Quote# 46483

Evolution is True? I recommend some major studying because evolution is a complete joke. Evolution is most definitely NOT proven! Adaptation and Change (such as catepillar to a butterfly, sometimes called micro evolution) does not mean Alligator to a Seagull, Seagull to a Mouse, Mouse to a Chicken, Chicken to a Shark, ad nauseum. It has never been witnessed since recorded history and that covers thousands of years. Transitional fossils? Can't say anybody has ever found ONE let alone trillions that should be discovered with each shovel of dirt. Evolution is the only state funded religion, imagine that.

(Emphasis added)

Mason, RaptureReady 49 Comments [9/2/2008 8:52:05 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: PeterGriffin

Quote# 46403

the most complicated molecule known to man is a DNA molecule, if life were to work by natural selection the most complex would have had to come first as far as life goes. a single celled organism is more complicated than a single cell of multi-celled organism. the theory of going from simple to more complex fails in that the complex came before the simple. and that's undeniable. also if a multicelled organism, say needs several different specialized organs made from different cells than how would these organs form over time not having the other organs they rely on to live in the first place.

Sot, WoW offtopic 28 Comments [9/2/2008 11:42:49 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Worldsend

Quote# 140030

Here's a short list of famous LGBT Hollywood celebrities: Former California governor Ronald Reagan (Rainbow Ronnie), Robert Reed (Mike, the father on The Brady Bunch), Paul Newman, James Dean, Marlon Brando, Burt Lancaster, Sal Mineo, Sir Ian McKellen, Richard Jaeckel, Steve McQueen, Whoopi Goldberg, Brandon De Wilde, Tony Curtis, Montgomery Clift, Ellen DeGeneres, Neil Patrick Harris, Scissor Sisters, Melissa Etheridge, Sean Hayes, Cynthia Nixon, Arnold Schwarzenegger (featured in gay porn magazines), Lance Bass, and MANY MORE!!!

You've got a lot of actors in Hollywood who will tell you they are not gay, but they act gay in movies, committing acts of homosexuality. I'd say that's VERY gay! At a minimum they are glorifying and approving of sin that Christ died for, which bring the judgments of God (Romans 1:32), which causes God to punish the wicked with vengeance in the fires of Hell for all eternity. Jude 1:7, “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” Do you think sin is a trifle matter to God? Do you think God approves of Hollywood actors acting out despicable sins for the world to view and lust upon?

There's a big difference between a person who sins, repents, and is determined not to sin again; verse another person who parades sin, glorifies sin, and acts out sin on camera for the world to see. Is it a sin to pretend to commit a sin? When you are talking about two men making out on camera, yes, absolutely! It is sinful for a man and woman to pretend to have sex on camera. They are naked and touching each other. It is sinful. Cameramen are watching these people lie in bed, fondling each other and kissing each other, recording it all to make a movie. The word “movie” seems to diminish the evil and filthiness, the exceeding sinfulness of it all. Nudity and adultery are sinful.

The Biblical movie “Joseph” (which many Christians have purchased and watched), shows Potiphar's wife's teats on her breasts through a negligee. That's immoral wickedness!!! This is supposed to be a so-called “Christian” film. In real life some woman took her clothes off and allowed her naked body to be filmed, wearing only a thin negligee. The cameramen and producer, and other actors including the man who plays Joseph, all saw her nakedness to make this so-called Christian film. It is evil in the sight of God. The Biblical movie “Matthew” shows a young boy as Herod's henchman kill the children, about 5 years old, standing totally naked from the back. It is wickedness!!! Public nudity is a sin! The Biblical movie “Samson,” shows much more of Delilah than any man should ever see of a woman who is not his wife. It is sensual and of the Devil, labeled as a “Christian” film, promoting pornography. You cannot buy religious films these days because they are all made by pornographers and wicked men and women.

The Passion of Christ is morally decent to watch, but the man who plays Jesus Christ is a bisexual drag-queen in real life. The film promotes the biggest demonic cult in the world, Roman Catholicism, giving emphasis to Mary where the Bible never does. The movie is not made by Christians. Jesus is even presented with a black eye in the film, linking him with the Antichrist.

