Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2006 12:31 pm
Right -- don't break your arm patting yourself on the back, there, ole Red. Unabashed sophistry is back in style, especially when one is loaded. Well, er, I mean with rhetorical self-styled voodoo semantics. However, I'm not sure if one really wants to be known for that.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2006 12:46 pm
Lightwizard wrote:
Right -- don't break your arm patting yourself on the back, there, ole Red. Unabashed sophistry is back in style, especially when one is loaded. Well, er, I mean with rhetorical self-styled voodoo semantics. However, I'm not sure if one really wants to be known for that.


There is a subtle difference between truth and sophistry...

Truth is true..
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2006 01:00 pm
I have been out looking for a hundred monkeys... Smile

Butterfly effect... hehe

I have been keeping "the bottle" away lately because it gets me in too much trouble...

Been nearly two months.

Otherwise my sophistry becomes sapistry.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2006 01:32 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
If a creation event is so subtle that it is indistinguishable from natural process, then does it really exist, or even matter.
Also you would need to ask why a god would hide his tracks so perfectly, while at the same time via the bible describing the process of creation in detail, but forget to include any mention of hiding his tracks.


"On the seventh day God finished his work which he had made; and God fired up the religious vacuum, and cleaned up after himself, and then he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made, because housework is tiring."
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2006 01:39 pm
Chumly wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
If a creation event is so subtle that it is indistinguishable from natural process, then does it really exist, or even matter.
Also you would need to ask why a god would hide his tracks so perfectly, while at the same time via the bible describing the process of creation in detail, but forget to include any mention of hiding his tracks.


"On the seventh day God finished his work which he had made; and God fired up the religious vacuum, and cleaned up after himself, and then he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made, because housework is tiring."


Smile

How can it be "hiding his tracks" when he left a book behind to explain them?
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2006 01:40 pm
If one doesn't want to accept evolution they should consider that there are still monkeys in civilization who are able to pass themselves off as human beings. Look at our President, for example.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2006 02:08 pm
Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage.
H. L. Mencken
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2006 02:17 pm
Anyone notice there was a blip?

Wasn't me...
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2006 02:28 pm
I can't think of a respectable segue, so like many others, I will simply lob it uncerimoniously Laughing

Klingon Bible Translation Project

Quote:
The Gospel According to Mark. Part of the Christian Scriptures.
Translated from the Greek by Nick Nicholas.

1 yeSuS 'IHrIStoS, [Qun'a' puqloD] Delbogh De' QaQ'e' taghlu'.

2 nemSovwI' yeSay'a paq ghItlh pabtaH ghu':


SuH bIghoSpa', lenglIj qeqbogh QumwI'wI''e' vIngeHlI'.

3

DebDaq jachwI' ghogh:

joH'a' leng yIqeq;
HemeyDaj tISIHHa'moH.

4 qaS:
DebDaq taymo' Say'moHtaH yo'a'neS.
'ej yem net noDHa'meH, paywI'pu' Say'moH, 'e' maq.

5 ghaHDaq tlheD yuDay'a Sep Hoch ngan, yeruSalem Hoch ngan je.
yorDa'neS bIQtIqDaq chaH Say'moH ghaH,
yem 'e' luDIStaHvIS.

6 Camel pob, porghbotlh Dechbogh DIr qogh'e' je tuQ yo'a'neS.
Locust ghew, Honey ghewSoj wIjbe' je Sop ghaH.
I am watching a show on Trekies, I had no idea how influential and organized they were. It's the beginnings of a new religion.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2006 02:50 pm
them christians are always trying to rewrite the bible to agree with the latest scientific findings - such as the age of the earth, the world flood, and the six days of creation. they~ll eventually get it right, but it won~t resemble anything like the book written two thousand years ago. that won~t matter to future religionists because they~ll still defend the bible as the word of god.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2006 03:39 pm
Oh, but "truth is true." No ****. Whatever drugs this person is on, I want some.
0 Replies
 
brahmin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2006 03:47 pm
can we please close this thread... before it turns into a thesis paper?
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2006 03:56 pm
To do so would only engender a plague-like exponential extrapolation of further threads.

Why?

Because the containment field implicit in this thread would go off line and the evil spores would be released!
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2006 06:47 pm
Kind of like an Andromeda Strain. With the subject matter and the question posed, it sure does look like homework, doesn't it? Perhaps we've been had.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2006 06:56 pm
brahmin wrote:
can we please close this thread... before it turns into a thesis paper?

Pretty much zero likelyhood of either.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2006 07:14 pm
Good stuff guys!
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2006 10:35 pm
Timber can be cut down but never to size.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2006 11:15 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Stevo2 wrote:
real life
The fossil record doesn't support creationism, that's for sure.


The fossils don't in any way contradict creation. Some inferences that people have tried to draw from them do.

But the fossil record itself is not in conflict with creation at all. There is no fossil that is inconsistent with creation.


Perhaps you should be more specific about the type of creation you are talking about. If you say that God created the Big Bang and all the natural processes and everything evolved naturally from that, then we might all agree with you.


Let's see, the Big Bang......

An unknown object/energy source of unknown origin, unknown composition and unknown size/strength was caused for reason(s) unknown to explode.

(At least we think it was an explosion but really we don't have any proof that it was, we simply see objects in the universe that appear to be moving apart from a common point.)

Is this the scientific theory you were referring to?
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2006 11:20 pm
You've still got it wrong, there was no causation as you would understand it.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2006 11:23 pm
No proof that you are willing to read about. There's an overwhelming amount of proof -- too much for this forum. Are you living on a desert island?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evolution? How?
  3. » Page 458
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 11/17/2024 at 05:25:30