Irate fundamentalist Christian mom: "Stop forcing dinosaurs on kids!"

Embryonic stem cell research has been shown to be problematic at best. The treatment with them tend to cause tumors and similar problems, in addition to the rejection issues encountered. Adult stem cell treatments show much more promise without the problems of cancer or rejection. In fact, adult stem cell treatments have actually done some good.

 

I think ISIS knows the rules of Mohammad even better than you do. They quote him more that you do, and kill for him more than you do, and are Muslims and you are not.

I think we can both agree that the Qur'an is less violent than the Bible is, as the facts show 1318 instances of cruelty and violence in the Bible (making it a questionable book to give to young impressionable children): http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

 

You don't understand the concept of life expectancy. Life expectancy is basically the average age at death of a person in a population. A culture with a life expectancy of 40 doesn't mean that 40 was the maximum life span, it just means that on average people died around 40. A generation would have been about 13-20 years or so, similar to today.

 

I was in denial as a Christian, and so are most Christians today.

 

This false belief that some magic all-powerful all loving zombie in the sky (Jesus) will help you out is a very dangerous belief, as it removes people from reality and puts them into fantasy-land. They don't work as hard to solve their own problem because the zombie will magically take care of them.

 

everything you wrote here is irrelevant to the point that someone makes a statement like that which I am sure is untrue.

 

Obviously, clearly, from your response (and I've asked you this before) you can't even condemn Mohammad if he was a PEDOPHILE (hypothetically here, because no we don't know 100% for sure.) It appears that maybe religion does something to the minds of good people if they can't even condemn a person if they were (as it turns out, say) a PEDOPHILE. I'm not sure I could prove that point more than you proved it from you non-response response above. Thank you for that.

 

We weren't talking aobut Mohammed....he made an affirmative statement about the Talmud that I don't think it is true.

As for your nonsense about me not answering your question, I don't have to answer your nonsense. By the way are you a pedophile? Can you prove whether you are or not that is true 100%?

 

I appreciate that you keep proving my point right.

I'm too moral to have sex with kids, unlike Mohammad and a lot of Catholic priests.

You can't even answer a hypothetical, but I certainly can, as a Modern Secular Humanist: if Dawkins was a pedophile, would I condemn him? OF COURSE I WOULD, TO NO END! See, it's not really that hard, I argue.

 

As you requested:

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_69.html
Sanhedrin 69b
"And it has been taught: Doeg lived but thirty-four years, and Ahitophel thirty-three. Hence deduct seven years, Solomon's age when [Ahitophel] committed suicide,[SUP]16[/SUP] which leaves [Ahitophel] twenty-six years old at his birth. Now deduct two years for the three pregnancies, leaving each eight years old when he begot a child.[SUP]17[/SUP] But why so? Perhaps both [Ahitophel and Eliam] were nine years old [at conception], Bath Sheba being only six years when she conceived, because a woman has more [generative] vitality; the proof being that she bore a child before Solomon?[SUP]18"

Note: the following footnotes are numbered 1-3 instead of 16, 17, and 18 as in the text. It's a function of the program.
[/SUP]

1. "This is arrived at by comparing verses iv, v and vi: Absalom slew Amnon two years after Solomon's birth (iv); he was exiled for three years (v); he then lived two years in Jerusalem before his rebellion (vi), in consequence of which Ahitophel hanged himself soon after (viii). Hence, Solomon was seven years old at the time.
2. For Ahitopel begat Eliam (ii), Eliam begat Bath Sheba (i), and Bath Sheba begat Jedidiah, i.e., Solomon (iii). Now even allowing only seven months for each pregnancy, these three must have taken nearly two years (Rashi tries to prove that it would take exactly two years, by allowing an additional month in each case for pre-conception menstruation and purification; but this is difficult, and it is preferable to assume with Tosaf. that the two years are approximate). Thus twenty four years are left for the three generations, giving eight years for each: Ahitopel must have been eight years at the conception of Eliam; Eliam eight years at the conception of Bath Sheba; Bath Sheba eight years at the conception of Solomon.
3. So that in any ease we are bound to assume a lower age for her conception."

 

another attempt by you to use something you don't understand. This discussion is clearly one where someone is making a crazy argument to make a legal point. What we know is that Bathsheba was married when David met her and already had a child. No one thinks this discussion is a serious one and if you read further in the tractate you would see that.

 

I can't believe it.....a Republican who is concerned about fatherless children. Do you also go to the middle east and fight in the Republican "oil wars?"

 

There are case of pregnancy and child birth as young as 5 years old: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Medina

list of others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers

 

Assuming that the original story even mentions generation at all and that the word means the same thing as we do today.

 

The woman doesn't like dinosaurs either.

 

Dave isn't concerned with fatherless children.....he's concerned with "harlots". Underneath it all...he's a Taliban at heart. (He won't even deny that charge.)

 

Gorn, do you think it fair that this lovely young woman should be banned from the Mumsnet forum for simply proposing her beliefs, even if they do lack evidentiary support?

We allow "climate change" activists, masquerading as scientists, to post their BS nearly everyday on this forum, and we don't ban them.

 

1. I never support censorship. I'm merely pointing out her silliness. But her HONEST silliness, as her position is true to the Bible Literalist.Creationist view...unlike some other kinds of Creationists.

2. I realize as a devotee of Rightwing Media, you consider the 90% of scientists who support the idea of climate change as "masquerading as scientists"....

while the folks who get generous grants from rightwing think-tanks started by Exxon-Mobil to be the "real scientists."

 

Whatever happened to the nomenclature of "global warming"? Did it suffer the same fate that "global cooling" did back in the 1970s, when it became evident that the post data never supported the theory? I can see why they've now changed it do "climate change", since it's it a lot easier to prove that the climate changes; sort of like proving that water flows downhill.

Hey Gorn, of the 90% of the "scientists" who support "climate change", how many are getting generous grants from the federal government? All of them?

 

The woman who doen't believe in dinosaurs is like the Saudi cleric who thinks that the Sun revolves around the Earth. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ric-tells-students-Earth-does-not-rotate.html

They are both out of place in the modern world and should have lived 3,000 years ago when such ignorance was the normal thing. But both twits believe in imaginary beings like gods and angels.

 

Watch, and you will learn. Fundies say the damndest things.

 

Well, you have to admit that she's pretty funny.. and so is that dipstick cleric.

 

Not a good comparison. There is no doubt at all that dinos existed. All scientists agree. But all scientists do not agree that all of climate change is attributed to man. There are some that say man is speeding up natural change, and that climate is already changing with or without man. He is just speeding it up a bit. But climate changes regardless, and will continue to do so as long as the earth has climate.

The hysterical alarmists of AGW, are just running on the emotions, as hysterical women were once accused of doing. But if they could not be hysterical about this, they would find something else. The people who were hysterical about the population bomb of the 70s, just moved over to their new cause, AGW. Once they see it's mostly smoke and mirrors, they will find another one, if any are still alive.

The Red Scare of the 50s had the conservatives hysterical and seeing commies behind every tree, and the loony left now have their thing to be hysterical over, throwing disdain at those who will not get hysterical with them, over the most natural thing, climate change. Did they expect the climate to stay in some form of stasis? LOL.


All I see are a bunch of hysterical old women, who happen to be men. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.