The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Philosophy (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=5730)

Brown Thrasher 01-05-2005 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad
The problem is not in the cites, it's in how they're used.

Your post #485, for example, uses cites to determine the nature of a small part of the entire big picture of geology, and then makes a massive, UNCITED leap in paragraph three.

That's not science, it's dumb people trying to understand things without looking at the overall picture because the overall picture doesn't fit their conclusions.

It's as if one took measurements of the rate of cars driving down the highway between 8 and 9am, and made a massive leap to say that more cars drive east than west which proves that there is a car deficit in the west.

So they say they have shown sediment of dirt rolling into the sea. Where, then, are their cites which show how other geologic processes create MOUNTAINS of dirt OUT of the sea?

Duh?

It's all about your starting presuppositions and the way the evidence is interpreted. If you throw away some of the evidence, or just prefer to ignore it, you can come to any conclusion you like. Probably the wrong one though.

I find it hard to believe anyone involved in this post is actually "dumb". However, I'm not sure what you may consider dumb. An I.Q. of 90 or an opinion different from your own. I saw something humorous in one of the post about teaching fact was somehow providing morality. To me this is an oxymoron. Maybe I'm just a moron. Let's give this evolution vs. creationism a break. Maybe we could find out what some of the smarter people view as the facts concerning morality.........you may find the overall view does not fit mine or your conclusions.

tw 01-08-2005 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Sidhe
Ok...not sure if this will cause the globe to wobble on its axis, but I agree with Sycamore. I believe in a creator, by whatever name one chooses to call him, her, or it, and I think that if that creator chose to create the world through evolution, who's to say no?

One of the best issued of The Economist is after they have taken a week off to eat well. In the 1 Jan 2005 issue is this stunning piece entitled "It ain't necessarily so".
Quote:

Why people of the book have such trouble with language, truth, and logic
Whatever meaning this well-known version of the Christmas story may have, it does not seem to be very accurate history. Father Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, a distinguished biblical scholar, lists the difficulties he sees. First, it is said elsewhere in the New Testament - and this is central to the story that Jesus was born in the last days of his would-be persecutor King Herod, who died in 4 BC. (The Christian system for dating Christ's birth was established at least three centuries later, so an error of a few years is not surprising.) But according to Josephus, a secular historian, the big census around that time (and the start of Cyrenius's governorship) took place in what Christians would call the "year of our Lord" 6 or, as today's secular historians now prefer, 6 CE (common era).

The problems do not stop there. For example, when the Romans counted their people, they insisted that everyone had to stay put, so a last-minute dash from one city to another seems unlikely. And as a protectorate under Herod, Palestine would not automatically have been included in an imperial census.

As a Dominican monk, whose views on some things, such as the virgin birth of Christ, are conservative, Father Jerome is unfazed by these contradictions. "The Gospels should be read spiritually, but with critical intelligence", he believes. Given that the two main accounts of Christ's birth - those of Matthew and Luke - are inconsistent, he prefers to rely mainly on the first, which moves from Christ's origins in Bethlehem to his upbringing, after an interlude in Egypt, in Nazareth. Moreover, in all the biblical material about Christ's beginnings, Father Jerome and other scholars see a deeper meaning: Christ is both a blue-blooded monarch from the royal city of Bethlehem, and a poor boy from the hardscrabble town of Nazareth from which nobody expected anything good. Even under the watchful eye of Pope John Paul II, who has reaffirmed the unchangeability of the truths maintained by the church, and the church's role as interpreter of the Bible, such bold readings of the New Testament are permissible. "What the church insists on is the spiritual message of the Bible, not its literal truth", says Father Jerome. If ordinary literal-minded worshippers said he was undermining their faith, he would conclude they were the victims of "bad preaching" and point out the impossibility of believing every word of an internally inconsistent text.

tw 01-08-2005 01:33 PM

So how can a president so immoral be elected by those who call themselves moral - the evangelicals? Again from the article entitled "It ain't necessarily so"
Quote:

For the 70m or 80m people in the United States who call themselves evangelicals, the Bible is "the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative word of God", according to a definition by America's National Association of Evangelicals. So whenever the Bible seems inconsistent with beliefs held on other grounds, the instinct of an evangelical is to insist that the contradiction must be apparent, rather than real. Either secular historians are mistaken, or there has been some simple and easily rectifiable mistake - such as the mistranslation of a word - in the reading of scripture. Somehow the information received from holy writ and the evidence from other sources must be made to fit; and if that cannot be done, then the non-scriptural information must be dismissed.

