The Cellar - View Single Post

Urbane Guerrilla · 08-09-2010, 08:22 PM

The only reason it's "almost," HM, is that you are willing to remain deceived about conservatism, in spite of all I can do showing off our smarts and our ability to get at the heart of things. Calling it "conservapedia" when it's more nearly "yahoopedia" suffices to deceive some, and reinforce their shallow, specious views about anyone to the right of Woodrow Wilson. Need that include you? Christ almighty -- why?!

Something very few Dwellars consistently understand is that anti-scientism is not a good litmus test either for Conservatives or for Christians. It is primarily an indication that somebody didn't get any science to speak of, or couldn't handle the amount he did. The lack of understanding calls, as always, your degree of enlightenment into sharp question.

For just one unconsidered assumption, is it necessary to reject evolutionary theory to see truthful things in Genesis? Is the converse necessary? Neither is: consider when Genesis was written and who it was written for -- a people who hardly had writing, let alone any science whatsoever, and it was written for the first time in the Bronze Age. That's damned early. And Genesis can be read from an evolutionary viewpoint and taking inspiration from evolutionary understanding too -- try it for yourself if you are constitutionally indisposed to accepting UG's words on their face; if you can show you understand it better than UG does, good for you. (Now UG better lay off the third person -- his hair's thinning enough as it is.) The remarkable thing is not the details that Genesis got wrong, but the quite-a-few details Genesis got right.

"Let there be light." How's that for a poetic, yet simple, reference to a Big Bang? Sure, the inspiration for the thought came from late in Dark Star, and I can't deny it, but really! The worst you can say of it is it's concise.

08-09-2010, 08:22 PM	#3
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	The only reason it's "almost," HM, is that you are willing to remain deceived about conservatism, in spite of all I can do showing off our smarts and our ability to get at the heart of things. Calling it "conservapedia" when it's more nearly "yahoopedia" suffices to deceive some, and reinforce their shallow, specious views about anyone to the right of Woodrow Wilson. Need that include you? Christ almighty -- why?! Something very few Dwellars consistently understand is that anti-scientism is not a good litmus test either for Conservatives or for Christians. It is primarily an indication that somebody didn't get any science to speak of, or couldn't handle the amount he did. The lack of understanding calls, as always, your degree of enlightenment into sharp question. For just one unconsidered assumption, is it necessary to reject evolutionary theory to see truthful things in Genesis? Is the converse necessary? Neither is: consider when Genesis was written and who it was written for -- a people who hardly had writing, let alone any science whatsoever, and it was written for the first time in the Bronze Age. That's damned early. And Genesis can be read from an evolutionary viewpoint and taking inspiration from evolutionary understanding too -- try it for yourself if you are constitutionally indisposed to accepting UG's words on their face; if you can show you understand it better than UG does, good for you. (Now UG better lay off the third person -- his hair's thinning enough as it is.) The remarkable thing is not the details that Genesis got wrong, but the quite-a-few details Genesis got right. "Let there be light." How's that for a poetic, yet simple, reference to a Big Bang? Sure, the inspiration for the thought came from late in Dark Star, and I can't deny it, but really! The worst you can say of it is it's concise. __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course. Last edited by Urbane Guerrilla; 08-09-2010 at 08:31 PM.