"Inadvertent", My Ass....

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:15 am

Where's your memory?

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:24 am

Next - the troll is full again.....

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:32 am

Since you're full, where is "next" for you?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:35 pm

have not heard anything and f it was going ot be done it would be done on the QT.

There is room for both science and religion in the world.

if both are practiced properly with science reliquishing its role as the only field capable of providing an answer.

i have as much trouble with religious people as any of you i also see its weaknesses, not in the written word of scriptures but in the application of same in the followers of Christ.

having history held over our heads as if we were responsible for allpast actions or as if we could change something has been an exercise infutility on the part of the non-religious. we have no influence on the past, it is what it is, so get over it.

not everyone who says the follow Christ are christians nor do they always follow Christ's words. i certainly wish my undergarduate theological training was done in a better way as i see many weaknessess in the methods used by my alma matar.

i can only work to change those alive today and they have what you have, the ability to freely choose thus if you want results, then you must look to Christ directly and stop using humans as your excuse for poor choices and then make changes inyourselves. requiring change in a believer before you make any decisions is just ridiculous because it only means that you can excuse your failure to decide differently because the changes made by the religious just weren't good enough or to your expectations.

i think all public funding, government spending, should be withdrawn from any all institutions and people who solely study or teach evolution. public money should be spent on the benefit of all its people and not on chasing an unprovable, unverifiable theory.

i know of millions of people who need help right now and if evolution were true, they would not need to siphon funds from the needy to pursue something that would be considered fact. evolution and its adherents are as hypocritical as those they accuse.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:41 pm

I agree with the idea that any reversal to that decision will be on the QT. I just want to know that it does happen.

As for the rest of what you said, it's mostly an internal Christian discussion to decide what it is/is not, and not related to me or to archaeology.

I don't understand the syphoning off of money to help people and into the evolutionary agenda thing at all. And again - not related to archaeology.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:48 pm

not everyone who says the follow Christ are christians nor do they always follow Christ's words

Sure they are. Who gave you the right to determine who can use the title?

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:50 pm

i think all public funding, government spending, should be withdrawn from any all institutions and people who solely study or teach evolution. public money should be spent on the benefit of all its people and not on chasing an unprovable, unverifiable theory.

Exactly why people like you should never be in charge of public policy. If left up to you we'd be learning that the earth was flat and the center of the universe.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:55 pm

Minimalist wrote:

i think all public funding, government spending, should be withdrawn from any all institutions and people who solely study or teach evolution. public money should be spent on the benefit of all its people and not on chasing an unprovable, unverifiable theory.

Exactly why people like you should never be in charge of public policy. If left up to you we'd be learning that the earth was flat and the center of the universe.

In fact that's how this whole situation got started, isn't it?

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:31 pm

I'd have to ask Galileo.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 3:18 pm

Exactly why people like you should never be in charge of public policy. If left up to you we'd be learning that the earth was flat and the center of the universe

i think that the alternative, coming from a lifeless, feelingless, thoughtless, uncaring, unprovable process, makes this look attractive even though it would be in error.

again those that advocated that the earth was flat is not indicative to what is really taught. it is well known that when others want to control people they only tell part of the story, something which you do quite well i shuld add.

evidenced by your posts on the nazareth thread. if you were really interested inpresenting the truth or evenin having a discussion, you would have posted links to all sides of the story and not just to what you want people to think.

this is why michelle's decision to let me remain is correct andvaluable. she is not here to have just another sterile website which rubber stamps the secular {or evolutionary} position. getting one side of the issue is not education and no matter how much you , beagle or barracuda dislike my perspective or my posts, you are getting more than brainwashing, you are getting exposed to points of view that are valid {discounting G.V. and what's her name...oh jean marie} and credible backed by archaeological evidence.

though you* disagree with those last two words but that disagreeance is based upon your* offhand dismissal [without investigation or consideration] of anything that supports my position.

in conclusion, you* are not really interested in discussion nor are you interested in having an open-mind but are only interested in talking with those who reinforce your freely decided beliefs.

* this indicates thati have basically used the word 'you' in its general meaning and not specific one. i may have missed marking some of the words

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 3:23 pm

I think all he is saying arch is that there should be a seperation of church and state. I am onside with that 100%.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:23 pm

I think all he is saying arch is that there should be a seperation of church and state. I am onside with that 100%.

the problem with that is, it will never happen. science especially, with its intelligence, should not place restrictions on what should be considered as fact becauseit is just short changing itself and creatng a false standard.

for governments, a separation would only create confusion and discrimination possibly a double standard as one side gets favored over another and governments must govern all wisely and fairly. which can't be done if one aspect is eliminated from contention.

plus funding then is geared strictly to those who have a secular agenda as money would not be allowed to be allocated to those with a religious belief unless they follow strict gov. guidelines which taints the results of the investigation long before it gets started.

minimalist is all for that type of gov. for it swings the pendulum his way and in his favor which is unfair to those who believe differently than him. people, like children, all want the biggestpiece for themselves and hate it when they have to share.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:26 pm

On the other hand, if you have only one kind of church in league with the government, you are even more disproportionate. And when they are making decisions on the environment based on Jesus coming back I'd say it's dangerous.

BUT - we're off topic.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:01 pm

Arch, your lack of ability to understand this question is appalling but not surprising. Your fairy tales pervade every aspect of your life and you probably can't take a dump without wondering what would jesus use to wipe his ass.

The science of evolution (which is real, in spite of your foolish beliefs) relates only to one question. Did humanity evolve to its present form?

It does not care about sin. Or good versus evil. It does not require me to contribute money so the purveyors of it can drive stretch limos to hoodwink more imbeciles out of their money.

It does not burn people at the stake if they do not believe it. It does not riot if someone draws cartoons. It has no position on pre-marital sex, homosexuality, the flag, murdering foreign leaders, gun control, condoms or the school lunch program.

But throughout history busy-body religious assholes have attempted to shove their bullshit down everyone's throat and it is only a matter of fortune that at this point in time we don't have christian murderers still out there giving it their all for goddamn jesus.

You're damn right that I will take objective scientists over two bit phonies like you.

john · Post by **john** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:07 pm

Minimalist wrote:Arch, your lack of ability to understand this question is appalling but not surprising. Your fairy tales pervade every aspect of your life and you probably can't take a dump without wondering what would jesus use to wipe his ass.

The science of evolution (which is real, in spite of your foolish beliefs) relates only to one question. Did humanity evolve to its present form?

It does not care about sin. Or good versus evil. It does not require me to contribute money so the purveyors of it can drive stretch limos to hoodwink more imbeciles out of their money.

It does not burn people at the stake if they do not believe it. It does not riot if someone draws cartoons. It has no position on pre-marital sex, homosexuality, the flag, murdering foreign leaders, gun control, condoms or the school lunch program.

But throughout history busy-body religious assholes have attempted to shove their bullshit down everyone's throat and it is only a matter of fortune that at this point in time we don't have christian murderers still out there giving it their all for goddamn jesus.

You're damn right that I will take objective scientists over two bit phonies like you.

double right on, min.

now, about pre-clovis america?

j