Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 541 of 2073 (741637)
11-13-2014 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 540 by Faith
11-13-2014 1:40 PM


Re: Coyotes call
Says the one who didn't debate anything but slung out an incredibly stupid comparison.
But the comparison was the debate. That's why you're angry. If I hadn't been debating you, why are you now disagreeing with me? Surely we are in fact debating. If not please feel free to post "Dr Adequate, I do not debate anything you said". Otherwise, now it's your turn to show that what I've said is "incredibly stupid". If it's that stupid, surely it can't be that hard to show it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 540 by Faith, posted 11-13-2014 1:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 544 by Faith, posted 11-13-2014 3:08 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 542 of 2073 (741639)
11-13-2014 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 504 by Faith
11-13-2014 12:35 AM


Re: Coyotes call
1) "My interpretation" has been honed by thousands of books and sermons so that it is not "mine" but that of the orthodox line of thought on the Bible. I might sometimes take a stab at my own understanding of a text but if the commentaries show a better understanding I will certainly go with that.
Sorry for the confusion - I should have been more clear.
When I say "your interpretation," I don't necessarily mean that it's an interpretation you, personally, came up with. I understand that this is not the case.
What I mean by "your interpretation" is "the specific interpretation you believe to be correct." We would both acknowledge that others have different interpretations of the same text.
2) I don't know what you mean by "a specific re-translation." The Bible I most trust is the King James which is 95% the same translation into English that Tyndale did, and which they also compared with the many copies they had of the Greek and Hebrew texts and with all the other translations in English and all the translations into other languages they had available. You try to make it sound like they had one text and they "re" translated it. No. You have a very wrong idea of the history of Bible transmission.
Again, apologies for a lack of clarity. When I say a "specific re-translation," I mean specifically the King James version, which is one English translation of some specific Greek New Testament components and Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament texts (there are of course many other candidate source materials for each of the component texts; the texts chosen for the KJV were considered to be the best available at that time).
3) The Greek text was many times copied down the centuries, not "re-translated." Copying does allow for errors to creep in. But they have five thousand Greek manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts of the Bible now for the sake of comparison and those who study those things know how to trace even the errors back to an original source and reconstruct the original text quite reliably.
Let's just say that you and I are going to starkly disagree on how well the King James text represents an error-free representation of the original source materials, and leave it at that. I think we both can accurately predict how such a debate would proceed - I'd bring up examples like John 8 ("So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." John 8,7, KJV) which are well-known to be later additions to the original text completely absent from all older versions from multiple branches of copying history, and you'd either contest that or rationalize its continued presence in the authoritative Bible in some way despite the full knowledge that it's a known deviation from the original source material, and we'd both just walk away frustrated having gone nowhere.
I regard the Bible we have now as the same Bible that was produced in the first century.
Again, I think this is something you and I would disagree on, and we can predict the course of a potential debate.
After studying the situation I concluded that the KJV is the most trustworthy, although it needs some updating into modern English, because there is another line of Greek manuscripts that were introduced in the 19th century that are corrupt, possibly even forgeries, that all the modern translations are based on. This is a huge controversy and I've concluded from much reading on the subject that the KJV is based on the most trustworthy line of texts. Nevertheless people do manage to get the same basic truths out of the other versions, there are just some areas where they are untrustworthy. And that's all I want to say about that big flap.
I appreciate your remarks in general though if you hadn't said what you did about the Bible I might have spent some time pondering them to have an answer to some of it, but please don't misrepresent the Bible. That's a form of poisoning the well and trying to discredit my argument before we've even had an argument.
The reason, Faith, is of course that you and I starkly disagree on what is or is not authoritative. The fact that I'm able to understand your reasoning fairly well doesn't mean I think that reasoning is valid. We've had enough arguments and read enough of each other's other arguments that it's difficult to avoid known positions tainting our present and future approaches. I'll always be tempted to add descriptive commentary to my understanding of your positions, and it's generally going to reflect that I think your positions are absurd (I really hate to use that word; it makes it sound like I'm trying to attack you here, and I'm really not. It's just the simple truth. I imagine you feel similarly toward some of my positions).