One product of such intellectual contortions is "creation science" and an insistence on the literal truth of the proposition that God took seven days to create the world, with the evidence from fossils as a kind of decorative, but confusing, extra. Even wackier, from the secular viewpoint, is America's "biblical astronomy" movement which insists, under the guidance of a Dutch-born astrophysicist, Gerardus Bouw, that the sun goes round the Earth.
No problem as long as these extremists don't do the math for manned space flights. Then they would be imposing their religion on others - the real and original sin.

Do you take the bible literally - or just in its early spiritual sense?

Troubleshooter 01-08-2005 05:14 PM

From a biblical astronomy site: (note the domain)

http://www.parentalguide.com/Documen..._Astronomy.htm

A highlight from each portion.

1-BIBLICAL FACTS ON ASTRONOMY NOW PROVEN TO BE TRUE

Throughout much of the world’s history, people thought that the world was flat. Yet thousands of years ago, the Bible showed it was round. The Bible was right, people were wrong.
Isa 40:22-IT IS HE THAT SITTETH UPON THE CIRCLE OF THE EARTH.

2-BIBLICAL FACTS ABOUT NATURE NOW PROVEN TO BE TRUE
(God’s established order)

It has recently been learned that the eagle could see very small objects from great distances. Yet thousands of years ago, the Bible told of this.
Job 39:27,29-THE EAGLE…SHE SEEKETH THE PREY, AND HER EYES BEHOLD AFAR OFF.

3-THE UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING:
THE AREA IT IS STRETCHING OUT TO IS EMPTY

Throughout much of the world’s history, people did not understand the universe is expanding and stretching out into empty space. Science, in recent years, has confirmed that this is true. The Bible told about this thousands of years ago. The Bible was right, people didn’t understand.
Job 26:7-HE STRETCHETH OUT THE NORTH OVER THE EMPTY PLACE.

4-OTHER ITEMS ABOUT THE UNIVERSE

One might ask, "How is it possible the Bible recorded thousands of years ago such things as the bands of Orion and other astronomical information?" The answer remains the same—there is a God, and the Bible is the Word of God. He has also told us the future in His Word. As every single prophecy in the Bible regarding the past has been fulfilled, likewise, every single prophecy of the future will come to pass.
Job 38:31-CANST THOU BIND THE SWEET INFLUENCES OF PLEIADES, OR LOOSE THE BANDS OF ORION?

5-INVENTIONS

Could this be the telephone?
Job 38:35-CANST THOU SEND LIGHTNINGS (or we might say, electrical currents), THAT THEY MAY GO, AND SAY UNTO THEE, HERE WE ARE?

6-INSIGHTS ON ASTRONOMY

Astronomers, with their huge optical telescopes, radio telescopes, space telescopes, satellites, and many new types of detection devices are trying to measure "space." It is evident—the more they learn, the more vast the universe seems to be. They have found that "space" seems to extend billions of light years, and the galaxies seem to be almost without number.
The Bible told of this thousands of years ago. The Bible was right, yet many still don’t understand.
Jere 31:37-THUS SAITH THE LORD; IF HEAVEN ABOVE CAN BE MEASURED, AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE EARTH SEARCHED OUT BENEATH, I WILL ALSO CAST OFF ALL THE SEED OF ISRAEL. Since we know God will never cast off His people, we know that indeed heaven cannot be measured!

7-SOME OTHER THINGS THAT THE WORLD’S WISDOM MAY NOT UNDERSTAND

Ps 32:9-AS THE HORSE, OR AS THE MULE, WHICH HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING: WHOSE MOUTH MUST BE HELD IN WITH BIT AND BRIDLE, LEST THEY COME NEAR UNTO THEE (or they will not come to you-NIV).

8-ALL THINGS WERE CREATED BY JESUS CHRIST
As the previous things are true, so the following is true.

Col 1:16-FOR BY HIM WERE ALL THINGS CREATED, THAT ARE IN HEAVEN, AND THAT ARE IN EARTH, VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE, WHETHER THEY BE THRONES, OR DOMINIONS, OR PRINCIPALITIES, OR POWERS: ALL THINGS WERE CREATED BY HIM, AND FOR HIM.

Happy Monkey 01-08-2005 05:28 PM

Well, Item 3 is wrong, at least. The empty space is expanding inside the universe.

wolf 01-08-2005 07:52 PM

[thinking really hard]but the size of the container cannot remain constant, unless there is some T.A.R.D.I.S. like effect to the edges of the universe ... [/head exploding]

Happy Monkey 01-08-2005 09:04 PM

There isn't a container. Imagine a 2-dimensional universe is the surface of a baloon, with a bunch of stars drawn on it. If the baloon is inflated, the stars get further apart, even though they aren't moving into empty space (remember, the air inside and outside the baloon aren't part of the 2d universe). Unlike ink on a baloon, matter has several forces stronger than the baloon holding it close together, so the stars themselves don't expand along with the empty space.

wolf 01-08-2005 09:51 PM

But the balloon gets bigger. That's what I meant. The stuff inside stays the same size and gets further apart, but the outside moves ...

Happy Monkey 01-08-2005 10:14 PM

No, the universe is the surface of the baloon, not the contents.

wolf 01-08-2005 10:37 PM

:confused:

But the images on the balloon's surface are two dimensions ... and the universe as it is expanding is a three dimensional construct isn't it?

(I missed a lot of science classes along the way. My university considered "computer science" a "science" and that's how I filled my requirement ... no bio, no physics. I did take chemistry though, and promptly forgot all of it. Except the things that exploded.)

Happy Monkey 01-09-2005 07:51 AM

Perhaps our 3d universe is expanding into another dimension, but that's not visible from the point of view of us 3d creatures, just as the air woudn't be visible to 2d creatures on the baloon.

tw 01-09-2005 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
Perhaps our 3d universe is expanding into another dimension, but that's not visible from the point of view of us 3d creatures, just as the air woudn't be visible to 2d creatures on the baloon.

Welcome to string theory.

Lady Sidhe 01-09-2005 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw
One of the best issued of The Economist is after they have taken a week off to eat well. In the 1 Jan 2005 issue is this stunning piece entitled "It ain't necessarily so"...

etc., etc., etc......



According to some information I got a few years ago--and yes, I can probably find it if it's that big a deal--the census was taken in the spring...therefore, Jesus' birthday would be then, not on Dec. 25 (which was Mithra's birthday).

But I'm not sure what any of this has to do with creationism v. evolution.

And just to put in an extra two cents: no matter how it was done, whether by big bang, or an entity causing a big bang, or an entity slapping together some dust, we're here....believing in a creator doesn't hurt. Not believing in a creator doesn't hurt--unless you're talking to a bible-thumper who wants to save your soul, that is--we're here.

So what are we going to do about it?

Sidhe

tw 01-09-2005 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Sidhe
But I'm not sure what any of this has to do with creationism v. evolution.

Again from the Dominican scholar
Quote:

"What the church insists on is the spiritual message of the Bible, not its literal truth", says Father Jerome. If ordinary literal-minded worshippers said he was undermining their faith, he would conclude they were the victims of "bad preaching" and point out the impossibility of believing every word of an internally inconsistent text.
Believe in creationism as we do 'Santa Claus' or 'Red Riding Hood and the Big Bad Wolf'. It is the spirit that counts. In the meantime, religion has no place in science.

Creationism is religion. Religion is about a relationship only between you and your god; often taught in parables. Evolution is science - taught with scientific tools, logical proofs, and numbers. Creationism is only the "word of an internally inconsistent text." It was a good first attempt at 'science'. Long since displaced by other and better science. Creationism is nothing more than religion - something only between you and your god. A spiritual concept not to be taken literally.

OnyxCougar 01-16-2005 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter
It's worth the effort to copy and paste all of that stuff from other places but you won't read something that he actually took the time to compose and type?

No, and here's why:

Most of the things TW posts are long and I've had a tendency to disagree with.

