Bushie's beliefs about the Big Bang vs. Scientologist beliefs

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I mean I'll admit, unlike the trajectory of all bodies of the universe and the existance of cosmic microwave background radiation, there isn't any actual evidence against that Lord Xenu existed and ruled the galaxy 75 million years ago, so yeah, the Scientologists actually have a better case for their belief in this instance.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Young-earth creationism is something that somebody who genuinely didn't know any theoretical science could believe without being too far off the reservation. (Which doesn't excuse people who do have even a layman's understanding of theoretical science believing it, obviously.) Scientology isn't.

[morgieb]

I can't choose.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Scientology, of course

[Mechaman]

Scientology, easily.  Believing the Earth is only 4,000 years old or some sh*t is not as near as dangerous as the belief that all drugs are evil.

Bush is only a danger to himself, Scientologists are a threat to humanity.

[angus]

Bushie's beliefs about the Big Bang vs. Scientologist beliefs

okay, I'll bite.  What are Bushie's belief's about the big bang?  I guess I could dig through the update to find it but I'm too lazy.  

Oh, well, whatever they are they probably can't be as weird as scientology.  I'll vote for scientology.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Young-earth creationism is something that somebody who genuinely didn't know any theoretical science could believe without being too far off the reservation. (Which doesn't excuse people who do have even a layman's understanding of theoretical science believing it, obviously.) Scientology isn't.

[Mr. Smith]

Write-in: Stephen King's explanation in the IT universe

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Scientology, easily.  Believing the Earth is only 4,000 years old or some sh*t is not as near as dangerous as the belief that all drugs are evil.

Bush is only a danger to himself

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Young-earth creationism is something that somebody who genuinely didn't know any theoretical science could believe without being too far off the reservation. (Which doesn't excuse people who do have even a layman's understanding of theoretical science believing it, obviously.) Scientology isn't.

On what basis do you say that exactly?

[7,052,770]

I mean I'll admit, unlike the trajectory of all bodies of the universe and the existance of cosmic microwave background radiation, there isn't any actual evidence against that Lord Xenu existed and ruled the galaxy 75 million years ago, so yeah, the Scientologists actually have a better case for their belief in this instance.

I think there would be evidence if hydrogen bombs had exploded in Hawai'i, but there's still less evidence for Young Earth Creationism.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Link to Bushie's belifs?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Link to Bushie's belifs?

I don't have the link, but effectively, everything in the Bible is infallible so both versions of the Creation story are completely accurate.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Link to Bushie's belifs?

I don't have the link, but effectively, everything in the Bible is infallible so both versions of the Creation story are completely accurate.

Both versions? There's only one.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Link to Bushie's belifs?

does your church dismiss science and godless scientists?

We believe the Bible as infallible and inerrant. Everything that happened in Genesis during creation actually happened on earth.  That's how our universe and our world came to being.  Not from a stupid and idiotic big bang theory.

[morgieb]

A better question would be his beliefs about the Apocalypse vs. Scientologist beliefs.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Dismissing theories in the name of religion is not as bad as dismissing theories in the name of cult.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Link to Bushie's belifs?

I don't have the link, but effectively, everything in the Bible is infallible so both versions of the Creation story are completely accurate.

Both versions? There's only one.

Because he believes everything literally, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are different for his purposes as J-Mann pointed out. He wasn't taking any more questions at that point unfortunately so we'll never know how it's an actual belief.