Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist...
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#517 Mar 6, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Dr. Watson did not propose a scientific theory or hypothesis based on real-world observations or scientific evidence. He made offensive comments based on personal prejudices very likely acquired in his formative years in Chicago.

2. He was ostracized in the same way that creationists are ostracized for making comments based on personal biases acquired through Bible indoctrination.
If you’re going to shoot off your mouth you have to be able to back it up with scientific evidence.

3. <quoted text>
"Redemption: Deliverance of sinners from the penalty of their sins through the murder of their deity against whom they sinned." -Ambrose Bierce
Absurd!
Truth is truth and if you’re offended by the truth you’re a fool.
<quoted text>

4. There is no scientific evidence of anything supernatural occurring in so-called cases of exorcism. Predictably requests for exorcisms have decreased as the advancements in medical knowledge have increased.
1. You seem to be singing a different tune here. Here's what you said before:

"I think Dr. Watson’s comments were certainly racist in character. I don’t know Dr. Watson personally and I can’t judge him a racist or not a racist simply on the basis of those comments. I don’t know what his background is and he may well have been raised in a racist environment which still affects his thinking to this day. He obviously wasn’t thinking too clearly when he made those statements.

He was treated exactly as he should have been for making unsupported very offensive comments."

First you didn't know, now you know.

2. Way to switch the focus off his 'evolutionary' beliefs to 'Christianity'.

3. What's absurd? The method of redemption, or the fact that we 'need' redemption. The truth is, we 'all' need redemption. Does that presentation of truth offend you?

4. Science doesn't deal in the supernatural. And one of the reasons exorcisms may be declining is because mental institutions lock many away, doomed to die while in a constant drug inducement. The 'truth' is, we have absolutely no idea on how to handle a demon possessed individual by 'scientific' method. Just keep them out of sight, and continue to boast over human advancement.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#518 Mar 7, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
So your “God” created Adam and Eve and told them not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (even though “He” is omniscient and knew beforehand that they would disobey “Him”) had a fit of temper, as if “He” didn’t know it was going to happen, and condemned all future human beings for the disobedience of those two. That doesn’t sound very patient and forgiving to me.
<quoted text>
1. I don't know if there's a particular word for this, but what you're doing is attempting to make something sound absurd by over simplified exaggeration. Imagine 2,000 years from now, all historic records are destroyed from a world war, including internet data. The world has re-modernized, but the only records of 'our' time available are a few faded newspapers. Many people blame the now historic devastating "world war" on the U.S.(like how Christianity is blamed for everything today by some). The anti-American activists constantly refer to the atom bomb, the Vietnam war, the Iraqi war, etc.

The anti-American activists maintain that the U.S. had a form of entertainment similar to the Roman gladiator games, except far more brutal. They get this idea from a Sports page of a newspaper found in a cave. The pictures are too faded to tell what's happening, but the front page reads "Cowboys slaughter Redskins in a blowout victory". From this the alleged intellectuals deduct that in 1985, gladiator games were held in a coliseum in a city called Dallas, where Native Americans were forced to battle cowboys (who of course were better equipped with firearms). They also gathered that gladiator games consisted of animals against animals, fish against animals, man against animals (bears, dolphins, tigers, pirates, vikings, etc.).

Some of the U.S. sympathizers, in claiming that the U.S. was basically good, produced written evidence that in the 1800's, Americans enjoyed what was called 'sport'; one in which involved a pig-skinned ball they would kick, throw, and run with with the intent of reaching a goal line, and they invoked nicknames for their teams, and used hyperbole like 'destroyed','slaughtered', to describe a one-sided victory. And that these later games were merely more popularized versions of the earlier games in the 1800s.

