Darwinism


sorabji.com: Are there any news?: Darwinism
THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016).

By patrick on Friday, May 18, 2001 - 05:43 pm:

    I read this and was pretty intrigued. I never knew some interpreted Darwinism to be a racist theory. How can a state legislature be so fucking stupid? What does Louisiana rank in education...like 49 or 50?

    Any thoughts?


    LA Weekly

    May 18 - 24, 2001

    Twisting Darwin

    Evolution, eugenics and racism, American style

    by Margaret Wertheim




    Alas, poor Darwin. Probably no scientist in history has been more hated than this mild-mannered Englishman. Last week saw yet another twist in the war on his theory of evolution when the state of Louisiana decided that this famous theory was racist. “Be it resolved that the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby deplore all instances and ideologies of racism, and does hereby reject the core concepts of Darwinist ideology that certain races and classes of humans are inherently superior to others,” reads a resolution approved by the state’s House Education Committee on May 1.

    The bill’s sponsor, Louisiana state Representative Sharon Broome (a Democrat rather than the usual Republican), told the Baton Rouge Advocate that Darwin “teaches that some humans have evolved further than others” and that his theory “holds that people of color are savages.” According to Broome, this means that Darwin has “provided the main rationale for modern racism.” Take on board evolution, says the resolution’s sponsors, and Nazism, or something like it, will soon follow. The resolution is not a bill of law and has no legislative power over science education in the state, but sponsors are already saying their next step will be to press for evolution disclaimers in textbooks.

    There is nothing new about Christian-fundamentalist opposition to evolution, but calling it a racist theory and blaming it for the Nazis is certainly one of the more aggressive strategies to date. Sadly, it is not a claim that can be lightly dismissed. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit organization devoted to fighting creationism in American schools, admits that this association is especially prevalent in America’s black communities. In the online journal Salon, Scott notes that “Every time I do an interview on a station with a predominantly black listenership, someone invariably calls in and asks, ‘Well why should our kids learn evolution? Evolution is just the source of racism.’”

    Darwin’s theory of evolution says nothing per se about the supposed inferiority or superiority of any race. Indeed, evolutionary theory has played a critical role in revealing how all races come from the same origin — that we are all children of the same mother, the proverbial “African Eve.” If anything, Darwin’s theory should be an argument for racial equality. But like all scientific theories, the ideas of evolution can be used to support particular ideologies. Unfortunately, those concepts have historically been co-opted in support of some extremely racist ones.

    It is all well and good to defend evolutionary theory, as champions of science have leapt to do over the past week; and those of us who care about science education must continue to fight creationists — ad infinitum, it seems. But we who care about science must also admit there is a dark side. Rather than trotting out bombastic babble about the “neutrality” and “purity” of science, we must face up to the ways in which scientific ideas get interwoven into sociopolitical agendas. Moreover, we must acknowledge that scientists often play a role in this process.

    The trouble began in the 1870s, when America witnessed the rise of an increasingly virulent eugenics movement, one that aimed to stamp out genetically “inferior” types while simultaneously increasing the proportion of “superior” types. Take the following statement from 1913: “The great problem of civilization is to secure a relative increase of the valuable as compared with the less valuable or noxious elements in the population . . . The problem cannot be met unless we give full consideration to the immense influence of heredity.” This was uttered not by some German proto-fascist but by U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, who thereby echoed a sentiment held by millions of supposedly “enlightened” American citizens.

    Between the 1890s and the 1920s, American society resounded with eugenics dogma, an episode of history that is all too often swept under the carpet. Fact is, the Nazis did not invent the idea; they imported it from the home of the brave and land of the free. Spawned in the wake of the first great wave of nonwhite immigration, the movement was a response to the perceived loss of WASP hegemony and the mushrooming problems of an increasingly urban society — to wit, crime, poverty and social unrest. Eugenics reformers saw the protection and cleansing of the gene pool as the solution to all these “ills.”

    Scientists played a huge role in this movement. In Kenneth Ludmerer’s seminal history Genetics and American Society, he points out that nearly half of U.S. geneticists at the time were involved. A typical pronouncement came from professor H.S. Jennings of Johns Hopkins University, who declared that “To go to the root of the troubles, a better breed of men must be produced.”

    And just what did “better” mean? First and foremost, the eradication of all “criminal” types, as well as those who were mentally “defective.” But for many in the movement it also had racial connotations. The Nordic races were seen as the superior type; Mediterraneans, Slavs, Jews, Asians and, above all, Africans were seen as inferior. Such attitudes served to shape immigration policy, and by 1928 more than three-quarters of American colleges and universities were teaching eugenics courses.

    Repeatedly in eugenics literature one finds the notion of a racial ranking, with Caucasians routinely depicted as “higher” up some scale than non-Caucasians. The implication is that in some vital sense Caucasians are more evolved. In evolutionary theory, strictly speaking, no creature is higher or lower than any other, but this theory has given us the psychologically powerful trope of the tree of life. Here, simple creatures (such as bacteria) are depicted at the bottom, with more complex creatures (such as mammals) depicted at the top. Humans are at the very apex of this tree.

    In common discourse we routinely talk about mammals being higher up the evolutionary tree than reptiles, and so on. Even scientists fall into this pattern of speaking. Whether or not the idea of one creature being above another has any empirical validity, it is an idea that has become deeply embedded in our cultural consciousness. The eugenics movement played on this belief big time by implying at every turn that nonwhites, and especially blacks, were lower down the evolutionary scale. That view is far from dead, as attested to by the spewings of many white-supremacist groups that continue to flourish in America today.

    A corollary to racial ranking is the notion that the proper destiny of humanity is for us to realize our potential by taking evolution into our own hands. Eugenicists of the early 20th century advocated doing that through forced sterilization for criminals and the mentally impaired. Laws to do just that were enacted in many states. No one has enacted a law to sterilize nonwhites, but in the age of genetic engineering, the idea of taking control of human evolution is becoming increasingly common. Newspapers and airwaves buzz with talk about “improving” and “perfecting” our species. Visions of what a “better” or “more evolved” human might amount to generally conform to that of the film Gattaca, which starred two of the most gorgeously white people on Earth — Uma Thurman and Ethan Hawke.

    In debates about evolution it is crucial to bear in mind that Darwin’s theory makes no value judgments about any organism, but popular (and even scientific) discourse on the subject is shot through with language that continually implies a ranking. In this sense black Americans have every reason to be suspicious. The solution is not to ban the teaching of this core scientific theory, but to expand science education to include discussion of the social and cultural context of science


By Nate on Friday, May 18, 2001 - 06:35 pm:

    "If anything, Darwin’s theory should be an argument for racial equality"

    that's a load of shit.

    darwin's theory, by definition, is racist. it's not judgemental, but it is definitely racist.

    but what is the matter with that? it holds water-- at least on some levels, for now.

    in society does it have to do with the superiority of one skin color over another? sure it does! it's obvious when you look at the breakdown of our leadership. of our wealthly.

    but to say that this strata has anything to do with the genetics of species (not even a species, really, but a sub-species, ethnicity,) is bunk. it has to do with societies. white society, black society, latin society, asian society.

    how education is established. how culture motivates individuals (asians and latinos both started as dirt-poor, hard-labor, non-white californians: one group is now strongly represented among the wealthy, one is not.)

    and certainly, societies effect other societies. keeping a huge percentage of the working-age black males in prison has to hinder something.

    but to "reject the core concepts of Darwinist ideology that certain races and classes of humans are inherently superior to others" just shows how distant the american populus is from understanding science.

    might as well condem the history books that describe american slavery, chinese railroad workers, japanese internment, mexican farm labor-- certainly these describe concepts that are racist, also.




By patrick on Friday, May 18, 2001 - 07:02 pm:

    its always been my understanding that Darwinism was more about species than sub-species or flavors if you will. Are blacks, whites, latinos etc different species? I don't think so. Dogs, humans, wombats and elephants? Yes.

    "in society does it have to do with the superiority of one skin color over another? sure it does! it's obvious when you look at the breakdown of our leadership. of our wealthly."

    these seems to me more sociological than biological...i've always taken Darwinism in more biological terms. Im not doubting Darwinism can include the sociological realms..but its not its primary focus.

    Maybe i've misinterpreted the whole thing.


By cyst on Friday, May 18, 2001 - 08:46 pm:

    could someone remind me what "racist" means?

    I've never read "origin of species" in its entirety, so I don't know what all it says. but if darwin ever said that some races are "inherently superior" than others, then fine, let the science teachers all ignore that paragraph.

    however, it's still true that sickle-shaped blood cells have helped protect some african people from getting malaria, and it's true that light-skinned people are able to produce (or is that process?) more vitamin d when they sit in the sun, and it's true that fewer africans get melanoma. the question of whether all that means charles darwin or god is racist, I'll leave for the louisiana legislature to decide.


By Johnny Colorado on Friday, May 18, 2001 - 09:02 pm:

    Sunshine, on my nutsack, makes me happy,
    Sunshine, on my nutsack, makes me smile;
    Sunshine, on my nutsack, looks so lovely,
    Sunshine almost always makes me high.


By wisper on Friday, May 18, 2001 - 09:17 pm:

    i love their thinking that this promotes racism. That's fucking gold.
    A few sentences gone awry in what has become one of the most brilliant scientific documents ever recorded, and it's time for the warning stickers.

    I wouldn't be surprised if that's what Darwin DID mean, that other races are savages. I also wouldn't care. He lived in a time when no-one understood native people, when everyone had slaves and servants. Of course he would see them as inferior, at the time they were treated and understood as such. Sure he was a highly educated scientist, but that doesn't mean he was going to know any better at the time, when these people were being bought and sold like chickens. No shit Louisiana.

    this reminds me of when the musical Show Boat was in town, and there were protests because of how black people were portrayed. Because everyone knows that there was never any slavery on the Mississippi way back when. Of course not.
    I'm with nate, somebody has to teach these people the difference between 'promoting racism' and plain old history class. If some kid, somewhere, is actually ignorant enough to read the Origin of the Species and suddenly turn Nazi overnight, well, i say he was doomed from the start.

    Now all i can hear is Mrs.Lovejoy screaming-
    *won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!?!?*


By Czarina on Saturday, May 19, 2001 - 10:15 am:

    Well,unfortunately,I can add a personal tidbit to this drama.

    My kids attend a Catholic school.I do not have them there for the religion.[I am a FIRM evolutionist.]My children attend this school,because the quality of education is so poor down here.

    This has been a difficult choice for me,with my "free-thinking" ways.More than anything,I have always tried to give my children a broad rounding of life,to never accept something just because "somebody says so".To be thinkers,to research,and use their own cognitive skills to form an opinion.

    This has caused me great concern,[in relation to their Catholic school],as I am well aware,that if info is consistently bombarded into someone,they eventually "buy the product".

    Catholicism is the mainstay in the area I live in.Little statues of Mary in everyones yards,etc.They even have a "Traveling Mary" that suspossedly crys,or oozes blood,or some such nonsense.This "fantastic" statue can come to YOUR house,too.Apparently a very long waiting list.But it requires 24 hour a day survelliance,while in your posession.[a friend of mine liked to hide at his parents house,and when visitors would come to marvel at this pious engima,he would "talk" to them,giving them all kinds of "divine inspiration".Sometimes he would squirt the statues eyes with a squirt gun,while the visitors were deep in prayer.[untill his parents caught him,tee hee]I loved that kid.He was bright.My favorite that he did,was when he would go out,and not be back in time for his curfew,he would call his house,and when his dad would answer,he'd say,"Thats okay dad,I got it.Its for me."Worked every time.

    But I digress.Sorry,I just got off from working a night shift.

    Where I was going with this,is that their school had to call me in,and ask that I remove my Darwin emblem from my car,as it was "distressing" the other parents.I had no choice but to comply,as transportation would be a problem,with me working nights,and trying to get my kids to another non-religious school,farther away.

    I think that possibly the reason this controversy started,is that there is an incredibly small gene pool here.And there is some loss of cognitive function in consangious spawn.So they just can't see the whole picture.


By semillama on Saturday, May 19, 2001 - 12:44 pm:

    That's completely fucked. The Catholic Church is not currently an opponent of evolution, last I heard. Of course, It is Louisiana.

    I could go off on evolution and the like, but I just don't feel like ranting too much today.

    I will say that I have little patience with those that think evolution begins and ends with Darwin. What a nation of morons we have become.


By droopy on Saturday, May 19, 2001 - 12:45 pm:

    in 1975, when i was 8 years old, my paternal grandfather gave me a book called "The last 2 million years." it was published by reader's digest. it wasn't a children's book, but it had lots of pictures in it - so at least i had that to work with until i could plow through the text. the very first picture, in the "beginnings of man," section, was the famous 'ascent of man from the ape' time line. this in a book given to me by a devout irish-catholic who went to mass every day. i had that book for 25 fuckin' years until i moved just recently and lost it. it was signed "to mike, from his grandpa.

    i have another history called "pictorial history of the world" - published in 1894, doesn't even have ww1 in it. it belonged to my paternal great-grandfather. i think it was the first book he got in america after he immgrated from ireland. it treats the bible stories as historical fact.

    i've got one of them darwin fishes on my car, too.

    i also own a copy of "origin of species." it doesn't say anthing about race. it's just about flora and fauna. it's just that, at that time, it was easy to apply the theories to humans. ideas of racialism already existed; it's just that, as george bernard shaw said, "darwin had the luck to please anybody with an axe to grind."

    A philosopher named Herbert Spencer found grounds in "origin" for his own theories of "survival of the fittest" in humans. he was the founder of social darwinism. his writings were an inspiration to great american materialists like andrew carnegie and rockefeller. marx and hegel saw darwin as a support for their theories. all of these theories were an answer to an age of revolution, both political and industrial, where the gap between the common people and nobility was closing. socialism, every-man-for-himself materialism, and fascism were all ways to cope with these masses of people.

    neither was the idea of evolution new. in the first page of "origin," darwin quotes from aristotle's "physicae auscultationes": [after a discussion on how teeth are adapted for tearing and maticating food.] And in like manner as to other parts of the body in where there appears to be an adaptation to an end. Wheresoever, therefore, all things together (that is all the parts of one whole) happened like as if they were made for the sake of something, these were preserved, having been appropriately constituted by an internal spontaneity; and whatsoever things were not thus constituted, perished, and still perished."

    it still doesn't answer the question: has somebody given my cats amphetamines, or did she just evolve that way?


By semillama on Saturday, May 19, 2001 - 01:50 pm:

    No, that was me.


By droopy on Saturday, May 19, 2001 - 02:18 pm:

    last night i discovered that cat's been shitting under my bed for the past couple of weeks.

    you have anthing to do with that?


By dave. on Saturday, May 19, 2001 - 03:36 pm:

    that was my doing.


By droopy on Saturday, May 19, 2001 - 07:32 pm:

    stop taking a shit under my bed, dave.


By sarah on Sunday, May 20, 2001 - 04:43 am:


    it's not unusual for kittens to need help remembering where the litter box is, especially if you get them when they are *really* young.




By Czarina on Sunday, May 20, 2001 - 09:25 am:

    But sometimes cats just get in a shitty mood,and they hold grudges,too.I once had a cat that would shit in my s/o's shoes.I thought it was hilarious,he didn't.Our relationship didn't work out.But the cat stayed.




    [and Dave,at least have the courtesy to use the litter box :)]


By Nate on Sunday, May 20, 2001 - 02:56 pm:

    my nica shit in the box from the beginning.

    which is good, because she shits bigger than i do.


By Platypus on Sunday, May 20, 2001 - 03:35 pm:

    Damn, Nate.

    My cats are indoor/outdoor, which doesn't stop them from pissing on my guest's books, but does mean they make poopy in the yard. One of them has taken to shitting in gopher holes, which has a certain charm.


By droop on Sunday, May 20, 2001 - 03:40 pm:

    when i had that other cat, the one i took in from the cold, she spent her first night in my apartment without a litter box. the next day i got her a litter box and she began using it immediately. about 2 weeks later i was pulling a pile of dirty clothes out of my bedroom closet when i found some dried cat shit. that was where she took a dump her first night. i went to get some toilet paper from the bathroom to pick it up. when i got back, the cat had discovered the turds and deposited some fresh ones right next to it.

    when a cat (or dog) takes a dump somewhere, it leaves a "restroom" sign. the first night mattie (my current cat) was here she spent a lot of time hidden away (she was 7 weeks old). i knew she was shitting somewhere. i thought it was under the couches.

    it's not like i was shoveling pounds of shit from under my bed. just a few dried turds mixed in the junk under my bed. most of the time she was using the box, frequently enough for me not to notice where else she might be going. i got a friend to move my bed and cleaned it out, shampooed the rug, and sprayed it with "odor remover." i'm sure she'll stick to the box.

    i don't worry about the carpet, anyway. before i even had a cat my wheelchairs wheels where damaging the cheap rug.


By Godscreation on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 12:55 pm:

    Professing yourselves to be wise you become fools. I am thankful I live in a state that thinks darwinism is stupid. When I go to Audubon Zoo I visit to see the animals God created. You people must go to the zoo to have a family reunion or something? Tell me this: Why aren't the animals still evolving? Why aren't the apes not continuing to become humans? Why aren't your CATS evolving?HA!HA! People like you do not want to beleive in a God because then you would have to serve HIM! You people do not want any absolutes. You want to be a people out of control. Prove you darwinism! I can prove my GOD! I have seen HIM change peoples lives. Why can't your darwinism continue to change an ape into a human.


By heather on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 01:34 pm:

    wow


    shit, i gotta go. evolving, you know.
    see you when you catch up.


By semillama on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 01:36 pm:

    Talk about people unclear on the concept.


By Antigone on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 01:58 pm:

    "Why aren't the animals still evolving?"

    They are.

    "Why aren't the apes not continuing to become humans?"

    They're continuing to become something.

    "You people do not want any absolutes."

    If I meet an absolute, and there is absolute proof that it is an absolute, then I'll absolutely accept it.

    "You want to be a people out of control."

    Don't necessarily want it that way, but I can't control the universe.

    "Prove you darwinism!"

    Sure. There are books and entire schools that will help you to understand the proof. You can study the theory of evolution and see the evidence.

    "Why can't your darwinism continue to change an ape into a human."

    Well, according to the theory, evolutionary changes take a long time. And modern apes wouldn't, in all probability, change into what humans are now, though they would be closer to humans than any other animal.


By Godscreation on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 01:18 pm:

    Prove to me that the animals are still evolving? Evolving into what?Books prove nothing. I have studied both evolution and creation. In fact, you need faith to believe in either one. Evolution can not even be proven! Not even in your books! That's why they call it a THEORY!Tell me this : How many more years will it take for your ape to turn human. What are humans evolving into. Give me evidence that you are evolving.


By Godscreation on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 01:30 pm:

    Oh! And another thing. Since you people are evolving and humans are the most superior in the evolutionary chart it shocks me that most of you all curse. That doesn't sound to intelligent for such a superior evolutionary group. I just want some intelligent conversation. And Antigone I enjoyed speaking with you, just because we disagree I am still able to speak to people without cursing at them. Thank you for your intelligent conversation Antigone. Semillama and Heather must still need to evolve a little more.


By heather on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 02:16 pm:

    whoops! you caught me!

    i better go tell my educators that i don't "sound to intelligent" and tell em to get on the ball!


    though *i* surely never said that humans are the most superior



By Godscreartion on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 02:21 pm:

    Who is the most superior then, Heather? I don't see any humans locked up on display at the zoo nor do I see any animals running the world, the stock market, making a living or being educated like you Heather.


By heather on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 02:32 pm:

    ah! so perhaps you are getting my point


By Godscreation on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 03:25 pm:

    Oh, by the way, to say "There are no absolutes in life", let me ask you this, "Is that an absolute statement?" It is very interesting to see how ironically contradictive that is. The very thing you are claiming you don't believe, i.e. 'there are no absolutes', you actually hold to yourself by making an "absolute" statement. Bottom line, we all believe in absolutes. But the real question is, "What absolute is absolutely TRUE". There can be only one winning out in the end. Because truth is true because its the truth, not because of what I "believe" it to be. Gravity is gravity no matter what i "think" about it. It applies despite my willingness to make an "absolute" statement that it doesn't apply if I jump off of a building. Are you jumping off of the building of life hoping your absolute belief system will keep you from smacking the ground so to say? C'mon, you have faith just like everyone else. Your faith is directed in another way. It may not be a "religion", but its in your own image of what you've chosen to direct it in. I'm asking you to consider this seriously, not with sarcastic, filthy or ugly talk, but ask yourself these questions and I'll present more soon.


By heather on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 04:32 pm:

    what arrogance to assert that i do not take this seriously, to assume that i am being sarcastic.

    "making a living"
    "running the world"
    as if.

    what arrogance to presume that humans are superior because we spend our energy making high declarations of things we barely understand and spending the rest of our time destroying things.

    i have faith that i am as far from knowing anything as i am close to knowing it.

    everything is the truth.


    oh, and the argument that "there are no abolutes" is an absolute is weak, and also wrong.


By wisper on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 06:19 pm:

    Godscreation, are you assuming that the creation/evolution argument is black and white?
    It has to be one or the other?

    Or must it only be YOUR god that created it?
    Not Zeus or Vishnu?


By Gee on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 06:48 pm:

    I love the Greek gods! I want to worship the Greek gods. as long as they don't start all that rape and incest shit they were so Into back in the day.


By Antigone on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 07:05 pm:

    "Books prove nothing."

    So, I guess you don't think the bible proves anything about god, right?

    "Evolution can not even be proven!"

    Probably not in the way you'd like, no. It's a science, not a religion. Yes, the base assumptions of science requires belief, a belief in your base assumptions, but they're always open to interpretation. We must believe that our senses can be trusted. We must believe that rational thought is a valid form of thought. But, that the same time, you can change the senses you use to gather data. You can change the definition of "rational." It takes great effort to change these things, but it is possible.

    "Since you people are evolving and humans are the most superior in the evolutionary chart it shocks me that most of you all curse."

    Possibly it's superior to curse, you sperm burping miscreant.

    "I don't see any humans locked up on display at the zoo"

    I guess you haven't heard of Abu Graib or Nick Berg, then?

    "Gravity is gravity no matter what i "think" about it."

    Wait, so you're willing to believe in the science behind gravity, but not the science behind evolution? Why?


By Spider on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 07:44 pm:

    My dad doesn't really believe in evolution. We tease him about it all the time. His argument is, "how/why did the animals decide to evolve?" And we always answer, they didn't *decide* to evolve, they went through genetic mutation and natural selection. And he just waves us away. Every time. I shake my head.


By Rowlfe on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 09:36 pm:

    lets look at the grey area between 'natural selection' and 'evolution', kay? it aint exactly the same

    99% of all species that have lived on earth are now extinct. this is part of evolution. Not every species or anything like that is going to evolve or become somewhat humanoid in its progress. Instead of changing in shape, it could just be perfecting its senses or evolving in miniscule ways that make that species 'perfect'.


    Lets look at a rabbit. If a rabbit made too much noise, it would be heard and thus more likely to get eaten by an eagle or whateverelse eats rabbits. So obviously a rabbit isnt going to progress into some communicating being. Who knows? Maybe at one time rabbits made more noise and they just learned to shut the fuck up, to survive. Thats natural selection, and it gets mixed up with evolution, because with a lot of species' history we dont know what happened. You can only prove so much.

    The best reason to believe evolution existed has to be the common ancestors thing. I mean, why the fuck do whales have hip bones? Explain THAT, Mr. "God made everything perfect". There are fossils out there where there were whales with rear legs! Archaeopteryx: feathers of a bird, but they have teeth! Why? common ancestors. Humans, apes, and ancient humans. What's common: DNA! It just makes sense, and the Creationist neglect of such common sense science is astounding. I dont really get the big-bang theory myself and think there is a possibility, just one of many possibilities, that there is or was a GOd that created the universe. As for shaping life or not, I have no idea. Like wisper said, what makes you so sure its just one or the other? How arrogant are you to think that you have the answer? Because you say you saw God have an impact on someones life? I've seen STAMP COLLECTING have an impact on someones life! So what? Its just ONE THING, and your PROOF is no more sound than any scientists proof by any ways or means, and at least scientists are humble enough to admit they can only prove so much.

    Biblical creationism is Santa Claus. Fine to teach to kids, but one day you have to be an adult and recognize that things arent so simple. You ever notice how so many creationists look really unevolved? Why is it all these 'proof of creationism' sites that use the Bible and somehow manage to come up with excuses about dinosaurs... this one guy who says that Lucy wasnt really a link to apes, but just an ape that couldnt walk upright, and because of this doubt created it means that the "only other option" of Creationism MUST be true. that its only one or the other. Its retarded. Its like when something bad happens and they say "God hates me! I've displeased him!" instead of thinking "hey, maybe its all random." or "hey, maybe God exists but doesnt get involved with us anymore" or "hey, maybe theres no God".

    GRRR


By TBone on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 06:38 pm:

    Anyone who thinks evolution means apes are going to become humans obviously hasn't actually researched evolution, or at any rate, understood it.

    Wanna talk about natural selection in action? Talk to an exterminator. Ask what happens if they only use the same chemical all the time. A few cockroaches likely have a genetic resistance to that poison. Note that they didn't develop it as a result of being poisoned. They already had it due to random genetic combinations and mutations. So all the non-resistant cockroaches die out, and over the next few generations, the non-resistant genes get almost completely wiped out, and the cockroaches no longer die when you spray them.

