Lice offer clues to origin of clothing

USA TODAY ^ | 8/18/2003 | Tim Friend

[Aracelis]

Well ... I just thought that ... you know, if maybe a friend or something ... yes, that's it, in case a friend of yours should require some ... ah, friendly advice ... you could give them that website to look at. That's what I was thinking. Honest.

I wonder what my "friend" would think of your thinly veiled suggestions and accusations?

[PatrickHenry]

Only one way to find out. Tell him PH says "Hi."

[Right Wing Professor]

I'm calling Dittojed2 a troll. Introducing an extraneous argument about naziism on a scientific thread about the evolution of lice is the epitome of trollish behavior. If this argument proceeds any further, it'll be deeply offensive to a number of Christiana; I'm therefore going to drop it.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the heads up and for "dropping it"! I agree that the subject is inflammable to both sides and serves no other purpose.

[Junior]

The one thing I have noticed with these evo threads is an absolute and complete INTOLERANCE for anyone who agrees with the Bible.

No, sweetie. I agree with the Bible. However, what we do disagree with is an interpretation of Scripture that flies in the face of physical evidence. For instance, you claimed the verses used against Galileo at his trial were "poetic" in nature because the physical evidence overwhelms any claims to geocentrism. However, at the time those verses were taken literally and formed the basis of the prosecution of Galileo. We see a literal reading of Genesis the same way; it flies in the face of the physical evidence and should be read "poetically," or allegorically. This does not make those chapters any less "true" (I can make a strong claim that the Flood story is an allegory of salvation, and a very strong one at that -- is it true in the literal sense? No. Is it true in the spiritual sense? You betcha).

I know you believe you are fighting a rear-guard action for the Truth. Unfortunately, your version of the Truth does not stand up to scrutiny and many people see this. Some, like me, gladly accept the allegorical nature of Genesis and continue on in our faith of the Almighty with little or no soul-searching. Others, seeing the hypocritical nature of those espousing a literalist interpretation refuse to be associated with such, for want of a better word, ignorance, and either give up on religion altogether or join some New Age pseudo religion. In other words, your irrational clinging to a specific, literal interpretation of Genesis does not bring people to God and turns off the more rational among potential believers. You are doing more harm to God's cause than good, though I know you believe otherwise.

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

They have medicine that can cure that.

[DittoJed2]

Actually sir, if god came down and told me that I should interpret Genesis allegorically I'd call him a liar and not the true God because God does not contradict Himself and JESUS took it literally.

As for the rest of your rant, as usual, you are putting forth a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions and calling them fact. Some of your rant even seems to contradict itself (for example, Behe is just arrogant and I.D. has no facts to back it up and yet Alamo Girl doesn't fight the science and trys to fit it into her worldview. I thought that Alamo Girl was supposed to be sympathetic to Intelligent Design.)

For the rest of your rant, I'll let the reader decide.

[DittoJed2]

You can call me whatever you wish. I was answering an email from another and backed up what I had to say with historical fact. You don't like those facts, and I don't blame you. I would drop it too if I were you.

[Aric2000]

Actually sir, if god came down and told me that I should interpret Genesis allegorically I'd call him a liar and not the true God because God does not contradict Himself and JESUS took it literally.


Thank you, case closed....

You are fanatical, and if god indeed came down and told that himself, you would refuse because you wouldn't believe he is the true god.

This is called fanaticism, your mind is closed to ALL other possibilities.

Thank you for admitting that.

You are now on ignore, because you have just admitted that there is NO way that evidence and facts are going to have any effect on your thinking.

You wish to remain ignorant, therefore you will remain ignorant.

Sad, REALLY sad.....

[Aric2000]

Indeed, it is an intellectually dishonest argument, from a fanatic, who's AIG arguments were each refuted and discarded, as she became more desperate for some sort of traction, the arguments became more desperate.

This so-called guilt by association is the last gasp of a desperate creationist.

