The Crusade Against Evolution

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Evolution, as a process, is a fact. Populations change over time and according to their environments.

Evolution, as a theory, is still a theory.

No, populations changing over time according to their environments. has not been proven as fact. There is a great deal of evidence to support this theory, but at best it is a strong theory and not fact.

I'm not attempting to argue with you over beliefs in evolution. I'm trying to make you understand what the difference between facts and theories so you'll stop calling a theory a fact. :)

Given the complexity of the system it is likely it will never be a fact. Does this mean we should discard it as untrue? Of course not. It is the best and most accurate explanation we have to date. It is clearly what we should be teaching in our schools unless something comes along and sets it on it's head. However you can't use lack of evidence against something as a factual support of it. For example...

"Creation by design" is no theory whatsoever. The theory of evolution started out as a hypothesis of Darwin and was later supported by fact to make it a theory. If you have an existing theory with a descrepancy you make a hypothesis about why and then support the hypothesis with fact to form a new theory. "Creation by design" took the an existing theory of evolution, found a discrepancy (why does it not explain the bombadier beetle, the missing link or other silliness) and used the lack of evidence against the hypothesis to form a new theory. It doesn't work that way. You can't use lack of evidence as support for something nor can you substitute beliefs for fact when forming a theory.
 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Are you comparing these theories with creationism?

Sorry, I gave you a roundabout answer before.

No, I'm not at all comparing creationism with those theories. Creationism is a belief, not a theory or fact at all. There is no comparison.


I happen to buy into it though. I have never really found anything in the Bible that conflicted with evolution. God creating the earth in seven days can be viewed as a metaphor. It is also a story that was told long ago and handed down by word of mouth for many generations before it was ever printed. It's exact meaning may be lost if it was ever understood at all. It could have been a very exact telling of the creation of the world at one time but the listener lacked comprehension and told it as best he could. I think this happens a lot in the bible.

Pluck someone out of a primitive and isolated culture in todays world (say a South American rainforest tribe) and let him observe you at this very moment. Put him back into his society and let him explain what you are doing. Now let that explanation get passed down through hundreds of generations and then finally written out. What you might end up with is something along the lines of "He sat in front of a beast (living thing) with seven eyes (perfect vision, all knowing)." What you were really doing is looking some crap up on the internet.
 

slurmsmackenzie

Golden Member
Jun 4, 2004
1,413
0
0
Originally posted by: Smilin
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Are you comparing these theories with creationism?

Sorry, I gave you a roundabout answer before.

No, I'm not at all comparing creationism with those theories. Creationism is a belief, not a theory or fact at all. There is no comparison.


I happen to buy into it though. I have never really found anything in the Bible that conflicted with evolution. God creating the earth in seven days can be viewed as a metaphor. It is also a story that was told long ago and handed down by word of mouth for many generations before it was ever printed. It's exact meaning may be lost if it was ever understood at all. It could have been a very exact telling of the creation of the world at one time but the listener lacked comprehension and told it as best he could. I think this happens a lot in the bible.

Pluck someone out of a primitive and isolated culture in todays world (say a South American rainforest tribe) and let him observe you at this very moment. Put him back into his society and let him explain what you are doing. Now let that explanation get passed down through hundreds of generations and then finally written out. What you might end up with is something along the lines of "He sat in front of a beast (living thing) with seven eyes (perfect vision, all knowing)." What you were really doing is looking some crap up on the internet.


The original documents in the Hebrew and Aramaic languages were recorded by God?s human secretaries, from Moses in 1513 B.C.E. down to shortly after 443 B.C.E. As far as is known today, none of these original writings are now in existence. However, from the beginning, great care was exercised in preserving the inspired writings, including authorized copies of them. About 642 B.C.E., in King Josiah?s time, ?the very book of the law? of Moses, doubtless the original copy, was found stored away in the house of Jehovah. It had by this time been faithfully preserved for 871 years. Bible writer Jeremiah manifested such great interest in this discovery that he made written record of it at 2 Kings 22:8-10, and about the year 460 B.C.E., Ezra again referred to the same incident. (2 Chron. 34:14-18)

From Ezra?s time forward, there was an increased demand for copies of the Hebrew Scriptures. Not all the Jews returned to Jerusalem and Palestine in the restoration of 537 B.C.E. and thereafter. Instead, thousands remained in Babylon, while others migrated for business and other reasons, with the result that they were to be found in most of the large commercial centers of the ancient world. Many Jews would make annual pilgrimages back to Jerusalem for the various temple festivals, and there they would share in the worship conducted in Biblical Hebrew. In Ezra?s time the Jews in these many faraway lands used local assembly places known as synagogues, where readings and discussions of the Hebrew Scriptures took place. Because of the many scattered places of worship, copyists had to multiply the supply of handwritten manuscripts.