    That's one tiny, tiny evolutionary step. Give it a few million years, and when you spray the cockroach, it will beat you with a baseball bat, kick you in the groin, and sue your ass for all you're worth. Cursing heavily, I'm sure.


By TBone on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 06:45 pm:

    Okay, so it's natural selection, and not evolution as such. But it doesn't seem such a stretch to me for our ancestors (not apes) to have worked their way up the latter through natural selection.

    And evolution certainly doesn't exclude God in any way. It doesn't tell us how life started at all.

    Ok, I'm just muddying the waters. That's impatience in action.


By heather on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 09:22 pm:

    i want to look at a rabbit!


By semillama on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 10:01 am:

    Kazu and I saw some rabbits at a pet store on Saturday.


    Did you know that you have about 25% of your DNA in common with a squash? True.


    Hey, godscreation, if evolution is all fake, then explain why people look different in different places? If the theory of evolution is invalid, then shouldn't we all, as descendants of Adam and Eve, all look pretty much exactly like them?

    Try explaining Tay-Sachs Disease or Sickle-Cell Anemia. Or the ability of Europeans to digest lactose. Try explaining that without referring to the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.


By Godscreation on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 11:40 am:

    Try explianing the thousands in Africa with aids?
    Try explianing why some children are sitting in poverty in other countries and you are sitting on the internet chatting with me?
    Try to explian any disease: cancer,aids, cp,the list goes on? I have been to other countries. Dont even get me started on diseases? I have seen the suffering of people. Maybe God would like to teach us how to have compassion on people and for each other.I have been called arrogant several times since I logged on to this site. Talk about arrogant. Do you think Europeans are somehow better than other races or that some other races are better than any other just because of the diseases we all tolerate? I don't. I believe that God made us all in His image.I belive all men(women) were created equal no matter what their race. There are many reasons why people suffer from disease. Some for no reason that they can control and others because of sin. Some diseases are consequences to peoples actions. I have a friend with aids and he did not get aids because of natural selection, he got aids because he was sleeping around. I have seen the people starving in India because of their religious beliefs not because they don't have cattle or what the US has. There starving because they do not want to eat their ancestors. You will understand what I am saying if you understand the worlds religious beliefs. No one can make a person believe in God(the God of the bible) The God who claims this whole creation story.However, no one could make me believe in evolution. But I would like to say agian both take faith, everyone believes in something. When I say "books prove nothing" I am meaning just as an evolutionist would not believe the bible to be the inspired Word of God, neither do people who believe in God and creation believe in the books on evolution. Both take Faith to believe in them.
    Semillama: I have two children and both look very different than the other.I did not have children that all look just alike. My children are white because both my husband and I are white. However, if I am white and would have married a black,hispanic,chinese,etc. my children would have looked very different. How do you know what Adam and Eve looked like? Do you think that they were the same ethnic group? Do you think perhaps if me and my husband can have two kids that both look different , then just maybe other people in the world can have kids who look different? Not everybody has kids with people of the same race.My children are both from the same parents and one has olive skin and the other is very fair. Wow , how did that happen! Maybe natural selction blessed one with a suntan and the other will have to go to planet beach and get one.


By Rowlfe on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 12:00 pm:

    Dude, you need to break the points in your long posts, halfway through I just want to give up.

    "Maybe natural selction blessed one with a suntan and the other will have to go to planet beach and get one. "

    My eyes rolled so much after this one they now hurt. I mean, wow, you didnt even bust out the Tower Of Babel on us!






    I have my suspicions about our new Christian friends...


By patrick on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 01:24 pm:

    i had a whole rant drawn up, but really. I had to stop.

    using *your* gods 'punishment' for 'sins' as a reason why diseases like AIDS exist is all too convenient, pussy and dangerous. That mentality is just as much a threat to mankind as the disease itself you self righteous cocksucker.





By Godscreation on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 01:48 pm:

    "Cocksucker" and "pussy" Please ! Do you have anything worth wild to say? Oh! What suspicions it that? I don't need to discuss the "Tower of Bable" and why God punished people because they were trying to build a tower to get to God. God changed their languages ,not their skin color. I was addressing why we don't all look alike, not why we don't all sound alike. The bottom line is: If I live my life not believing in evolution, what consequences will it have on my life? Tell me, please? However, if God is true and creation is true and you did not believe and live for God then there will be consequences to your non-belief. I sure hope if I am right about God that you all are ready to meet Him. If "He" is not true than I have just lived a moral life, so what?


By kazu on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 02:03 pm:

    "Do you have anything worth wild to say?"

    worth wild? is that something like escaped goats?


By Godscreation on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 02:05 pm:

    "What suspicions it that?" Sorry I hit wrong key:meant "What suspicions is that?" Remember I have children, they sometimes distract me. Sorry!


By patrick on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 02:09 pm:

    the thing is you don't really know why we all look and sound different than one another. Thats actually the funny part. You don't really know what you are talking about.


    "If I live my life not believing in evolution, what consequences will it have on my life? Tell me, please?"

    Ignorance IS bliss.


By Godscreation on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 02:11 pm:

    kazu: Are you guys willing to share you thoughts about the subject or are you just making jokes? Come on, I just want your thoughts ,I'm not interested in the mocking. Why do you mock? Is it because you have nothing really to say?


By I have a tail on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 02:14 pm:

    It's because we are a bunch of bad ass mother-mockers.


By Antigone on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 02:25 pm:

    "If I live my life not believing in evolution, what consequences will it have on my life?"

    The lack of belief in evolution would have very little effect, it's the basis for lacking that can be harmful. It means you don't have a rational basis for making decisions.

    Building a worldview based on rationality means you can be persuaded, you can be changed, if presented with a compelling argument. I'm not saying emotion should not be a part of your life. It can be a useful guide. It is essential. But it shouldn't rule you.

    "If 'He' is not true than I have just lived a moral life, so what?"

    Yes, if you have lived a moral life, then that's great.

    But if you have used god as a justification to do immoral acts, such as invade a country or behead an innocent man, then who is to say you are wrong? You have god on your side and no amount of convincing, no amount of argument will change you. That is the danger.


By semillama on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 02:26 pm:

    We mock because we are better than you.

    well, at least I am. Or that's what my "religion" tells me.

    plus: don't you think it's hard to argue when you have no clue about what you're talking about?

    Obviously not.

