Archive

Dr. Ben Carson's compelling speech

  • Belly35
    Devils Advocate;1387363 wrote:

    I get it Obama a White guy in a Black suit ... someone should inform the low educated voters, they been bait and switch again by the Democrats :D
  • QuakerOats
    ttt
  • cruiser_96
    I like this one better.

    http://youtu.be/2DT-1nu2rps

    Absolutely LOVE from 6:40 to roughly 10 minute mark. LOVE IT!!!!
  • jmog
    BoatShoes;1387332 wrote:Off the top of my head...

    1. It's frustrating to see another person lament the debt and deficit and say nothing about the plight of the unemployed...especially a man of God at a prayer function...when the deficit has gone down every year...more bubble thinking that is not compelling in any way.

    2. The suggestion that we ought to have a 10% flat marginal tax rate because that is the rate that God prescribed for tithing in the Old Testament exhibiting a lack of understanding of the function of taxes in our modern economic system with a fiat currency that is non-convertible into any other commodity or currency not to mention he fails to mention what his "role model" Jesus might have thought because it doesn't fit with the modern conservative worldview.

    3. He has Dr. Evil syndrome as indicated by his talking about how long it would count the amount of dollars in our national debt

    4. Complains about the inefficiency of our healthcare system but obviously is unaware that the evidence from around the world indicates clearly that big gubmint single-payer healthcare gets more value for the dollar every where in the world and that is what he would support if he really cared about "efficiency" as opposed to adhering to a moral opposition to big government programs.

    Basically your standard, conservative tropes but even worse coming from a man of God at an event devoted to Prayer.
    Basically 4 of your opinions are on contrast to his, nowhere did you dispute any of his statements with facts.
  • BoatShoes
    jmog;1759301 wrote:Basically 4 of your opinions are on contrast to his, nowhere did you dispute any of his statements with facts.
    I was giving my opinion on Mr. Carson's opinions but given that you believe that dinosaurs lived on an Ark and the Earth is 6,000 years old in the face of overwhelming and staggering amounts of evidence to the contrary it is highly dubious that we could even agree on what are basic facts about the universe.

    And FWIW this thread topic is olllldd.
  • cruiser_96
    jmog: Did you actually state that you believe that the earth is 6000 years old or did you state that you believe that the earth was created? Or did you state that the earth spontaneously generated?

    I have found that when people are frustrated by the fact that others believe the earth was created by a source outside of itself, they automatically charge one with believing that the earth is 6000 years old when in no way, shape, or form was that suggested.

    Whatevs.
  • jmog
    BoatShoes;1759312 wrote:I was giving my opinion on Mr. Carson's opinions but given that you believe that dinosaurs lived on an Ark and the Earth is 6,000 years old in the face of overwhelming and staggering amounts of evidence to the contrary it is highly dubious that we could even agree on what are basic facts about the universe.

    And FWIW this thread topic is olllldd.
    Ah, you do love an ad hominem don't you BS rather than logically discuss the issues.
  • jmog
    cruiser_96;1759314 wrote:jmog: Did you actually state that you believe that the earth is 6000 years old or did you state that you believe that the earth was created? Or did you state that the earth spontaneously generated?

    I have found that when people are frustrated by the fact that others believe the earth was created by a source outside of itself, they automatically charge one with believing that the earth is 6000 years old when in no way, shape, or form was that suggested.

    Whatevs.
    I have showed flaws in the dating techniques used in modern science and happen to be a Christian. I have shown possible evidence of how things like Noah's Ark is possible and how animals could fit. I have never shown proof, I have never said that a 6000 year old earth is the most scientifically likely scenario, etc.

    People like BS, just cling to a couple statements and infer their own understanding on what the other person says rather than actually what the person says.

    If I had to guess, I have spent more time than most in my life studying the science behind universe and Earth dating methods, and with the background I have I would say I have a decent understanding and can tell where there are flaws in the logic.

    It basically comes down to two options:
    1. Do you believe there is absolutely no supreme being and/or a supreme being that is 100% "hands off" when it comes to the universe? If so then the modern scientific view of the age of the universe fully fits with all possible current understanding, even though there are some flaws.
    2. Do you believe in a supreme being that has supernatural (by definition) powers and does guide the universe in some way? If so, there is nothing scientifically that 100% states your belief is wrong, that is, unless you believe the Earth is flat, or the center of the solar system, etc.

    BS doesn't like to actually discuss what someone says, he likes to make vast jumps in logic about their beliefs.

    I can have the scientific discussion about origins and age of the Earth and possibilities. I can discuss modern radiometric dating methods and assumptions they make that can vastly change their results, etc. I have not definitively stated that the Earth is only 6000 years old like BS likes to claim. Although, I may have said (can't remember) that it is a possibility given certain assumptions about radiometric dating being different (can't remember every discussion that has had).
  • cruiser_96
    jmog;1759326 wrote:... I have not definitively stated that the Earth is only 6000 years old like BS likes to claim. ...
    That is all.
  • BoatShoes
    cruiser_96;1759314 wrote:jmog: Did you actually state that you believe that the earth is 6000 years old or did you state that you believe that the earth was created? Or did you state that the earth spontaneously generated?

