|
Tardigrade posted:I haven't actually seen the movie, so I wouldn't know, but how does it promote "the Theory of Evolution as fact"? How does that even work? At one point Noah recounts the biblical story of creation and it uses a very pretty CGI sequence to mesh images of animals ultimately evolving into man while he does it.
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 06:10 |
|
|
Apparently one of the main villains in the movie (who wants to seize the arc so he can survive with his army and take over the world) has all of his lines directly attributable to god in various parts of the bible. So it's safe to say that Noah might not be intended as the affirmation of Christian faith people were expecting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:Apparently one of the main villains in the movie (who wants to seize the arc so he can survive with his army and take over the world) has all of his lines directly attributable to god in various parts of the bible. So it's safe to say that Noah might not be intended as the affirmation of Christian faith people were expecting. Really? This is the closest I've come to wanting to see the movie. This makes it sounds like the greatest troll of its own source text since Starship Troopers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
Its directed by Darren Aronofsky. I haven't seen Noah, but if its anything like Black Swan or Pi expect it to be vaguely explained have a lot of hallucinations to play with the audience's perceptions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
Conservapedia's main page, April 1 2014 posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 13:00
|
|
|
Haha, that's a good one Andy 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 13:04
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Really? This is the closest I've come to wanting to see the movie. This makes it sounds like the greatest troll of its own source text since Starship Troopers. His whole line of logic is that man was created to have dominion over the earth, so there is no sin in his actions--man's great sin in the film is basically using technology to spoil the earth. The main antagonist is also the guy who was the main character in Sexy Beast.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
 Conservapedia in a nutshell. "Interesting points, I'll prepare a rebuttal" "Your points are bullshit" nsaP fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
nsaP posted:
Hold up, the California UC system was once tuition-free? And they're not anymore principally thanks to Reagan? That son of a bitch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
Dr. Killjoy posted:Hold up, the California UC system was once tuition-free? And they're not anymore principally thanks to Reagan? That son of a bitch. Republicans loving hate education and think that access to information is a privilege you should have to pay for. Free education, libraries, and books are stuff you have to earn the access to by being born to parents wealthy enough to afford them or working full time to take evening classes. You know, earning your right to develop a skill by enriching somebody else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
quote:The tea party and social conservatism is brewing in France.[8] I'm a smidgen concerned that a political group whose entire ideology is wrapped up in opposition to Obama is rising up in a country distinctly lacking in Obama. quote:Fresh evidence of Jewish claims to Jerusalem and Israel, in the form of recovered stolen property. Twenty-five-hundred-year-old stolen property. [14] Let's talk about Native Americans then. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:I'm a smidgen concerned that a political group whose entire ideology is wrapped up in opposition to Obama is rising up in a country distinctly lacking in Obama. That makes sense as Steven Colbert is the first lady.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Scotland driving on the right -- Schalfly falls for an April Fool's joke.quote:"No joke"? Really? Lines like "horsemeat in haggis," "conscious uncoupling" and changing the green traffic lights to blue ones should have tipped you off, Schlafly. EddyJ 13:12, 1 April 2014 (EDT) quote:Clearly, Mr Schlafly knew it was a joke all along, and was joining in. There is always somebody trying to paint the site admin in a bad light. JamesWS 18:16, 1 April 2014 (EDT)
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
I don't think Andy needs any help being painted in bad light.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Actually, the more money I make and assets I acquire, the more radically democratic (note: small d) and leftist I become. This trend has obviously tracked perfectly with my age.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
quote:Another possible cause of autism. Hint: it isn't mercury preservatives. They have not been used in childhood vaccines for years. [1] In one of the few gestures by Conservapedia I unironically appreciate, they're against vaccine hysteria. And it suggests a line to investigate that has correlations but few actual studies to pin down causation. No, really, I'm confused. I figured it'd be Obama's fault or Benghazi causes autism or something and here's complete sanity out of there for once.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
Kind of surprised the abstinence category only has three pages.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Mind Loving Owl posted:Kind of surprised the abstinence category only has three pages. Abstinence isn't nearly as interesting as gay sex.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
Mind Loving Owl posted:Kind of surprised the abstinence category only has three pages. ... wait, why is "Quiverfull" in the abstinence category?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:... wait, why is "Quiverfull" in the abstinence category? Because non-abstinence is a subset of abstinence, just look at the words!
