Community | June 18, 2011 | 181 comments

Michele Bachmann Talks Evolution and Wants Intelligent Design Taught in Schools

source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/17/michele-bachmann-intelligent-design-evolution_n_879...

Image
Imzadi
  1. groups:
    Community,   US Politics,   Progressive America,   Humanism,   2 more
  2. tags:
    Schools,  Bachmann,  Religious Right,  Intelligent Design
  3.     
    |

181 comments // Michele Bachmann Talks Evolution and Wants Intelligent Design Taught in Schools

  • EdJoyProductions
  • EdJoyProductions
  • CelticQueen
    • +1
      CelticQueen  

    • I'd like her to take a 6th grade intelligence test. Her precious Forefathers ancestors left England's National Anglican religion due to persecution. Ergo- seperation of Church and State.In the 1960's my parents wanted a religious education for me, yet they paid their local public school taxes AND paid for private school.And I'm Roman Catholic.

    • 11 months ago
  • wally60
    • +1
      wally60  

    • just think theres more out there that voted her in.this is what is running our country.hang on to your seats with the crazeies at the wheel anything can happen

    • 11 months ago
  • nobsartist
  • riffmage
    • +1
      riffmage  

    • An idiot living a fantasy and wanting to blind future generations. . STOP the plague of superstition. Teach children reasoning and compassion. You have a choice not to go to church but school is mandatory. Some parents are not able or educated enough to home school.

    • 11 months ago
  • COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM
  • CelticQueen
  • CursingOldGoat
    • +4
      CursingOldGoat  

    • If you care about America at all, vote for people that care about the country AS A WHOLE—not corrupt, self-serving politicians who are happy to deliver what's left of America to corporations (and the wealthy) on a platinum platter while using social issues like abortion and gay marriage to hook you in. Trust me...they could care less about those issues—they're playing on your beliefs and taking you for fools.

    • 11 months ago
  • Imzadi
  • sharin
    • +3
      sharin  

    • good morning Imz! Thanks for bringing this article to current. there are over 14000 comment on huffington post and almost all are derogatory to mMs Bachmann. In fact, there are a lot of good one liners - worth a good chuckle for anyone to read

    • 11 months ago
  • Imzadi
    • +3
      Imzadi  
    • sharin:

      Good Morning, sharin. You're welcome! As I told GoodGoogliMoogli, I spend most of my time here these days.

      I posted a number of comments on the HuffPo site about this article and thought, "Hey, why don't I get that over here where you can say anything you like without fear of moderation?" I really appreciate that feature.

      And no adorable kittens...

      ;-)

    • 11 months ago
  • sharin
    • +3
      sharin  
    • Imzadi:

      has GGM come here yet? once in a while I see Funky here. Many of the threads on huppington post are so troll dominated it makes me ill, on top of hp carrying more and more article that should be on fox nation. Arianna seems to be showing her true colors

    • 11 months ago
  • Imzadi
    • +1
      Imzadi  
    • sharin:

      I haven't seen Funky here yet. What name is he using?

      Every day, I try to convince my favorite HP people to come over here. Yes, the navigation takes a while to get used to, but once comfortable, it is quite enjoyable. I told GGM yesterday to come over...

    • 11 months ago
  • sharin
  • Imzadi
    • 0
      Imzadi  
    • sharin:

      I just looked and it seems Funky has been removed, sadly. You know how he can get a bit over the top - LOL...

      Hope to see you at Jason's Live blog this morning!

    • 11 months ago
  • mik661
  • Imzadi
  • Frosty46
    • +2
      Frosty46  

    • Why does stupid, ignorant and basically evil work so very well in today's Republican world of gambling, lies and treason?

      because America is stupid, ignorant, lazy and basically evil------------wake the hell up!

    • 11 months ago
  • dinm76
    • 0
      dinm76  
    • Frosty46:

      What else can you say about a country that was built on the genocide of its native population, the slave labor of blacks and was the first and only country to drop an atomic bomb. Yep....we're exceptional alright! We are the most Godless, heartless bastards on the planet and the rest of the world knows that now loud and clear. The party's over folks. Time to pay the piper.

