• Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version.

Sarah Palin Biopic: Who Should Play Her?

Status
Not open for further replies.
You're as clueless about Sarah Palin as you are about the basic principles of evolution.

Do you even like comic books/comic book movies? Or are you here to preach?
You don't need a degree to understand basic logic or science. As for my tastes outside politics, I read Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, and Fantastic Four comics as a kid. I have all the currently-released MCU films on Blu-Ray, plus several others. My favorites of Phase One were the first "Iron Man" and "Captain America: The First Avenger".

I imagine he's a Jack Chick fan.
I was given those tracts of his as a kid, and they scared the crap out of me. That man gives Christ and Christians a terrible reputation. :(
 
I was given those tracts of his as a kid, and they scared the crap out of me. That man gives Christ and Christians a terrible reputation. :(

Then you might want to reevaluate how you present yourself.
 
Then you might want to reevaluate how you present yourself.
In all fairness, text alone doesn't always convey the intended meaning of a person's thoughts. I'm more than willing to answer questions via PM, so long as folks remain civil.
 
You don't need a degree to understand basic logic or science.

Do you mean paleontology or biology? Did you know that what you call "basic science" is actually a series of different, specialized fields and, yes, you do need degrees to understand them, because you can't get a job specializing in those areas without one.

I hate how the right is so proud of their anti-intellectualism.
 
Do you mean paleontology or biology? Did you know that what you call "basic science" is actually a series of different, specialized fields and, yes, you do need degrees to understand them, because you can't get a job specializing in those areas without one.
I mean general scientific principles. Degrees may be somewhat necessary for high-paying careers, but people can learn about the various sciences without getting into debt from college courses and such.

I hate how the right is so proud of their anti-intellectualism.
I'm not against intellectualism, just naturalism, secular humanism, uniformitarianism, and far-left liberalism.
 
My denial is dependent on what kind of "evolution" you're talking about. I've read about and watched lots of videos on the supposed "evidence", but I interpret it differently because I'm not a naturalist or secularist.

All science is based on naturalism.

If it wasn't, scientists wouldn't be able to make predictions about anything.

You're being absurd, and I'm fairly convinced you're just trolling with these sorts of threads.
 
You're being absurd, and I'm fairly convinced you're just trolling with these sorts of threads.

I keep going back and forth. Once again, I find myself leaning towards troll.
 
All science is based on naturalism. If it wasn't, scientists wouldn't be able to make predictions about anything.
The purpose of science is to examine what currently happens in the world around us, and use that data to better mankind. Naturalism is a religion that insists only the physical world exists; that worldview leads to many warped conclusions. You don't need naturalism to comprehend science or be intelligent.
 
Rumer Willis
I don't see the resemblance.

MV5BODgwNzUwMTU0Nl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNTA1NjE4Mg@@._V1._SX277_SY400_.jpg
 
The purpose of science is to examine what currently happens in the world around us, and use that data to better mankind. Naturalism is a religion that insists only the physical world exists; that worldview leads to many warped conclusions. You don't need naturalism to comprehend science or be intelligent.

Here's what you should do - if you believe something OTHER than the physical world exists? Prove it!!

There isn't anyone that goes around saying "well the theory of gravity is based on NATURALISM, how do we know that it really isn't a giant supernatural transcendent turtle that holds the Earth up!!"

No one says that.

A key component in scientific claims is falsifiability. In other words, when someone presents a hypothesis they'd like to test, that hypothesis must be falsifiability; as in, there must be a way to test or find evidence that could prove the hypothesis wrong.

"I state claim x as the reason for this", x has to be something that can actually be tested.

If x is actually just you saying, my god, my religion, something BEYOND the physical, something somehow not part of the material world,... what you do is you castrate YOUR OWN CLAIM from any way in which it can be tested. It CANNOT be science until you can come up with a way to falsify it, and if it were falsifiable it would be part of the PHYSICAL WORLD! How do you test something that is apart from the physical world?

It's like saying, I have a jar full of transcendent, supernatural, immaterial dice. Next to it, you have a jar of dice. You can tell them apart, BECAUSE the jar of dice actually exists, it has existent qualities. The jar of immaterial dice, on the other hand, I can't see them, can't feel their weight, they make no noise when I shake the jar, I can't feel the dice when I open the jar, no known instrument can see them or measure them in any way, they don't interact with any known material.... then in what sense, do they exist? Existence means something. To say something exists without any sort of existent qualities is self-defeating. If it had existent qualities, you wouldn't need to state that it was outside the physical world... it would actually be here, in reality, in a way in which we can measure.

The scientific method allows us to get better and better approximations of reality. We could not do that, if we just said 'we have to take seriously any unfalsifiable claims, no matter our inability to test such claims, we have to take a religious conclusion JUST as seriously as a conclusion backed by years of research, observations, testing, hard evidence'.

That is absurd and does not lead to a better understanding of reality. That way leads to praying to the sun god for good weather rather than understanding how weather patterns actually work. That way leads to the belief that disease is actually demons in the body; rather than understanding bacteria and the immune system.
 
Here's what you should do - if you believe something OTHER than the physical world exists? Prove it!!
That's what Christian apologetics is all about: providing scientific evidence that backs up Biblical claims. Unfortunately, many atheists either twist it with their naturalistic worldview, or simply don't bother with it at the start.

There isn't anyone that goes around saying "well the theory of gravity is based on NATURALISM, how do we know that it really isn't a giant supernatural transcendent turtle that holds the Earth up!!"

No one says that.
Gravity itself is invisible; its affect on objects serve as evidence of its reality beyond a reasonable doubt. By the same principle, the reality of God can be seen through the lives of those who truly trust Him (not super-religious bashers like the Westboro Baptists).

