Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.basic.visual.misc > #1271 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-07-10 16:17 +0100 |
| Last post | 2012-07-17 10:08 +0100 |
| Articles | 13 on this page of 73 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.basic.visual.misc
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-07-10 16:17 +0100
Re: JESUS IS LORD! ReverendFuzzy <google@msbministries.org> - 2012-07-10 08:36 -0700
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-07-10 16:46 +0100
Re: JESUS IS LORD! ReverendFuzzy <google@msbministries.org> - 2012-07-10 09:23 -0700
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Coder X" <coder@x.com> - 2012-07-10 16:03 -0400
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-07-11 09:47 +0100
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-11 13:56 -0300
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-07-12 09:38 +0100
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-12 14:18 -0300
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Coder X" <coder@x.com> - 2012-07-12 18:31 -0400
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-13 09:57 +0100
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-13 07:10 -0300
[Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! Deanna Earley <dee.earley@icode.co.uk> - 2012-07-13 11:59 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-13 09:20 -0300
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! Deanna Earley <dee.earley@icode.co.uk> - 2012-07-13 13:58 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-13 16:11 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-14 05:55 -0300
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-14 12:49 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-14 10:40 -0300
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-14 15:27 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-14 11:55 -0300
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-07-17 09:22 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-18 15:41 -0300
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-07-20 09:32 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-20 06:04 -0300
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-07-20 10:32 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-20 14:33 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-20 14:44 -0300
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-20 20:28 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-20 16:40 -0300
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-20 21:06 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-20 17:26 -0300
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-20 22:02 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-20 19:49 -0300
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-22 09:53 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-22 09:14 -0300
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! Deanna Earley <dee@earlsoft.co.uk> - 2012-07-23 09:43 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-07-23 09:52 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! Jason Keats <jkeats@melbpcDeleteThis.org.au> - 2012-07-23 20:34 +1000
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! Schmidt <sss@online.de> - 2012-07-14 15:27 +0200
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-14 12:41 -0300
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Coder X" <coder@x.com> - 2012-07-15 11:26 -0400
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-15 14:42 -0300
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! Deanna Earley <dee.earley@icode.co.uk> - 2012-07-16 09:18 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! Deanna Earley <dee@earlsoft.co.uk> - 2012-07-16 08:57 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-16 10:21 -0400
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-18 12:58 -0300
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-07-17 09:32 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! Deanna Earley <dee@earlsoft.co.uk> - 2012-07-16 10:18 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Coder X" <coder@x.com> - 2012-07-16 16:44 -0400
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-13 09:53 -0400
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-13 16:24 +0100
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-13 11:54 -0400
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-13 18:11 +0100
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-13 15:07 -0400
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-13 20:18 +0100
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-13 13:08 -0300
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-13 12:30 -0400
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-13 15:11 -0300
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-13 20:06 +0100
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-13 16:47 -0300
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-13 15:56 +0100
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-14 05:59 -0300
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-14 12:58 +0100
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-14 10:55 -0300
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-14 15:40 +0100
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-14 12:11 -0300
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-14 18:57 +0100
Re: JESUS IS LORD! Deanna Earley <dee@earlsoft.co.uk> - 2012-07-16 09:23 +0100
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-07-17 10:44 +0100
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Coder X" <coder@x.com> - 2012-07-13 13:38 -0400
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-14 06:02 -0300
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-07-17 10:08 +0100
