what are you talking about?.... Are you telling me that reality bites? I'm providing fodder for your arguement.
Printable View
what are you talking about?.... Are you telling me that reality bites? I'm providing fodder for your arguement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordSmaug
No.
Love Bites.
Love Bleeds.
It's taking me to my knees.
Love Lives.
Love Dies.
It's no surprise.
Love Begs.
Love pleads (?),
It's what I need.
If naming names contributes to the truth of an argument, then here is a list of several hundred biologists named Steve who endorse the theory of evolution:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art..._2_16_2003.asp
Sorry Smaug, I wasn't very clear. The tag team was fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by LordSmaug
Not reference to you.
Basically, a little humor Poking around for Graymatter.
.
.
It's cool Oneironaut. It was a good bout. thirteen rounds. Opponents shake hands. A message from our sponsors........Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
........It's Miller Time....... News at Ten.
.
.
you're my new hero Oneironaut.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
It's so good to hear anybody speaking such rationality
Wow good job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Hey, ironaut, you've got some brand new signs on's...Today! no less, Pals allready too!Quote:
Originally Posted by Empire
Where exactly did you find these references? Maybe these are just scientists who are christians by religion. Typically, when one is born into a religion, they believe their religion despite anything. Did all these people sign some pro-creation scientist petition? If so, i would say your source of "truth" is obviously and plainly biased.Quote:
Originally Posted by LordSmaug
This is called healthy skepticism. My point is that if these people are religious , they were most likely religious before they got their degree in whatever field they 're practicing in. Thus these "authorities" are most likely religiously biased, in some form or another.
on another note, i find it hypocracy when religious people deem marijuana the forbidden sinful fruit, yet many christians drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes. It's all political bullcrap, and most people can say whatever the hell they want to say , then put some religious statement in with their political statements to cater to the religious majority. It sounds really good when mr. preacher is saying "marijuana is sinful blahblah" , then throws in an enthusiastic "amen". Most preachers ought to be called con-artists.
jim jones was preaching that you had to drink magical punch to kill yourself , so you could ascend to heaven... he convinced people to go thorugh with this murdeorus plot on a massive scale. How did he do this? He was a perfect con artist. Con artists are usually charasmatic, they exploit personal weaknesses by manipulating peple in telling them what they want to hear (or what they dont want to hear)... ... jim jones used the same tactics as modern day preachers do.
A preacher looks really good when he is shouting and screaming the gospel of the good lord, while dictating to us how we should act, in a martin luther king jr. type fashion. However, if you turn down the shouting and silence his charisma, nobody will listen to him. People falling down with the "holy spirit" and "talking in tongues" are only deluding themselves. The "holy spirit" is an endorphine release in the brain.
Did you ever consider that the bible should not be considered literately? As it is in the Islamic view, the revelations of God occured over years and years; as the years passed, we had a better clue as to the true nature of God as he revealed himself and his will through prophets. As time goes on, we may assume that God's plan is always unfolding to us, revealing itself to us; and to take the bible in such literal terms could be considered ignorant and primitave. (I find this to be the best argument for Islam, because the Qur'an "links" and "clarifies" previous religions of judaism and christianity; all of which are monotheistic religions. )
end of essay.