    Here's a topic for you: Name one key difference between Tay-Sachs Disease and AIDS, that might have a bearing on the topic of evolution.


By Godscreation on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 02:29 pm:

    patrick: Did I say it was a punishment? No! You are saying that. I am saying some diseases are the CONSEQUENCES of peoples actions. As a christian :bad actions are often considered (sin) Of course people who believe in no God also do not believe in sin. Most everything has a consequence to its actions: if I sleep with someone without protection I may get a disease or a child, If I chose not to sleep with someone I will not end up with v.d. or a baby. If I do drugs I will get high , if I chose not to do drugs , than I don't get high. God doesn't necessarily give me the consequence, His word (THE BIBLE) tells me how not to get the consequnce and then I have the freewill to except the consequences of my good or bad decisions.


By kazu on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 02:36 pm:

    *How to be Irresistable to God* is a real CD, that you too can own.

    I listen to the Jesus channel on the tv. It's crystal clear reception has restored my faith in the big G. Rupert Murdoch thinks he's god, but I can't get FOX without an antennae. Daystar, on the other hand, would come through in a black out, I just know it. I believe. Faith in my television.

    No, I don't have a point. Originally, I was going to try to craft an anti-creationist rant based on the fact of stupidity not being painful, but I can't. My mutating genes kept me up all night and I am exhausted.








By heather on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 02:38 pm:

    godscreation, [sentence deleted]

    you did not continue your own argument or make any new points

    you invented a new topic wherein you defended the equality of people with equally misguided arguments. as if we here need to be convinced that someone's skin color does not mean they are a lesser person. i hope we are *way* past that one.

    then: what tiggy said

    many of us here believe in god, we just don't believe everything we were taught as children by other people who are simply human themselves.


By heather on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 02:41 pm:

    i'm starting to think you should read some books on god and man by *intelligent* christian writers before you go any further. at least that's what i would do.


By Godscreation on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 02:46 pm:

    Antigone: Of all the people so far you are the only one who really makes some since to me. I hope you believe that. I truely enjoy when you write , so write back soon. I like to see what you have to say on the issues. You and I may never agree on the issues, but at least you explain why you believe what you believe.Thanks! Oh and by the way, If you don't mind I am curious to know your age?And the ages of the other writers too!


By heather on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 02:50 pm:

    i certainly think you need to go first on that one

    how old are you?
    the rest of us know how old the others are


By Godscreation on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 02:57 pm:

    Heather: What god do you believe in? I do not need any other books, if you believe the bible than it says " LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE, IN THE IMAGE OF GOD." WE are GOD'S CREATION. WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED? As a christian , you either have to believe in the teachings of Christ or you dont.And if you dont than you are not a christian, you are a believer in something else. You can not believe only parts of the bible.


By patrick on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 02:58 pm:

    hey godscreation, have you met watcher?


By kazu on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 02:59 pm:

    Then why are there so many versions of the Bible?


By Godscreation on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 02:59 pm:

    31


By Vyvyan on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 03:00 pm:

    Half of the Bible isn't even about the teachings of Christ.


By Antigone on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 03:01 pm:

    I'm 33. But my soul is -3.141x10^e^42 years old and comes from the dark matter universe. (which exerts only gravitational influence over our own)


By semillama on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 03:02 pm:

    What does age have to do with anything? Are you looking to attempt to score some sort of point by telling someone who may be younger than you are that what they are saying is not as valid as what you are saying because of your age?

    Is that why you are here, to try and "score some points on the big bad evolutionists?"

    Or are you interested in having an actual discussion with folks who are intelligent and irreverent? if so, then perhaps you could and try to stop setting up straw men to knock down and actually address the questions/points/answers that you are recieving.

    Of course, I suspect that the former is true, not the latter, and that soon your attention span will wither and you will go away. That's generally what happens with people who can't actually back up their arguments.


    Did I mention that I evolved from abominable snowmen?


By Godscreation on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 03:03 pm:

    kazu: Well, there are versions and there are translations? Which ones do you want me to talk about?


By heather on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 03:03 pm:

    do you believe that you are unclean during menstruation?


By kazu on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 03:08 pm:

    Neither.

    Fish are friends not food.


By heather on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 03:10 pm:

    they are all translations, dear gc

    i don't expect you read in source language. i sure don't/can't

    in my parents' church the other day i was surprised to find that the sermon indulged in a little theological historical criticism. he noted that although a certain book in the new testamant was credited to a certain well-known figure, it was more probable that the words themselves were written hundreds of years after that person lived and assigned the famous name to make them more acceptable. i only say this to point out that not everything is what its label says it is, even in the bible, and i'm sure that this is only one example.


By Antigone on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 03:11 pm:

    I believe fish are a friendly food. I luv my omega-3's!


By Godscreation on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 03:15 pm:

    semillama: I stumbled upon this website while I was looking up something on Louisiana.It appeared on my search engine when I was looking up something. I did not set out to prove I was better. I have asked ya'll several questions about the subject and all I get is jokes and stupid things about people wanting to see rabbits. Today is the first day you guys are really asking me questions. And I will do my best to answer them. I only want to know ages because some of you are not really talking and some of you have some good things to say. Why are you so ready to fight just because someone is challanging your beliefs? Please give me time to answer all the questions since I am apparently out numbered on this website.


By Godscreation on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 03:30 pm:

    Heather: No! They were considered unclean because they did not have the same things we use today. They used rags. That's were we get "I am on the rag" If you know about Jewish custom they were not to touch certian things that were considered unclean : a dead animal for example. So therefore menstruation was also considered unclean due to the blood.To a Jew that is still waiting for the Messiah to come and still very much in jewish law and practices this still may be considered unclean.


By heather on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 03:36 pm:

    should i give up? i'm ready to give up


By Godscreation on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 03:40 pm:

    Heather : Since you guys dont think I am to educated in evolution , let me explain what I am educated on: There are versions of the bible and there are translations. Versions: The King James,NIV, NAS,etc.. Translations: The Message, The New Living Translation,etc.. A Translation is a bible with language we more commonly use today. For example, I do not speak" Thou shalt not" steal. I would say "You should not steal". That is you difference.


By Godscreation on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 03:44 pm:

    Heather : Since you guys dont think I am to educated in evolution , let me explain what I am educated on: There are versions of the bible and there are translations. Versions: The King James,NIV, NAS,etc.. Translations: The Message, The New Living Translation,etc.. A Translation is a bible with language we more commonly use today. For example, I do not speak" Thou shalt not" steal. I would say "You should not steal". That is your difference. Sorry agian I had to make a correction I left off the r in "your". My son and I are going grocery shopping I will check back in tommorrow.