A key component in scientific claims is falsifiability. In other words, when someone presents a hypothesis they'd like to test, that hypothesis must be falsifiability; as in, there must be a way to test or find evidence that could prove the hypothesis wrong.
I respectfully disagree. The key to testing any hypothesis is proving it right beyond a reasonable doubt, not assuming its possibly wrong right away.

If x is actually just you saying, my god, my religion, something BEYOND the physical, something somehow not part of the material world,... what you do is you castrate YOUR OWN CLAIM from any way in which it can be tested. It CANNOT be science until you can come up with a way to falsify it, and if it were falsifiable it would be part of the PHYSICAL WORLD!
I never said religion and science were the same, just that science could be used to verify some religious claims.

How do you test something that is apart from the physical world?
By looking at its affects on the physical world. If you're truly a seeker in this regard, watch this clip on the Biblical Flood, and send me your feedback via PM.

 
By looking at its affects on the physical world. If you're truly a seeker in this regard, watch this clip on the Biblical Flood, and send me your feedback via PM.

It's hard taking the flood story literally. If one took 2 of every animal that exists on the earth(besides fish) and put them on an arc do you know how big that arc would have to be to fit billions of species of animals/insects. The questions arises beyond that did they bring 2 dogs or did they bring 2 of each breed of dog?

Did Noah then hand delivery all the animals on that arc to their correct places(say like Kangaroos to Australia, Polar Bears to the North Pole, Penguins to Antarctica, etc) or did they just magically get from Noah's arc to the place they are now

It should be pointed out Noah's Ark was a complete ripoff of the Epic of Gilgamesh(which also had a similar flood story, but different god behind it), which was written something like 13th - 10th century BC

ETA: I watched the first 15 minutes of your video, within that time the video made the wrong assumption that the bible is somehow fact. Sure the bible COULD be true, but in the same breath stories of Zeus could be true as well, the fact somebody written them down doesn't make it a fact and if the whole basis of your argument is based on the bible it's not backed by actual facts it's based on one's belief of that book being correct
 
Last edited:
I'm Christian and can't stand Sarah Palin. I think she's a total nut. But you know what? This country was founded on having the freedom to believe what you want. So if she wants to believe some wacko, crazy idea then I am all for her doing that 100% in PUBLIC. Because that's true freedom.
 
ETA: I watched the first 15 minutes of your video, within that time the video made the wrong assumption that the bible is somehow fact.
Christian apologetics uses science to verify the Bible, and that clip is number 4 of 13, after more basic ideas are fleshed out.

The key to this is watching the whole thing, not stopping a few minutes in because you don't like one aspect. The questions you raised are all addressed in that one segment.
 
Last edited:
This country was founded on having the freedom to believe what you want. So if she wants to believe some wacko, crazy idea then I am all for her doing that 100% in PUBLIC. Because that's true freedom.
Agreed.
 
Christian apologetics uses science to verify the Bible, and that clip is number 4 of 13, after more basic ideas are fleshed out.

The key to this is watching the whole thing, not stopping a few minutes in because you don't like one aspect. The questions you raised are all addressed in that one segment.

There "proof" of god being real was questionable as well(ie the universe is perfect therefore there must be a god, proof done. It doesn't even take into consideration that sure their might be a god but it's not the god we believe in, it just assumes that since the universe is perfect our god and bible are somehow legit, that is terrible logic)
 
Guys, Joshua_B didnt make this thread to turn into a religious debate. Although I don't believe that it belongs in the "Politics" section, I do think he deserves straightforward answers regarding the question he posed. Also, some of the funny answers are cool as well.

I don't understand why everyone wants to challenge him on evolution and religious issues in threads that are not related to those issues. We all have differences of opinion and different beliefs, so I do not see the need to disregard his opinion or bash his threads, particularly when those threads have little/nothing to do with his beliefs. I have seen the way that he responds to several people and I have yet to see him use name calling or other techniques to belittle the people that he is interacting with.

There are several people that I disagree with (go see the 2nd Amendment thread for examples) about various issues, but I still try to listen to their thoughts/opinions on issues or in other threads about completely different issues. If I decide to respond to them, I try not to make it seem like their opinion is less than mine because of the previous differences. Now, I am not perfect, but I do TRY to listen and respond respectfully. Please do the same.
 
There "proof" of god being real was questionable as well(ie the universe is perfect therefore there must be a god, proof done. It doesn't even take into consideration that sure their might be a god but it's not the god we believe in, it just assumes that since the universe is perfect our god and bible are somehow legit, that is terrible logic)
I'm starting a separate thread for this, so it doesn't keep derailing the Palin topic.
 
This thread in itself is a bit of a joke. It was bound to get derailed given the type of person Sarah Palin is and the fact that she is a running joke in the US (and Canada...and the world).
 
This thread in itself is a bit of a joke. It was bound to get derailed given the type of person Sarah Palin is and the fact that she is a running joke in the US (and Canada...and the world).

While that may be true, on this website there are dozens of "who should play _______" in this movie threads. I realize that Palin is unpopular, but I dont think that the thread should turn into a running commentary about the OP or his beliefs.
 
I still think Erica's the best one for such a job; the resemblance is uncanny. Here's the video I was watching when I first noticed it...

 
I don't understand why everyone wants to challenge him on evolution and religious issues in threads that are not related to those issues. We all have differences of opinion and different beliefs, so I do not see the need to disregard his opinion or bash his threads, particularly when those threads have little/nothing to do with his beliefs. I have seen the way that he responds to several people and I have yet to see him use name calling or other techniques to belittle the people that he is interacting with.

Because evolution is not a belief. It is reality. When you see someone state something objectively wrong, you should correct them.

There is no point in a discussion if we can not agree to facts. It would be like debating someone about the 2nd Amendment who says that stabbings cause more deaths than shootings. That is simply incorrect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"