    • 11 months ago
  • bike10
  • Imzadi
  • Judgian12365
    • 0
      Judgian12365  

    • If you don't believe in Gay Marriage, then don't be gay and/or don't get married.
      If you don't believe in Abortion, then don't have one.
      If you don't believe in Health Care, then don't get sick.
      If you don't believe in Nature, then don't go outside.
      If you don't believe in Learning, then don't go to school.
      If you don't believe in Evolution, then don't evolve.

    • 11 months ago
  • keithponder
    • 0
      keithponder  
    • Judgian12365:

      If you don't believe in Health Care, then don't get sick.
      If you don't believe in Nature, then don't go outside.
      If you don't believe in Learning, then don't go to school.
      If you don't believe in Evolution, then don't evolve.... IS PURE GARBAGE.

      You sound worst than her.

    • 11 months ago
  • Judgian12365
    • +1
      Judgian12365  
    • keithponder:

      Those people who oppose gay marriage should never get married, as they are not loving people.
      Those who don't want Government Health Care shouldn't get sick, because corporate health care sucks, and is nearly nonexistent.
      Those who oppose abortion shouldn't get pregnant, because they're not fit to be parents.
      Those who are against or opposed to nature should not be apart of it.
      If you don't like nature, stay inside, because it is EVERYWHERE out there.
      Those who oppose nature have no place in it.
      Those who don't want their children to learn shouldn't send them to school, because there should be no school not dedicated and devoted to educating.
      (Those who are against learning should not have children.)
      If you oppose education, go to church.
      People not believing in evolution prove that they are not evolved.
      If you don't believe in evolution, you are more than welcome never to evolve; or at least you can try.
      Those who don't believe in evolution can try not to evolve. They will fail, as evolution is both universal and ubiquitous.

    • 11 months ago
  • PIANORAMA
  • PIANORAMA
    • +2
      PIANORAMA  
    • Judgian12365:

      and if you don't like the comments you read here, then don't read the comments here.
      I wonder why some people seem unable to disagree with another comment without insulting or questioning the intelligence of the person who wrote it. We all have our own opinions about things; as Chief Oren Lyons of the Six Nations has said, in the Longhouse everyone has a chance to be heard as it is understood that everyone has a piece of the picture. There is mutual respect, always, for differences of opinion.

    • 11 months ago
  • Plue
  • dkl165
  • PIANORAMA
  • RandyK1
  • Ashley_Byrd
  • RandyK1
    • 0
      RandyK1  
    • Ashley_Byrd:

      I address the post rather than the thread, sorry. OK so I am a liberal Christian (ELCA Lutheran). We perform gay marriage where legally allowed, and welcome gay clergy, see much of the old testament as cultural law consistent with the times, and view the bible allegorically rather than literally. I am also a scientist My religious views still piss off many of my fellow liberal friends, and I do not understand why. I think that if you cannot categorically state that there is absolutely no possibility of a much more highly evolved form in this universe or the likely infinite number of other universes within the metaverse, you must at least acknowledge the unlikely but finite possibility that we or our forebears were placed here by something, making agnosticism a preferable view over atheism or especially mysticism, for which there is just as little evidence as there is for Christianity, but seems to be a preferred theology for many liberals. I emphasize that I do not favor the religious views of Ms. Bachman in any way, nor crossing the line between church and state, but I think that we as liberals need to quit picking on those who would be with us but for a minimally more conservative religious belief. By dissing liberal Christians, we divide rather than unite, and we diminish our ability to promote progressive political ideas. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I guess my point is that I see nothing wrong with political progressivism without rejecting a more traditional theology, and they are by no means mutually exclusive. I am certain in my heart and mind that Jesus was a progressive, which is why I follow many of his teachings. Unfortunately, we live in a time in which most atheists are much more versed in scripture than most conservative Christians. Your Thoughts?

