Albatrossity2
Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
| Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,23:30) | Just because Dave and OM didn't know the definition of the word certainly shouldn't mean that no one knows the definition.
IMHO, it's the best definition to use in this case. |
Baloney.
As two different people pointed out, there are (at least) two acceptable definitions. My definition and oldman's definition is just as valid as FtK's definition, we just didn't know how she was using it. I'm pretty damn sure that I know that word's definition, and probably a lot more definitions of words that FtK misuses all the time. In fact, my conversations with her started with her misuse of the word "random".
Did you get that, FtK? Ironically, this is the first time on this board that two different things can be equally valid, and you missed it.
As for incest, I found that comment right after I posted the last comment. So thanks. As others have mentioned, there is little there to bash Skatje for.
But even more importantly, the example of incest might not be the best one for your purposes of yammering about god-given moral codes vs. evolution. There are good biological reasons why incest is not good for a species, and thus good biological reasons why an aversion to incest might have evolved. Yet in the science book that you choose, your god CONDONES incest at least twice. If you read Genesis, in fact, you will have to conclude that your god DEMANDED incest, since he left the offspring of Adam and Eve no choice but to have intercourse with their siblings.
A rational person, of course, would look at this EVIDENCE and conclude that an evolutionary explanation of an aversion to incest makes more sense than the god-given explanation, which in fact condones it. I am therefore expecting no such response from FtK.
--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers
|