Such arguments should henceforth be ignored for what they are.

Desperatley grasping at anything to try and discredit evolution.

[DittoJed2]

Alamo-Girl,

You are succumbing to the P.C. crowd. If we "drop" subjects because they are inflammatory, then you might as well just get off this forum and hand the country over to the U.N. Lest you think that this analogy has no basis, think of the ideological trends which have attacked our sovereignty as a nation. Judges treat the constitution as a clay pot for them to mold and make into their own images. ACLU lawyers pervert the rule of law in the name of "not offending" folks, and all the while our constitution is rendered meaningless by the courts. When you destroy the foundations and make them open to whatever strange interpretation folks want to lay on them, then you destroy your basis for belief in anything.

I have not hurled unsubstantiated assertions by bringing up Nazism. I have taken great effort to make sure what I am saying is backed up with historical fact and believe I am making a legitimate point about Darwinism. I have not said Darwinism naturally leads to Nazism- and you know this. What I have said is that Hitler used it and had some basis for using it in the quotes of Darwin and his followers. If you look at the quotes I posted, you would see that, but you seem to be too busy taking sides and not taking stands. I'm am confused regarding you as you have claimed to be for the Word of God but seem to consistently take the pro-evolution side. I really have no idea where you are parked on all this. You were the one who chose to stand against me on many threads. You don't have to explain this if you don't wish, but understand that you have me and probably some others confused as to where you stand.

[DittoJed2]

Being on ignore from you, Aric, is like being punished by being sent to Hawaii. I welcome your ignore.

[DittoJed2]

Junior, if Genesis is allegory what basis do you have to take anything in Scripture literally?

[Aracelis]

Several posters have declared that they will drop this subject. I strongly suggest that we all do. Those of you who are continuing to respond to the poster-in-question are doing so to the glee of individuals who would like to see these threads shut down. Enough already.

[Junior]

How about "does it jibe with reality?" A literal reading of Genesis does not, therefore it is meant to be taken allegorically -- much like a literal reading of the verses used to condemn Galileo does not jibe with reality, and therefore even you read them allegorically or "poetically."

[DittoJed2]

The resurrection "jibes" with reality, or does this view of Scripture allow for miracles?

[Aric2000]

Oh, and by the way, one last post to you.

Even if Darwin had not decided to publish his Origin of the Species because it might upset the church, someone else would have.

Evolution as a theory was coming, there was entirely too much evoidence pointing in that direction for it to be ignored, no matter how much the church may have thrown a hissy fit about it.

Geologic ages, fossil remains, and now DNA, ALL point to evolution as the most probable cause of ALL of it.

And no matter how much you cover your ears and hum and close your eyes as evidence comes pouring in, will not hurt the theory in the least.

I find it amusing that as evolution gets stronger, the creationists up the volume on how it has no facts or evidence to back it up. Well, when you IGNORE the evidence, that is certainly what it looks like.

You look awfully silly sitting next to an elephant and then claiming that it's not there.

Nope, it's not there, uh,uh, doesn't exist, no facts will tell you otherwise, not even if the elephant steps on you, it does NOT exist.

Hilarious, but still sad.

[Aric2000]

Of course she does Junior, most "literalists" as they call themselves fo NOT take the whole bible literally, even if they do not care to admit it.

The creation story, and the flood story are wonderful Allegorical tales with major morals within them.

They use those tales to make a moral point.

Man is a sinful creature and needs to be saved, christians beleive that Jesus was the one that saved them.

Therefore, man can now be forgiven for his sinful nature if he realizes that he is indeed sinful and asks for forgiveness.

This is the bottom line, and how NOT taking genesis literally somehow changes those, is WAY beyond my comprehension.

[balrog666]

But if god came out of the sky and told you that the creation story was allegorical and not meant to be taken literally, you would ignore him and keep going on with your fanatical belief structure.

You nailed it. She would spit in the face of God rather than update her belief structure. Simply incredible!