Evolution vs. Creation

[Lil Ticked]

anonymous wrote:

<quoted text>Christian Porn? Sounds like something kinky from Opus Dei! You're not trying to sell some to finance a new pope-mobile or something, are you?

If you are buying then I will try and find some for ya... I could use a bullet proof mobile throne.

[Cybele]

Go Cardinals!

http://www.ksdk.com/rss/article/355115/3/Sauc...

[Subduction Zone]

TheIndependentMajority wrote:

<quoted text>
Read the citation and then do the work yourself. The world does NOT owe you anything for nothing.

When debating on the internet it is common courtesy for the person quoting someone to both accurately quote the person and to link a source. Creationists especially have an extremely bad reputation for quoting out of context and even using false quotes. Sometimes it is not the creationist's own fault, they tend to go to creationist sites and those have been caught lying countless times.

Whenever I quote someone or an article I follow this rule myself.

Here is an example. The story of Goliath is one that has grown with the telling, as have many other stories in the Bible. There is very good Biblical evidence for this claim. The source of this claim are the Dead Sea Scrolls from the text of Samuel, and nonbiblically from other sources. He was, from these accounts, only about 6'9".

Now that height makes a lot more sense. You can still be a warrior when you are that tall. If fact you would be called a "giant" at 6'9"when the average height was probably much closer to 5'2" than the current heights of men. At 9'9" you would be over nine inches taller than the tallest man on record. And he, as all other giants, ran afoul of the square/cube law and had trouble walking, let alone fighting. A 9'9" giant would never be a fearsome warrior. Back then or even today.

Oops, almost broke my rule:

Goliath's height

Goliath laughs at David
Goliath's stature grew at the hand of narrators or scribes: the oldest manuscripts — the Dead Sea Scrolls text of Samuel, the first-century historian Josephus, and the fourth century Septuagint manuscripts — all give his height as "four cubits and a span" (6 feet 9 inches or 2.06 m); later manuscripts increase this to "six cubits and a span" (9 feet 9 inches or 2.97 m).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goliath

[Subduction Zone]

Very strange. I don't know where that snippet "Goliath laughs at David" came from. I did a simple copy and paste from the Wiki article I mentioned and that phrase somehow snuck in there.

[PlayDoh]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
When you copy and paste from a source, you owe the authors the credit, thus you owe them a link. Otherwise it's plagiarism.

There was author NO author listed, but rather instead the source of the original article, a source which often times uses more than just one writer per article, thus it claims rights of the articles origins.

Sorry YOU missed that part. That is why the trained (and myself) personally cite things-rather than to LAMELY try to act like they had hand in writing them. Anything else is kind of like wikistoopedia level then-mere copy/paste REWRITES of what someone else has already written

Actually kind of DUHm.(why not just do pages of citations (bibliographies) rather than restating/rewriting (which is actually plagerism in iteself) what others have already been written.
There's nothing more laughable, than some loser, trying to act like they originated any writing, that someone else wrote.

Especially when the writing might've been deemed NOT "so gooDUH" only F worthy LOL.

(Idiots are good for a laugh sometimes though!)

[TheIndependentMa jority]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
When debating on the internet it is common courtesy for the person quoting someone to both accurately quote the person and to link a source. Creationists especially have an extremely bad reputation for quoting out of context and even using false quotes. Sometimes it is not the creationist's own fault, they tend to go to creationist sites and those have been caught lying countless times.
Whenever I quote someone or an article I follow this rule myself.
Here is an example. The story of Goliath is one that has grown with the telling, as have many other stories in the Bible. There is very good Biblical evidence for this claim. The source of this claim are the Dead Sea Scrolls from the text of Samuel, and nonbiblically from other sources. He was, from these accounts, only about 6'9".
Now that height makes a lot more sense. You can still be a warrior when you are that tall. If fact you would be called a "giant" at 6'9"when the average height was probably much closer to 5'2" than the current heights of men. At 9'9" you would be over nine inches taller than the tallest man on record. And he, as all other giants, ran afoul of the square/cube law and had trouble walking, let alone fighting. A 9'9" giant would never be a fearsome warrior. Back then or even today.
Oops, almost broke my rule:
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goliath

Maybe I'd rather see SOME of them have to actually DO THE WORK in having to dig a little for it, off of their OWN efforts.

Link supplied, courtesy perhaps, but NOT officially mandatory.

(especially for something that already had more than enough info supplied, a trained monkey could've found it, with one eye shut.)

And what do you see at the bottom of wikistoopdia pages?

That's right-the only things that SAVE them, from being nothing but pages of abject plagiarism. Resources used, in redoing what had already been done.:-)

[TheIndependentMa jority]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
When debating on the internet it is common courtesy for the person quoting someone to both accurately quote the person and to link a source. Creationists especially have an extremely bad reputation for quoting out of context and even using false quotes. Sometimes it is not the creationist's own fault, they tend to go to creationist sites and those have been caught lying countless times.
Whenever I quote someone or an article I follow this rule myself.
Here is an example. The story of Goliath is one that has grown with the telling, as have many other stories in the Bible. There is very good Biblical evidence for this claim. The source of this claim are the Dead Sea Scrolls from the text of Samuel, and nonbiblically from other sources. He was, from these accounts, only about 6'9".
Now that height makes a lot more sense. You can still be a warrior when you are that tall. If fact you would be called a "giant" at 6'9"when the average height was probably much closer to 5'2" than the current heights of men. At 9'9" you would be over nine inches taller than the tallest man on record. And he, as all other giants, ran afoul of the square/cube law and had trouble walking, let alone fighting. A 9'9" giant would never be a fearsome warrior. Back then or even today.
Oops, almost broke my rule:
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goliath

(you should've seen the pea growing seasons mention on the Matterhorn lol)

[TheIndependentMa jority]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
The man in the house is the bread winner, not a loser. I do my best to get an education for myself and raise 2 boys who are honor students. You don't have the right to dictate how we should live and what lifestyle we choose. You are a TIC and you should be ashamed of that.