    • 11 months ago
  • JPSayles
  • PIANORAMA
  • TMLeafs
    • +3
      TMLeafs  

    • A statement of the obvious... There is no science to Intelligent Design, none, nadda, zilch... so one cannot present non science as if it were science (otherwise we are simply lying to students). Evolution is based on science... Anyone who does not understand the difference earns an F in any college-level Biology class.

    • 11 months ago
  • 14_Crusaders
  • Judgian12365
    • +4
      Judgian12365  

    • I can understand why Michelle Bachman doesn't want to believe evolution is true.
      After all, her only hope of ever being elected to anything is that the "people" who vote for her have never evolved at all.

    • 11 months ago
  • PIANORAMA
  • Toughth
    • 0
      Toughth  

    • If by intelligent design she means to teach the concept that Andre Norton made about a forruner race. Or how about Stargate Atlantis the Ancients. All make about as much sense. There can be as many ways to interpret intelligent designs as science fiction writters. As for myself I think we are a figment of anouther entitys imagination or dream.

    • 11 months ago
  • Judgian12365
    • +1
      Judgian12365  

    • The strategy of deliberately disguising the religious intent of intelligent design has been described by William Dembski in The Design Inference.
      In this work Dembski lists a god or an “alien life force” as two possible options for the identity of the designer; however, in his book Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, Dembski states that “Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don’t have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ.”
      Dembski also stated, “ID is part of God’s general revelation [...] Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology (materialism), which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I’ve found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ”.
      Both Johnson and Dembski cite the Bible’s Gospel of John as the foundation of intelligent design.
      William Dembski states in his book Design Inference that the nature of the intelligent designer cannot be inferred from intelligent design and suggests that the designer, if one is even necessary for design inference, may or may not be “the God of Scripture.”
      In December 2007 Dembski told Focus on the Family, “I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God.”
      At various times, leading proponents in the intelligent design movement have clearly expressed that they consider the Abrahamic God “Elohim” in his role as a creator God, to be the intelligent designer and denied that intelligent designer is God, depending on which audience they are addressing. One example is William Dembski, who on his blog in response to the question “Is the designer responsible for biological complexity God?” said “not necessarily” and “To ask who or what is the designer of a particular object is to ask for the immediate intelligent agent responsible for its design. The point is that God is able to work through derived or surrogate intelligences, which can be anything from angels to organizing principles embedded in nature.”
      Yet to the intelligent design movement’s conservative Christian constituents Dembski has said “intelligent design should be understood as the evidence that God has placed in nature to show that the physical world is the product of intelligence and not simply the result of mindless material forces. This evidence is available to all apart from the special revelation of God in salvation history as recounted in Scripture. … Intelligent design makes it impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. This gives intelligent design incredible traction as a tool for apologetics, opening up the God-question to individuals who think that science has buried God” and “Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.”
      Highlighting these mutually exclusive claims about the designer, Dembski, despite having said that the intelligent designer or designers could be any god or gods, or even space aliens, has also said that “intelligent design should be understood as the evidence that God has placed in nature to show that the physical world is the product of intelligence and not simply the result of mindless material forces” and that “Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.

    • 11 months ago
  • Judgian12365
    • 0
      Judgian12365  

    • Phillip E. Johnson, considered the father of the ID movement has stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept:
      “Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.” — Phillip E. Johnson, American Family Radio, January 10, 2003
      “This isn’t really, and never has been a debate about science. It’s about religion and philosophy.” — Phillip E. Johnson, World Magazine, November 30, 1996
      “To talk of a purposeful or guided evolution is not to talk about evolution at all. That is slow creation. When you understand it that way, you realize that the Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts not just the Book of Genesis, but every word in the Bible from beginning to end. It contradicts the idea that we are here because a creator brought about our existence for a purpose. That is the first thing I realized, and it carries tremendous meaning.” — Phillip Johnson
      “Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn’t true. It’s falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth? When I preach from the Bible, as I often do at churches and on Sundays, I don’t start with Genesis. I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves.” — Phillip Johnson