And as to wolf's comment about basically, it would cause me to question my beliefs or be scared or whatever, no, it never occurred to me that anything TW had to say would be that impactful to me personally. Especially since I did answer the first incredibly long post, and I had to take it point by point, which TW seems to very much dislike. I fear if I would try to take those two very long posts point for point, he'd bust an artery.

Oh yeah, and because EVERY FREAKING TOPIC HE POSTS ON TURNS INTO GWB BASHING....

Not that I like GWB or agree with his policies or am "defending" him. I just don't think GWB has anything to do with this topic.

OnyxCougar 01-16-2005 07:57 PM

Federal judge rules evolution disclaimer stickers must be removed from Georgia, USA textbooks
U.S. District Judge, Clarence Cooper, ruled today (January 13) that the evolution disclaimer sticker placed in the front cover of some high-school biology textbooks in Cobb County, Georgia, USA, is unconstitutional and violates the so-called “separation between church and state.” As a result of the ruling, the sticker, which includes the following words, must be removed:
Quote:

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.
In 2002, Cobb County (near Atlanta) adopted a policy to place disclaimer stickers in the front of high-school biology textbooks that present evolutionary ideas, but caution the readers that evolution is “not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.” That decision by the school district was challenged in U.S. federal court by six parents of Cobb students and the left-leaning American Civil Liberties Union, who argued that the sticker pushes creationism (note, however, that there is no mention of creationism or anything religious in the wording above) and discriminates against non-Christians and followers of a number of other religions.

Troubleshooter 01-16-2005 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar
No, and here's why:

Geez, give a guy chronological whiplash why don't you? :yelsick:

OnyxCougar 01-19-2005 05:05 AM

Sorry, TS. I don't check all the threads every day, and sometimes the posts build up on me. Damn dynamic Cellar!!

Brown Thrasher 01-20-2005 06:16 PM

Come on people, how can anything concerning the reason for life be a scientific fact.
On the other hand, how can so many people believe in a story passed through generations. It appears to me, to be an intellectual battle going on. Give it a break, unless you can absolutely prove either theory, why not move on to other things. I watched the inaguaration today. When the President and his wife got out of that limousine, I was really afraid they would be shot. I will starting today try and worry more about what may happen today. Why is it so important to be right, when in your own minds, if your honest, you just believe a theory passed on by another human. Humans are not without flaw. I don't care how smart they are or how smart they think they are. If i could just live in the now.........

Happy Monkey 01-20-2005 06:37 PM

Evolution says nothing about the reason for life. That's a subject for philosophy, not science.

OnyxCougar 01-21-2005 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
Evolution says nothing about the reason for life. That's a subject for philosophy, not science.

No, it's not about the reason for life, it's about origin of life.

Brown Thrasher 02-02-2005 03:51 PM

It seems God does not exist; Because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be destroyed. However, the name God means infinite goodness. If therfore he did exist there would be no evil. There is evil in the world.


Larry King, CNN was very interesting on 1/31/05 when evolution and other issues related to evolution and religion were discussed.

glatt 02-03-2005 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brown Thrasher
It seems God does not exist; Because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be destroyed. However, the name God means infinite goodness. If therfore he did exist there would be no evil. There is evil in the world.

This makes no sense. Two infinites can exist at the same time. To visualize this graphically, think of a standard pie chart showing multiple slices. Now remove the outer edge of the pie chart and expand that outer edge to infinity. You still have the same number of slices, and each one is infinite in size.

You can have an infinite number of infinities.

Troubleshooter 02-03-2005 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt
This makes no sense.

Am I the only person to notice the correlation of 'Brown Thrasher' with 'Shit Stirrer'?

OnyxCougar 02-03-2005 10:45 AM

Nope!

Brown Thrasher 02-03-2005 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter
Am I the only person to notice the correlation of 'Brown Thrasher' with 'Shit Stirrer'?

Am I the only person to noticce the correlation of "Troubleshooter" with an egotistical know it all.....

Stirrer of shit.

garnet 02-03-2005 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter
Am I the only person to notice the correlation of 'Brown Thrasher' with 'Shit Stirrer'?

Oh I get it...the names sorta mean the same thing. Interesting to find out if that was intentional, or what his name really means.

wolf 02-03-2005 12:58 PM

I thought it was some sort of small bird, kind of like a warbler, only faster.

Guess I was wrong.