Well that's nice, it's always nice when our children are talented, and do well isn't it. I know I am very proud of mine, and their accomplishements too.
Not sure what tangent you're going off on with the rest of your rantings though-maye just projecting your own life frustration-not my problem, so don't dump it on me!!
And your TIC thing-IS "plagiarism", as in UN- original. Try and get that right from now on too, mmk? Thx.

[KittenKoder]

PlayDoh wrote:

<quoted text>
There was author NO author listed, but rather instead the source of the original article, a source which often times uses more than just one writer per article, thus it claims rights of the articles origins.
Sorry YOU missed that part. That is why the trained (and myself) personally cite things-rather than to LAMELY try to act like they had hand in writing them. Anything else is kind of like wikistoopedia level then-mere copy/paste REWRITES of what someone else has already written
Actually kind of DUHm.(why not just do pages of citations (bibliographies) rather than restating/rewriting (which is actually plagerism in iteself) what others have already been written.
There's nothing more laughable, than some loser, trying to act like they originated any writing, that someone else wrote.
Especially when the writing might've been deemed NOT "so gooDUH" only F worthy LOL.
(Idiots are good for a laugh sometimes though!)

That is why you post the link. You did not write it, thus without the link, you are the plagiarizer.

[TheIndependentMa jority]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
She does that all the time. She can't formulate her own conclusions or interpret what the source say.

Sorry YOU missed the correct citation. I don't do wikistoopedia level ignorance...OR plagiarism.

[TheIndependentMa jority]

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9997587/ns/techno...
And...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gath_%28city%29

REALITY.(A.P.)
Ben Hartman, July 29, 2010, Jerusalem Post.

[TheIndependentMa jority]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
That is why you post the link. You did not write it, thus without the link, you are the plagiarizer.

I did, Sorry you missed it. Next time, maybe try reading all the way to the bottom?

[TheIndependentMa jority]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
When you copy and paste from a source, you owe the authors the credit, thus you owe them a link. Otherwise it's plagiarism.

Or for those who might be a little slower-sometimes I'll just post it right off the bat--so as not to try and CONFUSE them.
Sorry you got confused before you even got to the article!!

Hmm...that is a matter of perspective "observation" it seems, at times.
A.P. "Scientists find ‘Goliath’ inscribed on pottery; Reference from 950 B.C. lends credence to Bible tale, Archaeologists say." 11/10/2005. MSN ScienceNews Web. 1/8/2013

(article clip followed)

[TheIndependentMa jority]

Kong_ wrote:

<quoted text>
It is common courtesy to provide a link to the article you reference.
As far as anyone "OWING" me anything, blow it out your ass, bub.
I *DO* work, am at work now, and pay my own way.

Did you like the article? It's common courtesy NOT to plagerize anyones work, that is why I cited it.
You're welcome, I enjoyed the article, such of refreshing change from some of the garbage that floats around in my area sometimes.

[Cybele]

TheIndependentMajority wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe I'd rather see SOME of them have to actually DO THE WORK in having to dig a little for it, off of their OWN efforts.
Link supplied, courtesy perhaps, but NOT officially mandatory.
(especially for something that already had more than enough info supplied, a trained monkey could've found it, with one eye shut.)
And what do you see at the bottom of wikistoopdia pages?
That's right-the only things that SAVE them, from being nothing but pages of abject plagiarism. Resources used, in redoing what had already been done.:-)

You should laugh at yourself because you are being stoopid.

Did the brains fall out of that crack or do you actually have a head? In case you are not aware, the authors of wikipedia did not get all that info first hand. They have reliable sources. Your attitude shows that you could write for Uncyclopedia.

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Stupid

[TheIndependentMa jority]

Kong_ wrote:

Or "IndependantMajority "

Whiner. Just because you had to look it up yourself.
Welcome to the REAL world of WORK...apeboy.

[TheIndependentMa jority]

Subduction Zone wrote:

Very strange. I don't know where that snippet "Goliath laughs at David" came from. I did a simple copy and paste from the Wiki article I mentioned and that phrase somehow snuck in there.

Imagine that.

[PhiThetaKappa]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
That is why you post the link. You did not write it, thus without the link, I am the plagiarizer.

We know.

[Cybele]

Some people here should laugh at themselves for being stoopid.

I think the brains fell out of that crack or they probably didn't have a head to begin with.

These people don't know what constructive criticism is so they resort to ad homs to make them feel good.

Someone with that IQ is best to write for a website "Uncyclopedia"

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Stupid

LMAO!

[PhiThetaKappa]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
You should laugh at yourself because you are being stoopid.
Did the brains fall out of that crack or do you actually have a head? In case you are not aware, the authors of wikipedia did not get all that info first hand. They have reliable sources. Your attitude shows that you could write for Uncyclopedia.
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Stupid

Here's a little reality clue for you-

This is NOT a classroom, this is a highly UNcredible news thread, as in a GARBAGE bin of the internet.

Try not to take it as anything else but, because that is ALL it is.

Intelligent people realize that, as well as realize what some of us refer to as "wikistoopedia" is.(for good reason too-which is why it is not regarded as acceptable, as a wholly reliable source unto itself in the REAL realms of academia).

Which is why, many of us also realize, Really, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know any of THAT either.