      Phillip E. Johnson, ‘father’ of the intelligent design movement, states the movement’s goal is to “affirm the reality of God”.
      Phillip E. Johnson, largely regarded as the leader of the movement, positions himself as a “theistic realist” against “methodological naturalism” and intelligent design as the method through which God created life.
      Johnson explicitly calls for intelligent design proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so as to avoid having intelligent design recognized “as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message.”
      Johnson has stated that cultivating ambiguity by employing secular language in arguments which are carefully crafted to avoid overtones of theistic creationism is a necessary first step for ultimately introducing the Christian concept of God as the designer.
      Johnson emphasizes “the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion” and that “after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact” only then can “biblical issues” be discussed.
      In the foreword to Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science (2000) Johnson writes “The intelligent design movement starts with the recognition that ‘In the beginning was the Word.’ and ‘In the beginning God created.’ Establishing that point isn’t enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message.”
      Phillip E. Johnson stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept.
      Phillip E. Johnson has stated that cultivating ambiguity by employing secular language in arguments that are carefully crafted to avoid overtones of theistic creationism is a necessary first step for ultimately reintroducing the Christian concept of God as the designer.
      Johnson explicitly calls for intelligent design proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so as to avoid having intelligent design identified “as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message”.
      Johnson emphasizes that “the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion”; “after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact [...] only then can ‘biblical issues’ be discussed”.

    • 11 months ago
  • rgrisham
    • +6
      rgrisham  

    • Conservatives want Intelligent design to be taught along with evolution. I say liberals should be asking that social democracy should be taught right next to representive government. I think the issue would go away if Fearocrats asked for Socialism compared to Capitalism . But liberally elected Democrats will just give in again and say well get them on the next one. LOL... Our country is going in reverse. We are going into a time warp back into an America that a lot of people fought hard to change.

    • 11 months ago
  • jamjaminyourmouth
  • Wicks934
    • +5
      Wicks934  

    • my fear is that Bachmann will run for president and win. I'm afraid that a lot of women would vote for her just because she is a woman.

    • 11 months ago
  • Kelly_Balthrop
  • rgrisham
  • Judgian12365
    • +3
      Judgian12365  
    • rgrisham:

      Sarah Palin had tanning beds installed in the Governor's mansion in Juneau.
      Tanning beds have been scientifically proven to cause skin cancer.
      Not a Problem; Sarah Palin doesn't believe in Science.

    • 11 months ago
  • EdJoyProductions
  • PIANORAMA
  • Wicks934
  • thedirtman
    • +4
      thedirtman  

    • "What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide."

      Oh my... is that any way to teach children? Let them decide? What if they decide that 2 + 2 = 5?

    • 11 months ago
  • artemis6
  • Stacey_Greenstein
    • +2
      Stacey_Greenstein  
    • thedirtman:

      But 2 + 2 *does* equal 5, for exceptionally large values of "2"....

      If a pie costs $13, and I have $38, I can buy 2 pies. If I have a friend who has $27, he can buy two pies. But together, we have $65, which is enough to buy 5 pies. 2+2=5. QED.

      LOL!

    • 11 months ago
  • Persecuted
  • PIANORAMA
  • bike10
  • jam60jam
  • JPSayles
  • Persecuted
  • artemis6
  • Judgian12365
    • 0
      Judgian12365  
    • JPSayles:

      "Religious Theory" is an oxymoron.
      It is a contradiction in terms.
      No religion can be called a "Theory";
      Nothing religious can be called "Theoretical";
      Nothing Theoretical can be called religious,
      No Theory can be called a religion.

    • 11 months ago
  • Judgian12365
    • 0
      Judgian12365  
    • Persecuted:

      "Religious Theory" is not a class that should be taught in school.
      Going to Church should be renamed "religious theory";
      as the church seems to be the only ones who are detached from reality enough to actually believe [i hesitate to use the word "think", for self-evidently obvious reasons] that the two terms "religion" and "theory" are NOT actually mutually exclusive, as they in fact, by definition, are.
      Any and all religion should only EVER be included in ANY class in ANY school in a highly hypothetical discussion of outdated, antiquated, archaic philosophy and fantastically fictitious, fanciful ancient prehistoric legends and mythologies.
      That is the only context in which any mention of any religion, or of anything that is in any way, shape, or form religious has, does, or ever will belong.