Troubleshooter 02-03-2005 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brown Thrasher
Am I the only person to noticce the correlation of "Troubleshooter" with an egotistical know it all.....

Stirrer of shit.

I picked my presence marker pretty carefully. I may not live up to the definitions of it, but, like yours, it seems to fit.

trou·ble·shoot·er also trou·ble-shoot·er Audio pronunciation of "troubleshooter" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trbl-shtr)
n.

1. A worker whose job is to locate and eliminate sources of trouble, as in mechanical operations.
2. A mediator skilled in settling disputes especially of a diplomatic, political, or industrial nature.

Main Entry: mediator
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: negotiator
Synonyms: advocate, arbiter, arbitrator, broker, conciliator, fixer, go-between, interagent, interceder, intermediary, intermediator, judge, medium, middleman, moderator, negotiator, peacemaker, ref, referee, rent-a-judge, troubleshooter, umpire

Brown Thrasher 02-03-2005 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter
I picked my presence marker pretty carefully. I may not live up to the definitions of it, but, like yours, it seems to fit.

trou·ble·shoot·er also trou·ble-shoot·er Audio pronunciation of "troubleshooter" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trbl-shtr)
n.

1. A worker whose job is to locate and eliminate sources of trouble, as in mechanical operations.
2. A mediator skilled in settling disputes especially of a diplomatic, political, or industrial nature.

Main Entry: mediator
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: negotiator
Synonyms: advocate, arbiter, arbitrator, broker, conciliator, fixer, go-between, interagent, interceder, intermediary, intermediator, judge, medium, middleman, moderator, negotiator, peacemaker, ref, referee, rent-a-judge, troubleshooter, umpire

Exactly whar are you mediationg? I think we can do away with the peacemaker. I find it odd, when one makes deragatory names for other adults.
We are not in grammer school. This does not appear to be a mechanical problem that needs eliminating. I respect your views. However, I find it quite cumbersome at times. If your honor has time, I would like to kmow what you meant by my presence marker fitting me.
Main Entry: shit-stirrer
Definition: one who stirs shit
I want go into the synonyms, for I am sure you will be happy to do the research..........

Brown Thrasher 02-03-2005 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garnet
Oh I get it...the names sorta mean the same thing. Interesting to find out if that was intentional, or what his name really means.


Know you don't get it at all. A shit- stirrer is one who stirs shit. A brown thrasher is a state bird. By the way garnet can be interpreted in many ways.
If you don't have a thesaraus you can borrow one at your local library. By the way, I'm sure you computer probably has the capability to find the meaning of most words. Have you ever wondered why people say things that make no sense. Usually the are condescending thinking this is a form of intelligence.

garnet 02-03-2005 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brown Thrasher
Know you don't get it at all. A shit- stirrer is one who stirs shit. A brown thrasher is a state bird. By the way garnet can be interpreted in many ways.
If you don't have a thesaraus you can borrow one at your local library. By the way, I'm sure you computer probably has the capability to find the meaning of most words. Have you ever wondered why people say things that make no sense. Usually the are condescending thinking this is a form of intelligence.

I was not being condescending--I simply didn't know what your name meant. Sorry, I know next to nothing about state birds, and you are obviously an expert, so I will therefore bow down to your wisdom on that subject.

And, yes, I know what a thesaurus is, as I have an M.A. in English and worked as a professional editor for eight years. You know, thrasher, I could use this opportunity to correct your consistently bad spelling and even worse grammar--so poor that most of your posts are unreadable. But I think I'll refrain from doing so at this point. Afterall, there's no point in drawing attention to the obvious, now is there?

And BTW, there's no "e" in "utopia." Sorry, can't help myself.

lumberjim 02-03-2005 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brown Thrasher
I find it odd, when one makes deragatory names for other adults.
We are not in grammer school.

and.....
at least one of us seems to have never even been there in the first place.

I thought a brown thrasher was a trout. now i see that it's a douchebag that likes to call people condescending ......condescendingly. my bad.

like this shit:

Quote:

If you don't have a thesaraus you can borrow one at your local library. By the way, I'm sure you computer probably has the capability to find the meaning of most words. Have you ever wondered why people say things that make no sense. Usually the are condescending thinking this is a form of intelligence. ............................................................................^ly?

tw 02-04-2005 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brown Thrasher
Know you don't get it at all. A shit- stirrer is one who stirs shit. A brown thrasher is a state bird. By the way garnet can be interpreted in many ways.

A thrasher. Isn't that the thing that goes round and round inside the round pool of a sewage treatment plant?

Brown Thrasher 02-04-2005 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garnet
I was not being condescending--I simply didn't know what your name meant. Sorry, I know next to nothing about state birds, and you are obviously an expert, so I will therefore bow down to your wisdom on that subject.

And, yes, I know what a thesaurus is, as I have an M.A. in English and worked as a professional editor for eight years. You know, thrasher, I could use this opportunity to correct your consistently bad spelling and even worse grammar--so poor that most of your posts are unreadable. But I think I'll refrain from doing so at this point. Afterall, there's no point in drawing attention to the obvious, now is there?

And BTW, there's no "e" in "utopia." Sorry, can't help myself.

ifeel you are wromg. Most people do not take the time nor effort to correctly spell each word. Neither do they worry a great deal about grammar.
If you would like, I will get out my harbrace college handbook,to better suit your needs. If you have a hard time reading my post, I am sorry , for I feel most fifth graders would be able to do so without much trouble. However, I am sorry if I have offended your attention to detail. I am also sorry you have a hard time helping yourself.

Brown Thrasher 02-04-2005 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw
A thrasher. Isn't that the thing that goes round and round inside the round pool of a sewage treatment plant?

I'm not aware of that definition. Do you happen to work in a sewage plant? Just wondering.....

Brown Thrasher 02-04-2005 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lumberjim
and.....
at least one of us seems to have never even been there in the first place.

I thought a brown thrasher was a trout. now i see that it's a douchebag that likes to call people condescending ......condescendingly. my bad.

like this shit:

Sir, as our editor has reminded us of grammar; should we not capatalize our words at the beginning of a sentence. A pacifist fucking people up. Hurry call in the National Guard... I was there a long time ago. Hope you were speaking for yourself......

garnet 02-04-2005 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brown Thrasher
ifeel you are wromg.

Huh? :confused:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Brown Thrasher
Most people do not take the time nor effort to correctly spell each word. Neither do they worry a great deal about grammar.

No, I believe you are "wromg" about that. Only people who are lazy, uneducated and/or stupid don't bother to worry about spelling and grammar.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Brown Thrasher
If you have a hard time reading my post, I am sorry , for I feel most fifth graders would be able to do so without much trouble.

Yes, they could. Probably because your writing skills are about at a fifth-grade level.

Ya know, this is sort of fun! It reminds me of the good old days when when LJ would constantly insult each other. I sure do miss that...

lumberjim 02-04-2005 04:09 PM

shut up, ya big nosed slut!

lumberjim 02-04-2005 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brown Thrasher
Sir, as our editor has reminded us of grammar; should we not capatalize our words at the beginning of a sentence. A pacifist fucking people up. Hurry call in the National Guard... I was there a long time ago. Hope you were speaking for yourself......

you dumbass. that's a quote from a chilli peppers song. believe me when i tell you that I am NOT a pacifist.

wromg again.

garnet 02-04-2005 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lumberjim
shut up, ya big nosed slut!

Awwww, LJ. I adore you and your crooked yellow teeth... :love:

garnet 02-04-2005 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lumberjim
you dumbass. that's a quote from a chilli peppers song. believe me when i tell you that I am NOT a pacifist.

wromg again.

I'll bet you $50 he has no idea who the Chili Peppers are...

tw 02-05-2005 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brown Thrasher
Do you happen to work in a sewage plant? Just wondering.....

I have. Never could get used to the smell in the short time I was there. When asked, the employees would say, "You get used to it". Maybe I was not there long enough - which is good.

Brown Thrasher 02-06-2005 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garnet
Huh? :confused:

No, I believe you are "wromg" about that. Only people who are lazy, uneducated and/or stupid don't bother to worry about spelling and grammar.

Yes, they could. Probably because your writing skills are about at a fifth-grade level.

Ya know, this is sort of fun! It reminds me of the good old days when when LJ would constantly insult each other. I sure do miss that...

No, I believe you are "wromg" about that. I think you are calling the majority of the people using the celler lazy, uneducated and/or stupid. I don't feel i fit any of those categories. I took my four years of english and somehow managed to get out of college with a 3.5 gpa. I thought this was a philosophical site not an english tutorial. What exactly does this sentence mean." It reminds me of the good old days when when LJ would constantly insult each other." Who is "when"? Get a hold of yourself. You know superiority can sometimes be used to cover up inferior feelings about oneself.......

Brown Thrasher 02-06-2005 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garnet
Huh? :confused:

No, I believe you are "wromg" about that. Only people who are lazy, uneducated and/or stupid don't bother to worry about spelling and grammar.

Yes, they could. Probably because your writing skills are about at a fifth-grade level.

Ya know, this is sort of fun! It reminds me of the good old days when when LJ would constantly insult each other. I sure do miss that...

No, I believe you are "wromg" about that. I think you are calling the majority of the people using the celler lazy, uneducated and/or stupid. I don't feel i fit any of those categories. I took my four years of english and somehow managed to get out of college with a 3.5 gpa. I thought this was a philosophical site not an english tutorial. What exactly does this sentence mean?" It reminds me of the good old days "when when" LJ would constantly insult each other." Who is "when"? Get a hold of yourself. You know superiority can sometimes be used to cover up inferior feelings about oneself.......

Brown Thrasher 02-06-2005 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garnet
I'll bet you $50 he has no idea who the Chili Peppers are...

Your "wromg" again. I do know who the Chili peppers are. I'm more of an Allman Brothers, Led Zepplin, Frank Zappa fan however. I guess you lost your fifty dollars dumbass......... Get a life!!!!!!!!!

Brown Thrasher 02-06-2005 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lumberjim
you dumbass. that's a quote from a chilli peppers song. believe me when i tell you that I am NOT a pacifist.

wromg again.

Your right, dumshit. I didn't know it was a qoute from a chilli pepper's song. Thank god your not a pacifist, for I dislike them greatly. Nor am I a pacifist, I am a hateful bastard. One thing you got right; was you definition of garnet.

garnet 02-06-2005 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brown Thrasher
I think you are calling the majority of the people using the celler lazy, uneducated and/or stupid.

No, in my opinion, the vast majority of regular posters here are extremely intelligent. Other than the occasional typo, their posts are well-written and easy to follow. I've never corrected anyone's spelling or grammar here, nor had any inclination to do so.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Brown Thrasher
What exactly does this sentence mean." It reminds me of the good old days when when LJ would constantly insult each other." .

It's a reference to humorous posts when LumberJim and I would take jabs at eachother in jest. It was fun--but somehow I'm thinking you might need a dictionary to find out what "humorous" and "fun" mean. :yelsick:

garnet 02-06-2005 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brown Thrasher
Your right, dumshit. I didn't know it was a qoute from a chilli pepper's song. Thank god your not a pacifist, for I dislike them greatly. Nor am I a pacifist, I am a hateful bastard. One thing you got right; was you definition of garnet.

Aww, now that's not nice! I'm charming and adorable...right LJ? :biggrin:

Brown Thrasher 02-07-2005 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garnet
No, in my opinion, the vast majority of regular posters here are extremely intelligent. Other than the occasional typo, their posts are well-written and easy to follow. I've never corrected anyone's spelling or grammar here, nor had any inclination to do so.



It's a reference to humorous posts when LumberJim and I would take jabs at eachother in jest. It was fun--but somehow I'm thinking you might need a dictionary to find out what "humorous" and "fun" mean. :yelsick:

The vast majority. I see you must not be speaking of yourself. If you were honest, which I doubt is possible, the reason for your correction of my typos was the anger you felt at feeling so superior. Which I assure you that you are not. I find you neither humorous or fun.... I do as a therapist find you having a hard time dealing with some kind of inferiority complex. Have you ever considered there is more to intelligence than correct spelling and grammar? I doubt it. You appear to be an uptight -itch with a purpose of offending others intelligence. I have a Boston Terrier who I would be willing to bet is more intelligent than you think you are......