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:... wait, why is "Quiverfull" in the abstinence category? Because they abstain from pre-marital sex?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Does anyone have that handy link demolishing Noah's ark, with all the never-ending computations on size, water amounts, food weights, etc, etc? I lost it somewhere and feel it might be relevant if Andy should ever notice that the surely-not-liberal scientists at U of Leicester agrees It Could Really Have Happened (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/noahs-ark-could-have-happened-scientists-say-9234799.html). Of course, they're back at the "two of each kind" and apparently ignoring amounts of food, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Not sure if its any of these, but these articles on Rational wiki cover much of the data: Bringing the animals to the Ark Caring for the animals Plant survival during the global flood Survival of aquatic species during the global flood Insects during the global flood
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:... wait, why is "Quiverfull" in the abstinence category? The religious right advocates abstinence until marriage and then loving all day, ever day and popping out as many babies as possible because the Bible commands it. Which it actually, you know, does. A person getting horny and wanting to gently caress is evidence that God wants them to make babies. I think this is also part of where all of this "legitimate rape" and "spousal rape is OK" crap comes up. The view is that God commands people to get married as young as possible and have as many babies as possible. No exceptions. Marry before you're 20 and start making babies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The religious right advocates abstinence until marriage and then loving all day, ever day and popping out as many babies as possible because the Bible commands it. Which it actually, you know, does. A person getting horny and wanting to gently caress is evidence that God wants them to make babies. I think this is also part of where all of this "legitimate rape" and "spousal rape is OK" crap comes up. The view is that God commands people to get married as young as possible and have as many babies as possible. No exceptions. Marry before you're 20 and start making babies. Except for all the places in the New Testament (mainly the epistles) where the message is pretty explicitly "Ideally, you should stay single and celibate, but people get horny, so get married if your libido would be too distracting to manage", with no mention of children whatsoever. Everything to do with having lots of kids is Old Testament, and arguably only relevant to the at-that-time tiny Jewish community, which did need to have lots of kids if it wanted to survive. So, to summarize, the New Testament views marriage as existing purely for sexual pleasure, not for procreation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The religious right advocates abstinence until marriage and then loving all day, ever day and popping out as many babies as possible because the Bible commands it. Which it actually, you know, does. A person getting horny and wanting to gently caress is evidence that God wants them to make babies. I think this is also part of where all of this "legitimate rape" and "spousal rape is OK" crap comes up. The view is that God commands people to get married as young as possible and have as many babies as possible. No exceptions. Marry before you're 20 and start making babies. No, the lovely rape stuff comes from the fact that a) Christianity exists in a patriarchal society; b) it has long been used to serve a conservative political agenda, which seeks to maintain the patriarchy; and c) there are a couple clobber texts, particularly in the epistles, that suggest a wife should be subservient to her husband. If a wife is religiously forbidden from saying "no" to her husband about anything, then obviously marital rape is not possible. (e: Or, perhaps, all marital sex in the context of conservative Christianity is rape.) On a different level, there is a big problem within some strains of Christianity where they can only differentiate ethically between "sin" and "not sin," which is how homosexuality always gets lumped in with rape and child molestation and bestiality. It leads to people with a great difficulty of understanding the concept or importance of consent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Perfidia posted:Does anyone have that handy link demolishing Noah's ark, with all the never-ending computations on size, water amounts, food weights, etc, etc? I lost it somewhere and feel it might be relevant if Andy should ever notice that the surely-not-liberal scientists at U of Leicester agrees It Could Really Have Happened (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/noahs-ark-could-have-happened-scientists-say-9234799.html). Of course, they're back at the "two of each kind" and apparently ignoring amounts of food, etc. Sounds like this one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
ZeeToo posted:Sounds like this one. Yes! thanks! I really liked the never-ending stream of objections but I totally forget where the thread was or its title. Pesky Splinter posted:Not sure if its any of these, but these articles on Rational wiki cover much of the data: Thanks for these, too; they look interesting as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
What's on the menu?quote:Pat Buchanan: Vladimir Putin pushes Christianity as the West pushes decadent Hollywood values. [1] Ah, yes, their hero worship of Putin. Were they not so practiced in Doublethink I'd wonder how they can do this and still lambast Obama for not putting up some sort of stronger opposition to him. But Doublethink it's Conservapedia's specialty. quote:Are 7.1 million sign-ups (if accurate) for Obamacare really something to cheer about? [2] Meanwhile, the goalposts shift spectacularly, as if motorized.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Meanwhile, the goalposts shift spectacularly, as if motorized. Well they keep them on rails for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:
Filthy Orthodox Christianity, that is. What happened to no icons, conservapedia? For shame  .
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:
Schfly is a Catholic who are kind of a fan of religious iconography.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:
Goalposts, eh? http://www.conservapedia.com/Moving_the_goalposts posted:"Moving the goalposts" is a British expression first popularized in the late 1980s and 1990s and is obscure in America outside of use by evolutionists in debates. It has only 47,900 references on a Google search as of June 30, 2010,[1] over 10% of which show up when searching "moving the goalposts" and "evolution".[2] and yes, references 1 and 2 both point to a page of Google results.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 21:24
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:Goalposts, eh? "moving the goal posts": 753,000 results "moving the goalposts": 190,000 results "moving goal posts": 160,000 results "moving goalposts": 30,300 results "move the goal posts": 428,000 results "move the goalposts": 712,000 results "shifting the goal posts": 111,000 results "shifting the goalposts": 153,000 results "shifting goal posts": 133,000 results "shifting goalposts": 18,300 results What an obscure British phrase.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:Goalposts, eh? Lol Well, it says there's x amount of hits involving the word evolution, thus evolutionists keep moving goalposts...wouldn't happen to be the creationists in arguments about evolution moving goalposts. Number of hits for creationist goal post = 518,000,000 Guess that means Andy's wrong again
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Yaos posted:Lucifer changed the results to make him look bad. you mean *Obama*.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:you mean *Obama*. Same thing, surely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Yaos posted:Lucifer changed the results to make him look bad. Andy's not the only one who's being targeted by Satan. http://www.polygon.com/2014/3/25/5496396/abraham-game-makers-believe-they-are-in-a-fight-with-satan
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 06:10 |
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Lol He is not claiming that the usage indicates that evolutionists move the goalpoasts frequently. He is claiming that evolutionists frequently accuse creationists of doing so, and hence this is just a dumb thing that evolutionists say and you should scoff at anyone who accuses you of doing it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 07:05
|
|