The comeback for the alleged intellectuals (using over simplified exaggeration) would likely be: "So 30,000 plus humans payed money to sit in a Roman like coliseum to watch two teams kick and throw a pig-skinned football around while they tried to get over some line drawn in the grass? Absurd!!!
socci

Everton, MO

#519 Mar 7, 2013

Before that God created the angels and also gave them free will. God put the Tree in the Garden and knew by free will sin would enter the world. This is later explained as the wheat & tares as all must choose their path before eternity on the new earth to come.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#520 Mar 7, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. Don’t give me that “God’s” command is to love stuff. Christians throughout history have been brutal and intolerant in relation to their fellow man. Christians have a distinct tendency to demonize those who disagree with them.

2. Once an opponent is demonized any violence perpetrated against that opponent is OK. It was only through the rational thinking of people like Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson that we finally put a stop to religious intolerance and brutality.
1. That's like saying "Don't give me that murder is illegal stuff. Murders happen all the time!"

2. It's interesting how you always mention Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. At least you claim that these apparent caped crusaders had this rather unknown following of deists who just sort of rescued our nation from all those terrible Christians (like George Washington). There's a poster here who actually claimed that Thomas Jefferson "single-handedly" saved our nation from religion. I can see we're going to go around in circles again.

Apparently Paine and Jefferson had no control of what was to come a century or so later when Darwin's theory brought about "scientific racism".

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_zoo
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#521 Mar 7, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. Incorerect!
"The only idea man can affix to the name of God is that of a first cause, the cause of all things.”- Thomas Paine
The idea that “God” made a choice in the same sense that we human beings make choices cannot be applied to Thomas Paine’s “God”. It’s purely a product of your human mind. I know you don’t understand that because you have to think about it to understand.
<quoted text>
Very well put! Think about it.

<quoted text>
Of course anyone that makes an unsupported statement that offends an entire race may be in physical jeopardy from those offended, but it’s a far stretch to suggest that people claiming that Watson’s statement was a scientific hypothesis would be in physical jeopardy for making that claim is absurd.
1. By all means. Let's think about it. First off, it would help to understand that atheism was pretty much looked down upon by everyone at the time. And that included Paine. So we can't attempt to place him in the same category of thinking of an atheist, or even agnostic. Or even modern deists for that matter. What is evident is that many today are attempting to claim they can somehow read his mind.

"I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life."

If Paine did not make any claims concerning God, why conclude there was only one god (force, etc.)? Even if we assume he's addressing his disbelief of the Trinity.

"It was The Age Of Reason which led Theodore Roosevelt to label Thomas Paine as an Atheist. But this is not so. Thomas Paine was a Deist; he believed that the Universe was guided by natural law, that our hearts are guided by divine law -- he believed in a god who held reverence for all."

The whole talk about "God not making choices in the same sense that we make choices" may sound impressive to some; but very contradictory. You're still claiming that a God that you don't even know exists falls the patter on Paine's thinking, and inevitably yours. It is true, God's way of thinking is way above ours. This is probably why you can't relate to Christ's sacrifice on the cross. It conflicts with your human reasoning.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#522 Mar 7, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
You are denying the historical fact that Christian leaders of their day denied and obstructed the science of Copernicus and Galileo because it disagreed with SCRIPTURE (revelation), not because it disagreed with Aristotelian philosophy.
1539 –“This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but SACRED SCRIPTURE tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.''- Martin Luther
1564 – Council of Trent (Session IV, April 8):“The Fathers unanimously interpreted the SCRIPTURES as supporting a geocentric cosmology.”
1615 –“to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens...and the earth... revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing… rendering the HOLY SCRIPTURES false.”- Cardinal Bellarmine
1616 – On March 5, the Congregation of the Index condemns all writings of Copernicus. The Congregation declared that such a theory was “false and contrary to HOLY SCRIPTURE…”.
1758 – Pope Benedict XIV removes Copernicus’ book from the Index, after editors removed nine sentences which taught that heliocentrism was a certainty. However, the Church’s condemnation of Copernicanism on the grounds that its teachings are heretical and contrary to SCRIPTURE is not overturned.
1885 – Father William Roberts publishes his book The Pontifical Decrees Against the Doctrine of the Earth’s Movement. Fr. Roberts presents a strong case for the position that the Church’s CONDEMNATION OF HELIOCENTRISM IS INFALLIBLE.
“Articles arguing that GEOCENTRISM WAS THE BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE appeared in some early creation science newsletters associated with the Creation Research Society pointing to some passages in the Bible, which, when taken literally, indicate that the daily apparent motions of the Sun and the Moon are due to their actual motions around the Earth rather than due to the rotation of the Earth about its axis…”- Ronald L. Numbers, historian of science
<quoted text>