Brown Thrasher 02-07-2005 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garnet
Aww, now that's not nice! I'm charming and adorable...right LJ? :biggrin:

How intelligent could one be, to need affirmations from initials? If your charming and adorable, I'm B :blush: ob Doyle.........Aww, That's not nice! I'm charming and adorable.. right Boss? At least my dog has a name......

garnet 02-07-2005 02:33 PM

Hmmm, can we change the subject back to tw's experience at the sewage treatment plant, please? I'm sure that's far more interesting than listening to your yelling and name-calling... ;)

OnyxCougar 02-07-2005 04:40 PM

Actually, can we get back to Evolution Theory as it relates to origin of man versus Creationist Theory?

Brown Thrasher 02-08-2005 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar
Actually, can we get back to Evolution Theory as it relates to origin of man versus Creationist Theory?

Actually , I tried to do that about thirty post ago.......... :3eye:

Brown Thrasher 02-08-2005 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garnet
Hmmm, can we change the subject back to tw's experience at the sewage treatment plant, please? I'm sure that's far more interesting than listening to your yelling and name-calling... ;)

Actually, I think you started the irrational name calling. I thought this was a philosophy site not an english tutotrial. Agian, I think Your still having a problem with your superiority complex. Surely, you didn't evolve, nor were you created in a sewage plant. At least, I hope not........ If so, why don't you start a site on english and it's proper usage... I have definetly not heard anything you have had to say that remotely had anything to do with philososphy.

jinx 02-08-2005 02:09 PM

Garnet can not possibly be the first person to have ever corrected your bad spelling and grammar... why are you taking it so badly? You screwed up, get over it, move on... or if you take this much pride in it, maybe put a little more effort into it or something. Just a suggestion...

Happy Monkey 02-08-2005 02:37 PM

When somebody gets agressive in response to spelling correction, there's a pretty good chance they're trolling. If they keep it up, it's almost guaranteed.

jinx 02-08-2005 04:11 PM

Ahh.:litebulb: You know much that is hidden, O Tim.

Brown Thrasher 02-09-2005 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx
Garnet can not possibly be the first person to have ever corrected your bad spelling and grammar... why are you taking it so badly? You screwed up, get over it, move on... or if you take this much pride in it, maybe put a little more effort into it or something. Just a suggestion...

no, your wrong. Scweing up. is when i screwed my 12th graDe ENGISh teacher. i got over it and moved on. However, I have a 24 year old daughter for that srew up. She's very bright. Must have been the witch that was trolling that she got that from. Just a suggestion for you, as your uptight friend. Get a life talk about the subject of the ORIGINAAlll postt. Again, hopefully youR educated and if so you had some basis psychology. Don't you know by trying to look smart; your actually sounding like a selfabsorbed idiot like your friend g something. If I haD any desire i would use proper captalizatioN, Pronunciation and spllllingg. bUT ASSHOLES THAT THINK THEY ARE BRITE BY LOOkING FOR SPELLING errrorS eTC...... ARE DEFINETLY OVERCOMPESATING FOR A LACK OF SOMETHING.........bY THE WAY, Your NOT oF THE MALE SPEcCIES ARE YOU?///////////// lOOK uP THE WORD PHILOSOPHY............. pUT A LITTLE MORE INTO IT. WILLYOU?

garnet 02-10-2005 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brown Thrasher
no, your wrong. Scweing up. is when i screwed my 12th graDe ENGISh teacher. i got over it and moved on. However, I have a 24 year old daughter for that srew up. She's very bright. Must have been the witch that was trolling that she got that from. Just a suggestion for you, as your uptight friend. Get a life talk about the subject of the ORIGINAAlll postt. Again, hopefully youR educated and if so you had some basis psychology. Don't you know by trying to look smart; your actually sounding like a selfabsorbed idiot like your friend g something. If I haD any desire i would use proper captalizatioN, Pronunciation and spllllingg. bUT ASSHOLES THAT THINK THEY ARE BRITE BY LOOkING FOR SPELLING errrorS eTC...... ARE DEFINETLY OVERCOMPESATING FOR A LACK OF SOMETHING.........bY THE WAY, Your NOT oF THE MALE SPEcCIES ARE YOU?///////////// lOOK uP THE WORD PHILOSOPHY............. pUT A LITTLE MORE INTO IT. WILLYOU?

Have you ever had C02 poisoning?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:02 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.