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-13 16:47 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <jtpu0j$o59$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1322 |
"Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> escribió en el mensaje news:jtprjq$a18$1@dont-email.me... Yes, also as I'm not a native English speaker I could sometimes misuse a word. These subjects are hard to explain even in our own language. In the every day talk I often hear (and I also use) expressions like "I believe that this politician will end up doing something" or "I believe the next week the prices will go down". I know that when someone says "I believe" it implies that he is quite convinced, more than when he says "I think" or "I guess", but there is still some room for doubt (that's how I understand it, may be I'm wrong). When you are really sure you say "I know that...".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-13 15:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jtpcu2$c6k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1307 |
"Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> wrote in message news:jtos6q$10v$1@speranza.aioe.org... > > "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> escribió en el mensaje >>> [Eduardo said] Of course the Bible is not inerrant, because it >>> was copied many times, and some were even memorized and >>> then copied. What is inerrant is the word of God. And that's >>> what one can have studying the Bible, that is what is important. >> >> [Mike said] You've said some really stupid things Eduardo, >> but you have exceeded yourself with that one! What a load >> of nonesense! > > [Eduardo retorted] If you don't want the information on the Bible, > it's OK, but you guys should go to a psychologist, because it's not > normal to have so much hate to the people that believes in it. What I said, as quoted above, has nothing to do with hatred Eduardo, nor with craziness. You need to get this business of hatred out of your heart. What I said was merely intended draw your attention to the absurd and entirely illogical statement you made yourself. There was no hatred in it at all. Personally I think it is you who needs to see a psychologist, not me. > You don't want God and the Bible, I do. What's the problem? No problem, Eduardo. If you want it to stop then stop trying to pump your own views down other people's throats and stop making absurd and illogical statements, such as the statement of yours quoted above to which I responded. If you stop doing that then I shall naturally stop responding to your stupidity. Mike
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-14 05:59 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <jtrccc$n57$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1312 |
"Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> escribió en el mensaje news:jtpcu2$c6k$1@dont-email.me... >>>> [Eduardo said] Of course the Bible is not inerrant, because it >>>> was copied many times, and some were even memorized and >>>> then copied. What is inerrant is the word of God. And that's >>>> what one can have studying the Bible, that is what is important. > and stop making absurd and illogical statements, such as the statement of > yours quoted above to which I responded. What do you think was "illogical" in what I've said?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-14 12:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jtrmsj$b2u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1326 |
"Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> wrote in message news:jtrccc$n57$1@speranza.aioe.org... >>> >>> [Eduardo said] Of course the Bible is not inerrant, because >>> it was copied many times, and some were even memorized >>> and then copied. What is inerrant is the word of God. And >>> that's what one can have studying the Bible, that is what is >>> important. >> >> [Mike said] stop making absurd and illogical statements > > [Eduardo said] What do you think was "illogical" in what I've said? Well if you really cannot see why I think your statement is illogical then I can only assume it is because you simply do not want to see it. Read your statement again, Eduardo. Mike
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-14 10:55 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <jtrtof$vic$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1329 |
"Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> escribió en el mensaje news:jtrmsj$b2u$1@dont-email.me... > "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> wrote in message > news:jtrccc$n57$1@speranza.aioe.org... >>>> >>>> [Eduardo said] Of course the Bible is not inerrant, because >>>> it was copied many times, and some were even memorized >>>> and then copied. What is inerrant is the word of God. And >>>> that's what one can have studying the Bible, that is what is >>>> important. >>> >>> [Mike said] stop making absurd and illogical statements >> >> [Eduardo said] What do you think was "illogical" in what I've said? > > Well if you really cannot see why I think your statement is illogical then > I can only assume it is because you simply do not want to see it. Read > your statement again, Eduardo. OK, reading it one more time I see that I made some mistakes writing, the additions are into brackets: Of course the Bible in not inerrant, [there are some errors] because it was copied many times, and some [parts] were even memorized and then copied [back]. What is inerrant is the word of God. And that's what one can have studying the Bible, that is what is important.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-14 15:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jts0c7$vhh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1332 |
"Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> wrote in message news:jtrtof$vic$1@speranza.aioe.org... >> [Mike said] Well if you really cannot see why I think your >> statement is illogical then I can only assume it is because >> you simply do not want to see it. Read your statement >> again, Eduardo. > > [Eduardo said] OK, reading it one more time I see that I > made some mistakes writing, the additions are into brackets: > Of course the Bible in not inerrant, [there are some errors] > because it was copied many times, and some [parts] were > even memorized and then copied [back]. What is inerrant > is the word of God. And that's what one can have studying the Bible, that > is what is important. It's still illogical, Eduardo. You've got to be kidding me when you say you cannot see it? Read it one more time. The final sentence is simply NOT something that can be logically deduced from the preceeding sentences. In fact the opposite is true. Mike
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-14 12:11 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <jts26q$afi$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1334 |
"Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> escribió en el mensaje news:jts0c7$vhh$1@dont-email.me... >> Of course the Bible in not inerrant, [there are some errors] >> because it was copied many times, and some [parts] were >> even memorized and then copied [back]. What is inerrant >> is the word of God. And that's what one can have studying the Bible, that >> is what is important. > > It's still illogical, Eduardo. You've got to be kidding me when you say > you cannot see it? Read it one more time. The final sentence is simply NOT > something that can be logically deduced from the preceeding sentences. In > fact the opposite is true. May be because you lack the knowledge of some information. I'll amplify the comment. 1) What God speaks is "the word of God". 2) God spoke to people that received "the word of God" in the past. 3) They wrote it when God told them to write it. 4) They copied it many times over the time when the papyruses were getting old. 5) At some point it was completely lost or lost in part (because of the destruction from enemies). 6) They copied it back again from their memories. 7) About the phrase "And that's what one can have studying the Bible, that is what is important": it is necessary to study to get the "word of God", not just to read the Bible. The errors are just part of the problem. This information was given to a people that had a way of thinking very different from ours. You need to study their customs, how they lived, how the thought, idiomatic expressions, many things, figures of speech that they used, etc. You don't have the word of God just reading the Bible and don't understanding a single thing. I hope this time I was a bit more clear.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-14 18:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jtsbuk$6r3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1336 |
"Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> wrote in message news:jts26q$afi$1@speranza.aioe.org... >> >> [Mike said] It's still illogical, Eduardo. You've got to be kidding me >> when you say you cannot see it? Read it one more time. The final >> sentence is simply NOT something that can be logically deduced >> from the preceeding sentences. > > [Eduardo said] May be because you lack the knowledge of some > information. I'll amplify the comment. > > 1) What God speaks is "the word of God". Well, I suppose that if you believe God actually exists and that he actually said something then it would be logical for you to also say that what God speaks is the word of God, in much the same way that you might say what The Grim Reaper speaks is the word of the Grim Reaper. It doesn't prove that either of those beings exist of course, nor that they said anything, but at least the single specific conclusion of "What X speaks is the word of X" is itself logical, provided of course that you are first willing to acccept that X does exist and that X did say something. Personally I do not accept that either God or The Grim Reaper exist. I think that in both cases it is extremely unlikely to be true. However, if you wish to believe it yourself then you are free to do so. > 2) God spoke to people that received "the word of God" in the past. > 3) They wrote it when God told them to write it. Highly unlikely. > 4) They copied it many times over the time when the papyruses > were getting old. > 5) At some point it was completely lost or lost in part (because > of the destruction from enemies). > 6) They copied it back again from their memories. Well, even for someone who accepts the validity of 2 and 3 (which are both highly unlikely) then that person must be feeling a bit lost after reading 4, 5 and 6 which would appear to cast serious doubt on the fidelity of the recording. So far, after reading what you have said above, we seem to have a being who is highly unlikely to exist saying something to an unspecified group of people who wrote it down on some papyruses. Then, when the papyruses were getting old either the same group of people, or more likely a completely different group of people, copied the texts from the old worn originals onto some new papyruses, and this happened many, many times over. Then, some time later, either all of it or large chunks of it were lost or destroyed by enemies, causing people to copy it back onto new papyruses from their memories. You haven't said how long this entire process took, but presumably the "copies from memory" were written onto new papyruses by a different group of people than the original group who made the original copy, so the memories were not actually memories at all but were the result of stories that had been passed from one generation to another. This all sounds a bit "fuzzy" to me. > 7) About the phrase "And that's what one can have studying > the Bible, that is what is important": it is necessary to study > to get the "word of God", not just to read the Bible. So even you admit that this bible of yours no longer contains the word of God, even if it had done in the first place, which is itself highly unlikely, and you admit that it is necessary to study some other unreliable and even less tangible things in order to extract bits of this word of God from the damaged and incomplete and half remembered snippets of folk lore that are currently recorded. That doesn't sound like a very reliable process to me. Are you sure that you believe in this God of yours? > I hope this time I was a bit more clear. Erm . . . No! Mike
