It's perfectly relevant. Isn't the Bible accepted as the infallible word of God?

I have yet to meet a christian (including myself) who claims to have all the answers.

As far as defining "wrong" in the context of my question... Dude, I expect you're perfectly capable of using a dictionary.

Ahhhhh, so you admit that parts fo the Bible are wrong! which parts? to what extent?

How about that George Bush, he sure does suck. :twisted:

It is accepted as the infallible word of God - however, this has absolutely no bearing on the amount of knowledge my brain contains. Like I said, re-read my original statement:


What is the relevance between the amount of information contained in a person's brain, and the infallible word of God?


There are at least 10 definitions and usages of the word "wrong" in the dictionary.


"Wrong" in comparison to what? Your statement (or question) is so vague, that there is no answer for it.

It's not unlike asking "Is bad good?"

Well.. that depends. ;)


- d.

So you see, the planet theory is the best explanation

Oh yeah, we're having a SERIOUS discussion, and you're trying to hijack the thread! Step off, yo! ;-)

I figure all we have to do now is talk about sex and we'll be all set.

2,000,000 points off for double posting. Doesn't matter that you deleted the repeat. Sauron, no offense, but you can't possibly think, at this point in the thread, that you're gonna get a straight answer out of me, right? ;-)

I never expected to get a civilized response from you, that was obvious the minute you entered this thread.

However, if you're going to back out of an argument, then you should have the civility of leaving the rest of this thread alone.


- d.

I never expected to get a civilized response from you, that was obvious the minute you entered this thread.

However, if you're going to back out of an argument, then you should have the civility of leaving the rest of this thread alone.
- d.

and then being called "insipid" by tradman.

Actually, I believe it was me that referred to you as insipid...I know it difficult for your muddled mind to keep the facts straight...just doing my part :lol:

Define "civilized" as used, in the context of your statement.

  civilized 
       adj 1: having a high state of culture and development both social 
              and technological; "terrorist acts that shocked the 
              civilized world" [syn: {civilised}] [ant: {noncivilized}] 
       2: marked by refinement in taste and manners; "cultivated 
          speech"; "cultured Bostonians"; "cultured tastes"; "a 
          genteel old lady"; "polite society" [syn: {civilised}, {cultivated}, 
           {cultured}, {genteel}, {polite}]

D, please. this is COMMUNITY. Don't be obtuse. ;-)

BTW, "insipid: means "bland" not "stupid"

Of course, I still despair for humanity, and am more and more convinced that I alone realize we are witnessing the death of the current age of reason.

We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces . . .

I worry that, expecially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us - then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls.

Actually, Carl Sagan beat you to it by at least 9 years. See his book "The Demon-Haunted World." In a nutshell, he says that science has become so advanced and complex, and we don't educate the masses well enough, that most people cannot understand it and are therefore turning back to mythology to explain their universe. As evidenced by many threads on this forum, and by the rise of the red states, I say he was right.

Actually, Carl Sagan beat you to it by at least 9 years. See his book "The Demon-Haunted World." In a nutshell, he says that science has become so advanced and complex, and we don't educate the masses well enough, that most people cannot understand it and are therefore turning back to mythology to explain their universe. As evidenced by many threads on this forum, and by the rise of the red states, I say he was right.


Prophetic, no? Perhaps Carl was sent by God.

That red state reference is either ignorance or comedy Pedro. :lol:

How so? It is no secret that evangelicals, people who largely turn to religious belief over the scientific process (again, evidenced in part by this thread), were the difference in the election.

(Actually, it was an intentional jab.)

Most of the discussion of religion and morals in relation to the previous election was fueled by responses to some poorly worded exit polls. The media seized upon this and created the storyline which you seem to have bought into.

Most of the discussion of religion and morals in relation to the previous election was fueled by responses to some poorly worded exit polls. The media seized upon this and created the storyline which you seem to have bought into.

It's also synonomous with driveling and pointless...but, hey, why split hairs :!: :?: :lol:

It's also synonomous with driveling and pointless...but, hey, why split hairs :!: :?: :lol: