If you knew anything about "real science", then you'd
know that evolution, as you believe it, has never "been
observed" and science has never "proven evolution
beyond any doubt"

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 20:35:10 -0700, The_Sage <theeSage@azrmci.net>
wrote:

Reply to article by: Joseph Geloso <josephfg@hotmail.com>
Date written: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:36:30 -0500
MsgID:<bek7uv82898evtaf5l50q3rbbu3rd0d06q@4ax.com>

The Even Sadder Little God

Those who profess to be Christians and adhere to the doctrine of a

creation have a sad little god who cannot deliver. They worship what

not and what turns out to be a mixture of inaccurate science and

which is of course stupidity.

I take issue with your apparent lumping of all Christians together
with six-day-creationists.

Since it is only apparent, your issue isn't real. If I had literally

target only six-day-creationists, I would have specificlly mentioned

six-day-creationists.

Then your arrogance is yet more extensive than I had previously
surmised. My bad.

Your delusion of my alleged arrogance is not the issue here, the laugable
supernatural creation account which is full of inaccurate science,

and stupidity is. Why don't you attack the argument I gave instead of

me...unless you can't competent attack my argument and therefore you must

me. In that case, I fully understand.

1. Your argument that Gensis contains "inaccurate science" is absurd.
The account in Genesis was never intended to be a scientific account.
in the first place.

2. Your argument that Genesis contains "superstition" is absurd. There
is nothing superstitious about believing in God. Rather it is
superstitious to cling to atheism.

3. You argument that Genesis contains "stupidity" is absurd. God said,
let there be light, and there was light. Can you create light out of
nothing? If you are smarter than God, why can He do that, and you
cannot?

I believe in a supernatural Creator and I see no contradiction between
this Faith and the idea that He created the Universe over the course
of billions of years. There is nothing inaccurate, or unscientific, or
superstitious about this, and of course it would be stupid to think
there was.

Your belief isn't based on the Bible (Genesis) so therefore your belief

Christian and neither are you.

The Bible itself is based on the true Religion, which I profess (I am
Roman Catholic). Systems of belief based solely on the Bible are a
subset of Christianity. There is another subset of Christianity that
comprises authentic Christianity, that subsists in the Catholic
Church.

You got it backwards.

Who made you the expert?

The Bible is what all Christian religions are based on --
not the other way around.

False.

Without the Bible, there would be no way to know that
Jesus ever existed and therefore no Christian religion would have been

form.

Then there was no Christian religion until many years after the
accounts in the New Testament. In fact, by your "logic," there could
not have been any Church at all whose doings are recorded in the Book
of Acts, because the Book of Acts had not yet been written when those
doings were taking place.

You might want to rethink that particular "argument."

So obviously your alternate blind faith belief
wasn't the whole target of my post, just a partial one.

I have no Faith beliefs that are not reasonable.

I never said you didn't.

I do not believe
anything blindly. Rather it is true that Faith gives sight to the
blind.

Since that isn't a valid, verfiable, scientific fact, it is a perfect

the blind Faith I was talking about. Thank you for proving my point.

If you only believe in what is "valid, verifiable, scientific fact,"
then I do not see how it is possible for you to believe in love. If
you do not believe in love, then you are simply in darkness.

So by that token, it is you who believes blindly. You believe
blindly that Christians are your intellectual inferiors, even to the
point of accusing them of believing what they do not understand -- as
if to say you did understand.

Wrong again. I never said or claimed that Christians were my intellectual
inferiors. You are lying...which makes you my moral inferior.

What does it mean, then, when you accuse us of believing what we do
not understand? Do you also believe what you do not understand? Or are
you more clever than us? Can't be both.

By the way, your javascript web page, while undoubtedly more clever
than clever, also doesn't work.

That's your fault, not mine. Learn to use a browser and you won't have

(you might try enabling javascript or making sure you have the latest

Actually, I am using Netscape 7.1, and your knowledge of Javascript is
what lacks.

Please state which line of Javescript is incorrect then. One will do.

the one that keeps your browswer from allegedly not working.

Whichever line it is that is supposed to make words appear on the
page. Maybe my copy of Netscape 7.1 is corrupt, but every other page I
go to that uses JScript seems to work fine. Why don't you download
Netscape 7.1 and try it out for yourself? Enough people use Netscape
that this should be a concern for you.

No matter, because it prevents people from reading
whatever it is you think you have to say, and I'm sure it gives you
diversion. Of course, anyone can find the text of your pages by simply
viewing the source code -- but why bother?

Since you are the only one who can't do something as simple as view a

the only loss I have is you...so what?

It doesn't matter to me,and if that doesn't matter to you, then you
are right -- so what?

But no matter, my prediction is that
there's not much there worth reading to begin with.

My analysis is that you would say that whether you read it or not,

are a liar.

Oooohhh! The "liar" call! And so soon! Usually you smarter-than-thou
types hold off at least a couple of posts before pulling that card. It
speaks of desperately having run out of arguments. In your case, we
never even began.

Oh, so you aren't a stranger to that accusation! If the shoe fits, wear

I do not lie. I have no reason to lie. I do get accused of it, though.
Again -- so what? Your accusation above is not even logical. The word,
"therefore" is supposed to indicate that what follows it derives
logically from what preceded it, but you did not use it that way at
all.

You really should choose a more descriptive handle, like maybe, "The
Sophist." A true Sage would never waste his time posting on basically
Christian newsgroups, spouting anti-christian rhetoric. he would have
better things to do with his time and with his life.

I don't take advice from people who can't even point and click to a

view it. What *do* they teach kids today?

As you said, if the shoe fits...

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"Little minds are interested in the extraordinary; great
minds in the commonplace"
-- Elbert Hubbard, ROYCROFT DICTIONARY AND BOOK OF EPIGRAMS
=============================================================

Reply to article by: Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com>
Date written: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 05:05:25 GMT
MsgID:<8n9auv0nkmjtkqjm4t8f289a4sqpbrs32o@4ax.com>

Your delusion of my alleged arrogance is not the issue here, the laugable
supernatural creation account which is full of inaccurate science, superstition,
and stupidity is. Why don't you attack the argument I gave instead of attacking
me...unless you can't competent attack my argument and therefore you must attack
me. In that case, I fully understand.

What I never understand is the fully Quoxotic quest that people of
your sort seem to engage in here. If you don't believe in
religion--or at least the Catholic version--what do you waste your
time here for?

Do you also post in the alt.literature.fairy-tales in
order to convince those there that their stories aren't true?

Or do
you simply have so little to live for on your own accord that you
necessarily must come here in an attempt to ridicule others to make
yourself feel larger than you are?

Go tilt at windmills elsewhere, where you bother no-one.

You got it backwards. The Bible is what all Christian religions are based on --
not the other way around. Without the Bible, there would be no way to know that
Jesus ever existed and therefore no Christian religion would have been able to
form.

Your scholarship is astoundingly inaccurate. There are many
historical sources that discuss Jesus that are not included in the
Bible.

You really should choose a more descriptive handle, like maybe, "The
Sophist." A true Sage would never waste his time posting on basically
Christian newsgroups, spouting anti-christian rhetoric. he would have
better things to do with his time and with his life.

I don't take advice from people who can't even point and click to a webpage and
view it. What *do* they teach kids today?

And why should we take anything seriously from one who has nothing
better to do with his life than to tell people that their faith is
mis-placed?