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995...
"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord Of the Rings
Nihil supernum

This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by Faith, posted 11-13-2014 12:35 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 546 by Faith, posted 11-13-2014 3:46 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 543 of 2073 (741643)
11-13-2014 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 505 by PaulK
11-13-2014 12:46 AM


Re: Coyotes call
She claimed that absolutely every part of the Bible is important for doctrine.
In the same conversation I was pointing out that the opening of Luke was at odds with her ideas of how the Bible was written.
If she was logically consistent she couldn't just wave that away - those verses are important. But she did.
She's logically consistent in positions that follow from considering the Bible to be the final authority on all matters on which it takes a position.
I think we all understand and agree (including Faith) that your opinion of her interpretation of the Bible or mine would differ strongly from her own.
This is why I specifically mentioned that it's her interpretation of the Bible that she considers to be the ultimate authority.
Now we get to it. Yes, it's much more about her pride than it is about the Bible. She only cares about the Bible because of her beliefs about it - which are much more important to her than the Bible. But that is true of all inerrantists.
That's not remotely what I said. I don't see Faith as "prideful." I simply see her as willing and able to doubt literally anything and everything before doubting her preferred interpretation of the Bible. I think she considers her own reasoning and logic to be just as "fallen" as yours or mine - she trusts only her understanding of the Bible.
To the point where she will honestly, truly believe that she didn't say what she said ? Where she will claim that she obviously didn't mean what she obviously did ? She's done that. She will rewrite the history of past interactions to paint herself as being in the right and everyone who disagreed with her as being irrational and wrong.
That's perfectly normal human behavior, unfortunately, and I'm referring to you as much as to her. You paint her as a liar, but internally she certainly doesn't see herself that way, and I'd bet that at the time she makes a statement she genuinely believes that statement to be true.
When we look at other people we don;t see their entire histories or their internal dialogue. We see a limited subset of statements and actions. You might see a man kicking a desk angrily and think "that is an angry man," assigning a permanent and enduring personality trait where your observation would be better explained s the result of specific circumstance. Perhaps he's just received a foreclosure notice when he actually owns his house outright - anyone would be angry in that circumstance.
And, of course, I'm not using quite the same definition of "lying" as you are. I don't require that she knows that what she says is false at that time, only that she has damn well ought to know that what she says is false. It's a more practical standard on a forum like this.
I question your definition, then.
"Lying" is nto and never has been defined as making a statement that one knows or should know is false. A "lie" is a statement made when the person knows the statement to be false.
You're basically accusing Faith of the same sort of thing that some Creationists accuse Atheists of - that she secretly knows and agrees that what she's saying is false, despite her protestations, just as Atheists secretly know and agree that God exists.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995...
"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord Of the Rings
Nihil supernum

This message is a reply to:
 Message 505 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2014 12:46 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 545 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2014 3:41 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 549 by Faith, posted 11-13-2014 4:50 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 544 of 2073 (741647)
11-13-2014 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 541 by Dr Adequate
11-13-2014 2:20 PM


Re: Coyotes call
Consider your idiotic comparison debated: "recognize the extreme difference."
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 541 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-13-2014 2:20 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 552 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-13-2014 7:20 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 545 of 2073 (741655)
11-13-2014 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 543 by Rahvin
11-13-2014 3:02 PM


Re: Coyotes call
quote:
She's logically consistent in positions that follow from considering the Bible to be the final authority on all matters on which it takes a position.
That doesn't address the inconsistency I raised at all. And I'd argue that her interpretative methods go against the principle of considering the Bible the final authority, also.
quote:
That's not remotely what I said. I don't see Faith as "prideful." I simply see her as willing and able to doubt literally anything and everything before doubting her preferred interpretation of the Bible. I think she considers her own reasoning and logic to be just as "fallen" as yours or mine - she trusts only her understanding of the Bible.
That is obviously untrue. She complains bitterly and insultingly about the fact that we find her arguments unconvincing.
quote:
"Lying" is nto and never has been defined as making a statement that one knows or should know is false. A "lie" is a statement made when the person knows the statement to be false.
I think that you will find that there are people who disagree.
quote:
You're basically accusing Faith of the same sort of thing that some Creationists accuse Atheists of - that she secretly knows and agrees that what she's saying is false, despite her protestations, just as Atheists secretly know and agree that God exists.
That's so wrong. The point is to avoid judging what she actually believes. Because there is no way to know that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 543 by Rahvin, posted 11-13-2014 3:02 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 546 of 2073 (741656)
11-13-2014 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 542 by Rahvin
11-13-2014 2:45 PM


