Foxy wrote-
Quote:You and Spendi may be more fundamentalist than I am. I don't know as we have not really ever gotten into the nitty gritty of religious doctrine or understandings and I may have a more favorable view of evolutionary science than either of you do.
That's one of those passages written in schoolboardese which it is quite difficult to know what to do with.
As I'm mentioned I suppose I ought to do something.
Obviously, the "may" in the first part renders the whole thing devoid of meaning in any general apprehension.
But it leaves the reader with a impressionistic portrait and the moreso if one says it in a certain way and imagines certain conditions which are appropriate to an estimable lady of education and experience saying it that way.
One really ought to have a sound picture of the words one reads as well as a verbal picture of the print and of an imagined setting. If you imagine Proust sitting on a bar stool with his sad empty eyes and expression of weary boredom weaving out those words of his from a bar stool and wreathed in smoke you will find that they come alive and when he's at his best, which is quite often, one might easily wish the night was longer. Storytelling is a wondrous thing.
If you read wande's last quote from the Something Sentinel, like as if they are standing guard over our assets, one can see someone of no account getting through a chore.
And I'm being placed in a stable with rl which the history of this thread will show is not something I'm wholeheartedly in favour of. rl has provided AIDs-ers with easy escape routes from my probing questions on many occasions and they have taken advantage of it too as befits AIDs-ers who always shoot down the nearest hole at the first wiff of grapeshot.
Maybe not always but I haven't time to check back to see. Mostly should we say.
rl has weakened my case, admittedly at less cost, in the same manner that the case was emasculated at Dover. Allowing Judge Jones to think it is an abstract argument and not applicable to his personal person.
I would be a fundamentalist from that point of view. I like to think that I'm one of the sentinels who stand guard over the welfare of the young men of the future. Anyone who has no interest in the social consequences regarding these matters is coming from a place I don't recognise except when I become animalistic. And that's rare these days. But the past leaves a tapestry of rememberances.
Who could forget- " if **** had value the poor wouldn't have arseholes"?
The Bible is full of all sorts of things and different things are remembered by different people for different reasons. Who remembers Chapter 24 verse 14 of Genesis or Ch 39 v 10-23 when there's a flood to go at with the obvious children's story silliness of the animals going in two by two and how easy such things are to turn to account for spouting purposes. As Mr Darwin did.
I remember Bernie telling Joseph's tale, slightly amended, about a pal of his.
It would be a simple matter to suggest reasons why some wish to see Genesis dead and buried if one remembers the two references I've given.
But Foxy admits that she doesn't know so we are no further on. I'm so much into evolution that I can see it at work. TV is astounding looked at that way by someone who has seen it grow. The newsreaders, for example, are chosen on the allurement principle in classic evolutionary fashion and objectively measured in ratings. Acceptance or rejection. The "Ritual Affinities of Organic Beings". Display.
The objective being, of course, to screw you.
So I don't think Foxy has a more favourable view of evolution than I do.
Were I to think that her acceptance of evolution is due to a sense that adopting the principles of it will lead to the further empowerment of the female sex I might think otherwise but she has shown no sign of seeing it that way that I have noticed. Such empowerment is not a stationary matter. It has direction. And there is no known limit to it on evolutionary principles.