God will not be mocked; homosexuality brings the judgment of God (Romans 1:24-32; Hebrews 9:27; 10:31). I think Lex Luthor from SUPERMAN had the right idea of nuking the San Andreas fault line and plunging California into the ocean. Goodbye Hollywood and Los Angeles, the porn center of the world!!!

Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus!

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Savior 13 Comments [8/28/2018 12:36:38 PM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 46569

Let's suppose for a moment that evolution is true and verifiable (scientifically speaking). I would have to believe that we as humans have been inhibiting our progression as a species by our human efforts to eradicate disease, poverty and war. These conditions which we see as enemies of civilization are the very elements that - if one believes in evolution, are meant to improve our genetic makeup and eventually change us acordingly. Disease wipes out inferior or week life forms...war eliminates those who are intellectually stunted and poverty allows the stronger to enslave the weaker. These are things that we (if one believes in evolution) must not be resisted in the quest for a higher and more advanced society. The elderly must be euthanized, the sick be exterminated and the poor must be sexualy sterilized and then enslaved to enrich the society of the priveleged.

....right out of the sick mind of some nihilistic "scientists" and philosophers, right? His name was Hitler.

For the record, I believe that the earth was created (designed) by the master designer himself...Jesus Christ.

Neil G., TalkOrigins 43 Comments [9/3/2008 6:15:25 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Tom S. Fox

Quote# 140178

He once drew loli art of Keemstar's underage daughter as a fucked up "joke". I'd argue that there is indeed something wrong with drawing softcore porn of someone's daughter because you got in a dumb twitter feud with them, and "he likes being edgy" is a shit excuse for vile behavior.

Why? It's just a drawing. You can't just go around demanding people not draw things just because you don't like them.

IkaisMywife, reddit 10 Comments [8/30/2018 10:56:31 AM]
Fundie Index: 1

Quote# 46442

Atheist, do you not believe in God because there is not “physical” evidence of His existence?
Have you ever tried reading the Bible?
Has a Christian ever tried to witness to you but you cut them off or turned them away?
Have you ever thought that God does really exist?
Was there something specific that caused you to not believe that God exists?
If I told you that God loves you, you wouldn’t believe me because He doesn’t exist right? Why?
If I told you that God will judge you, you wouldn’t believe me right? Why?
If I told you that in the book of Revelations it says that Jesus will return for His believers you surely would not believe me right? Why?

I am not trying to be rude. I just notice that many Atheists really try and bring down the Chrisitan faith, (my faith). I would like to know why it's so important that you try and quiet us and make us believe that we are dilusional or something. I feel that you are a bit close-minded but you probably feel the same way about me.

L T, Yahoo questions 59 Comments [9/3/2008 6:29:42 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: onein6billion

Quote# 46487

[Regarding Artic sea ice dropping to the second lowest level on record]



USAmerican, Topix 34 Comments [9/3/2008 8:16:22 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: PeterGriffin

Quote# 140150

(They're referring to a 9 year old who killed themselves after homophobic bullying)

Correct. As sad as this suicide is, the very fact, the very idea that the school is going to use this suicide to indoctrinate other children into believing that homosexuality is not a sick perverted disease, is just as tragic.

If I were a teacher at that school I would be trying to show, trying to teach that little Jamal needed help, encouragement and treatment to get over this sickness, this illness. I would want to impress on the other children that being gay is not normal. It’s a perversion. Do not be like Jamal.

Responsibility2nd, Free Republic 15 Comments [8/28/2018 1:40:23 PM]
Fundie Index: 22
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 140177

I've never seen such horrendous prejudice in my life. Every serious crime Obama committed ignored by media. Everything minor Trump does...none of them crimes...is a life-in-prison crime. I call this treason by media. A conspiracy to force a coup.

Flashback: Obama Offered $150,000 Bribe to Silence Crackpot Hate ...
The Mueller Special Counsel and New York District Attorney’s Office seek to destroy President Trump for paying out $130,000 in hush money to two fo ...

Wayne Allyn Root, Twitter 14 Comments [8/30/2018 10:56:11 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Chris

Quote# 140148

As a sub-3 male, I refuse to work or contribute to society in any shape or form. I will leech off of others until the very day I die. I will not go to school or do anything remotely productive with my life because of my deformed body and face. Looks=foundation of your entire life. Without a functioning and aesthetic foundation you can not truly level up in life.

