[Blue_Nose]

Changing gears for a bit here, thought this was an interesting video from some guy with a good voice for narration .

There are several more while I'll post later.

Falsehood #1: accepting evolution is tantamount to declaring atheism, and/or one need be creationist to be Christian.

[Blue_Nose]

sasquatch2 wrote:

The main similarity is that both frauds are used by the left wing to attack the right wing. Both are political frauds.

Creationism is in no way "left wing" by any stretch of the imagination. It's obvious you can't even comprehend the video, if you watched it at all, before spouting off on unrelated topics.

[sasquatch2]

The left wing lie is that creationism is aright wing thing rather than a bizarre notion of some whacho religious extremists. The myth that creationism is right wing is what is supported by the left wing.

But you knew that didn't you????

[Mustang1]

Blue_Nose wrote:

sasquatch2 wrote:

The main similarity is that both frauds are used by the left wing to attack the right wing. Both are political frauds.

Creationism is in no way "left wing" by any stretch of the imagination. It's obvious you can't even comprehend the video, if you watched it at all, before spouting off on unrelated topics.

Remember Blue, this is the same partisan goof that claimed Flanagan (Harper's election guru) was a communist because his views on ideology didn't mesh with our resident shut in.

This isn't about ideology, despite partisan calls to the contrary.

[Blue_Nose]

sasquatch2 wrote:

The left wing lie is that creationism is aright wing thing rather than a bizarre notion of some whacho religious extremists. The myth that creationism is right wing is what is supported by the left wing.

But you knew that didn't you????

The fact that you've taken this to be a commentary on the 'right wing' instead of a commentary on creationists is nothing but you being paranoid and defensive. My original post never mentioned 'right wing' or 'left wing', and neither did the video.

Unless you feel like commenting on the video and its content, go away.

As for the videos, I'm going to post another when the youtube function works again.

[ShintoMale]

anybody that don't agree with creationists is either labeled, as a communist, left winger, athiest, etc

[Blue_Nose]

Continuing with the second video of the series (with the new Youtube function).

Falsehood #2: Scriptures were written by God himself, and not men.

[stratos]

Ok I've not seen the vedios yet but from the posts writen i'll say this

Religion/Creation is not political. People use it as a political tool.

If one is not religious one is an atheist. Atheisim is the beleif that there is no higher being or power. Or am I wrong in my definition of Atheisim?

BN I'll view the videos when I have a chance but might be a while. Good to see you still around.

[Blue_Nose]

stratos wrote:

If one is not religious one is an atheist. Atheisim is the beleif that there is no higher being or power. Or am I wrong in my definition of Atheisim?

This thread is about creationism, not religion in general.

Believe in retarded things like the Earth literally being created in six days several thousand years ago doesn't make you non-religious, and believing in rational things like evolution doesn't make you an atheist.

If anything you should watch the second video above - it makes a very good point about Bible-worship vs. God-worship.

[hurley_108]

stratos wrote:

If one is not religious one is an atheist. Atheisim is the beleif that there is no higher being or power. Or am I wrong in my definition of Atheisim?

Yes, you are wrong. Atheism is an absense of belief in deity. Buddhists are religious, and believe in karma and such, but not any god.

[Red_Eye]

also athiest are labeled as amoral anothe misconception

[travior]

A majority of the problem when trying to argue for or against creationism is that people do not understand the true background of the creation story in Genesis. Most of that has to do with the fact that a majority of creation-believers (of which I'm one) rely solely on the old King James translation of the Bible.

This was translated in (I think) the 13th or 12th century using wording and terms that the average layperson could understand at the time of the translation. If you look at the origional Greek and Hebrew and research (as many Bible commenaries have) the origional meanings and contexts of the Word, you will see where some things were translated close but not quite right.

One key verse involves the creation of the Earth. Two different Hebrew words were translated into one english word. Genesis 1:1 in the origional Hebrew states that God created the heavens and earth out of nothing. Genesis 1:2 in the origional Hebrew states that God RE-created the Earth out of something that already existed. This implies that there was an unspecified amount of time that existed between verse 1 and 2 and is supported by many other references that are too long to list here.

One of the best commentary Bibles that researches the context of the origional Hebrew I have found is by Dake (aka the Dake Bible).

This allows for the explainations as to why the fossil record clashes with the strict view of the 6-day creation. It is actually a 6-day RE-creation of the Earth.

[RUEZ]

Blue_Nose wrote:

Believe in retarded things like the Earth literally being created in six days several thousand years ago doesn't make you non-religious,

It just makes you retarded?

[Blue_Nose]

Falsehood #3: that any human's understanding of their beliefs should, - or even could - be considered infallible or inerrently accurate.

[Blue_Nose]

Blue_Nose wrote:

Falsehood #3: that any human's understanding of their beliefs should, - or even could - be considered infallible or inerrently accurate.

Blue_Nose wrote:

This seems awfully important to you, BN.

Complaining about everything I post seems awfully important to you. You've yet to post anything relevant in response to any of the posts I've made - did you even watch the video?