Evolution

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by OldGringo38, Oct 3, 2010.

  1. OldGringo38

    G. Morgan Guest

    invalid@don't.bother.org.invalid wrote:

    >Sure, in the context of congregations, Christianity, evolution versus
    >creation, you bring up scientology, and given your awful history of
    >lumping everyone with Christianity, it is actually an accurate
    >observation to say that you think that scientology is Christianity.


    It's a stupid and reckless observation. However, facts really don't seem to be
    your strong suite.

    >After all, you flame me for educating you why mormonism was not
    >Christianity.


    I said *they* claimed they were. Just like you claim you are, but have yet to
    show it. Or maybe my theory is true, and you're all like that... backstabbing
    artists of mis-information.

    >Nice back pedaling though.
    >
    >Apology accepted. ;-)


    None was offered.
     
    G. Morgan, Nov 14, 2010
    1. Advertising

  2. OldGringo38

    G. Morgan Guest

    Bucky Breeder <Breeder_Bucky.Breeder@That's.my.name_Don't.wear.it.out> wrote:

    >Again, I hasten to say to you that it would be woefully mistaken
    >to attempt to lump all of Christianity into some omnibus judgment
    >that "all religion" is either this or that - only because a few may
    >be sadly misled. Just like today's template, people who do good
    >stuff don't generally make the news broadcasts...


    Well said. I don't know it all, and I'm willing to learn from people who are
    "in the know". The problem I have is identifying the genuine article from the
    fakes.

    >"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock,
    > and it shall be opened unto you:" -- Matthew 7:7 (KJV)


    Nice one.
     
    G. Morgan, Nov 14, 2010
    1. Advertising

  3. OldGringo38

    G. Morgan Guest

    invalid@don't.bother.org.invalid wrote:

    >"Hitler was a crazed religious nut"?
    >
    >Thanks for proving that you have a 0 clue about religion, and now you
    >proved that you have no clue about history too.


    He made up his own "religion", a bastardization of his Catholic upbringing and a
    mixture of Occult activities. I suggest you do research on the subject, before
    dismissing my claim outright.

    But you would not define that as a "religion" because you've only acknowledged
    that ONE exists, yours. What is yours by the way?
     
    G. Morgan, Nov 14, 2010
  4. OldGringo38

    G. Morgan Guest

    invalid@don't.bother.org.invalid wrote:

    >>It's one of my favorite.

    >
    >From the Bible that you dismiss, which is the faith book and the
    >foundation of the religion that you called corrupt.
    >But maybe you don't realize why this alone makes you look not credible.


    Just because I don't embrace organized religion does not mean there are not
    lessons to be learned from them (and their texts).

    Use your brain. Re-read everything I wrote. Quit making shit up and spinning
    it. You were given enough information about my beliefs, yet you keep calling me
    an atheist.

    Why can't I have favorites in your Book? Am I not worthy, like the 'dog' you
    portrayed me as in your last great quote from the Book?

    Figures... Unless I share your beliefs I must me some kind of "infidel", does
    that remind you of another religion, hater?
     
    G. Morgan, Nov 14, 2010
  5. OldGringo38

    G. Morgan Guest

    invalid@don't.bother.org.invalid wrote:

    >Christian, you even thought Mormonism is Christianity just because they
    >claimed to be.


    No, I stated that they claimed to be. Just like you do, but I don't believe you
    either.

    >You brought up scientology right in the context of a thread discussion
    >Christianity and right after a post mentioning Christian congregations
    >and how some of them are abusing their power.


    Clearly you didn't see that I was posting a reply about religion's tax-exempt
    status and how ridiculous it was that CoS gets that status (they lost it in
    France recently). Sorry if you were too stupid to see that.
     
    G. Morgan, Nov 14, 2010
  6. OldGringo38

    G. Morgan Guest

    invalid@don't.bother.org.invalid wrote:

    >Now, your next whining will probably be claiming that National Socialism
    >AKA Nazism was a religion, or had ties with religion.
    >I strongly suggest that you don't pull such stunt, because that would be
    >the final nail in your credibility coffin.



    Nah.. I'll just throw out more quotes from Hitler where he claims Christianity:

    "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive
    in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend
    those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards
    Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the
    basis of national life." -February 1, 1933

    "The National Government regards the two Christian confessions (i.e. Catholicism
    and Protestantism) as factors essential to the soul of the German people. ... We
    hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the
    moral uplift of most of the German people." -March 23, 1933

    "The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own
    denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will,
    and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's
    will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys
    His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will." - Adolf
    Hitler, Mein Kampf

    There are many more....