UglyHikikomori, incels.me 12 Comments [8/28/2018 1:40:05 PM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 140170

How old is the Earth?
Mankind determining the age of the earth is a bit like the proverbial blind men inspecting an elephant in order to derive the development of its internal organs. In science, facts about the natural world are best discovered using the scientific method, wherein a hypothesis is tested until it can be proven or disproven. Events that are too small, too far away, or too long ago can only be surmised by analyzing the data at hand. A theory gains credibility when another clue is discovered which agrees, or when the theory predicts a consequential discovery which is later confirmed.

The age of the earth is a matter that is, of course, too long past for experimentation. If its development is related to the formation of other planets, stars, etc., distance is added to the mix, making analysis all but impossible.

But there is one more factor which completely derails any objective discovery—the character and social environment of those doing the discovering. It is nearly impossible to procure the resources and support required to study the issue unless the researcher agrees to begin with the assumption that the earth is billions and billions of years old. For one, the presumption is so deeply ingrained in the scientific community that it has reached the level of a moral imperative. In addition, the evidence available is too incomplete to lead to a concrete answer on its own. Data cannot be interpreted in a way that will lead to any kind of conclusion unless an underlying assumption is made first. If this sounds like circular reasoning, it's because it is.

There is a small group of scientists, largely marginalized or even mocked, who begin with the assumption that the biblical account of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 is literal, and the earth is quite young. Because of the nature of scientific resource allocation, the bulk of their time is spent refuting the conclusions old-earth scientists make from the data at hand. Inasmuch as we can scientifically deduce long ago events, their findings are worth considering.

The three main fields regarding the age of the earth are astronomy, geology, and theology.

Astronomy may be one of the most difficult branches of science to study. The subjects are too far away to monitor directly, and much of the interest in the subject deals with events in the far past. Scientists have deduced that the universe began billions of years ago after a super explosion—the Big Bang. The gases coalesced into stars and then galaxies sometime later.

Besides the great amount of improvable conjecture involved in such a claim, there are two glaring problems. The first is in regards to the speed at which our galaxy rotates. At such a speed, had it been in existence for the billions of years claimed, the highly definable arms would have smeared into a disk. In fact, the stars would have spread out after only a few hundred million years. The shapes of the galaxies do not support billions of years of existence.

The second issue is the lack of supernovae. A supernova is a star that has exploded, leaving behind a cloud of particles. At the current rate of supernova explosions, a billion-year universe should be filled with the remains of dead stars. Instead, we can see only about 200—the amount expected to form in about 7000 years.

The discussion regarding the geological evidence of the age of the earth is broader and more puzzling. In an environment where improvable assumptions are essential for professional assistance and advancement, half-understood theories are touted as fact, obscuring a purer, objective analysis.

Many scientists believe they can accurately determine the age of rocks using a process called radiometric dating. Heavy elements, such as uranium, gradually degrade over time, losing protons, neutrons, and electrons until the atoms literally transform into a different element. By comparing how much of the heavier "mother" element a rock contains compared to the lighter "daughter" element, it's thought that the time since the rock has cooled from magma can be determined. Unfortunately, this process makes some erroneous assumptions. One is that the original magma contained absolutely no daughter elements. Another is that the rate of decay has stayed the same in the billions of years since the rock cooled. Both of these assumptions have been proven problematic. Samples from the same area in the Grand Canyon have given wildly different ages. And rock formed from lava which hardened mere decades ago in New Zealand and the crater of Mt. St. Helens have given results consistent with rocks that are supposed to be millions of years old.

Carbon-14 is an isotope of carbon that is used to measure the age of previously organic material in fossils up to 60,000 years old. Carbon-14 is made when cosmic radiation strikes a nitrogen atom, turning one of its protons into a neutron, and turning the nitrogen atom into carbon. This carbon atom latches onto oxygen atoms making carbon dioxide which is absorbed by plants and eaten by animals. Once the animal dies, thereby ending its procurement of any type of carbon, the C-14 atom decays. Carbon-14 has two extra neutrons in its nucleus, creating a chemically unstable situation. One of the neutrons will convert to a proton, changing the element back to nitrogen. It takes 5730 years for half of the C-14 to revert back to nitrogen. Thus, if the original amount of C-14 is known, the time the source died can be determined. This initial amount is deduced by the fairly stable ration of C-12 and C-14 currently present in our atmosphere, using the assumption that the planet is billions of years old and has had time to come to a C-12/C-14 equilibrium. If, however, the magnetic field around the earth has changed over the millennia, and if the Genesis Flood is true, today's C-12/C-14 ration cannot be considered a standard. The distinction is critical because at 40 million years old, fossils should have no C-14 left. And at 100,000 years old, coal beds shouldn't either. But they do. As do diamonds which are supposed to be millions or billions of years old.