    • 11 months ago
  • Judgian12365
    • 0
      Judgian12365  
    • artemis6:

      It should be called "Comparative Ancient World Mythologies", if for not other reason than just to preemptively avert any sort of confusion with any contemporary modern popular fantasy fiction.

    • 11 months ago
  • jim_b
  • Frosty46
    • 0
      Frosty46  
    • JPSayles:

      Bullllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!

      Stupid is as stupid does------------end of question of religions---they are all con games used to fleece someone------every GOD damn one!

    • 11 months ago
  • keithponder
  • Judgian12365
    • 0
      Judgian12365  
    • keithponder:

      "Anything that is not proven to be a fact can be called a theory."
      Wrong.
      Words have meanings.
      Terms have definitions.

      World English Dictionary
      theory (ˈθɪərɪ)
      — n , pl -ries
      a system of rules, procedures, and assumptions used to produce a result
      a set of hypotheses related by logical or mathematical arguments to explain and predict a wide variety of connected phenomena in general terms: the theory of relativity
      [C16: from Late Latin theōria, from Greek: a sight, from theōrein to gaze upon]
      Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
      2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
      Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009
      Cite This Source

      Cultural Dictionary
      theory definition
      In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis. ( See Big Bang theory, evolution, and relativity.)
      The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
      Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
      Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
      Cite This Source

      Science Dictionary
      theory (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē)
      A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. See Note at hypothesis.
      The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
      Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.
      Cite This Source

      Medical Dictionary
      the·o·ry definition
      Pronunciation: /ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthi(-ə)r-ē/
      Function: n
      pl -ries ;
      1 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art theory and practice of medicine>
      2 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena theory of organic evolution> see ATOMIC THEORY CELL THEORY GERM THEORY
      3 : a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation
      the·o·ret·i·cal Pronunciation: /ˌthē-ə-ˈret-i-kəl, ˌthi(ə)r-ˈet-/
      also the·o·ret·ic Pronunciation: /-ik/
      Function: adj
      the·o·ret·i·cal·ly Pronunciation: /-i-k(ə-)lē/
      Function: adv
      Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2007 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
      Cite This Source

      Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy:
      theory
      In science, a way of looking at a field that is intended to have explanatory and predictive implications. The task for the philosophy of science has often been posed in terms of demarcating good or scientific theories from bad, unscientific ones (See falsifiability, popper). In the heyday of logical positivism highly formal approaches to theories treated them in terms of axiomatic systems, whose theoretical terms were tightly tied to an observational vocabulary supposed to give a foundation in empirical meaning. A less formal and more contextualized approach heralded in the work of Thomas Kuhn, stressed the open-endedness of scientific activity, the heuristic value of analogies and models, and the elasticity and the holism of meaning, all of which suggested that an excessively formal approach distorted the subject.

      Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology:
      theory
      In archaeology the term is generally applied in a wide sense to mean any kind of discourse that is abstract in nature. Less frequently it is used in a more technical sense to mean structured concepts, statements, or models that are intended to make understandable in some way a specified set of phenomena. A theory is thus a statement that accounts for causes or relationships between phenomena.

      Oxford Dictionary of Sports Science & Medicine:
      theory
      A set of hypotheses or propositions, logically or mathematically linked, offered as an explanation in general terms for a wide variety of connected phenomena.

      Dictionary of Cultural Literacy: Science:
      theory
      In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis. (See Big Bang theory, evolution, and relativity.)

      Saunders Veterinary Dictionary:
      theory

      1. the doctrine or the principles underlying an art as distinguished from the practice of that particular art.
      2. a formulated hypothesis or, loosely speaking, any hypothesis or opinion not based upon actual knowledge.
      cell t. — all organic matter consists of cells, and cell activity is the essential process of life.
      recapitulation t. — see recapitulation theory.