    Hitler thought it was his devine right to control the planet for 1000 years.

    Call it a "political religion", like many others on your list.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_views#Hitler_and_Catholic_ritual

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_religion
     
    G. Morgan, Nov 14, 2010
  7. OldGringo38

    Hot-Text Guest

    Mr. G. Morgan
    Out of the two of you,
    Just Remember in the end of all of your messages that Northing will Win
    everything!
     
    Hot-Text, Nov 14, 2010
  8. OldGringo38

    Brian Cryer Guest

    <invalid@don't.bother.org.invalid> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <ibjq93$i7u$-september.org>

    <snip>

    I was going to respond to your points, and then I though what is the point?
    because you seem intent on being cast as a victim even when you are not.
    Whilst you have made some good posts (defending creation, pointing out that
    Mormons are not Christians etc), you actions have degenerated to those of a
    troll.

    I am still willing to go through points with you off-line (it shouldn't take
    you long to find a public email address for me - and I will not make your
    email public), but I will not engage with you further in a public forum
    because it seems a waste of my time and I have no wish to see you did a
    bigger whole for your self in public.
    --
    Brian Cryer
    http://www.cryer.co.uk/brian
     
    Brian Cryer, Nov 15, 2010
  9. OldGringo38

    Brian Cryer Guest

    "Jordon" <jordon@REMOVE~THISmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
    news:ibk6kq$vpn$-september.org...
    > invalid@don't.bother.org.invalid wrote:
    >
    >> So where did science prove the THEORY of evolution?

    >
    > It's in the chapter right after the theory of gravity.
    >
    > Plenty of physical evidence to back it up. Just can't
    > quite connect all the dots.


    Despite invalid's postings, he does have a point. There is no evidence for
    evolution - or at least none which isn't contended. That's why its a theory
    and not a fact. Interestingly evolution is probably unique as the only
    theory which is not discarded when part of it is proved wrong, its just
    amended.

    What there is, is plenty of evidence for natural selection. Natural
    selection is not in question. Most people seem to assume that natural
    selection = evolution, but it does not.

    Once you start digging for evidence for evolution, if you discard people's
    opinions (of which there are many) you won't find much left.

    > You have *any* physical evidence for your theory?


    The fossil record (for example) fits the creation account much better than
    it does the evolutionary one.

    The following links are just the ones which came up top when I did a google
    for "fossil record evidence for creation", you might find them an
    interesting read:

    http://www.bible.ca/tracks/fossil-record.htm
    http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html

    --
    Brian Cryer
    http://www.cryer.co.uk/brian
     
    Brian Cryer, Nov 15, 2010
  10. OldGringo38

    Brian Cryer Guest

    "G. Morgan" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > invalid@don't.bother.org.invalid wrote:
    >
    >>In article <>
    >>G. Morgan <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>The "Church of Scientology" gets tax-exempt status in the US. What a
    >>>crock of
    >>>shit.

    >>
    >>So the Scientology is now Christian too?
    >>
    >>WOW!
    >>ROFL.
    >>
    >>You might wanna do some research, you are looking completely foolish
    >>right now.

    >
    > I didn't say that. You're the one with the reading comprehension problem,
    > and
    > you missed the point. You cut out the part I attributed about
    > tax-exemption
    > from Bucky Breeder.
    >
    > I was pointing out the ridiculous, that the 'Church' of Scientology gets
    > tax-exempt status.
    >
    > Nothing to do with Christianity... please try to keep up.


    You are right on all three counts - (i.) shame about tax-exempt status,
    (ii.) you didn't say that they were Christian [which they are not], and
    (iii.) invalid does have a comprehension problem.

    I don't think its worth your time responding until he (invalid) has
    something sensible to say.
    --
    Brian Cryer
    http://www.cryer.co.uk/brian
     
    Brian Cryer, Nov 15, 2010
  11. OldGringo38

    Jordon Guest

    invalid@don't.bother.org.invalid wrote:
    > In article<ibk6kq$vpn$-september.org>
    > Jordon<jordon@REMOVE~THISmyrealbox.com> wrote:
    >
    >> invalid@don't.bother.org.invalid wrote:
    >>
    >>> So where did science prove the THEORY of evolution?

    >>
    >> It's in the chapter right after the theory of gravity.

    >
    > Where?


    Whoosh...

    > How come you couldn't quote it?


    Quote what?

    > And since when the theory of gravity is part of the theory of evolution?
    > You need to read a bit before you argue.


    Both are theories. Using the "it's just a theory" argument and
    saying there's no proof is like saying gravity is just a theory.
    Where's the proof of gravity? You can't prove it so my fairy
    tale must be true.

    >> Plenty of physical evidence to back it up. Just can't
    >> quite connect all the dots.
    >>

    >
    > Which means that there is no evidence.
    >
    >> You have *any* physical evidence for your theory?

    >
    > Yes, start by looking around you.


    I'm looking. I don't see any proof. All I see is the stuff stars
    are made of. Show me some scientific evidence. Got anything? One
    little shred of evidence, other than centuries old myths?

    Didn't think so.
     
    Jordon, Nov 15, 2010
  12. Jordon <jordon@REMOVE~THISmyrealbox.com> says:

    > invalid@don't.bother.org.invalid wrote:
    >>
    >> Yes, start by looking around you.

    >
    > I'm looking. I don't see any proof.


    In order to reconcile this argumentation, you'd have to define terms.

    A law of physics states that everything is in motion and remains in
    motion. Even down to atomic substructures, there is constant motion.
    "Time", as we know it, is merely a relationship between motion and
    distance. This is easiest demonstrated by observing an analog clock.

    What exactly is denoted by the usage of the term "evolution".
    Then, from what - to what? Parameters would need to be set...
    Ranges of allowable outside influences bearing on the movements
    from one stage to the next, etc.

    I can do a quick metaphor with the concept "miracles", which has
    similar controversies:

    Moses said to the head-hootie-tootie "Let my people go... or else
    [these things - in this order] [will happen]..."

    Currently there are indeed valid scientific explanations for every
    event which occured. The "miracle" part comes from Moses knowing
    the events were forthcoming, and the timing at which they came...
    which led to their being precisely utilized to achieve the stated
    ultimate objectives.

    Same with concepts of "evolution". Were there more primitive beings
    which prededed us? Antropologically and archeologically, it would
    certainly seem so. Does that make a concept which contradicts the
    concept of "creation"? Again, terms would have to be defined. Does
    the Bible story rule out the existence of other beings? I personally
    don't think so. Again, the "Bible" as we have it, is a compilation of
    cannonized books from various faithfully verified sources, and has a
    thesis of 'Man[kind]'s Reuninfication with His Creator [or with his
    Perfected State of Being]'. It is not meant to be strictly a science
    book; nor a history book; nor a book of all geneologies...

    The translations which emanate from the ancient stories into our Bible
    indicate God made man thusly "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of
    the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man
    became a living soul." --Genesis 2:7 (KJV)

    This comes from ancient Hebrew... for sure... possibly earlier. The point
    to be made here, and perhaps to be considered where you are, is that they
    simply did not have language for "primordal ooze" back then... This is
    after the likely-metephorical "7 days"; therefore, "time" is not under
    consideration or at issue as related in this scripture; nor are various
    stages of God's ongoing "research and development" efforts.

    There's some purists which may get all-up-and-indignat with me at this
    point and argue "God doesn't make mistakes!" Well, I'd have to instantly
    argue "Then why does God make it rain on the ocean?" to make a graphically
    illustrated point; however, in Genesis 3 there is the story of the
    rebellion, in which God makes a lot of changes ("evolution"?) subsequent to
    Adam's and Eve's fall from Grace and pursuant placement into their current
    temporal physical world. And, on top of that, God dwells with them for a
    time, checking in, protecting them and seeing to their physical needs, etc.
    God constantly negotiates with his humans... Lot would be case in point;
    wherein God is negotiated up to "10 righteous men" by Lot to save the
    cities of Sodom and Gomorrah from total destruction. Thus, everything is
    NOT preordained or predetermined by God to any predictable conclusion.
    So, with all those variables bearing on our day-to-day lives, some concept
    of "evolution" would naturally have to be incorporated into our
    considerations on this temporal journey - and some concept of "creation"
    cannot be totally eliminated.

    HTH.

    --

    I AM Bucky Breeder, (*(^; and this free speech message
    was transmitted through the Draconian censorship blockades!

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20015629-71.html

    http://www.boingboing.net/Smoky_The_Nanobot.jpg

    Repent! The end is near.... So, smoke 'em if you got 'em.
     
    Bucky Breeder, Nov 15, 2010
  13. OldGringo38

    WartRemover Guest

    In article <Xns9E3189685FEAFBuckyGram@207.246.207.167>,
    Bucky Breeder <Breeder_Bucky.Breeder@That's.my.name_Don't.wear.it.out>
    wrote:

    > I AM Bucky Breeder, (*(^; and this free speech message
    > was transmitted through the Draconian censorship blockades!