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Deanna Earley <dee@earlsoft.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-16 09:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ju0j1q$3bl$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1338 |
On 14/07/2012 18:57, Mike Williams wrote: > Personally I do not accept that either God or The Grim Reaper > exist. The Grim Reaper does and has a horse called Binky :p -- Deanna Earley
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-17 10:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ju3c6i$k2t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1338 |
"Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> wrote in message news:jtsbuk$6r3$1@dont-email.me... > So even you admit that this bible of yours no longer contains the word of > God, even if it had done in the first place, which is itself highly > unlikely, and you admit that it is necessary to study some other > unreliable and even less tangible things in order to extract bits of this > word of God from the damaged and incomplete and half remembered snippets > of folk lore that are currently recorded. That doesn't sound like a very > reliable process to me. Are you sure that you believe in this God of > yours? Even that process is largely wrong. There were a great many scriptures, scrolls and legends around the 2nd to 3rd centuries. The nascent church held a conference at which they decided which scriptures should be church doctrine and which should be excluded and destroyed*. Here a lot of the major conflicting stories were removed, considering the conflicts that remain the ones removed but have been quite damaging to the position of the clergy. The bible is not "the word of god" but the result of a bunch of self-serving clerics. Add to that the fact that the King James translation is littered with translations errors which would now be hard to correct. *When I say "destroyed" I mean exactly that, possession of the expunged scripture was considered a heresy punishable by death, so it's not surprising that very few of the early scriptures survive. DaveO.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Coder X" <coder@x.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-13 13:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <jtpmfi$8vb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1307 |
"Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> wrote in message news:jtos6q$10v$1@speranza.aioe.org... > > If you don't want the information on the Bible, it's OK, but you guys > should go to a psychologist, because it's not normal to have so much hate > to the people that believes in it. Someone who believes in living among the clouds after death with an egocentric entity who demands complete and utter devotion at the threat of damnation and hellfire is telling me *I* need to see a psychiatrist? Wow! FTR, I don't hate anyone who believes, to each their own. I just think they're kooky, which does not equate to hate. Some people are born simple minded, unable to grasp the concept of aloneness in the universe without some unseen deity to fill that need. It's quite sad, actually.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-14 06:02 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <jtrcis$nj6$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1319 |
"Coder X" <coder@x.com> escribió en el mensaje news:jtpmfi$8vb$1@dont-email.me... > Someone who believes in living among the clouds after death with an > egocentric entity who demands complete and utter devotion at the threat of > damnation and hellfire is telling me *I* need to see a psychiatrist? Wow! Yes you need to go to a psychiatrist because you don't know if I believe that and even so you are saying I do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-17 10:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ju3a2o$91l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1307 |
"Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> wrote in message news:jtos6q$10v$1@speranza.aioe.org... > You don't want God and the Bible, I do. What's the problem? None whatsoever as long as you keep it to yourself. However there is in America a large number of people who are trying to get the fact of evolution removed from education and replaced with the fantasy of creationism. An action that will be disastrous for the American economy in the future. Perhaps you have heard of Lysenko, he doubted genetics on ideological grounds and put forward a theory that followed soviet teachings better and managed to grease his way to the top of the biological sciences in the Soviet Union. As a result no students for 2 generations learned any useful biology and the second harvests promised by Lysenko never happened. So while the Soviet Union had many excellent scientists in rocketry or mathematics they had no useful biologists for about 40 years. America will suffer exactly the same fate, the biological sciences in America will wither and other nations will steal any lead America might have if creationism is allowed a foothold. In the Soviet Union this attitude caused the death by starvation of many people, I doubt that America would face the same but if the lie of creationism is forced into schools then famine is possible. DaveO.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.basic.visual.misc
csiph-web