      Mosby's Dental Dictionary:
      theory
      (thē′ ərē)
      n An opinion or hypothesis not based on actual knowledge.

      Nothing in science can ever be scientifically proven to be a "fact".
      In science, there are no facts.
      The term "fact" directly implies that there can be no more left still to learn.
      In science, everything is never known.
      Everything in science must be verifiable as well as falsifiable.
      You must be able to prove a scientific theory, but you must also must be able to disprove it.
      Science will never be complete, because we will never know absolutely positively everything that there is to know.
      There never has been, is not, and never will be any such a thing as a scientific "fact", because we will never know everything about anything.
      "Scientific fact" is a non sequitur.

      That is why "religious theory" is an oxymoronic contradiction in terms.
      No religion can be called a "theory", if for no other reason than because ANY religion, EVERY religion, by definition, necessarily claims to KNOW the answers.
      EVERY religion claims to be the "truth".
      ANY religion claims that its dogmatic doctrine is "fact".
      Anyone or anything that claims to "know" anything as the "truth" for a "fact" is the antithesis of everything that is scientific.
      In science there are no facts.
      Science is founded upon the precept that we DON'T know.
      And science is the quest to SEEK the truth, not the claim of already having it.

      "Religion" and "Theory" are diametrically contradictory terms.
      The mere concept that we might NOT know the answers to all of the questions of Life, the Universe, and Everything, the foundation of all that is science, flies directly in the face of everything that it means for anyone, or anything, to be religious.
      The concept that we might not already posses the ultimate truth, without which science would cease to exist, diametrically opposes all that is religion.

    • 11 months ago
  • Nick19
    • +3
      Nick19  

    • Oh god this again? I thought this whole Intelligent Design crap was over with. Oh well, I guess it isn't surprising that an idiot like Michele Bachmann is willing to renew this worthless matter.

    • 11 months ago
  • Frosty46
  • MauriceLacunza
  • Slingingstones
  • tlbuffin
  • bailey78
  • MauriceLacunza
  • tlbuffin
  • bailey78
    • +1
      bailey78  
    • tlbuffin:

      Hate to break it to Ya but I'm straight:) been married to the same Woman for twentytwo years.She is the only one aloud naer My ass. Butt I'll tell Ya now that Gator is good eating. Now if Ya screw it up trying to do some fancy cooking to it then thats on You My friend. Just Grill it or do what Ya would to your Favrite Steak. I also think you would have had fresher Gator meat if you had gone out and killed the Gator yourself. :)

    • 11 months ago
  • tlbuffin
  • jim_b
  • KB723
  • Omle_Du_Fromage
  • coxian_armada
  • thedirtman
  • Frosty46
  • Imzadi
  • LittleRascals
    • +4
      LittleRascals  

    • so they come up with this slogan "Intelligent Design" to counter Scientific discovery. Intelligent Design must be great ! Sounds modern and also scientific. How can one argue against that !!??
      So who do we give credit for designing the world intelligently ? Why none other than Mother Nature herself. Mother Earth. We have all witnessed her power these last few months.

    • 11 months ago
  • coxian_armada
    • +4
      coxian_armada  

    • Why do Christians believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago? Is it mentioned specifically in the Bible or is it just an estimate by people like Harold Camping?

    • 11 months ago
  • jim_b
  • coxian_armada
  • MauriceLacunza
  • UtopianSky
    • +3
      UtopianSky  
    • coxian_armada:

      The book of Genesis has a long list of "begets", indicating who had what children, and who their children were, and so on. The 6,000 number was made as an estimate by a theologian a long time ago based on that list of "begets".

    • 11 months ago
  • haberzet
  • Persecuted
  • MauriceLacunza
  • coxian_armada
  • tlbuffin
  • coxian_armada
  • tlbuffin
  • coxian_armada
  • Frosty46
12
1 - 100 of 181
more from Community:
from the community

top videos