These synagogues usually had a storage room known as the genizah. In the course of time, the Jews placed in the genizah discarded manuscripts that had become torn or worn with age, replacing them with new ones for current synagogue use. From time to time, the contents of the genizah would be solemnly buried in the earth, in order that the text?containing the holy name of Jehovah?might not be desecrated. Over the centuries, thousands of old Hebrew Bible manuscripts disappeared from use in this way. However, the well-stocked genizah of the synagogue in Old Cairo was spared this treatment, probably because it was walled up and forgotten until the middle of the 19th century. In 1890, when the synagogue was being repaired, the contents of the genizah were reexamined and its treasures were gradually either sold or donated. From this source, fairly complete manuscripts and thousands of fragments (some said to be of the sixth century C.E.) have found their way to Cambridge University Library and other libraries of Europe and America.

5 Today, in various libraries of the world, there have been counted and cataloged perhaps 6,000 manuscripts of all or portions of the Hebrew Scriptures. Until recently there were no such manuscripts (except for a few fragments) older than the tenth century C.E. Then, in 1947, in the area of the Dead Sea, there was discovered a scroll of the book of Isaiah, and in subsequent years additional priceless scrolls of the Hebrew Scriptures came to light as caves in the Dead Sea area surrendered rich treasures of manuscripts that had been hidden for nearly 1,900 years. Experts have now dated some of these as having been copied in the last few centuries B.C.E. The comparative study of the approximately 6,000 manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures gives a sound basis for establishing the Hebrew text and reveals faithfulness in the transmission of the text.

don't assume the bible is just big talk from stupid ancient times. fact is, they were much smarter then than we are now. from the ancient egyptians, phonecians, babylonians, and hebrews alot of our modern day stuff is atributed. just because you can use the internet to look up porn, doesn't mean we're more advanced for it. if you jump up eleven steps from the first, and i jump up one from there then of course i'll be higher than you, but i have the hindsight of your knowledge to make such a transition with ease. the bible was well documented and well kept. you gotta do research before you blurt out crap, please.


 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

The original documents in the Hebrew and Aramaic languages were recorded by God?s human secretaries, from Moses in 1513 B.C.E. down to shortly after 443 B.C.E. As far as is known today, none of these original writings are now in existence. However, from the beginning, great care was exercised in preserving the inspired writings, including authorized copies of them. About 642 B.C.E., in King Josiah?s time, ?the very book of the law? of Moses, doubtless the original copy, was found stored away in the house of Jehovah. It had by this time been faithfully preserved for 871 years. Bible writer Jeremiah manifested such great interest in this discovery that he made written record of it at 2 Kings 22:8-10, and about the year 460 B.C.E., Ezra again referred to the same incident. (2 Chron. 34:14-18)

....


don't assume the bible is just big talk from stupid ancient times. fact is, they were much smarter then than we are now. from the ancient egyptians, phonecians, babylonians, and hebrews alot of our modern day stuff is atributed. just because you can use the internet to look up porn, doesn't mean we're more advanced for it. if you jump up eleven steps from the first, and i jump up one from there then of course i'll be higher than you, but i have the hindsight of your knowledge to make such a transition with ease. the bible was well documented and well kept. you gotta do research before you blurt out crap, please.


Here come the zealots, do doo do dooo, here comes the zealots
and I say it's all right,

zealots zealots zealots, here they come....
zealots zealots zealots, here they come....
zealots zealots zealots, here they come....
zealots zealots zealots, here they come....
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
Originally posted by: Smilin
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Are you comparing these theories with creationism?

Sorry, I gave you a roundabout answer before.

No, I'm not at all comparing creationism with those theories. Creationism is a belief, not a theory or fact at all. There is no comparison.