Re: Coyotes call
Thank you for acknowledging where you misrepresented me.
Again, apologies for a lack of clarity. When I say a "specific re-translation," I mean specifically the King James version, which is one English translation of some specific Greek New Testament components and Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament texts (there are of course many other candidate source materials for each of the component texts; the texts chosen for the KJV were considered to be the best available at that time).
The KJV team were experts in their fields in a time when the standards were a lot higher than they are today: complete mastery of a number of languages including literary English, in which they were steeped from childhood; and they made expert choices based on their expertise. Besides their fluency in Greek and foreign languages they also had the finest grasp of the English language, its rhythms for instance, which are trashed to cacophony in the modern translations, and this was even the assessment of the Revised Version produced by the Westcott and Hort committee in 1881 by one of those on that committee. Like riding in a carriage without springs he wrote.
Most of the "other candidates" you mention that are available today are those corrupt Greek manuscripts I mentioned in the other post which were imposed on the committee by Westcott and Hort who were closet Romanists who had connections with Romanists who were out to destroy the King James Bible which they hated. They have been palmed off on today's scholars as authentic though Vaticanus is certainly a forgery and Sinaiticus may be as well.
The King James was a complete re-translation of the existing English versions which means they minutely compared every word with all the other material available and nevertheless ended up preserving 95% of Tyndale's and making changes only to 5%, based on their expert judgment of all the available translations plus all the available Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.
Let's just say that you and I are going to starkly disagree on how well the King James text represents an error-free representation of the original source materials, and leave it at that.
No, I would never say it is "error-free," but it certainly is the most trustworthy English version we have. By far.
Where you claim there are passages "well-known to be later additions to the original text completely absent from all older versions from multiple branches of copying history, and you'd either contest that or rationalize its continued presence in the authoritative Bible in some way despite the full knowledge that it's a known deviation from the original source material, and we'd both just walk away frustrated having gone nowhere" the thing is I'd be right and you wrong because that idea that they were later additions is completely based on Westcott and Hort's discredited idiotic theory which rationalizes their corrupted Greek texts as the authentic ones. The fact is that they were removed in those forged corrupted texts by people who hated the King James and want to destroy Protestantism.
Regarding my Bible as the same as the one produced in the First Century doesn't mean the English is perfect although I should have been clearer about that. \
You are right about where this debate would go. I've done a whole blog devoted to the issue of the corrupt Greek manuscripts, mostly based on the writing of Dean John Burgon who said they were already judged by the Church to be corrupt and that W & H had no authority to replace the TR with them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 542 by Rahvin, posted 11-13-2014 2:45 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 547 of 2073 (741657)
11-13-2014 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 535 by Faith
11-13-2014 1:24 PM


Re: Coyotes call
What I said was that they all believe "it," meaning God's word, that's what they are saying.
But the same amount of people believed that the Earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it.
Appeals to Population are fallacious because the number of people believing it doesn't make it right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 535 by Faith, posted 11-13-2014 1:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 548 by Faith, posted 11-13-2014 4:48 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 548 of 2073 (741667)
11-13-2014 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 547 by New Cat's Eye
11-13-2014 3:54 PM


Re: Coyotes call
This isn't just an "appeal to population." The whole history of Christianity is involved in this. The standard theology was taught and held by all those people -- I don't mean perfectly I just mean in its overall form and meaning -- and it was that standard theology that built up the laws and prosperity of western civilization. This is people adhering to a whole system of thought all based on the Bible, this isn't just people relying on their own feelings and impressions that the earth looks flat and the sun comes up in the east therefore it must go around the earth. Left to our own devices we come up with such things. But the Bible doesn't support that thinking, it's a whole new understanding of reality that people couldn't have had through their own senses. That's just primitive thinking untaught by revelation or the scientific knowledge that eventually came to the west. When you put all the facts together this is not just an argument from numbers of people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 547 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-13-2014 3:54 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 549 of 2073 (741668)
11-13-2014 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 543 by Rahvin
11-13-2014 3:02 PM


Re: Coyotes call
You're a good guy, Rahvin, fair and decent. Too bad you gave up on Christianity. But your basic fairness may come from having been raised under Christian teaching. Do you think I'm wrong about that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 543 by Rahvin, posted 11-13-2014 3:02 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 550 by Rahvin, posted 11-13-2014 5:27 PM Faith has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 550 of 2073 (741676)
11-13-2014 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 549 by Faith
11-13-2014 4:50 PM


