Yeah. And some Navajo Indians believe that the first man and woman were made by Bear Woman from pieces of her own skin, that the four directions are held up by giants, that there are rain gods, shape-shifters, etc.
Why aren’t you making fun of them?
Bottom line, you’re an intolerant ass.
If they still believed in their quaint mythology as fact and were still teaching it as said, I would make fun of them too.
I am comfortable being an intolerant ass by your poor definition.
Jim
So is the band name “The Jesus Horses” taken yet? Because it would almost be taking out my old geetar and re-learning the damned chords just to start one. Our first album cover could be the Jesus-cuddling-a-baby-dino pic. Yeah.
Does anyone here play drums and live in the Twin Cities?
First, I don’t know of any efforts by people with such beliefs to condemn those who have different religious beliefs to hell. Second, those with Native American beliefs aren’t generally running around complaining that their views are under attack (eg, the “war on Christmas”) even though they have a much, much better case to make. Third, I’m not aware of any efforts by these folks to pressure public schools into requiring prayers to the animal gods before classes, proms, and football games, nor are they agitating for science classes to cover the Bear Woman theory of the universe because evolution is “just a theory.”
To sum up, I have a decent respect for their views because they seem to respect mine (whatever they may be). I have no problem whatsoever with observant Christians, but those who make their religion an issue of the public square shouldn’t be above criticism. That includes biting, socially relevant mockery like the whole “Jesus horses” thing.
It might also be an indication that enough people on this board want to believe strawman portrayals of creationists.
There were sufficient numbers of ‘intelligent’ conservatives who believed (or wanted to believe) fake examples of ‘political correctness’ (widespread earnest use of the very term by liberals being an example) to keep such myths alive.
Agreed.
The “relay as fact” to which I was referring was the one by fishcycle.
You would be wrong. 47% of Americans agree with this statement:
according to this site.
That makes me weep for the future of this country.
I don’t know if there’s a woosh going on, or the misspelling’s an intentional insult, or there’s some in-joke I’m not privy to, but the user name is fishbicycle. I’ve been seeing it spelled fishcycle throughout this thread, and I have a tic in both eyes and a finger now.
It makes one wonder how we can have intelligent discussions of global warming or nuclear power if the public thinks the world is < 10,000 years old. Of course the poll was from 1991 so they at least think the earth is now 10,016 years old.
Thanks Una, I forgot about that article. It doesn’t really say how what percent are “Young Earthers” however, just that far too many believe in creation and humans only being around 10000 or less.
As far as Zoe’s contentions about uneducated southerners however, Cecil supports us elitist North Easterners views.
I think that it does.
Do you read that in a different way?
There is a subtle but important difference between thinking that humans are only 10,000 years old and that the Earth is only 10,000 years old.
I know some Catholics, that feel Adam and Eve were given the Divine Spark between 6000 and 10000 years ago. They believe the human animal does share an ancestor with apes and that the Earth is billions of years old, but “Humans with Souls” were created recently by God.
They would answer the question that Humans are only 10000 years old and yet accept most of science.
That is where I see a difference.
BTW: I know one creationist that believes most of science except evolution, she also does not think Humans and Dinosaurs coexisted.
Jim
OK. That would be a very subtle difference. I guess the key point is, between you and me, I really don’t find it one whit more defensible.
Well, I already mentioned, I like the compromise that let people keep their faith and still accept scientific theory. It keeps them from supporting those that don’t accept evolution at all and try to keep it from being taught or try to get ID in science classes. I also don’t care much, what they teach in ‘philosophy’ or ‘comparative myths’. Just keep creationism and its disguises out of the science curriculum and I am happy to let those of faith be happy in their faith.
I like mythology enough as an interest that I like the last Pope’s directives that effectively said it is the “Soul” that matters and not the body. He was refreshingly friendly to Science and those of other faiths. I thought he was a rather enlightened Pope.
Jim
Yeah. I get all that. I get what your are saying. I completely understand why someone might think that certain Christians believe in Jesus Horses. I just don’t believe anyone can honestly believe they would actually call dinosaurs Jesus Horses! Right?
I mean, they believe that a serpent tempted Eve in Eden, but I have never heard Christians going around saying, “Yeah, Satan is a Talking Snake…be good or you will go to hell with the Talking Snake.” They *know * that sounds silly.
They wouldn’t call their belief in a human-co-inhabiting dinosaur-like being “Jesus Horse”. For some of us to pretend that they would seems a bit dishonest on our part. We can tease them about Jesus Horses, but none of us should pretend that we think they actually use that term.
That’s a rather big assumption given their history, don’t you think?
Yeah, the 10,000 years is a floating timeline, like how the kids on Simpsons never age.
Kalhoun writes:
> And yes, there are a sizeable number of people who believe that.
No, there aren’t. Are you reading this thread carefully at all? The term “Jesus horses” was first used in a Saturday Night Live Weekend Update sketch by Jimmy Fallon. No one has ever used it seriously.
The King of Soup writes:
> Of course, if someone made a joke, and it was so plausibly similar to my own
> opinions that a lot of people thought it was actually part of my argument, I
> might reconsider my worldview rather than blame others for the fact that it’s so
> easily taken for comedy and vice-versa.
There are already lots of people who are doing precisely this. If you don’t treat other people’s opinions with respect, they won’t treat yours with respect either. They will feel free to lie about your opinions too. I am tired, for instance, of people complaining about political correctness who claim (yes, seriously complain, not just make jokes) about certain supposedly “politically correct” terminology. The problem is that the so-called politically correct terms they cite are ones that no one has ever used seriously. Many of them were made up for a humorous book called The Official Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook by Douglas Beard and Christopher Cerf. Terms that were never used seriously by anyone are now constantly being used as bludgeons in arguments as if someone once seriously used them. For instance, the term “vertically challenged” has never been used as a politically correct term for “short.” It comes from Beard and Cerf. When you lie about your opponents’ opinions in your arguments, you make it impossible for there to be any further progress in the argument. If you lie about them, they will lie about you.