I happen to buy into it though. I have never really found anything in the Bible that conflicted with evolution. God creating the earth in seven days can be viewed as a metaphor. It is also a story that was told long ago and handed down by word of mouth for many generations before it was ever printed. It's exact meaning may be lost if it was ever understood at all. It could have been a very exact telling of the creation of the world at one time but the listener lacked comprehension and told it as best he could. I think this happens a lot in the bible.

Pluck someone out of a primitive and isolated culture in todays world (say a South American rainforest tribe) and let him observe you at this very moment. Put him back into his society and let him explain what you are doing. Now let that explanation get passed down through hundreds of generations and then finally written out. What you might end up with is something along the lines of "He sat in front of a beast (living thing) with seven eyes (perfect vision, all knowing)." What you were really doing is looking some crap up on the internet.


The original documents in the Hebrew and Aramaic languages were recorded by God?s human secretaries, bla bla bla
.
.
.
more crazy talk..


That was great. Do you dance with snakes too?
 

slurmsmackenzie

Golden Member
Jun 4, 2004
1,413
0
0
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

The original documents in the Hebrew and Aramaic languages were recorded by God?s human secretaries, from Moses in 1513 B.C.E. down to shortly after 443 B.C.E. As far as is known today, none of these original writings are now in existence. However, from the beginning, great care was exercised in preserving the inspired writings, including authorized copies of them. About 642 B.C.E., in King Josiah?s time, ?the very book of the law? of Moses, doubtless the original copy, was found stored away in the house of Jehovah. It had by this time been faithfully preserved for 871 years. Bible writer Jeremiah manifested such great interest in this discovery that he made written record of it at 2 Kings 22:8-10, and about the year 460 B.C.E., Ezra again referred to the same incident. (2 Chron. 34:14-18)

....


don't assume the bible is just big talk from stupid ancient times. fact is, they were much smarter then than we are now. from the ancient egyptians, phonecians, babylonians, and hebrews alot of our modern day stuff is atributed. just because you can use the internet to look up porn, doesn't mean we're more advanced for it. if you jump up eleven steps from the first, and i jump up one from there then of course i'll be higher than you, but i have the hindsight of your knowledge to make such a transition with ease. the bible was well documented and well kept. you gotta do research before you blurt out crap, please.


Here come the zealots, do doo do dooo, here comes the zealots
and I say it's all right,

zealots zealots zealots, here they come....
zealots zealots zealots, here they come....
zealots zealots zealots, here they come....
zealots zealots zealots, here they come....


i'd consider myself more of a devil's advocate. i see someone making a "matter of factly" stupid remark and i feel the need to refute it. unfortunately, yours leaves no room for rebuttal. i'm like the ragin cajun in old school after will ferrel has that lucid moment and blurts out the complete answer. you nailed it buddy, congrats
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
LOL. Snake dancing.

I've noticed it takes a little while for these threads to be overrun by zealots. They're sort of like the zombies in the old zombie movies where they walk really slow (not like the new ones where they run fast). Basically they accumulate and after a while you can't hold them back even though one of them on their own is relatively harmless.
 

slurmsmackenzie

Golden Member
Jun 4, 2004
1,413
0
0
Originally posted by: Infohawk
LOL. Snake dancing.

I've noticed it takes a little while for these threads to be overrun by zealots. They're sort of like the zombies in the old zombie movies where they walk really slow (not like the new ones where they run fast). Basically they accumulate and after a while you can't hold them back even though one of them on their own is relatively harmless.


i like how this thread slowly gravitates towards the stupid end of things. it was a simple comment, guys. don't get all defensive and start thowing "fanatic" inuendos around. i'm happy to discuss the topic further if you really see the need, but you guys aren't really arguing, so much as acting the fool. i suppose a childish mentality knows not but the manner of a child. i hope your parents got a deal on your education expenses. maybe they could invest it in your senses of humor, cuz all that nonsense was a lame attempt..... at best. as well i can see by your post times compared to mine that you actually took the time to read it. you'll never go hungry appealing to the LCD (lil 5th grade math), kiddies.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
My experience with zealots is that they will NEVER change their minds and will not reason. I think beyond a certain point there's no point debating with them.
 

slurmsmackenzie

Golden Member
Jun 4, 2004
1,413
0
0
so prejudice is the answer? that's fine, i don't intend to sway you from it, but really is all that bullsh!t back there necessary. save yourself the effort and just leave well enough alone. i make no claims to right or wrong, i mearly put forth a previously unstated argument in hopes of an intelligent response. i dunno about you, but a good debate really gets me going. no school leaves the brain mushy. arguing with you kids is all i have left. ;)

But if you must.... we can go the low brow route. how's this...

