Sip

My point is you shouldn't bash evolutionists just as much as evolutionists shouldn't bash the other side... unless, the basher has earned bashing rights by demonstrating indepth knowledge of a subject. As an example, I would put up Domino against ANY dumb ass turk denialist claiming the Armenian genocide is a fabrication by the jews. I mean this kid knows things about the genocide that probably God even doesn't know yet. In other words, Domino has some serious credentials in my eyes when that topic is concerned. On a side note, by "credentials" I didn't mean to imply a piece of paper stating such. God knows (yes I use God in my sentences ) I have seen "Ph.D."s that would have trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time, let alone form a coherent thought.

Ok let me ellaborate ... many many years ago, human knowledge was quite limited. You had these amazing intellectuals that were mathematicians, chemists, astrologists, physicists, philosophers, writers, thinkers, musicans, etc etc ALL at the same time. But now, our time is such that for example a dumb ass like me has spent the better part of his youth studying a very very specific subfield of a very very very new field (i.e. "embedded systems" in "computer science") and I still feel NO where nearly qualified enough to be able to judge theories in this field without spending quite a bit of time digging into the details and familiarizing myself with all aspects of the assumptions, methodology, and theoretical foundations of the result. Now this is in a field that I am supposedly quite familiar with and have some credentials to back it up! The times where a thinker could sit and remotely ponder a subject and make a decision as to the validity of the subject are LONG gone. Now we have people that spend their entire lifetimes pondering a very specific knowledge domain and still not have any clue about it simply due to the VASTness of what we know as humans. So I'd say damn straight you better have some sort of credentials (or at least credibility) before rejecting or proposing anything!!!!

I can't believe you said that!

You want me to find them for you? I'm sure they are out there! Actually just today I found this site for Dan on another forum bringing forth evidence how Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hoaxes.

You do realize my post was above your post, right? Come on Domino .. put em up put em up :box: Calm down!!!!

By the way, I personally do not claim existence/non existence of God to be fact and the same with evolution. My signature always applies. However, as things are, I have no reason to believe in the God model and I have countless reasons to believe in evolution. The simplest example is watching my cat lick and groom itself and then see the exact same thing done by a lion thousands of miles away in the wilderness ... while those two have NEVER met. There has to be a link ... such a thing cannot be random.

What you choose to call ideological bias, I call scientific method.

The difference is, evolution makes sense and God doesn't.

One short example usually worth 1 page of posts! You had me on the wife one

Kind of interesting how this thread about cheating has turned into an estrogen fest! So now to try to bring the other perspective into this... I personally really couldn't care less if someone was "cheating" on me ... but I would prefer to know about it rather than not to know. In the end, two things can happen ... 1) she realizes she's got the real deal already and come back (most likely to happen) 2) she'll have found something better and move on ... in which case everyone will be happy. Because probably the reason she started to cheat on me to begin with was due to something I wasn't able to provide and that would just be a pretty depressing way to live the rest of your life if you ask me. So all in all, I really have no problem with "cheating" (whatever that means) but as I said, I would MUCH prefer it be open than hidden.

Lava lav mosjan!!! I needed that. Hima gnatsi knem.

Well ... either that or they'll just be dead and everything will be over.

There are some extended-wear contact lenses on the market now in the US that can be worn anywhere from seven days to a month. I personally don't like lenses that much and even when I wear them, I always take them off at night (even if they are extended wear). Even if not worried about neovascularization, I hate conjunctivitis. Extra, "changing" lenses is different ... how often do you take them off and wash them? Even if they are the really really extended-wear, you shouldn't leave them in more than a week or so without washing them.

I vote for the one in Glendale.

Anka, was his name Azat by any chance? If so, I think I know him.

Well, after saying ALL that, it basically boils down to this ... you choose to define "your people" (aka Hye) by drawing some abstract imaginary line encompassing some abstract and imaginary group of people. The entire argument here basically boils down to where people want to draw that line that groups the people with some assigned responsibilities such as cultural preservation. Some go as far as drawing it simply around the globe (which you mock), and on the other extreme some go down to the lowest levels and draw lines around the barska-, lebanona-, america-, hayastanya- etc etc hyes (which you do not endorse). Obviously barska-hyes and america-hyes have quite different cultures than Hayastanya-hyes and therefore, their responsibilities should be defined differently. For example an America-hye cannot be expected to live up to the same "Armenianness" criteria as the Armenian in Hayastan. If you are not willing to acknowledge this, then you are a blind fanatic! But if you are willing to acknowledge this fact and yet you still choose to draw your abstract grouping line around "all hyes", then at least be humble enough to admit this ... that there is really no concrete thing as "hye" in this day and age that could encompass Armenia and Diaspora in any meaningful way. note: By "meaningful" I mean anything other than "rhetoric".

As Homer Simpson would say: "It takes two to lie: One to lie, and one to listen."

To me, preaching by definition is to alienate.

Bow to us Jug ... bow .. bow (I borrowed the style from Gamavor)

Isn't that kinda the definition of orphan? Edit: Ha! TB beat me to it

Yup. That's exactly what I am saying. I don't see ANY significance in the rotting dead body what so ever ... although I understand traditionally many cultures tend to make a big deal of using the physical remains as some sort of symbol to represent the dead one. I can respect that symbol and the symbolizm but to me, the dead body itself can become cat food or fertilizer.

Well, I don't know how others would or should feel but let me rephrase it this way ... I personally don't care what so ever what happens to the bodies of anyone I know after they are confirmed dead. Before death, I will be very worried but not after their physical death. They can be put into dog food for all I care. It sounds horrible I know but I think my point is clear.

Nope ... been kinda busy these few days. Thanks for the info. That sucks but I personally don't think I would mind what anybody did to my body (or body parts) after I were dead.

Oooooo that was good! I like this judicial evolution!