By heather on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 03:48 pm:

    um, no.

    the difference is that none of the biblical documents was originally written in english. every word and inference and colloquialism has been translated and interpreted from a language you don't read and a culture that we know less about than we'd like to let on.


By kazu on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 03:51 pm:

    yeah!

    i'm so tired that when I look at GC's handle, I keep seeing "god's secretion"


By Godscreation on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 03:55 pm:

    Heather: So you saying that if I wrote you a letter in spanish and you used a spanish dictionary to translate it you would screw the whole thing up. Are maybe you would be able to translate it huh? I really gotta go, talk tommorrow.


By semillama on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 03:58 pm:

    Isn't the King James in itself a translation? If it's not in Aramaic, it's by definition a translation - well, that's not exactly correct. I'm assuming that the Old Testament was probably first passed down as oral history in some Semitic language, and if I remember correctly, some of the New Testament was probably Greek, but was it Koine Greek? Which dialect?


    I've always wondered how many puns and inside jokes we're missing in the Bible because of the fact that it was produced in a completely different cultural context than people interpret it today. I mean, what if the Sermon on the Mount was a stand-up routine?

    and as far as suspecting your motives, re : "I did not set out to prove I was better..." let's look at your original post again, shall we?

    "By Godscreation on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 12:55 pm:
    Professing yourselves to be wise you become fools. I am thankful I live in a state that thinks darwinism is stupid."

    That certainly sounds to me like your intent was to provoke and act like you were superior.

    "When I go to Audubon Zoo I visit to see the animals God created. You people must go to the zoo to have a family reunion or something?"

    That's clearly one of the standard lame creationist insults. Again, a puzzling thing to say if one didn't come here to provoke and make themselves feel superior to others.

    "Tell me this: Why aren't the animals still evolving? Why aren't the apes not continuing to become humans? Why aren't your CATS evolving?"

    Antigone answered all your questions. Apparently you must have believed him because you made no attempt to rebuke his statements. I guess that makes you an evolutionist now, right?

    "HA!HA! People like you do not want to beleive in a God because then you would have to serve HIM! You people do not want any absolutes. You want to be a people out of control. Prove you darwinism! I can prove my GOD! I have seen HIM change peoples lives. Why can't your darwinism continue to change an ape into a human."

    Again, here you are, starting off by mocking and deriding and being aggresive and confrontational. So, why are you surprised when other people reply in the same tone?

    I also notice that you say you can prove your God. That's a pretty interesting statement, and one would think that you would have expanded on that in your arguments against the validity of the evolutionary theory. Very curious.


    Did I also mention that I'm a real, honest-to-goodness minister? true.


By semillama on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 04:01 pm:

    I'm also curious to know if GC thinks geology is all bunk as well. Plus astrophysics. and most biology. and lots of medical sciences as well.


By kazu on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 04:01 pm:

    Me too. A minister that is.


By Rowlfe on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 04:04 pm:

    I evolved from a marionette and a puppet's making of the LOVE.


By patrick on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 04:07 pm:

    GC, ever heard the phrase 'Los in Translation' ?


    Coincidentally I saw the movie this past weekend, but the phrase, is a common one, because sometimes meaning CAN become uh, lost in translations.

    So yes, you could write something in one language and once translated to another, some of the nuiances and intent of the author can be lost, or misinterpreted. Its not that far out of a concept.




By patrick on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 04:08 pm:

    "...puppet's making of the LOVE."


    ewwwwww


By kazu on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 04:11 pm:

    If I attempted to translate a letter in Spanish with what I know about Spanish I would most certainly screw it up. Butcher it even. If the letter was written recently, I could probably use a Spanish:English dictionary and my intoductory Spanish text to translate it, but it without knowing the why the letter was written, the precise intentions of the letter writer, and his/her relationship to the reciever there would probably be something my translation wouldn't capture. If the person who wrote the letter was transcribing something that an illiterate person was dictating, there is a good chance that something of the tone or intent could also be lost. If that person was dictating a story that had been passed down for generations in his/her family, what are the chances that the person writing would be ablet to capture, not only the speaker's full intent, but that of the ancestor's?

    Now, if that last letter, a transcript of an oral history, was 500 years old and the oral history even older...

    I would most certainly screw that one up and any translation I read of that letter, I would approach with, not disbelief, but a critical eye nevertheless

    ...is what I think heather's point is.


    please excuse the bad grammar. no sleep


By heather on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 04:35 pm:

    of course!

    though, silly me, i thought my point was clear.


By Gods creation on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 04:54 pm:

    I apoligize if I seem like I was fighting .Please remember what was being said when I entered this site. "By patrick on Friday, May 18, 2001 - 05:43 pm:
    I read this and was pretty intrigued. I never knew some interpreted Darwinism to be a racist theory. How can a state legislature be so fucking stupid? What does Louisiana rank in education...like 49 or 50?

    Any thoughts? " Patrick is calling all of Louisiana stupid and mocking the rank. So I am only speaking how I am seeing it typed. Calling the legislature in LA "f" stupid because it views darwinism as racist. Is everything only your WAY. Are does every person have the right to express his or her views. It is funny to me that you are upset about how I came off, but have nothing to say about Patrick's Superior view of people from Louisiana. I have challenged your views , but you all have insulted me by calling me "pussy,god's secretion,sperm burping miscreant,self righteous cocksucker,etc..Never have I called any of you any names, infact I even gave Antigone a compliment. Antigone you claim that belief in God can start a war or behead someone and that is dangerous, take a good look at who is doing all the ugly name calling and consider that.


By heather on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 04:56 pm:

    stick and stones....


By heather on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 04:56 pm:

    er, sticks


By kazu on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 05:00 pm:

    I was just commenting on how your name looked in my lackofsleep induced stupor. I wasn't referring to you as god's secretion, but I will from now on if it makes you feel better.

    "Antigone you claim that belief in God can start a war or behead someone and that is dangerous, take a good look at who is doing all the ugly name calling and consider that."

    Shall I continue with the tradition of stating the obvious problem with this god secreted statement? To my knowledge, none of the people here who called you these names have started any wars or beheaded anyone. So what is there for Antigone to consider? Sticks and stones....


By semillama on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 05:08 pm:

    plus, you are "responding" to a statement made THREE YEARS AGO.

    The way you shift the blame, you must be a Bush voter.