2. Both Dawkins and Galileo say the same thing. The Bible should not hinder scientific research or affect scientific findings.

3.“What Galileo and Newton were to the seventeenth century, Darwin was to the nineteenth.”— Bertrand Russell
The religious leaders of that day incorporated geocentricism into their 'church' doctrine. The Bible doesn't say that the Sun revolves around the Earth. If you think it does, show me where. I'll ask the question again (for the 3rd?, 4th?, time), when the Catholic church incorporated geocentricism into their church doctrine, what did the rest of the world believe? Church doctrine is 'not' revelation. How can that be made more clear?

2. And the nice thing is, is that it doesn't hinder scientific research, or affect scientific findings. Church doctrine, which was a universal scientific theory incorporated into doctrine, hindered scientific research at that time. But today, you can't blame creationists for exposing evolutionary hoaxes.

3. And what Hitler was to the Jews, early evolutionists was to aborigines.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#523 Mar 7, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
The religious leaders of that day incorporated geocentricism into their 'church' doctrine. The Bible doesn't say that the Sun revolves around the Earth. If you think it does, show me where. I'll ask the question again (for the 3rd?, 4th?, time), when the Catholic church incorporated geocentricism into their church doctrine, what did the rest of the world believe? Church doctrine is 'not' revelation. How can that be made more clear?
I don’t interpret the bible literally so I see nothing in it that can possibly conflict with science but the religious leaders of Galileo’s and Copernicus’ era did interpret the Bible literally. They explicitly stated that they rejected and opposed the science of Copernicus and Galileo BECAUSE IT DISAGREED WITH HOLY SCRIPTURE. Correct me if I am wrong but Holy Scripture is the Bible is it not. How can it be more clear that they rejected and opposed heliocentrism because it conflicted with their literal interpretation of the Bible.

Their problem was a literal interpretation of Bible passages. That’s a historical fact. You reject the Theory of Evolution BECAUSE IT DISAGREES WITH YOUR LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF HOLY SCRIPTURE (GENESIS). You are doing the same thing they did.
Job wrote:
2. And the nice thing is, is that it doesn't hinder scientific research, or affect scientific findings. Church doctrine, which was a universal scientific theory incorporated into doctrine, hindered scientific research at that time. But today, you can't blame creationists for exposing evolutionary hoaxes.
The only reason religion no longer hinders science to the degree it did in the past because it no longer has the political power it had in the past.
Job wrote:
3. And what Hitler was to the Jews, early evolutionists was to aborigines.
?
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#524 Mar 7, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. By all means. Let's think about it. First off, it would help to understand that atheism was pretty much looked down upon by everyone at the time. And that included Paine. So we can't attempt to place him in the same category of thinking of an atheist, or even agnostic. Or even modern deists for that matter. What is evident is that many today are attempting to claim they can somehow read his mind.
"I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life."
If Paine did not make any claims concerning God, why conclude there was only one god (force, etc.)? Even if we assume he's addressing his disbelief of the Trinity.
"It was The Age Of Reason which led Theodore Roosevelt to label Thomas Paine as an Atheist. But this is not so. Thomas Paine was a Deist; he believed that the Universe was guided by natural law, that our hearts are guided by divine law -- he believed in a god who held reverence for all."
The whole talk about "God not making choices in the same sense that we make choices" may sound impressive to some; but very contradictory. You're still claiming that a God that you don't even know exists falls the patter on Paine's thinking, and inevitably yours. It is true, God's way of thinking is way above ours. This is probably why you can't relate to Christ's sacrifice on the cross. It conflicts with your human reasoning.
I am an agnostic. I don’t necessarily accept Thomas Paine’s “God” either, but his “incomprehensible creator” makes a lot more sense than your “medieval tyrant creator”. His god concept comes about through reason not revelation.