The optimistic assumption that radioactive elements were pure, or at least knowable, in the formation of the parent rock is a noble thought, but presumptuous. A simpler answer is the earth has not maintained the steady state old-earth scientists believe. And the global Flood had a much larger impact than imagined. Both of these would indicate the age of the earth is much younger than previously thought.

Theological issues don't concern those old-earth proponents who choose to be atheists, but scientists who believe the earth is quite old—yet still the work of a Creator—find themselves up against a wall. In their attempt to maintain credibility with the secular society while keeping their standing in the church, they get a little creative with the text and the work of God in human history.

Language comes into play in two different ways in this argument. The first is the translation of the word "day" in the creation account of Genesis 1. Old-earth creationists claim the Hebrew word can mean an undefined span of time. Theologians who believe Genesis 1 is to be taken literally point out that the usage of a number with the Hebrew word (such as "second day") always means a literal day. In addition, in verses 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31, the writer uses the phrase "there was evening and there was morning…" No amount of semantical gymnastics could force this phrase to infer the earth is billions of years old.

Old earth creationists also use language to claim that Genesis 1-11—the creation and the Flood stories—are not historical accounts. They are poetry, meant to provide a lyrical summary of God's work to a scientifically unsophisticated people. Steven W. Boyd, Ph.D., completed a study to determine if this was the case. His statistical study of verb usage in Hebrew literature determined that the chance that Genesis 1:1-2:3 is historical narrative and not poetry is %99.9942. Meaning to say, the author of Genesis, inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21), meant to write a historically accurate account, not a symbolic metaphor.

The second theological issue regarding the age of the earth deals with the relationship between sin and death. God told Adam that if he ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, he would die. Adam ate, and God not only promised him death in Genesis 3:19, He ensured Adam would die by guarding the Tree of Life (Genesis 3:22-24). Romans 5:12 clearly says, "… sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin …" If this is the case, if death entered because of Adam's sin, if the world before Adam's sin was "very good," how can old-earth proponents justify billions of years of animal violence? Or cancer in the bones of dinosaurs? Or the story of sin in relation to the evolution of mankind? How could Adam have been descended from apes and Neanderthals long dead if he, himself, brought sin and death to mankind?

If the Bible is God's inspired Word, and not the recordings of a primitive people telling each other stories, then the age of the earth is present in its text, waiting for science to catch up. The genealogies say the earth is about 6000 years old. The Flood account gives more than ample explanation for many of the geological anomalies we find. And Genesis 1–3 clearly explain the theological relationship between first man's sin and all mankind's death. We choose what to believe. We can choose to follow a manmade theory (Romans 1:25) in order to gain man-given praise (Romans 2:29), or we can choose to believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, that God is intimately involved in creation, and that manmade science just hasn't caught up yet (1 Corinthians 4:5). The age of the earth is not a salvation issue. There are many godly Christians who believe the earth is billions of years old. And yet the motivation for believing in an old earth may be a salvation issue if we crave the approval of men more than God (John 12:37-43).

Michael Houdmann, Compelling Truth 12 Comments [8/29/2018 2:01:27 PM]
Fundie Index: 10

Quote# 46526

First of all JESUS didnt come to earth to form a "religion".. he came to start HIS Kingdom..thats why HE is called "The King of all Kings"...He confronted and rebuked the Jewish 'religious folks"all the time....they wanted their rules and regulations, which neglecting compassion and love...Hypocrites he called them!!
Now Satan loves "religion" he loves to get into someones mind,decieve them, pervert the simplicity of the Gospel....start a "new religion"...usually on false doctrines....like Mormons, etc...
I dont care for "religion" but I LOVE JESUS CHRIST and HIS word
so are religions respectable??? I dont know but I do know only ONE religion has a resurrected saviour.. My LORD GOD is alive and coming back soon (dancing smilie)

CHRISTinCheryl, RaptureReady 32 Comments [9/3/2008 12:10:25 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 140163

Gays are disgusting to begin with. Anyone who wants to stick his dick in another dude is already kinda fucked up in the head. To quote DMX, "how you gonna explain fuckin' a man? Even if we squash the beef I ain't touchin' yo hand!"