By Godscreation on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 05:15 pm:

    Address Patrick's statement? Answer my question?
    Nor has my belief in God caused me to start a war or behead someone.Nor has my belief in God caused me to call you anything at all but your screen name. You don't truley believe I didn't think you meant something by calling me god's screation now do you? Why don't you just address the Question?


By TBone on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 05:17 pm:

    Do you think darwinism is racist?


By Antigone on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 05:22 pm:

    GC, name calling is par for the course around here. Being called a sperm-burping titty twister is kind of a rite of passage. Better than a "skull and bones" initiation any day, donchya think? :)


By Godscreation on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 05:22 pm:

    So because Patrick made the statement three years ago makes it allright for him to think that way ? Well has his opinions changed since 3 years ago? If you don't want anyone to address Patrick's statement than take it off the WEB.


By wisper on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 05:47 pm:

    "However, if God is true and creation is true and you did not believe and live for God then there will be consequences to your non-belief."


    This infamous line of thought is the single weakest argument for god out there.
    Behold, as it overlooks every other possibility and cultures!
    See, if you don't believe in god, you'll go to hell, right? So you might as well just believe?
    This assumes that there are only 2 choices: Biblical god or no god.....


    "If "He" is not true than I have just lived a moral life, so what?"

    So what? You're in the same boat as the non-believer then.
    Sure, if you die and your specific god turns out to be in charge, you're fine. But over the course of our time here, humans have thought up at least 1 million gods and religions.
    What if you die and Allah was the right god? You're going to hell then, so you might as well just believe in Allah.
    What if Scientology was the right religion?
    You might as well just believe in Scientology, what have you got to loose? You don't want to be PUNISHED, do you???

    Your chances of being right re:god, are exactly the same as everyone else's.
    Weak.


By Godscreation on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 05:50 pm:

    Antigone : So would you say that you are just calling me stuff because you do it to everyone on the site. I haven't seen anyone talk to each other in the same way you are speaking to me. Is it because I am new? Would you prefer I go and talk on another site?Sorry if I have upset you guys. I was just giving my opinion on Patrick's statement. I have the same rights to my beliefs as you, however if this site is only a one sided site I will leave. Or maybe we can discuss another topic that we have in common.


By Godscreation on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 06:03 pm:

    When a god is mocked "which god in the world is usually mocked?


By patrick on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 06:10 pm:

    hey i reserve the right to flame an entire state you crackpot.

    moreover, my statement wasn't that far off base.

    http://www.morganquinto.com/edrank03.htm


    According to the methodology from this seemingly reputable source, in 2002 LA ranked second to last in education 'smarts' and this year, 2003, ranked 4th to last.

    Its also interesting to note LA is one of the most dangerous states too http://www.morganquinto.com/dang04.htm

    That aside...

    Lastly, this BBS and the majority of people within oooze all kinds of sarcasm that apparently you are unable or unwilling to entertain. One of the biggest smartasses around here from time to time is in the New Orleans area.

    So while I was being flamboyant in my opinion delivering i don't really believe (nor did i state directly, but merely implied) that the entire fucking state of LA is retarded, though, presumably you are from there, so you know.... Do the math..


    Otherwise, lighten up.


By wisper on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 06:13 pm:

    oh, do tell!


By Antigone on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 06:13 pm:

    "I haven't seen anyone talk to each other in the same way you are speaking to me."

    You haven't searched hard enough. Heck, in a thread a few days ago I casually insulted Nate. And I regularly call heather an ascerbic bitch, but since she actually is one I don't consider that an insult.

    "When a god is mocked which god in the world is usually mocked?"

    Matters where you are and who you talk to. You mentioned being in India. There I expect the Hindus most often mock the Muslims and vice-versa.


By patrick on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 06:38 pm:

    hey jackass, didnt i call you a jackass last week?


By kazu on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 07:40 pm:

    "eat sweltering spinchter juice while riding a seatless unicycle you jizzmonkey cockfuck half-wit fucknuts you!!!!!"


    ec, nothing you've been called can top that, my first non-fyya sorabji insult.


By Antigone on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 07:43 pm:

    Shit, yer gettin' me all teary eyed!


By kazu on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 08:38 pm:

    "When a god is mocked "which god in the world is usually mocked?"

    I wasn't under the impression that we were mocking any gods. Where was that? I thought we were mocking you. So what does that have to do with anything?

    And what tiggy said.


By semillama on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 09:50 am:

    No, no. Actually I WAS mocking a few gods back there, I'm pretty sure. I called Odin a pansy-boy and told Vishnu where to stick it. And remember how i was totally cock-blocking Quetzalcoatl down in Mexico? boy was he pissed.

    I think the absolute most accurate depiction of what any deity (including the Christian one) would actually be like is from Eric the Viking. At least that's the impression you get from their followers. Always trying to put that bike helmet on their god and make sure the training wheels are screwed on tight.

    Oh,yeah. JHVH-1 is a TOTAL asshole.

    ok, i feel better.


bbs.sorabji.com
 

The Stalking Post: General goddam chit-chat Every 3 seconds: Sex . Can men and women just be friends? . Dreamland . Insomnia . Are you stoned? . What are you eating? I need advice: Can you help? . Reasons to be cheerful . Days and nights . Words . Are there any news? Wishful thinking: Have you ever... . I wish you were... . Why I oughta... Is it art?: This question seems to come up quite often around here. Weeds: Things that, if erased from our cultural memory forever, would be no great loss Surfwatch: Where did you go on the 'net today? What are you listening to?: Worst music you've ever heard . What song or tune is going through your head right now? . Obscure composers . Obscure Jazz, 1890-1950 . Whatever, whenever General Questions: Do you have any regrets? . Who are you? . Where are you? . What are you doing here? . What have you done? . Why did you do it? . What have you failed to do? . What are you wearing? . What do you want? . How do you do? . What do you want to do today? . Are you stupid? Specific Questions: What is the cruelest thing you ever did? . Have you ever been lonely? . Have you ever gone hungry? . Are you pissed off? . When is the last time you had sex? . What does it look like where you are? . What are you afraid of? . Do you love me? . What is your definition of Heaven? . What is your definition of Hell? Movies: Last movie you saw . Worst movie you ever saw . Best movie you ever saw Reading: Best book you've ever read . Worst book you've ever read . Last book you read Drunken ramblings: uiphgy8 hxbjf.bklf ghw789- bncgjkvhnqwb=8[ . Payphones: Payphone Project BBS
 

sorabji.com . torturechamber . px.sorabji.com . receipts . contact