Look out Sasquatch!! PA is gonna get b1tch slapped by God.

So sayeth the Pat.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/10/religion.robertson.reut/index.html

Originally posted by wib
Look out Sasquatch!! PA is gonna get b1tch slapped by God.

So sayeth the Pat.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/10/religion.robertson.reut/index.html

Originally posted by Halitose
I don't think that the citizens of Dover have voted out God by rejecting a couple school board members... there is a distinct difference ya know.

Originally posted by wib
Did you read how many people watch this guy on television and follow his teachings?

Originally posted by wib
Look out Sasquatch!! PA is gonna get b1tch slapped by God.

So sayeth the Pat.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/10/religion.robertson.reut/index.html

Intelligent Design is an insult to intelligence and rationality, two characteristics which don't necessarily have to rule out faith, but sadly often do.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Is this idiot ever going to DIE!?

Seriously, I'm throwing a party when old Pat Robertson kicks the bucket. Can you imagine a world where you never had to listen to him say something stupid or hateful again...ahhh utopia.

TheSkipper

There are lots of Christians who think Robertson's views are a bunch of nonsense. Consider, for example, the statement of Keith Miller, a member of the Affiliation of Christian Geologists, which I pasted below. Miller is addressing the parallel Kansas Controversy, which took a tack opposite that in Pennsylvania. Or consider the statement of Mark Noll, a Professor of Christian Thought at an evangelical college: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/statement_02.html


Keith Miller's statement:

"Those seeking the elimination of evolution see current scientific and theological descriptions as being mutually exclusive and contradictory. The warfare view of science (particularly evolutionary biology and geology) and faith is assumed. But this view has been soundly refuted by a multitude of historical studies. For example, several of the founders of modern geology were committed Christians. Young Earth views were virtually absent among Christian apologists until well into this century. The primary proponent of Darwin's ideas in North America was Asa Gray, who was a committed evangelical Christian. Furthermore, several contributors to the "Fundamentals" (a series of volumes from which the name "fundamentalist" derives) accepted some form of evolution. Many scientists presently teaching at the leading evangelical Christian colleges accept evolution as a powerful and well-supported theory of biological origins. My point here is that there is no necessary, inherent conflict between an ancient evolving Earth and a high view of the authority of scripture.

Another major misconception is that science is simply the accumulation of observational fact, and theories are merely unsubstantiated guesses. This "facts only" view of science misses the core of what the scientific enterprise really is. In my opinion, nothing could be more deadly to teaching science than to divorce it from the unifying theories which give observations meaning. They make the world comprehensible. They also generate the testable hypotheses (expectations) that drive further exploration and discovery. When science is taught as only factual observation (something the standards passed by the Board would encourage), then disagreements among scientists and changing scientific views are seen as weaknesses and failings of scientific knowledge. However, the exact opposite is the case. It is the dynamic, changing, self-correcting nature of science that is its very strength. The less science is seen as a body of established knowledge, the more inherently interesting and exciting it becomes."

http://www.wheaton.edu/ACG/essays/miller1.html

Originally posted by Wulebgr
There are lots of Christians who think Robertson's views are a bunch of nonsense. Consider, for example, the statement of Keith Miller, a member of the Affiliation of Christian Geologists, which I pasted below. Miller is addressing the parallel Kansas Controversy, which took a tack opposite that in Pennsylvania. Or consider the statement of Mark Noll, a Pro ...[text shortened]... erently interesting and exciting it becomes."

http://www.wheaton.edu/ACG/essays/miller1.html

Originally posted by wib
You gave away your answer to the christian homework thread.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
shhh

You know I find it so interesting that Pat Robertson and his supporters equate a vote against ID with a vote against God. The defense in the Dover case (with help from the Discovery Institute) spent the entire trial trying to distance ID from God.

Pat Robertson vs. Pope in the main event.

In the red corner weighing in at 120 pounds (330 with robes and hat) we have his holiness the Pope. New to the lime light the Pope looks like he will have a promising career but so far his only claim to fame is "Not as frail as the last guy". Recently there has been much debate over just when the Pope is infallible and so far experts cannot seem to agree on whether the Pope will have that punch during the fight. We interrupted Cardinal Kinder Schinder from his weekly choir boy "counseling" session to ask him about the Pope's potential knock-out punch, here is what he said: "I like to wait and see what happens before making my determination on infallibility. All we need to do is wait to see if the Holy Father wins to get all the information we need to determine the answer. In all things... patience."

In the blue corner weighing in at 150 pounds and hailing from Lexington, Virginia we have rock 'em, sock 'em Pat Robertson. A veteran fighter, Robertson's failed bid to become "champion" in 1988 did not slow him down. Robertson has claimed recent victories over the evil gays that caused the 9-11 terror attacks and, more recently, hurricane Katrina. He looks to make quick work of the rookie Pope and move on to bigger fish like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. We asked Robertson in a recent interview if he is concerned about the Pope's reported infallibility punch... "That is just a load of hooey propagated by the ACLU and as we all know when the ACLU is involved there is probably a gay sneaking around somewhere too. Come to think of it those robes the Pope wears look mighty gay-ish..."

It should be a great fight!

I came across this article on Slate.com that I thought some of you might find interesting.

http://www.slate.com/id/2130282/