Grand Canyon Made By Noah's Flood, Book Says (Geologists Skewer Park For Selling Creationism)

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | January 8, 2004 | Julie Cart, Los Angeles Times

[Scenic Sounds]

How old is the Grand Canyon? Most scientists agree with the version that rangers at Grand Canyon National Park tell visitors: that the 217-mile-long chasm in northern Arizona was carved by the Colorado River 5 million to 6 million years ago.

[lugsoul]

"You never stated your views (you were too afraid maybe?), so I can't say whether this is true of your or not."

Then how could you possibly say I am atheist or anti-Christian? Now you say that you can't say. Obviously, it is you who is the liar.

You continue to make my point with each post. By the way, since you are having trouble reading again, I didn't compare Christianity to fundamentalist Islam. I compared YOU to a fundamentalist Moslem.

[exmarine]

An interesting point about the founders. Tell us - since it is all so cut-and-dried and beyond question, as directed by the Almighty, why did they even have to debate the Constitution? Why do we need common law - can't we just refer to the Bible? Is every political issue simply a choice between God's position and Satan's? Apparently, in your mind, there is nothing else.

Some truths are more apparent or black and white than others. For example, the founders never doubted that rights come from God, not man. They never doubted (read Blackstone as they did) that laws are divine in origin. They never doubted that governments are instituted by the consent of the people, or that there was a Creator in the first place, or that God is Lord over all of life, not just life in the pews. They agreed almost unanimously on these fundamental points, which was my point.

[exmarine]

Then how could you possibly say I am atheist or anti-Christian? Now you say that you can't say. Obviously, it is you who is the liar.

This was an assumption based on our protracted conversations, and you are right, it was wrong for me to make such an assumption. From our exchange, the most I can say is that some of your views are not consistent with a biblical worldview. So, I am sorry for calling you an atheist - the assumption was not intended to be incendiary - it was an assumption not an accusation. As for anti-christian, that is how I personally characterize your statements and positions on Judge Roy Moore, and Constitutional law concerning freedom of religion. I feel they are anti-Christian.

If you don't want to make any rebuttals or provide your beliefs, then just go away and do not ping me in the future. If you don't want to honestly present your belief system, I am not interest in any of your other views. Got it?

[lugsoul]

It is strange that one who professes such a Christian worldview would consider calling someone an atheist to be a casual comment, rather than an "incendiary" one. I guess, like everything else, it is casual when you apply it to anyone else, but incendiary when applied to you.

It is of no concern to me what you know or think or my beliefs, and I have heard more than I ever care to of yours. I pinged you to a thread that was on a topic in which you have expressed interest. Given the acrimony in our past exchanges, it was intended as nothing more than a friendly heads-up. For the time that has cost me which could be spent on valuable pursuits, or even simply a conversation of actual worth, that is my loss, and I'll waste not another bit of my God-given breath on you.

[exmarine]

I compared YOU to a fundamentalist Moslem.

At least I have the GUTS to state my beliefs... and I am not ashamed of them. I lay them out there and defend them to the best of my ability with logical arguments.

A fundamentalist muslim would even allow you to speak. I am asking you to speak, but you aren't saying anything other than ad hominems on me. All you do is insult and spin. I don't think you are capable of beating me in any argument. If you can't take the heat, STOP PINGING ME!!

You remind me of the guy on the freeway with a bumper sticker on his car that reads, "Horn broke, Watch for finger."

[exmarine]

Good riddance to you then. Let the record show that you DON'T HAVE THE GUTS to even state your position!!!! Nice debating style that is...

[exmarine]

It is strange that one who professes such a Christian worldview would consider calling someone an atheist to be a casual comment, rather than an "incendiary" one. I guess, like everything else, it is casual when you apply it to anyone else, but incendiary when applied to you.

I apologized for this comment. I had no idea you would take offense at that. On the other hand, you have no problem spewing your accusations and name=calling - hypocrite!

[exmarine]

You took offense to being called an atheist! Yet, lookie what I found in your profile:

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell

Surprise Surprise Surprise. Russell- one of the most rabid anti-christian atheists of all time - and lugsoul quotes him. That says alot in my book. No wonder you treat me and my views like a fanatic - Russell would! hahahaha. BUSTED!!

[Ichneumon]

I'm saying you're a hypocrite... and proud of it.

The astute reader will note that Dataman is accusing me of being a "hypocrite" for having the "bad manners" to point out when another poster is exhibiting bad manners.

What this says about Dataman himself is left as an exercise for the reader.

"I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: “O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.” And God granted it."
-- Voltaire [François Marie Arouet] (1694–1778), French philosopher, author. Letter, May 16, 1767.

What's really laughably ironic about this current exchange is that Dataman is whining at me and calling me a "hypocrite" for doing the exact same thing he did on another thread (but worse). Now who's the hypocrite?