    I have found that when people are frustrated by the fact that others believe the earth was created by a source outside of itself, they automatically charge one with believing that the earth is 6000 years old when in no way, shape, or form was that suggested.

    Whatevs.
    He's been very careful to hedge the way he talks on the 6,000 year old Earth on this forum but why don't you ask him how old he tells his kids the Earth is or how old he personally believes the Earth is in his heart of hearts rather than if he's actually stated how old he thinks Earth is.

    But that issue aside, even if he thinks the Earth is billions of years old (which I supremely doubt given his failed efforts to try and debunk radiometric dating on this forum) he definitely believes Dinosaurs lived together with humans:
    jmog;252109 wrote:Not that hard, I've already poked many holes in the radiometric dating techniques used to date dino-fossils on this thread.

    There is no real proof that dinosaurs and humans did NOT co-exist at one point.

    Matter of fact, dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible quite a few times, well before anyone dug up the first dinosaur fossil in the 1800s.

    Now, of course the word dinosaur was created to describe these fossilized animals in the 1800s while the Bible was first translated into English in the 1600s. So yea, the word dinosaur doesn't show up in the Bible since the word didn't exist in English yet.

    However, when you look at the descriptions given to specific "animals" in the Bible, like bohemoth and leviathon, its pretty obvious they are talking about bohemoth being a land dinosaur and leviathon being a dinosaur that lives in the water.

    So, even if you believe that the Bible was just a book written by humans and is not from God, the mere description of these animals in the book gives credence to dinosaurs and humans living together at one point.

    About fossils...

    It isn't only "millions of years" that causes bones to fossilize, bones can also be fossilized by tramatic (very high pressure) events. There have been some cases where a humans leg bone was instantly fossilized by jumping out of a plane and the parachute not opening and landing wrong on the leg (jumper was dead obviously).

    It takes either very long times under the earth with the pressure/heat of the earth, or a very quick very high pressure event.

    Here is one where he comes close to giving away his belief that the Earth is 6000 years old
    jmog;252353 wrote:So cynical yet so closed minded at the same time.

    Think for one second, if someone was a believer in the Bible, what tramatic event in Biblical history would create extremely high pressures on land animals.

    About the sun, you can give me no more proof that the sun is billions of years old than I can give you that it is 6000 years old.
  • BoatShoes
    Here is a post where he indirectly states on this forum that he believes in a young earth:
    jmog;275642 wrote:1. I do believe the Bible is 100% correct, but I stop you at that. My believe in a young Earth is NOT based solely on the Bible and never has been. Matter of fact at one point in my scientific career I believed everything they tell us about the age of the universe it wasn't until I started to question it and research it myself that I saw the possibility of a young Earth SCIENTIFICALLY. It just happened to fit with one Biblical theory of the age of the Earth. I've done researh that includes anything from ocean salt concentrations to planetary motions to radiometric dating techniques to plate tectonics to backup my thoughts (as has many other scientists, not just me). I do not use anything in the Bible to describe the age of the Earth, period.
  • BoatShoes
    And here is a good one for the road that made me laugh and has some of that Ad Hominem Jmog likes to complain about so much.
    jmog;292128 wrote:...His talk on "Adam and Eve" is hilarious. 1st, they did die, just awhile after that. They were originally to live forever but due to eating the fruit they eventually died. 2, it wasn't just a "snake", it was, according to the Bible, Lucifer in the form of a snake, so yeah, it would be able to talk...

    This moron should at least google some of this crap before he says it.

    You two supporting this joker have just lost a ton of credibility, he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about and is using so many talking points that have no merit its funny.


    ^^^^Why this forum is still worth coming to :RpS_lol:
  • cruiser_96
    BoatShoes: just so we're clear - YOU stated what you think jmog believes based not on him stating his beliefs on how old the earth is but rather your negative attitude towards theism(??????).

    That is what we know.
  • like_that
    cruiser_96;1759399 wrote:BoatShoes: just so we're clear - YOU stated what you think jmog believes based not on him stating his beliefs on how old the earth is but rather your negative attitude towards theism(??????).

    That is what we know.
    Pretty much a typical boatshoes tactic. Can't comprehend what somebody is saying, so he pulls his own interpretation out of his ass and passes it as a fact.
  • cruiser_96
    Like_that: I am now caught up to speed. What next - BoatShoes types "gosh a ruddies"? ;)
  • ZWICK 4 PREZ
    Not a Kasich fan (though I do think he's a viable candidate if i had to choose), but he's absolutely right here. The party is fucking nuts if you have trump and carson as the top 2. Too bad he probably just torpedoed his campaign with this...