RESOLVED: that your momma's so ugly, she has to trick or treat over the phone.

your eight minutes begins now.

 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Heh. Stop making me feel sorry for you. I'm sure someone else will come in to debate you. But maybe not in five minutes.
 

slurmsmackenzie

Golden Member
Jun 4, 2004
1,413
0
0
it's ok, i can squeeze more intellegence out of a debate with my 1yr old twins on who's the better band... led zeppelin or the wiggles. i appreciate the gesture, though. i like you infohawk, (more simpsons quotes... if you haven't noticed the connection) your moxy more than makes up for your lack of intelligence. i'm sorry, i'm finished. all in good fun, kiddo

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Bump for anyone who might want to see me troll some more!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Fixed.

CsG


my sentiments exactly..... you're like a troll weed who permeates itself throughout a relatively valid discussion and unfortunately, you have to scrap the whole project. no matter how many times you pull that damn weed, it keeps popping it's head up. quite an exemplary reputation you've accumulated. congrats again!
 

slurmsmackenzie

Golden Member
Jun 4, 2004
1,413
0
0
different thread..... just using imperical evidence to show that your trolling nature isn't limited to the science vs. religion genre. i got peace of mind knowing that this is a reoccurance on your behalf and not a personal disdain for my responses in particular.... wherein lies your excellence, child.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
different thread..... just using imperical evidence to show that your trolling nature isn't limited to the science vs. religion genre. i got peace of mind knowing that this is a reoccurance on your behalf and not a personal disdain for my responses in particular. wherein lies your excellence, child.


Umm... I didn't start this thread? You just want to attack me because I refuse to engage you since you are a fanatical zealot. I'm sorry, you can change your ways. Until then, waste someone else's time. This will be my last post to you since you just want to bait me and engage in a pissing contest.
 

slurmsmackenzie

Golden Member
Jun 4, 2004
1,413
0
0
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

The original documents in the Hebrew and Aramaic languages were recorded by God?s human secretaries, from Moses in 1513 B.C.E. down to shortly after 443 B.C.E. As far as is known today, none of these original writings are now in existence. However, from the beginning, great care was exercised in preserving the inspired writings, including authorized copies of them. About 642 B.C.E., in King Josiah?s time, ?the very book of the law? of Moses, doubtless the original copy, was found stored away in the house of Jehovah. It had by this time been faithfully preserved for 871 years. Bible writer Jeremiah manifested such great interest in this discovery that he made written record of it at 2 Kings 22:8-10, and about the year 460 B.C.E., Ezra again referred to the same incident. (2 Chron. 34:14-18)

....


don't assume the bible is just big talk from stupid ancient times. fact is, they were much smarter then than we are now. from the ancient egyptians, phonecians, babylonians, and hebrews alot of our modern day stuff is atributed. just because you can use the internet to look up porn, doesn't mean we're more advanced for it. if you jump up eleven steps from the first, and i jump up one from there then of course i'll be higher than you, but i have the hindsight of your knowledge to make such a transition with ease. the bible was well documented and well kept. you gotta do research before you blurt out crap, please.


Here come the zealots, do doo do dooo, here comes the zealots
and I say it's all right,

zealots zealots zealots, here they come....
zealots zealots zealots, here they come....
zealots zealots zealots, here they come....
zealots zealots zealots, here they come....


this thread no.... this pissing contest, indeed!!!! don't backtrack now cuz you can't keep up, son. if you must end this discussion to save face, i understand. if you must place the blame of the personal aspect on me, i understand. in lieu of our recent discussion, i'd expect nothing less. nice to meet you, btw.
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
Creationist dogma (which creationists often mistakenly call "theory") follows the principle that if you repeat something loudly enough and often enough, there must be truth to it.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,764
6,770
126
Hey Infohawk, the guy introduced a valid and interesting piece of data into this thread as a counter to Smilin's air-headed, in my poinion, explanation of the origin of biblical text. You immediately pounce on him as a zealot. Just wanted to let you know that from where I'm looking you stereotyped his response and completely missed the point and with an attitude that was rather punk rude, if I may so say.
 

slurmsmackenzie

Golden Member
Jun 4, 2004
1,413
0
0
moonbeam.... thank you.

i'll start the fire if you bring the snakes. also, let's bomb an abortion clinic tomorrow. say noonish?
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Hey Infohawk, the guy introduced a valid and interesting piece of data into this thread as a counter to Smilin's air-headed, in my poinion, explanation of the origin of biblical text. You immediately pounce on him as a zealot. Just wanted to let you know that from where I'm looking you stereotyped his response and completely missed the point and with an attitude that was rather punk rude, if I may so say.