    ....which was excreted into your mommy's geriatric really dirty diapers
    --
    "The world has moved on, leaving the non-entity Scott Lifshine in its wake"
    -Greendistantstar

    oWo
    |---|
     
    WartRemover, Nov 15, 2010
  14. OldGringo38

    Aardvark Guest

    On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 02:20:27 -0800, invalid wrote:

    > I think it is obvious to everyone who is the hater here.


    Yup. You.



    --
    "En un lugar de la Mancha, de cuyo nombre no quiero acordarme,
    no hace mucho tiempo que vivía un hidalgo de los de lanza en
    astillero, adarga antigua, rocín flaco y galgo corredor."
    -Cervantes, 'Don Quixote'
     
    Aardvark, Nov 18, 2010
  15. OldGringo38

    Brian Cryer Guest

    "~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Brian Cryer wrote:
    >
    >> and I have no wish to see you did a bigger *whole* for your self in
    >> public.

    >
    > Did you *really* mean to say that, Brian? ;-)
    >
    > D.


    Argh! No, its a typo.
    Well spotted.
    --
    Brian Cryer
    http://www.cryer.co.uk/brian
     
    Brian Cryer, Nov 18, 2010
  16. OldGringo38

    G. Morgan Guest

    "Brian Cryer" <> wrote:

    >"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Brian Cryer wrote:
    >>
    >>> and I have no wish to see you did a bigger *whole* for your self in
    >>> public.

    >>
    >> Did you *really* mean to say that, Brian? ;-)
    >>
    >> D.

    >
    >Argh! No, its a typo.
    >Well spotted.


    Which typo? I see 3 misspellings.
     
    G. Morgan, Nov 18, 2010
  17. OldGringo38

    G. Morgan Guest

    invalid@don't.bother.org.invalid wrote:

    >
    >It appears to me that each sect/denomination in Christianity considers
    >their views "mainstream". Even Mormons.
    >//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    >
    >Read it here.
    >http://groups.google.com/group/24hoursupport.helpdesk/msg/3ebe80e7d69002b3?hl=en&dmode=source
    >
    >In case you'd deny that you posted that, which is expected.
    >
    >
    >This alone says it all, you *clearly* think that mormons are Christians,
    >because you equated them with "each sect/denomination in Christianity",
    >which says it all.


    You fucking idiot. I've about had it with you and your stupidity. Lets read
    this together:

    "It appears to me that each sect/denomination in Christianity considers
    their views "mainstream" <------ that was my point

    "Even Mormons." <------

    and to illustrate your intolerance towards other Christians, I threw Mormons in
    the Christian 'stew'. Mainly because they *do* claim to be Christians.

    From http://www.mormon.org/ :

    "While our backgrounds and experiences are diverse, Mormons are united by a
    commitment to Jesus Christ. This site features Mormons sharing their stories and
    telling what their faith means to them.
    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the official name of the
    religion commonly called the Mormon Church. Mormons believe first and foremost
    that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world and the Son of God."

    <yep.. sure looks like they are claiming to be Christians.>

    Who are you to tell them they can't be?

    For laughs I had to include Mormon's along with 'mainstream'. Go ahead and ask
    one of them, they think they're the only ones getting into Heaven (but I'm sure
    that's what you and yours think too).
     
    G. Morgan, Nov 18, 2010
  18. OldGringo38

    G. Morgan Guest

    G. Morgan, Nov 18, 2010
  19. OldGringo38

    Brian Cryer Guest

    "G. Morgan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Brian Cryer" <> wrote:
    >
    >>"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> Brian Cryer wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> and I have no wish to see you did a bigger *whole* for your self in
    >>>> public.
    >>>
    >>> Did you *really* mean to say that, Brian? ;-)
    >>>
    >>> D.

    >>
    >>Argh! No, its a typo.
    >>Well spotted.

    >
    > Which typo? I see 3 misspellings.


    Yes, goofed on that one. Should have re-read it before posting!
    --
    Brian Cryer
    http://www.cryer.co.uk/brian
     
    Brian Cryer, Nov 19, 2010
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. dj tuchler

    firebird 0.6.1 and evolution (???)

    dj tuchler, Aug 16, 2003, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,179
    dj tuchler
    Aug 20, 2003
  2. jfigueredo
    Replies:
    45
    Views:
    1,356
  3. Gordon

    Evolution and Gmail

    Gordon, Aug 1, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    23,039
    Mike Easter
    Aug 2, 2005
  4. Writer R5
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    523
    Writer R5
    Sep 1, 2003
  5. Doug MacLean
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    584
    Doug MacLean
    Apr 4, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page