🚀 go-pugleaf

"Sam Stone" <sirian@mental.org> wrote in message 
news:A6rBd.7818905$6p.1227527@news.easynews.com...
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> "Sam Stone" <sirian@mental.org> wrote in message 
>> news:NBnBd.5710935$yk.863727@news.easynews.com...
>>
>>>Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Sam Stone" <sirian@mental.org> wrote in message 
>>>>news:0QiBd.7797886$6p.1225221@news.easynews.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>**You're kidding, right? Please provide the PRECISE scientific 
>>>>>>processes,
>>>>>
>>>>>Yawn...
>>>>>
>>>>>An ancient, incomplete, and oft translated text is not likely to 
>>>>>conform to the tenets of *modern* science. You might just as well 
>>>>>castigate Shakesepare for his antiquated vernacular.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>**Nope. Language is language and science is science. There is no science 
>>>>in the Bible.
>>>
>>>Again you are wrong.
>>>
>>>There is food preparation science, breeding science, geographic science, 
>>>etc.
>
>
> (see the red herring maneuver here)
>
>> **It seems you've neglected to add your alleged "science" related to a 
>> thermo-nuclear blast.Why is that?
>
> It seems you've fixated on one thing in an effort to disprove the whole by 
> niggling on the solitary, why is that?

**You said it. I want you to explain it. Where is the science? After you 
provide your evidence, we can move on to other parts of the discussion. You 
do not get to throw ad hoc remarks about, without being challenged.

>
> Come on man, admit it, you HATE the Bible, you despise people of faith.

**An opinion you get to have. What I detest are purveyors of ignorance and 
untruth. I don't care about the Bible, either way. It is a book, comprised 
of some history, some allegory, some poetry, some fiction and some 
philosophy. It was written by sicentifically illiterate people, then 
politically censored and poorly translated. Nothing more.

>
> You seek to deride, silence, and chase off all who do not fit your narrow 
> scientific dogma.

**Narrow? I'm not the one claiming all sorts of unproven, supernatural 
claptrap as evidence of anything.

>
> You lot always do that.

**You have no idea what I always do.

>
>>>>Shakespear's use of language was appropriate for his time.
>>>
>>>As were the scriptures and their verbiage and acumen to theirs.
>>
>>
>> **Indeed. It WAS clear, to those who spoke the various languages that the 
>> Bible was written in. That would be Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Some has 
>> been successfully translated into modern languages and some has not. Some 
>> passages have been removed and/or politically censored over the years. 
>> All relates to various historical activities of the time, peotry and 
>> philosophy. None relate to any form of science.
>
> You lie again.

**Really? Prove me wrong.

>
> There was food science.

**Let's discuss your alleged "science" pertaining to thermo-nuclear blasts. 
While you are at it, prlease provide some evidence where the Bible discusses 
bacteria.

>
> Reproductive science.

**Really? And just where does the Bible discuss genetics?

>
> Geographic science, etc.

**Geographic "science"? You're kidding, right? Wanna speculate on how the 
Bible discusses plate techtonics? Please cite the appropriate passages.

>
>>>>Moreover, his meaning is clear today.
>>>
>>>So also is the Bible's.
>>
>>
>> **Some is. Some is confusing. Some is utterly incomprehensible and 
>> misleading. Some is downright contradictory. IOW: It is a mess.
>
> Yet you said "some is".

**Of course. Some of the history is factual. Few scholars deny that.

>
>
>>>>>Meanwhile carry on nit-picking and Randi-izing any and everything that 
>>>>>doesn't fit precielsy in to the extant models.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>**Science is science. You have yet to provide any actual scientific 
>>>>evidence from the Bible. Wanna speculate on why that is the case?
>>>
>>>There is the science of food preparation and preservation, geographic 
>>>science, breeding science etc.
>>
>>
>> **It seems you've neglected to add your alleged "science" related to a 
>> thermo-nuclear blast.Why is that?
>
> It seems you've focused on one offering to satisfy your narrow personal 
> agenda, why is THAT?

**You brought it up. YOU explain it. Or you could retract it. Your choice.

>
>>>>>Be very careful not to look for commonalities in creation stories of 
>>>>>geographically diverse cltures, deny the existence of unknown aerial 
>>>>>phenomena, and heartily deride all religion and any who would sugest 
>>>>>that perhaps man is not the author of his own existence.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think that sums it up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>**It sums nothing up.
>>>
>>>It sums up the finagling closed mindedness you and your ilk evince.
>>
>>
>> **You mean those of us who seek the truth?
>
> You don't seek the truth, you seek to destroy the faith of others.

**Nope. Your faith is yours. Your faith may have little to do with truth. 
That is your issue.

>
> There is no quest for knowledge in you, you only look to deny and destroy.

**What? By attempting to discard supernatural claptrap? You've got to be 
kidding!

>
>
>>>>You may care to respond to my comments, if you wish. That you chose to 
>>>>remove them, suggests you cannot answer those questions and comments.
>>>
>>>That you went off on every and anything presented tells me precisely what 
>>>I was expecting to see regarding the niggling numbness of the 
>>>"scientific" agenda.
>>
>>
>> **YOU were the one who claimed that the Bible tabled the "science" of a 
>> thermo-nulcear blast. If you think it does anything of the sort, then 
>> present your evidence.
>
> I presented material from a website.

**Then, either retract it, by acknowledging that it is not science, or be 
prepared to keep defending your position.

>
> I did not author it, nor did I specifically endorse it.

**Then don't present it as any kind of truth.

>
> YOU seek to deride any person of faith.

**I seek only the truth.

>
> Your hateful agenda so noted.

**And your opinion is duly noted.

>
>>>>>Your response was a predictable knee-jerk.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>**And your refusal to answer questions posed, is to be expected.
>>>>
>>>>Keep you head buried in the sand, if that is what makes you feel 
>>>>comfortable.
>>>
>>>I have a far more elevated viewpoint than you've shown yourself capable 
>>>of.
>>
>>
>> **Yeah, right.
>
> Indeed.


-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au