My original point was there was no point in discussing anything with him since he won't ever change his mind. I've wasted my time with these guys before, I'm not gonna' do it anymore. And my instincts were correct anyway. Look at his subsequent ranting and raving. :roll: Next time I'm not even going to explain why I'm not engaging him.
 

slurmsmackenzie

Golden Member
Jun 4, 2004
1,413
0
0
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Hey Infohawk, the guy introduced a valid and interesting piece of data into this thread as a counter to Smilin's air-headed, in my poinion, explanation of the origin of biblical text. You immediately pounce on him as a zealot. Just wanted to let you know that from where I'm looking you stereotyped his response and completely missed the point and with an attitude that was rather punk rude, if I may so say.


My original point was there was no point in discussing anything with him since he won't ever change his mind. I've wasted my time with these guys before, I'm not gonna' do it anymore. And my instincts were correct anyway. Look at his subsequent ranting and raving. :roll: Next time I'm not even going to explain why I'm not engaging him.

what raving are you refering to, infohawk? you entertain me. my initial posts had nothing to do with you, no reference to you was made. you initiated it, child. i mearly responded to add some life to my otherwise uneventful evening. don't play the victim, kid. don't get me wrong, you are. of your own design, i mearly facilitated the process with my dry cool wit. i changed my quote, i hope it is more within your standards. if something as such ever creates discomfort for you, please feel free to address it to me, not a mod. i'd appreciate that ever so much. as i said, i like that you respond. you'll like the new one. thank you for the inspiration by the way.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,764
6,770
126
IH: My original point was there was no point in discussing anything with him since he won't ever change his mind.

M: I don't know if you are referring to past experience with slurmsmackenzie, or experience in this thread. If this thread I see no data to warrant such an opinion.

IH: I've wasted my time with these guys before, I'm not gonna' do it anymore. And my instincts were correct anyway.

M: First off I don't buy this for several reasons. Why would you post on a message board if you weren't perfectly happy to waste some time. Secondly it strikes me that you are as desperate as anybody else to be right. Thirdly, I you begin with a defeatist attitude that you won't be heard, you will sure as shooting couch your words in just that manner that will turn people away.

IH: Look at his subsequent ranting and raving. :roll: Next time I'm not even going to explain why I'm not engaging him.

M: I did look at the subsequent ranting and raving and found it perfectly matched to the tone and approach that you were the one, in my opinion, to initiate. I happen to also think that Biblical test is enormously more accurately preserved that most people think. That doesn't make the text necessarily right nor me a zealot. For Christ sake, you lit into him like you see a the Devil. I think you were punching away at a figment of your imagination. In my opinion you stereotyped the guy like you was a zealot. Sorry!
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,764
6,770
126
Originally posted by: Smilin
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Smilin
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Evolution is a fact in that populations change over time and according to their environments.

The reason evolution is still a theory is because there are still several kinks to be worked out.

That's better but it's still not fact in any sense.

Relativity has some "kinks to be worked out". It is in far better shape than evolution but is still considered a theory, not the FACT of relativity.

No TRUE scientist would ever say he knows the answer or knows something is a fact. Any halfway decent historian would quickly deflate his vanity. Ask Isaac Newton what he thinks of Aristotle. Ask Albert Einstein what he thinks of Isaac Newton. Ask Stephen Hawking what he thinks of Einstein. The only one of the whole bunch who knew the "facts" was Aristotle. :roll:

Nonsense, Newton and Einstien were absolutly right. Hawkings was right about black holes. Evolution is also a fact

You have just demonstrated without a doubt that 1.) You don't know what you are talking about. 2.) Out of ignorance you think you do.

