The Theory of Evolution

[AV1611VET]

And you accuse us of retrofitting. Yeesh.

Good job on necro'ing a thread with an active owner, though.

I can assure you I've necro'd more threads this past month than some posters ever make in their entire tenure here.

And I'm just getting started ---

In fact, the oldest-dated thread I necro'd was December 31, 1969.

 

[Split Rock]

That's right --- it does not mention evolution --- by name.

But It does call evolution's predecessor --- or, more appropriately, evolution in its infant stage --- a philosophy, an invention, and a fable.

Like I told someone else, I believe for example, that the book of Colossians was written to nip gnosticism in the bud before it ever got started; and, by the same token, I believe the book of Ecclesiastes was written to nip evolution in the bud before it ever got started as well.

Note too that the Bible does not use the word 'atheist' --- but uses another word, instead.

Same for the Rapture and the Trinity.

Which "Belief" of yours is what God tells us in the Bible, as you claimed in your previous post? And if indeed The book of Ecclesiastes was written to "nip evolution in the bud before it ever got started, then it Has Failed!. Seriously, AVET.... none of your religious dogma makes any kind of sense. How can it possibly be what God Tells Us??

 

[Split Rock]

Good question. AV1611VET repeatedly does this, repeatedly gets told he does this, yet continues to do it.

At any rate, I raised this issue with staff. It's generally poor netiquette to resurrect old threads (i.e. 6+ months old). Resurrecting threads from over half-a-decade ago is just ridiculous. Maybe mods can start locking these threads.

Well, at least you are still posting here... necroing an old thread the author of which is still active here is an improvment for AVET.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is that how he does it? Makes sense, I guess, because even the worst internet addict would have trouble making 600+ posts a day.

That's gotta be a rule violation, though. Server power/storage isn't free, and if it's being chewed up so people can spam the forum to inflate their post count, that just shouldn't be allowed. Maybe I'll raise this with staff as well.

43000, 40,000, 40,000, 39,999, 39,999, 39,999, 22,741

And the grand daddy of them all: 219164 ---

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Two things here, Pete:

1. You bumped this thread yourself, did you not? I'm sure you still wanted an answer?
2. QV the second post from Lucaspa: 2 .

I don't really care why you did it and I'm not going to have a discussion about it. I've reported it to the mods and we'll see what they do.

 

[MrJDSmith]

43000, 40,000, 40,000, 39,999, 39,999, 39,999, 22,741

And the grand daddy of them all: 219164 ---

almost sounding like pride or boasting.

 

[AV1611VET]

almost sounding like pride or boasting.

Neither actually.

That was hard to do --- I'm usually above that sort of thing.

The heckling just gets tiring after awhile.

I figure if they want to complain about my 'inflated post count', I'll give them a few of my threads, so they can have something concrete to complain about.

 

[Tishri1]

MOD HAT
It's OK to bump old threads, just be sure you realize the rules have probably changed since 2003 many times, and if you see posts that violate them dont report them if they are over a month old, dont quote them, or reply with the same sort of violations k?

Just trying to protect all our wonderful members out there

mod hat off

have fun y'all
​

 

[azmurath]

I don't care if you bend the rules to agree with AV the "Christian", it is poor internet etiquette to resurrect dead things, especially threads. The internet > christianforums.com >>>> AV1611

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't care if you bend the rules to agree with AV the "Christian", it is poor internet etiquette to resurrect dead things, especially threads.

They're not bending the rules, in my opinion.

I've been doing this for years, and I've seen others do it.

For example, in the NUMBERS COUNTING or BLESSINGS threads, they can start out on fire, but may go cold for one or two years before someone likes that particular thread and responds to it.

I like the threads where you count in Roman Numerals, but it may go dormant for months before someone replies.

That's a poor price to pay for 'netiquette'.

 

[azmurath]

I've been doing this for years, and I've seen others do it.

Sodomy has been going on for years, everyone is doing it, why aren't you?

Jumping on a bandwagon doesn't help your position. The fact remains, resurrecting a dead thread is poor manners.

 

[Freodin]

I don´t care what people do in their spare time, or with the server capacities... that is between them and the webmaster.

But I DO care when (some) people then start to argue from the authority of their huge post counts.

 

[Alunyel]

I don´t care what people do in their spare time, or with the server capacities... that is between them and the webmaster.

