Are there any Creationists out there?

[Jerry_Atrick]

There was a little but of subtlety, sir.. just a little...

[nomadpete]

Subtlety?

Oh.

No wonder I didn't get it.

I don't do subtle.

My ex wife always said I'm as subtle as a train wreck.

[Bruce Tuncks]

What if you got her pregnant? The mind boggles.

[old man emu]

As a teenager, I often wondered about the adverse effects of the conjugal act on dear Lois.

[Bruce Tuncks]

On 26/11/2019 at 1:47 PM, Yenn said:

I believe that it is just as good to go to a priest as to go to a doctor. Most times a doctor can fix you, when you know what is wrong with you.

 

Try going to a doctor when there is something unknown and in my opinion, they know as much as a priest. You will be sent for tests for this and for that, then scans and whatever else they can think of. Before you know it, you have recovered and still don't know what the problem was. When you get older the doctors will prescribe this drug and that drug, until you rattle when you walk. You can be sure that when you do feel ill, it ill be the result of this drug interacting with that one and you will go into hospital. That is the place where you cannot get away from the medical procession and will probably need a priest, if he can get there before the undertaker.

 

 

This is exactly what happened with our dog! It nearly died, and the vet didn't know what it was so he ordered all these tests. The dog recovered before the test results came back. And the diagnosis?  Unknown! Nearly a thousand dollars spent and we should have left the dog alone.

[facthunter]

No one leaves their doggie alone. One of my sons spent over 3500 and the dog still died. Vets are sure of business. People find the money somehow, but you really can't afford an animal. I enjoy the ones in the backyard  in their "scary" natural state. Generally food for something else. Nev

[Yenn]

Same with people and doctors. You feel dreadfully sick, go to doctor and many tests later you still don't know what was wrong, but you recover.

[Bruce Tuncks]

When I had a job, if one of the students ever injured themselves, I was going to take them to the vets and not the official first-aid guy. The first aid guy was an idiot in my opinion, I used to say we had no Hitler youth there, and this was the nearest thing for him.

Well in more than 20 years, no students ever injured themselves, so I never got to find out what the vets would do.

[old man emu]

5 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Well in more than 20 years, no students ever injured themselves, so I never got to find out what the vets would do.

They didn't tell you, but the older students always told the new ones how vets take your temperature.

[Yenn]

Vets have more idea than doctors.

I have a couple of times known people being treated by doctors who didn't know what was wrong with them and I have known, because I have had animals with the same symptoms treated by vets. Problem was I didn't stop to think about the similarities, but relied on the doctor to know what was what.

Had a doctor who said my wife should supply a faecal sample, I asked why and he said worms, so I asked what type of worms and he said, tapeworm, ringworm. That was when I lost all faith in doctors ability.

[spacesailor]

My Bro-inlaw almost cut his hand in half. After treatment in Westm., hospital, with his hand really hurting, he dropped into his friendly vets.  ( three or four days later )

The vet took a look at the wound, & immediately, cut all the stitches, saying he would lose the thumb in a week at best, as it was stitched through the nerves, blood-vessels,  & muscle.

That vet did what an Intern, couldent do.   Call him a doctor. he wasn.t fit to be an intern.

YES, I saw the state of his hand, it looked like the flesh was folded over in a lump, on his palm. I told him to return to get a second opinion.

The next day he went to the vet with a dog.

THE one on the PAL dog food cans.

spacesailor

[Bruce Tuncks]

Not all doctors are the same. There are dumb ones and smart ones. You need to find a smart one .

If we had no government interference, doctors would be more like vets.

" No government interference" in my view means not stopping anybody applying to become one. So anybody could set up a medical school. I would give the Standards lot the problem of making sure that those applicants were properly tested. Maybe they should be re-tested after some years.

My guess is that we would have more and better doctors and cheaper too.

[spacesailor]

You mean like we have in Beauty parlors? ,

NOT allowed to give injections, but still inject Botox.

America has a similar law, thar you can have implants, But not the local anathesic for pain, Grin & bear it, while having horns put under your scalp.

spacesailor

[Bruce Tuncks]

When I said how I needed a brain transplant, in the expectation of getting a smarter one, I was told about cheap goat brains at the abbatoirs

Alas I don't have the right sort of beard to have a goat brain.

[Yenn]

If you have a brain transplant, are you really you or are you the brain donor?

Did the donor have a body transplant?

[Marty_d]

Weren't they going to try a head transplant in Russia a few years back?  He must be dead by now, we would have heard about it if it was successful.

 

One day we may have the technology to reconnect nerves precisely, but until that happens that old spinal cord remains a real problem.

[nomadpete]

Yeah, I think the connectors aren't compatible.

[willedoo]

1 hour ago, Marty_d said:

Weren't they going to try a head transplant in Russia a few years back?  He must be dead by now, we would have heard about it if it was successful.

I heard he survived and became the President of the United States.

[Marty_d]

12 minutes ago, willedoo said:

I heard he survived and became the President of the United States.

No, there was a brain in this head.

[onetrack]

I heard Trump had an ar$ehole transplant - but the ar$ehole rejected him! 

 

Edited January 20, 2021 by onetrack

[willedoo]

1 hour ago, onetrack said:

I heard Trump had an ar$ehole transplant - but the ar$ehole rejected him! 

 

That reminds me of one of the better lines I've heard. A lady I know was being hit on by an annoying d*ckhead in the local pub. When he put the weights on her and said he'd like to get into her pants, she came straight back at him with " No thanks, I've already got an ar$ehole in them, I don't need another one".

Edited January 20, 2021 by willedoo

[old man emu]

A 2017 Gallup creationism survey found that 38 per cent of adults in the United States held the view that "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" when asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings, which Gallup noted was the lowest level in 35 years. 

 

Gallup found that, when asking a similar question in 2019, 40 percent of US adults held the view that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so"

 

And I bet I know which is the favourite colour of that 40% of US adults - red.

[facthunter]

Over 72% believe the Bible is the "Absolute word of God".  Nev

[Bruce Tuncks]

It's one thing to tick a box when filling out a questionnaire, and another thing to really believe.

In Ireland, until recently, you would fail to get a job or a promotion if you ticked a box describing yourself as an atheist. I reckon the same is true to this day in the US. 

So what is true belief? It's when you do something which makes no sense unless you believe. There is a psychology test in which you have to fall without putting your hands out in front, because you believe that your classmates will catch you.

Giving most of your money anonymously and secretly would impress me too.

[nomadpete]

I'm annoyed. Today I read an ABC news article about a survey of 1000 individuals, about religious beliefs. This survey was conducted by a christian organisation. Not surprisingly, it went to great lengths to demonstrate that belief in JC, god, resurrection, etc is held by a large majority of Australians. And a small minority are non believers.

 

The bureau of Census and statistics doesn't seem to agree (unless there's been a radical shift since their latest numbers, 2016).

 

ABS:

"Nearly a third of Australians (30 per cent) reported in the Census that they had no religion in 2016. "

 

One could add to that, the significant number of religious respondents that are 'non Christian'.

 

So, based on the ABS documented sample of 95.1% of the Australian population, I brand the news article as false news.