Newton was close to being right. Until Einstein came along we could not explain the discrepancies in his THEORY of gravity. Further more there are discrepancies in relativity that have not yet been explained although Hawking has made some attempt to do so. Also, do you mean Hawking was right before or after he admitted he was wrong and revised his theories on black holes?

You have no concept of what "Theory" means. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Had Newtons theory on gravity been correct and without discrepancy it would have been a fact.
I know all that stuff Smilin. Evolution is a fact. Gravity is a fact. The law of gravity is a fact. The speed of light is a constant and a fact. Black holes are a fact. The theories about these things are the best we have at the moment, and each is true in the limited area in which it applies. Nobody fails to take an elevator because gravity is a theory. You have to understand that creationists take the notion of theory and throw out the facts. Evolution is a fact. It happened and the record is there in the rocks. The notion that the earth is 6000 years old is preposterous and the assumption that life requires a creator a violation of Occam's Razor.

 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
IH: My original point was there was no point in discussing anything with him since he won't ever change his mind.

M: I don't know if you are referring to past experience with slurmsmackenzie, or experience in this thread. If this thread I see no data to warrant such an opinion.

I could tell by his tone and the style in his writing. Seriously.

IH: I've wasted my time with these guys before, I'm not gonna' do it anymore. And my instincts were correct anyway.

M: First off I don't buy this for several reasons. Why would you post on a message board if you weren't perfectly happy to waste some time. Secondly it strikes me that you are as desperate as anybody else to be right. Thirdly, I you begin with a defeatist attitude that you won't be heard, you will sure as shooting couch your words in just that manner that will turn people away.

First, it's entertaining to post on this board. The goal is not to waste time. Second. I'm not particularly desperate to be right. I've admitted I've been wrong numerous times. Third, if you want to spin it as defeatist that's cool. I don't think anyone can convince a religious zealot of anything. That's my experience. I've never seen one change. When I begin seeing them using reason on a widespread level, I'll start engaging them.

IH: Look at his subsequent ranting and raving. :roll: Next time I'm not even going to explain why I'm not engaging him.

M: I did look at the subsequent ranting and raving and found it perfectly matched to the tone and approach that you were the one, in my opinion, to initiate.

I used a preemptive strike. ;)

And my behavior doesn't forgive his behavior. I knew he was a raving madman and he showed himself to be one.


I happen to also think that Biblical test is enormously more accurately preserved that most people think. That doesn't make the text necessarily right nor me a zealot.

Not sure I agree. Check out the gnostic bibles for example. But yeah, arguing that doesn't make you a zealot. It was the tone I sensed. The style of someone who is 100 % sure and will NEVER change their mind. :)

For Christ sake, you lit into him like you see a the Devil.
I'm sorry I don't believe in the devil so I wouldn't light anyone as the devil. That said, I think such religious zealots are extremely dangerous, whether they're in an Afghani cave or a suburban stripmall.

I think you were punching away at a figment of your imagination.
Yes, I'm imagining the extremists in our mysts... :roll: "Christian" fundamentalism doesn't exist.

In my opinion you stereotyped the guy like you was a zealot. Sorry!

Okay.
 

slurmsmackenzie

Golden Member
Jun 4, 2004
1,413
0
0
uh..... yeah. so just thought you'd like a lil Info, Hawk...

everything except the last paragraph of the original post in question (posted earlier in the thread, but didn't seem to ignite any flames) was direct quoted. so my tone isn't relevant, or existent for that matter. just for curiousity's sake, how far did you get into the post? judging by your post time, i'd say you got two sentences deep before the vain in your forehead popped and you started your rant. i'm privy to a wealth of theological information (slow down, not to refute science, children.... just other's obvious ignorance on the subject), so as i said before, i mearly play devil's advocate. do i believe the varitible things i post? certainly. do i give a sh!t if you do? not as such, no. as you've made clear, your standpoint on the subject is a derivitive of prejudice. you've taken on a well documented, tested, widely accepted view, but the thirst to persue that seems to stem from the hatred of the other. sadly, you probably didn't even get your feet wet before shunning the other. what option do you have, though? organized religion is corrupt. it generates cash like no other business in the world. so why feed at a poison trough? i agree, i totally do.... but morality affects science. like it or not, it's a necessity for the continuation of our species. our path is one of extinction.... a mere twinkling of existance, but the most influencial. a dynasty ruined by a lack of respect for the laws that govern us, both morally and physically.