Maxliam, Kiwi Farms 12 Comments [8/29/2018 1:49:49 PM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 46400

Do you think it would make a difference if Christianity was taught in schools?

And as a devouted Christian would you like that even though it violates separation of church and state?

Answer :
Did you notice how our schools went down hill so fast after they took prayer out of schools. Did you notice that after 911 that even George W. Bush told people to pray in the schools even though it was unconstitutional. Christianity should be taught in schools even if it violates seperation of church and states. These laws are what you call "unrighteous" laws which stem from a devilish wisdom. The laws of love, justice, and mercy are "higher" than goverment laws, therefore they take precedence over any man-made law. There was a story in the Old Testement about Elijah the Prophet who was being mocked by the children of a certain village. Elijah called down a curse on the children and 2 bears came out of the woods and mauled the children. Do you know why that happened? Because the parents did not teach their children about God nor to reverence Him or His prophet. As a result of not teaching them God's ways the children suffer the wrath of God.

Obi-wan-kenobi, Yahoo Answers 41 Comments [9/3/2008 1:04:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: J Arcenas

Quote# 46468

They say life evolved on Earth from a single -cell organism which later turned into a sea creature and then a land creature. However there is absolutely no sure way to prove this right .It is only "assumed" that this is what might have happened.The big bang happened and there are 3 pieces of evidence to show how the universe formed. There is no real evidence showing the evolution of an ameoba into a sea creature. Why then is evolution forced upon every one ? why are other theories of lifes emergence not studied or discussed?

Bla Bla Y, Yahoo! Answers 19 Comments [9/3/2008 6:54:56 AM]
Fundie Index: -1
Submitted By: PeterGriffin

Quote# 46478

(The seeker's prayer. Apparently if you say this prayer God will "make" you believe)

Dear God, whom I hate with all my being precisely because you hate and threaten me with hell, I hate this punishment perhaps even more than I hate you. Or, maybe I should say that I love my comfort even more than I hate you. For that reason I am asking a favor of you. I want you to make me love you, whom I hate even when I ask this and even more because I have to ask this. I am being frank with you because I know it is no use to be otherwise. You know even better than I how much I hate you and that I love only myself. It is no use for me to pretend to be sincere. I most certainly do not love you and do not want to love you. I hate the thought of loving you but that is what I'm asking because I love myself. If you can answer this 'prayer' I guess the gift of gratitude will come with it and then I will be able to do what I would not think of doing now—thank you for making me love you whom I hate. Amen.

Dr. John Gerstner, A Puritan's Mind 41 Comments [9/3/2008 8:14:13 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 139425

God is not impressed with the position of pastor. God is not impressed with the size of Harvest Baptist Academy. God is not impressed by their big building, fancy auditorium, first-class music program, nor anything else they have erected or purchased. God is not impressed with how many of their graduates have become Bally Dancers, like Christian Hur. Harvest is a joke! Dresses are novelties at Harvest, tight sexy Spandex is the norm which the female staff wear in the neighborhood where I live! I mean sexy! I recently read in BJU's 2016 student handbook, where female students are now permitted to wear halter tops. Christian college? What a joke! Bob Jones today is WORLDLY!!! Harvest's women dress WORLDLY!!! This is supposed to be a fundamental Baptist church, right?

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Precious 14 Comments [8/28/2018 12:19:43 PM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 139905

Because its true and Israel is engaged in Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing.

Since all Israeli adult citizens are part of the military in one way or another, they forfeit the protection of Geneva and are fair game to Hamas which is a Government that was elected, mind you, to power and thus can't be labeled an Insurgent Group.

Also since Israel deliberately targets civilians, even those under UN protection, with air and artillery strikes, its civilians are also fair game to rocket and suicide bomber strikes which are no different.

If Israel doesn't like it, well tough shit, they shouldn't have started the war or committed genocide and ethnic cleansing.

I should also point out that Hamas despises Al-Qaeda and has killed and captured hundreds of them over the years.