Note the similarities. Current thread (excerpted, read the originals to get the full flavor):

[BibChr, #136:] So, in the rock under which you've been living, it is admitted that evolutionism is a religious position?

[Me, #137:] Try again when your manners, your maturity, and your reading comprehension all improve.

[Dataman, #175:] I-non has no moral authority to demand others modify manners while wallowing in indecorous snobbishness such as Try again when your manners, your maturity, and your reading comprehension all improve.

Contrast with this exchange from an earlier thread (again excerpted, read the originals to see Dataman blatantly lying about someone and then running away when exposed):

[Me, to Dataman, #1821:] You owe Lurking Libertarian an apology for your disgusting and false accusation that he was a "liar". Are you honorable enough to make it?

[Dataman, #1944:] You can ask me in a civil manner and I'll consider a response. No one is obligated to respond to a pompous simian.

[Me, #1975:] And now we *have* your response -- such as it is. Instead of honorably retracting your false accusations, and/or apologizing to LL, you chose to dodge the issue of owning up to your own behavior by whining about how I wasn't "civil" enough in pointing out your offensive behavior and asking what you were going to do about it. [...] And to dig yourself deeper, you made the further mistake of insulting the messenger when you should have been addressing your own disgrace.

So if I'm somehow a "hypocrite" and "lack moral authority" because I declined to answer BibChr's obnoxiously asked question by saying "Try again when your manners ... improve", what does that make you for declining to defend/retract your false attack on Lurking Libertarian on the grounds that the invitation was not made in a "civil manner" (neither was your false attack, son) and calling me a "simian" complete with chimp picture?

Which is worse: Saying try again when your manners improve, or calling someone a "simian" and childishly waving an image of an ape because you were caught making false accusations?

Hypocrisy, thy name is Dataman.

Ridiculous indeed.

[lugsoul]

Okay, one more breath, since you are such an obvious idiot.

Bertrand Russell was not an atheist. At best, he was an agnostic, and he wrote at length on the difference between the two. He was also a physicist and a mathematician, and a poet and a philosopher. I know that in your mind I would be agreeing with every word he ever uttered if I simply posted one of his mathematical theorems on my home page. But, for those of us who are capable of agreeing with one thought or sentiment of a man without accepting or rejecting their entire body of thoughts as a result, I will say that the quotation was posted because of the sentiment it reflects, not because of the man who said it - a concept I'm sure you struggle with. And, I would also add, that of the many here who represent perfect examples of the truth of the quote, you are near the top of the list.

[exmarine]

Bertrand Russell was not an atheist. At best, he was an agnostic, and he wrote at length on the difference between the two. He was also a physicist and a mathematician, and a poet and a philosopher.

Oh really? Then perhaps you can explain why he debated numerous theists and took the atheist position in those debates? hmmm? I've read them.

[exmarine]

I just find it highly ironic that you would feign offense at being called an atheist, yet the ONLY passage in your profile is from Russell - a man who debated theists on numerous occasions!

[lugsoul]

If you've read them, you either misinterpreted them - likely - or changed them in your own mind to conform with your limited ability to accept a concept that is alien to your views. But the historical record is clear that he was a professed agnostic, which he distinguished from atheism, and that you are yet again simply incorrect.

[lugsoul]

As far as my offense being "feigned," it looks as if you are right back to passing judgment on the beliefs of others. Your false contrition was short-lived and hardly Christ-like.

[exmarine]

Bertrand Russell....hahahahha.

[exmarine]

If you've read them, you either misinterpreted them - likely - or changed them in your own mind to conform with your limited ability to accept a concept that is alien to your views. But the historical record is clear that he was a professed agnostic, which he distinguished from atheism, and that you are yet again simply incorrect.

Hahaha. Hardly. I read his debate with Copleston in which THERE IS ZERO doubt about Russells' attempts to refute Christianity in particular and theism in general. Who are you kidding? This is in the public domain - and common knowledge. If you want to press the point - I'LL try to find it online and post portions of it, just for the satisfaction of exposing your hypocrisy.

[lugsoul]

"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."

Bertrand Russell

[balrog666]

At least I have the GUTS to state my beliefs... and I am not ashamed of them.

In your place, a chimp would be.

[Ichneumon]

I just find it highly ironic that you would feign offense at being called an atheist, yet the ONLY passage in your profile is from Russell - a man who debated theists on numerous occasions!

Well, *gasp*! Time to burn him at the stake then!

Come *on* man... If I quote Newton, does that automatically make me a theist? If I quote Voltaire, does that automatically make me an atheist? If I quote both, does your head explode?

Lugsoul is correct in pointing out that your "AHA, GOTCHA!" over such a minor point as his including a quote from Russell *which had nothing to do with religion* strongly underscores your unfortunate tendency to see most things as "evidence" that the world as divided into two black-and-white "camps" at war with each other over religion.

I am reminded of the old saying, "when all you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail."

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.