    [video=youtube;jDXmzv4J8Ws][/video]
  • cruiser_96
    Is it the party that is nuts or the voting block? Or are you equating the two (party = voters)?

    Dear Mr. Kasich,

    You asked "What happened to our party? What happened to the conservative movement?" Could it be that those who are the ones voting are sick and tired of electing representatives who claim to represent the people only have their representatives turn their back on those who voting them into office, voting yes on what the voters - in large majority - would vote no for and no for what the voters - a large majority - would vote yes on?

    If that is the case, it sounds a bit like the party or conservative movement has moved at all but rather those who are running for the right to represent the people.

    Could the fact that these "loose-cannonballs" are leading in the polls also be an indictment on those who are more for politics or, dare I say, self-interest/self-preservation than interested in representing the people as they were elected to do?

    Just asking.
  • ZWICK 4 PREZ
    cruiser_96;1759566 wrote:Is it the party that is nuts or the voting block? Or are you equating the two (party = voters)?
    Well, that is how we determine the party's leader... so....
  • cruiser_96
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1759567 wrote:Well, that is how we determine the party's leader... so....
    That's racist.
  • jmog
    Nice edit/hack job there BS. You cut out single sentences/paragraphs from a whole post or whole thread, throw in your own interpretation of what it means and "GOTCHA!". When, in reality, most of those were comments/replies given in certain context with the discussion.

    Also, I have not been "very careful" I have fully came out and said what I believe and what path I have been through scientifically in the back and forth about who our universe and life was created/started/made/whatever word you want. I have been clear that I have gone back and forth on what I believe to be true a few times through my academic career. As I get new evidence or research new information it may or may not change my belief just as it has in the past.

    I understand that you have a problem that you can't just take what someone says/types for what it is and you have to make logical leaps into what they believe, ESPECIALLY when they happen to disagree with you (i.e. are conservative, Christian, etc).

    So, keep digging, hacking, cutting/pasting, etc since you obviously have ample time to search through posts that are years old. I'm sure if I cared enough I could search under BS and find plenty of BS to cut/paste and make you look stupid. It wouldn't be that hard. I just don't care enough and don't have the time to do it.

    Also, I am not really vindictive either.
  • ZWICK 4 PREZ
    [video=youtube;Fhol3WdB4QU][/video]

    How many of you are still voting for this idiot?
  • BoatShoes
    cruiser_96;1759399 wrote:BoatShoes: just so we're clear - YOU stated what you think jmog believes based not on him stating his beliefs on how old the earth is but rather your negative attitude towards theism(??????).

    That is what we know.
    Actually you're wrong. I don't have a negative attitude towards theism. I have a negative attitude towards theists who believe in Young Earth Creationists who are extremely smug and condescending to other posters and regularly appeal to their own intelligence as evidence as to why we should agree with their position which has been overwhelmingly refuted by the vast array of evidence. Go back and read the old threads if you're bored and you'll see what I'm talking about.

    Other theists I am cool with - some more so than others. Find me a humble theist like Demea from Hume's dialogue and we'll be just fine. I am less polite to arrogant theists.

    So, you might want to alter your epistemology my friend!
  • BoatShoes
    jmog;1759691 wrote:Nice edit/hack job there BS. You cut out single sentences/paragraphs from a whole post or whole thread, throw in your own interpretation of what it means and "GOTCHA!". When, in reality, most of those were comments/replies given in certain context with the discussion.

    Also, I have not been "very careful" I have fully came out and said what I believe and what path I have been through scientifically in the back and forth about who our universe and life was created/started/made/whatever word you want. I have been clear that I have gone back and forth on what I believe to be true a few times through my academic career. As I get new evidence or research new information it may or may not change my belief just as it has in the past.

    I understand that you have a problem that you can't just take what someone says/types for what it is and you have to make logical leaps into what they believe, ESPECIALLY when they happen to disagree with you (i.e. are conservative, Christian, etc).

    So, keep digging, hacking, cutting/pasting, etc since you obviously have ample time to search through posts that are years old. I'm sure if I cared enough I could search under BS and find plenty of BS to cut/paste and make you look stupid. It wouldn't be that hard. I just don't care enough and don't have the time to do it.

    Also, I am not really vindictive either.
    What's funny is that you think it took a lot of time when it was a rather brief and enjoyable way to spend the end of a work day.
  • Belly35
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1761126 wrote:[video=youtube;Fhol3WdB4QU][/video]

    How many of you are still voting for this idiot?
    . Four dead Americans because of a video ... Thanks Hillary

    i have not idea about missing email ... My server is protected .... Thank you Hillary
  • BoatShoes
    like_that;1759403 wrote:Pretty much a typical boatshoes tactic. Can't comprehend what somebody is saying, so he pulls his own interpretation out of his ass and passes it as a fact.
    Oh, sorry I missed this humdinger! Good one, pal!