"It is only by the exercise of reason that man can discover God.”- Thomas Paine

"...the religion of Deism is superior to the Christian Religion....Its creed is pure, and sublimely simple. It believes in God, and there it rests." - Thomas Paine

"If horses had gods, they would look like horses." - Xenophanes (4th century BCE)
socci

Everton, MO

#525 Mar 7, 2013
Big Al wrote:
It was only through the rational thinking of people like Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson that we finally put a stop to religious intolerance and brutality.

Actually what happened was the holy roman empire ended. It was dissolved by revolution. Not all religion is brutal, only a few. Specifically ROME & ISLAM.

Rome was banned in the colonies. Jefferson argued Roman Catholics had the right to hold political office and opposed intolerance for Roman Catholics.

Marxism & The USA

In 1774 the delegates for the Continental Congress assembled in Philadelphia. Hostilities had already broken out and the delegates, although all from the wealthier classes of society, were under pressure to adopt a more radical stand. Originally the majority of the upper class Americans did not want independence. But the mood of the masses made all thought of compromise impossible. The situation was explosive and this favored the most radical elements in Congress. As a result, on July 4, 1776, the Thirteen United States of America declared their independence from Great Britain.

The task of drafting the declaration was given to a committee composed of John Adams (cousin of Samuel Adams and future President), Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert R. Livingston, and Roger Sherman. Thomas Jefferson, a 33-year-old Virginian landowner and left-winger, was charged by the committee to write the declaration. He wrote one of the most inspiring revolutionary documents in history.

The Declaration of Independence, with its ringing endorsement of the idea of liberty and equality for all, was a clarion call to the downtrodden and oppressed everywhere. It was as revolutionary in 1776 as The Communist Manifesto would be in 1848.

On the thorny question of religion, however, Jefferson was implacable. He insisted that, though the citizen had the right to hold any belief he or she chose, governments did not have the right to favour any faith. Therefore the state and religion must be radically separated. At the time when this democratic principle was proclaimed, the states had their own laws on religion, mostly of a retrograde character. Some states prohibited Roman Catholicism. The radical separation of the state and religion is a basic democratic principle.
http://ireland.marxist.com/international/7598... -


Then followed Civil War after the Irish flooded in taking over the politics in Washington, as the states were taken over by DC.

Washington has never been good. They are running all the wars today and destroying the economy with their globalism. Cant think of anything good from the district of criminals. But they rule the place and not much can be done about that. Brace for impact!

Along with Paine and Jefferson, the Famous & wealthy Jesuit Carroll family signed the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
socci

Everton, MO

#526 Mar 7, 2013
>"The only reason religion no longer hinders science to the degree it did in the past because it no longer has the political power it had in the past."

-

Marxist spin. Religion never hindered science - Rome did.

"We must war against all prevailing ideas of religion, of the state, of country, of patriotism. The idea of God is the keynote of a perverted civilization. It must be destroyed." - Karl Marx

Big Al is a rabid marxist who are responsible for the deaths of millions since 1775.

Marxism

www.youtube.com/watch...


Oddly enuff marxism was created by Rome's Jesuits and crusading masonic Templars, and that is who continues their world revolution today, e.g. Obama & Rockefeller's CFR.


No truth in marxism, it is just political. Bible is truth.

Bible right again!