The only way out of this mess, is to remove the Israelis from the region and give it back to the Palestinians who still have the right of return or decapitate the current Israeli Government, merge Gaza and West Bank into it and give it a true secular democratic government.

Commissar, AlternateHistory 12 Comments [8/18/2018 2:17:56 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 140152

Well, I'm calling homosexual sinners because the Bible calls homosexuals sinners. It's a point of fact, not a judgment. Second, I wouldn't be loving you, my neighbour, if I wasn't warning you that your continued sin would bar you from entering heaven when you die, as taught in the New Testament.

In fact, if I hated you, I would keep quiet. I can't do that. I love you.

Wil The Free, Anchored North 9 Comments [8/29/2018 1:43:06 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: CC

Quote# 140153

[Comment under "Male escort exposes 36 actively gay priests in a file sent to Vatican containing erotic Whatsapp messages and photos. The allegations were compiled by a gay male escort who told local media he couldn’t put up with the priests’ "hypocrisy" any longer."]

Sad that a gay prostitute has more integrity than priests, who are supposed to be men of God. There was a time when such disgusting embarrassments to the holy priesthood would have been burned at the stake. Not saying that we should go back to that punishment . . . but I can see why it was once thought appropriate.

VTHokiesFan, Reddit - r/Catholicism 5 Comments [8/29/2018 1:43:33 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: JeanP

Quote# 140157

The one single scientific, and Biblical point that no one seems to grasp is that the Holy Bible introduces us to a two dimensional universe...God's and ours. Those that pray, pray into a different dimension to reach God and this tells us that we can interact with this primary dimension as well. My analysis of all science tells me that every atomic particle is bonded to its nucleus because of a friction point at its core that not only holds the atom together but actually built that atom in the first place because those two dimensions clash in a wonderful way. The clear scientific distinction between these two dimensions are the big-bang where all this indestructable energy in the universe began hurtling through space at high-speed over the top of the static dimension that lies beneath it and that this recipe produced all science...so Almighty God and Jesus Christ were right all along...and reveal many valuable and worthwhile things to harness their science by and which all revolves around righteousness.

NicholasMarks, Religion and Ethics 8 Comments [8/29/2018 1:46:57 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: NearlySane

Quote# 140121

I'm in my mid 20's and so is my coworker. Anyway, this morning my coworker left his laptop alone in his desk and I started browsing his recent browser history out of curiosity. I found many links to adult pages and most of them had underage little girls completely naked. I don't know what to think, I could've never imagined him doing such a thing. I'm having a serious mental breakdown over this; he's a very attractive and fit guy and not at all the kind of guy you would expect to have such habits. Maybe it was a friend of his using his computer? At first I thought about reporting him to the authorities, but it would not be a good decision since at my workplace we run a really close-knit group and everyone has a great vibe (mostly men) and such a thing would destroy the group and probably my relationships with bosses and coworkers

Throwawayelise3, Reddit 11 Comments [8/28/2018 12:51:49 PM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 140117

WhatNemesisMeans: The faggots over at fstdt are getting triggered by this thread.

hoodLOLCOW: >triggered by a @Doc Cassidy shit thread


Doc Cassidy: It's about time those fags bitched about me. It's long overdue and I've been kind of offended that they were ignoring me.

various Kiwis, Kiwi Farms 14 Comments [8/28/2018 12:51:24 PM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 140075

[Under thread "Slavery yay or nay?"]

National Socialism is the belief that every race should have a homeland and that every people should be in their homeland. You can't have an ethno-state if half your country is slaves of another race. National Socialists do not support slavery. No one who wants to be taken seriously does. What an absurd question to ask on a sub for intellectual discussion.
I'm not a National Socialist, by the way.

But the Nazis enslaved countless numbers of people in the course of the war.
How can you say that Nazism opposes slavery when we have evidence they actively enslaved people?

conscription =/= slavery. Plenty of British colonials were conscripted against their will, no one calls that slavery.

Maybe because they were paid and weren't forced to stay in the British military forever?

Huh, the Germans only resorted to using prisoners and conscripts from occupied countries towards the end of the war, they certainly weren't planning on using them forever lol.

