Forums | MacLife

I thought it was "two peas in a pod." If this guy can't get his idioms right I can't take him seriously at all.  Besides everyone knows God created Adam and Steve 6000 years ago.

Last edited by Pithecanthropus (2009-06-25 10:13 am)

Just curious, how many sons did Noah have?
They each brought one wife, correct?

Pithecanthropus wrote:

I thought it was "two peas in a pod." If this guy can't get his idioms right I can't take him seriously at all.

Maybe he's from Salt Lake? 

How many "families" of dogs are there? Cats? Horses?

Asses?

Nonsense.

The lost tribe? Admiral Adama?

gd wrote:

Fascinating. Very Interesting document. I hope none of you are some kind of technologically adept priest or very fond of your religion. But I have always been interested by science and quite frankly I have always thought that the religions don't explain my questions in matter as logical as science does. More on that I don't feel that religions are in anyway a truth and are a load of BS.
Does this mean that we are very far from evolving to a new species. We are very adapted to our environment[s] and we are at the top of the food chain meaning that survival is very easy for us. I don't think a massive evolution would come in handy.

Please don't ban me or anything of the sort and I am sorry if I contradict what any of you think.

I sure hope you don't think you're being polite.  It's one thing to disagree, it's another thing to make broad generalizations and then call a vast group of beliefs a load of BS. 

BTW, you don't seem all that knowledgeable about religion, so you should be happy to know that a great deal of us don't see a schism between religion and science.  In my opinion for example, they compliment each other, they're both there to explain different things.

Nah, don't worry about it.  You live in the UK?  I can't think of anywhere else that has religion class, unless you're a private schooler at a religious school.  And if you are, I implore you not to take your impression of religion from it.  It's not too accurate, IMHO.

Not too far off.  The UK was only my guess if you went to a public school.    Their public schools have religion classes.

Metacell wrote:

user wrote:

How many "families" of dogs are there? Cats? Horses?

Asses?

Nonsense.

They meant subspecies

No - they meant subclades.
Many scientists want to do away with the concept of subspecies anyway, as there are too many cases where morphological differences don't match the cladistics.

But even accepting subspecies, there is not enough differences in humans to justify any subspecies. As humans diverged from the Mountains of Ararat there has been too much contact between populations for subspecies level branching to occur.

jkahless wrote:

user wrote:

I just don't see why a certain set of beliefs, among many others that exist in people's minds, are particularly exempt from being called BS.

Call me old fashioned, but not bringing up people's belief systems in an unrelated conversation merely to call them bullsmurf is generally considered... ordinary politeness. 

Yes, the undeserved exemption is quite old.

Being impolite would be directing the insult to you as a person.

Did you make up that list or did you get it from a source? If you did acquire it tell me from where. In a way that tells me something. (Classified)

jkahless wrote:

gd wrote:

Fascinating. Very Interesting document. I hope none of you are some kind of technologically adept priest or very fond of your religion. But I have always been interested by science and quite frankly I have always thought that the religions don't explain my questions in matter as logical as science does. More on that I don't feel that religions are in anyway a truth and are a load of BS.
Does this mean that we are very far from evolving to a new species. We are very adapted to our environment[s] and we are at the top of the food chain meaning that survival is very easy for us. I don't think a massive evolution would come in handy.

Please don't ban me or anything of the sort and I am sorry if I contradict what any of you think.

I sure hope you don't think you're being polite.  It's one thing to disagree, it's another thing to make broad generalizations and then call a vast group of beliefs a load of BS. 

BTW, you don't seem all that knowledgeable about religion, so you should be happy to know that a great deal of us don't see a schism between religion and science.  In my opinion for example, they compliment each other, they're both there to explain different things.

Science deals in fact, and while facts can change, when your beliefs come from an omnipotent being who is never wrong, it makes religion incompatible with science.