Job

Santa Clara, CA

#527 Mar 7, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
I don’t interpret the bible literally so I see nothing in it that can possibly conflict with science but the religious leaders of Galileo’s and Copernicus’ era did interpret the Bible literally. They explicitly stated that they rejected and opposed the science of Copernicus and Galileo BECAUSE IT DISAGREED WITH HOLY SCRIPTURE. Correct me if I am wrong but Holy Scripture is the Bible is it not. How can it be more clear that they rejected and opposed heliocentrism because it conflicted with their literal interpretation of the Bible.
Their problem was a literal interpretation of Bible passages. That’s a historical fact. You reject the Theory of Evolution BECAUSE IT DISAGREES WITH YOUR LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF HOLY SCRIPTURE (GENESIS). You are doing the same thing they did.

2. <quoted text>
The only reason religion no longer hinders science to the degree it did in the past because it no longer has the political power it had in the past.
<quoted text>
?
1. You're confusing 'misinterpretation' with 'literalness'. The misconception today is that European church leaders in the dark ages had a better understanding of the Bible than we do today. This assumption is false. One should understand that this doctrine existed in the second century after Christ's life on earth. They spoke a different language than the Hebrews. They didn't have the linguistic abilities we have today. However, what is, and was important, would be love for God which caused human kindness to others irregardless of understanding of doctrine. For instance, Cory Ten Boom may or may not have had a thorough understanding of scripture, but her love for Jesus was an inspiration for her to commit random acts of kindness to Jews. History doesn't record many "selfless" Christians. For one, they don't help any anti-religion causes. But probably more often than not, they just simply are unknown. In the Gospels, Jesus would place emphasis on unknown, unimportant people. So when you are addressing Christians historically, you are excluding countless numbers of unknown Christians throughout history, worldwide, who understood the core message of Jesus Christ.

And again, if you wish to use the "literal interpretation" theme to suggest that the Bible teaches geocentricity; then you have to call into question the many evolutionists who say "I got up early to watch the Sun rise".

2. I believe that I stated that the "Bible" doesn't hinder science. "Religion" is really a whole different issue, covering a number of themes that doesn't necessarily need to involve a deity(ies).

3. Scientific Racism really came into fruition after Darwinism came on to the scene. Racism had existed throughout history, but then they were able to falsely justify it by what they interpreted to be scientific evidence. Scientific Racism is highly shunned today, but I would suggest that we still see a little bit of it that goes mostly unnoticed.

Scientific Racism didn't involve 'genocide', at least not to the magnitude of Nazism. But the whole placing races on display at a world fair as lower life forms, and the eventual placement of a pygmy into a zoo (who later committed suicide) was certainly tragic.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#528 Mar 7, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>

Their problem was a literal interpretation of Bible passages. That’s a historical fact. You reject the Theory of Evolution BECAUSE IT DISAGREES WITH YOUR LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF HOLY SCRIPTURE (GENESIS). You are doing the same thing they did.
<quoted text>
When we're talking about creation scientists today, they actually confront evolutionists on 'scientific' flaws. It's the theory of evolution itself that has problems from a scientific perspective.
socci

Everton, MO

#529 Mar 7, 2013
WW II based on Race & Religion

History is often written making World War II about race and the Holocaust. Race is but a layer of the onion to mask the real motive. The propaganda: "lesser races". But the real motivation for the war? Germany and Europe have a long history of religious conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race#Occul...

From Darwin to Hitler

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

www.csustan.edu/history/faculty/weikart/fromd...

www.youtube.com/watch...

