralize women, is one of the most laughable. Women were very prominent in the Old and New Testament of the Bible, much more so than in the secular world. We wont even talk about what Islam has done to/for women. Yet Davincis author finds it necessary to single out Christianity as the great oppressor of women of all time. If that were the case, why were women the first people to come upon the empty tomb of Christ as recorded in Mark 16. If women were such losers, why would the authors of the fictional gospels (as per Dan Brown) have women be the first to discover the proof of the resurrection. That single discovery is the underpinning of the entire Christian faith, without it, it means nothing. So why did these authors not put men in the place of prominence of finding the tomb, if it were not factual?

Evolution is taught in biology classes because they are science classes and evolution is the best theory we have about how it all came about. Creationism is not based on any scientific theory and as such should only be taught in theology or religion classes.

As for the holes in the evolutionary history, they are slowly filling them in. They are also slowly updating and correcting evolutionary thinking as Darwin's original theory was not quite right yet. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1836692
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4879672.stm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ossil.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ution.html

Why should I believe in the Bible any more than what the Buddhists or Hindu's believe?

[mellow_pilot]

The scientifically observable fact is, there is absolutely zero evidence in the fossil record or elsewhere, to prove transpeciation. Why then, is this belief still dogmatically held and taught, does this blind belief not constitute a form of religion?

LOL!!!

You're killin' me!

So here's my question. How do you know the bible isn't wrong and the Quran is right? Oh wait, I remember now, humans aren't smart enough to understand god and such so we just have to believe whatever some guy in a robe tells us.

But I can't prove there is no god so i guess he exists... then again, you can't prove that evolution doesn't exist...

Check and mate.

Here's another brain teaser for you. If god is so great, why does he let priests, his supposed servants and representatives on earth, rape little children. And none of that crap about being judged later on. If god was truly good and omnipotent, he would rain fire and brimstone on the asholes and send the straight to hell himself!

CYYZ, just because someone uses a common phrase of work such as 'holy shit', 'sweet Jesus', 'or what in the hell', it doesn't change anything about their religious bliefs, it simply means that their speech patterns have developed to include common phrases within a society. Kinda like a rapper calling a friend a 'Nigga' doesn't make him part of the KKK.

edit- oh, and I forgot; if there is a fossil record (as is freely admited above), doesn't that preclude the creationist theory? And there is plenty of evidence to prove evolutionary steps among many species.

[niss]

Steven Colbert Said Something Like This

I accept other peoples beliefs....there are literally hundreds of differant ways to accept Jesus Christ as your Personal Lord and Saviour

He also said something like this

But arent people free to choose to believe what i beleive?

I still think the theory from family guy was the greatest.....God lit his fart on fire and that was the "Big Bang"

[fogghorn]

The scientifically observable fact is, there is absolutely zero evidence in the fossil record or elsewhere, to prove transpeciation. Why then, is this belief still dogmatically held and taught, does this blind belief not constitute a form of religion?

Here's another brain teaser for you. If god is so great, why does he let priests, his supposed servants and representatives on earth, rape little children. And none of that crap about being judged later on. If god was truly good and omnipotent, he would rain fire and brimstone on the asholes and send the straight to hell himself!

CYYZ, just because someone uses a common phrase of work such as 'holy shit', 'sweet Jesus', 'or what in the hell', it doesn't change anything about their religious bliefs, it simply means that their speech patterns have developed to include common phrases within a society. Kinda like a rapper calling a friend a 'Nigga' doesn't make him part of the KKK.

edit- oh, and I forgot; if there is a fossil record (as is freely admited above), doesn't that preclude the creationist theory? And there is plenty of evidence to prove evolutionary steps among many species.

You say that there is evidence of evolutionary steps - do tell, give us some examples. As far as God allowing priests to rape children goes. God gave human beings something called free will, if a priest choses to do evil, he can do it just as easily as anyone else. The secular world chooses to portray catholicism as the arbiter of all that is Christianity. There are many Bible scholars who argue that the RC Church is the false church, the whore spoken of in the book of revelation. If that is the case, this church is the cause of as much deception as any atheist or cult leader. God will deal with these people and us when he chooses to. Do you think God is bound by time? You want to put him on our timetable and our method of thought. That is why people reject any notion of God, their pride will not allow them to consider anything that falls outside of their worldview.
On another note, I see Davinci code has met with rave reviews at Cannes - not! . The reviewers were actually laughing at the punch line which was supposed to be the most serious line of the movie. Good ole Tom Hanks, what a loser

http://movies.msn.com/movies/cannes06/d ... de_critics

[Clothesliner]

... That single discovery is the underpinning of the entire Christian faith, without it, it means nothing. So why did these authors not put men in the place of prominence of finding the tomb, if it were not factual?

Yes, I've gone back a long ways in the thread...

To believe any particular item in a work of supposed non-fiction is factual, one should believe that the entire work is non-fiction. So, to believe anything in the bible is factual, would it not require one to believe the world was created in six days?

The questions that follow are: How can anything in the bible be taken as historical fact if one doesn't believe the universe was created in six days, and therefore how can one believe in a theory based entirely on said book?

As for the shroud of Turin, the oppostion to the proof of its age comes from religious individuals. You'd have to believe either carbon dating is invalid, or the scientists performing the dating were either incompetent or unethical to believe its ascertained age is false. One could simply have the carbon dating done again. I would imagine that no one has had it done again because so few dispute the result.

(edited for formatting..)

[costermonger]

You say that there is evidence of evolutionary steps - do tell, give us some examples.

See my post about marine mammal evolution, which you conveniently ignore. Probably because you have no argument to offer other than "God put those vestigial limbs there to test our faith!"

[costermonger]

Or, for that matter, pull your head out of the sand long enough to learn a little bit about how many kinds of bacteria are evolving so that commonly used antibiotics no longer have any effect. Or learn a bit about the Tiktaalik, a recent discovery that clarifies the bridge between fish and animals with four limbs. Or take a break from claiming there's no proof long enough to discover examples like that of the modern horse, where the evolutionary path is mapped out through five species that span 60 million years.

How do you argue that this isn't proof?

[BTD]

Zing!!

I love all the Stephen Colbert quotes that are showing up these days. Classic.

He and Jon Stewart are pure genious.