But I DO care when (some) people then start to argue from the authority of their huge post counts.

(Some) people prefer quantity over quality.

Posting a million and one numbers doesn't actually mean any of your posts have any real point to them.

 

[AV1611VET]

But I DO care when (some) people then start to argue from the authority of their huge post counts.

How would you respond, Freodin, to someone who joined this site, was here for a week, then said to you, "I've never once seen AV1611VET quote a Bible verse. He's supposed to be a Christian, yet he never quotes any Bible verses. If he's a Christian, I'm Santa Claus."

How would you reply to that?

 

[Freodin]

Well, what I wouldn´t respond would be: "Hey, look at the number of my posts. I have been around here longer than you, newbie."

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, what I wouldn´t respond would be: "Hey, look at the number of my posts. I have been around here longer than you, newbie."

Then how would you respond?

Recently a new person joined and told me she never saw me apologize or admit I was wrong about anything.

When I went back and dug up a couple of posts for her, she changed her tune.

That was an exception though.

I don't plan to QV myself every time someone joins, then specifically targets me for false accusations.

Once again though, how would you respond?

 

[Sitswithamouse]

... is NOT:

- a religion
- an attempt to deny God
- atheism
- an explanation for the origin of life from non-life
- an explanation for the formation of the planets and solar system
- an explanation for the origin of the universe
- responsible for the current Middle East conflict
- responsible for the events of September 11th
- responsible for your child's bad behavior and/or poor grades in school
- geology
- astronomy
- cosmology
- in violation of the laws of thermodynamics


... IS:

- a scientific theory
- biology
- an explanation for the diversity of biological life on the planet

Agreed!!

 

[Freodin]

Then how would you respond?

Recently a new person joined and told me she never saw me apologize or admit I was wrong about anything.

When I went back and dug up a couple of posts for her, she changed her tune.

That was an exception though.

Well, she obviously had never seen you do that, so she was quite correct. The conclusion that this meant you never done it is of course not necessarily correct.

Though I don´t think that you apologizing or admitting to have been wrong once (and in whatever context) does anything to allevate your usual obnoxious posting style.

I don't plan to QV myself every time someone joins, then specifically targets me for false accusations.

QVing yourself is sadly the only way to find your old posts in the mass of your number games. As I said, I don´t really care what you do in your spare time, but this habit is not helpful for others.

Once again though, how would you respond?

Stop attempting to change the topic or the person. I was specifically talking about people using their post-count as argument for their authority... and I have seen you do that. This is something that no-one should do, and that you shouldn´t do either if you care about "accusations".

Sorry, I can´t quote the relevant post... it is impossible to find older posts from you... but I don´t really care. Play insulted and falsly accused now if you want, I don´t care. There isn´t much left that you could do to make me care about you any more.

Well... perhaps one of your famed apologies and admittances that you have been wrong with using your post-count as argument would change my attitude a little.

 

[Assyrian]

How would you respond, Freodin, to someone who joined this site, was here for a week, then said to you, "I've never once seen AV1611VET quote a Bible verse. He's supposed to be a Christian, yet he never quotes any Bible verses. If he's a Christian, I'm Santa Claus."

How would you reply to that?

So what percentage of your post count do you think contains bible quotations

 

[Edward Palamar]

... IS:

- a scientific theory
- biology
- an explanation for the diversity of biological life on the planet

I began to read your original post. You can learn the best of what music theory has to offer in the Tertian Harmony and Chord Manual available through the link in my profile.

You state that the Theory of Evolution is biology. I have based the music theory tutorial on years of experience, interaction and teaching with others (and likewise contains years of former teaching, thought and writing on the matter). I treat the subject with inclusion of the very touch of God upon our ears. It is the most concise writing I have seen with respect to music theory. I specifically wrote it that way so that the knowledge could be most easily assimilated. But I remain cognizant that it is music theory.

What actually is biology in the Theory of Evolution? Why is the Theory of Evolution not a madman's rambling as referenced in 2 Timothy 4:3-4, "they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.", begun in 1859 and even supported by moderators today. If you claim the Theory of Evolution is biology, show proof of this. Otherwise you are merely attempting to elevate theory beyond its normal definition, an unproven fact.

I do not claim music theory to be musicology.