The Nazi government mandated massive indefinite compulsory service as early as the late 1930s and began the process of using prisoners of war and civilian "undesirables" from occupied territories in 1942 at the latest (hardly 'towards the end of the war').
they certainly weren't planning on using them forever lol

I guess you're right in a roundabout way, Nazi administrators planned on working their slaves to death.

from occupied territories in 1942 at the latest (hardly 'towards the end of the war').

You're retarded. The war was over by mid to late 1942 and it was only a matter of time. From that point onward, Germany had crippling manpower shortages that necessitated they use slaves in order to keep war production high enough to succeed. They had no choice.

NationalUnity2001, GreatEmuWarVeteran and AHAPPYMERCHANT, Reddit - r/DebateFascism 8 Comments [8/28/2018 12:50:06 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: JeanP

Quote# 140169

What is radiometric dating? Does it fit with the view of a young earth?
Radiometric dating is the way that scientists determine the age of matter. Radiometric dating techniques are applied to inorganic matter (rocks, for example) while radiocarbon dating is the method used for dating organic matter (plant or animal remains). The idea of a young earth, as presented in the Bible, is not compatible with the findings of radiometric dating.

What does this mean for Christians? Are we forced to accept that the Bible is inaccurate or not literal, based on what radiometric dating has found? It's a good question. First, let's look at what radiometric dating is, and how scientists determine the age of matter.

Radiometric dating is based on the rate of decay of certain isotopes, which is defined as: "each of two or more forms of the same element that contain equal numbers of protons but different numbers of neutrons in their nuclei, and hence differ in relative atomic mass but not in chemical properties; in particular, a radioactive form of an element." The isotope Uranium-238 (U238) is one of these unstable, radioactive isotopes. Over time, U238 decays and goes through many unstable stages, until it finally becomes stable as Lead-206 (Pb206). U238 is the "parent" isotope, and Pb206 is the "daughter" isotope.

Scientists found that by measuring the amounts of both parent and daughter isotopes in matter (seeing how much of the U238 has stabilized into Pb206), they could accurately calculate the age of that matter. For example, it takes 4,460,000,000 years for half a sample of U238 to turn into Pb206. So, if they found a rock that contained an exactly equal amount of these two isotopes, they could date that rock at exactly 4,460,000,000 years old.

There is no question that radiometric dating is accurate—provided that certain assumptions are true. First, we must assume that the rate of decay of U238 into Pb206 has remained constant over time. Second, we have to assume that no other chemical processes have adulterated the rate of decay (no amount of either parent or daughter has been added or taken away from the specimen). Third, we have to assume we know how much of each the parent and the daughter were present at the beginning of the decay process. The rate of isotope decay will always remain the same, but the accuracy of radiometric dating depends on these assumptions being correct for the specimen in question.

Assumptions two and three are not by any means certain, because how can we really know, having not watched the specimen over its entire life, how much of each isotope was present at the beginning, and whether or not anything was added or taken away? We can't know, so scientists are working on reasonable guesswork there. However, the first assumption (that the rate of isotope decay has remained constant over millions of years) has always been pretty much unquestionable—until recently. New research has found evidence to suggest that isotopes decayed at different rates in the unobservable past. This research is based on yet another element, called helium.

Helium is a gas—very light, with very small atoms, and is unreactive. Helium is a byproduct of the decay process of U238 into Pb206. As the uranium isotopes pass through their unstable stages on the way to becoming lead isotopes, they let off helium. Now, scientists found some crystals called zircons within granite specimens, which still contain a good deal of helium. According to radiometric dating, these zircons (and the surrounding granite) should be 1.5 billion years old. But if that were true, the helium, because of its nature, would have escaped from the rock over that much time (its atoms are smaller and lighter than the atoms of the zircons). However, there was still plenty of helium inside the zircons. It should have slowly seeped out, but it didn't. Because of this, scientists can now assume that the zircons, and the surrounding granite (a type of Precambrian granite that is the same across the entire planet) cannot be more than 4,000 to 14,000 years old.

New research has determined that radiometric dating is not an infallible method. This example shows that there is still so much that we do not know. Scientific discovery is important, and should never be discouraged, but when it contradicts the Bible, it is rational for Christians to reserve judgment and wait for further evidence to be revealed.




Michael Houdmann, Compelling Truth 7 Comments [8/29/2018 2:01:17 PM]
Fundie Index: 9