Re: Coyotes call
You're a good guy, Rahvin, fair and decent.
Not always, but I do try. Hopefully I'm getting better.
Too bad you gave up on Christianity.
It's not so much that I "gave up on Christianity," and more that I realized that I held some mutually exclusive beliefs and had to re-analyze what I believed.
In a nutshell, the result was that I rejected faith as a valid methodology for gaining accurate beliefs about reality. Since my Christianity was entirely based on faith, it was a casualty in that conflict.
I can go into detail if you'd like. I don't think I've ever done one of those "why I'm an atheist" threads that pop up here now and again.
But your basic fairness may come from having been raised under Christian teaching. Do you think I'm wrong about that?
Too difficult to tell. I can't easily separate what parts of my personality and values originally came from Christian values.
I can say that "fairness" is part of the ethical development system for all humans, regardless of culture and religion. At a certain age (think elementary school, if I recall correctly), you'll notice kids start caring an awful lot about what's "fair." Before that age they just go with what the Authority (their parents) says. You'll notice the same general trend in every culture. It's tied to the continued development of the brain, in this case specifically the part responsible for empathy.
For myself, I care less about "fairness" and more about accuracy. Whether it's fair to you or not, I want to have an accurate understanding of your positions. The best way available for me to do that is to make the same assumptions you do to the best of my ability, and imagine how I'd react under the same circumstances. Only by building an accurate representation of your position can I accurately predict which arguments will or will not work.
It's also really great to practice beating down that urge to simply mock an opponent's views. I succumb to that a lot, and it's just not helpful. Fun, sometimes, and it can sway fence-sitters on occasion, but usually it just means that you wind up creating a strawman.
If we were to discuss my positions on crime and punishment, you might find that I throw "fairness" almost completely out the window.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995...
"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord Of the Rings
Nihil supernum

This message is a reply to:
 Message 549 by Faith, posted 11-13-2014 4:50 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 551 by Faith, posted 11-13-2014 5:34 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 551 of 2073 (741677)
11-13-2014 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 550 by Rahvin
11-13-2014 5:27 PM


Re: Coyotes call
Of course I mean when I say you're fair that you are right in your assessment of my motives and how I arrive at my views. If that doesn't hold up, well...
I'd enjoy seeing you do a thread on how you came to your atheism, sure. That's always interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 550 by Rahvin, posted 11-13-2014 5:27 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 552 of 2073 (741685)
11-13-2014 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 544 by Faith
11-13-2014 3:08 PM


Re: Coyotes call
Consider your idiotic comparison debated: "recognize the extreme difference."
I have made it a lifelong rule not to arbitrarily consider false things to be true. (You might want to give that a try yourself some time.)
If you have no substantive argument, fine, but in that case let's not kid ourselves that you do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 544 by Faith, posted 11-13-2014 3:08 PM Faith has not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 553 of 2073 (741815)
11-14-2014 8:31 PM


Paradox of teachings
The subjects of religion and science have large areas of overlap, they can agree on many points. And they can agree even more as religions give up their stance on creationist views, which has been happening on the official level.
But if religions remain where they came from, there is less to agree on with science.
And if science included God in the picture then it would merge to some extent into religion.
My argument is that true science and true religion are the one and same study and that they can and should be taught together.
But the prevalence of false religion and false science has not only created a divide but a merging of the two, like a dysfunctional relationship does.
Science disproves the false aspect of religion, and false science disproves the true aspect of religion.
If we separate these two imbeciles, we only perpetuate their development, and if we teach them together, it creates more confusion.
Since both these subjects have elements of truth to them, there are those who think that they are compatible. But since they are both have error mixed in...
not a wonder it is an unsettled affair.

Replies to this message:
 Message 554 by Coyote, posted 11-14-2014 9:31 PM Colbard has replied
 Message 566 by RAZD, posted 11-15-2014 12:11 PM Colbard has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 554 of 2073 (741822)
11-14-2014 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 553 by Colbard
11-14-2014 8:31 PM


Re: Paradox of teachings
My argument is that true science and true religion are the one and same study and that they can and should be taught together.
True science and TRVE religion are diametrically opposed, 180 opposite.
True science relies on evidence, while TRVE religion abhors evidence in favor of dogma and un-evidenced beliefs.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 553 by Colbard, posted 11-14-2014 8:31 PM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 556 by Colbard, posted 11-15-2014 8:41 AM Coyote has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 555 of 2073 (741840)
11-14-2014 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 525 by ringo
11-13-2014 10:55 AM


Re: Bristles
The point is that the house must be at least as old as its oldest part.
I thought I was following your argument up until this point. Aren't houses normally younger than their foundations? And what's to prevent me from installing an old door in my new house? I understand that people actually do reuse old wooden stuff in their houses.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 525 by ringo, posted 11-13-2014 10:55 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 561 by ringo, posted 11-15-2014 10:53 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024