http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/video/31
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#530 Mar 7, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You seem to be singing a different tune here. Here's what you said before:
"I think Dr. Watson’s comments were certainly racist in character. I don’t know Dr. Watson personally and I can’t judge him a racist or not a racist simply on the basis of those comments. I don’t know what his background is and he may well have been raised in a racist environment which still affects his thinking to this day. He obviously wasn’t thinking too clearly when he made those statements.
He was treated exactly as he should have been for making unsupported very offensive comments."
First you didn't know, now you know.
No I am only suggesting the possibility that growing up in a large city like Chicago which has had its share of racial unrest over the years may have been the source of his offensive comments. That doesn’t mean I claim to know that he is a racist.
Job wrote:
2. Way to switch the focus off his 'evolutionary' beliefs to 'Christianity'.
The comments of creationists are certainly nowhere near as offensive as Watson’s comments but they are just as baseless.
Job wrote:
3. What's absurd? The method of redemption, or the fact that we 'need' redemption. The truth is, we 'all' need redemption. Does that presentation of truth offend you?
"The story of the redemption will not stand examination. That man should redeem himself from the sin of eating an apple by committing a murder on Jesus Christ, is the strangest system of religion ever set up." - Thomas Paine
Job wrote:
4. Science doesn't deal in the supernatural. And one of the reasons exorcisms may be declining is because mental institutions lock many away, doomed to die while in a constant drug inducement. The 'truth' is, we have absolutely no idea on how to handle a demon possessed individual by 'scientific' method. Just keep them out of sight, and continue to boast over human advancement.
Superstitious people in the Middle Ages thought the Plague was caused by the Devil. Rational thinking people rejected that idea and discovered the cause was germs carried by the fleas on rats.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#531 Mar 7, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
When we're talking about creation scientists today, they actually confront evolutionists on 'scientific' flaws. It's the theory of evolution itself that has problems from a scientific perspective.
Creationists can “only” suggest that the science is flawed because creationists have no scientific evidence to support their claims. They did the same thing to Galileo.

“By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox [absurdity].”- Galileo Galilei

Only by denying valid science can creationists maintain their absurdities.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#532 Mar 7, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You're confusing 'misinterpretation' with 'literalness'. The misconception today is that European church leaders in the dark ages had a better understanding of the Bible than we do today. This assumption is false. One should understand that this doctrine existed in the second century after Christ's life on earth. They spoke a different language than the Hebrews. They didn't have the linguistic abilities we have today. However, what is, and was important, would be love for God which caused human kindness to others irregardless of understanding of doctrine. For instance, Cory Ten Boom may or may not have had a thorough understanding of scripture, but her love for Jesus was an inspiration for her to commit random acts of kindness to Jews. History doesn't record many "selfless" Christians. For one, they don't help any anti-religion causes. But probably more often than not, they just simply are unknown. In the Gospels, Jesus would place emphasis on unknown, unimportant people. So when you are addressing Christians historically, you are excluding countless numbers of unknown Christians throughout history, worldwide, who understood the core message of Jesus Christ.
And again, if you wish to use the "literal interpretation" theme to suggest that the Bible teaches geocentricity; then you have to call into question the many evolutionists who say "I got up early to watch the Sun rise".
Incorrect!

A literal interpretation is generally a misinterpretation.
Martin Luther said,“…sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth".

"The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is the actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronologic problems thereby entailed.”– Henry M. Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research

Luther says Joshua commanding the sun to stand still is the literal truth and Morris says Genesis is the literal truth. I see no difference between the two.
socci

Everton, MO

#533 Mar 7, 2013
Big Al wrote:
Luther says Joshua commanding the sun to stand still is the literal truth and Morris says Genesis is the literal truth. I see no difference between the two.

Yet have still not proven otherwise in your assumptions that evolution and science are the same.

...waiting...
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#534 Mar 7, 2013
socci wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet have still not proven otherwise in your assumptions that evolution and science are the same.
...waiting...
Do you accept the scientific evidence that the Earth revoles around the Sun?
socci

Everton, MO

#535 Mar 7, 2013
Big Al wrote:
Do you accept the scientific evidence that the Earth revoles around the Sun?

You are not ready for cosmology theories until you prove the age of the earth with science facts, and 'big bangism'.

Start here on earth and prove your theories about the age of the earth and 'caveman' before moving into space theories.

Do you believe the little river formed the Grand Canyon?

Do you believe there was a big bang to form everything including You and I?
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#536 Mar 8, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>

<quoted text>
Of course anyone that makes an unsupported statement that offends an entire race may be in physical jeopardy from those offended, but it’s a far stretch to suggest that people claiming that Watson’s statement was a scientific hypothesis would be in physical jeopardy for making that claim is absurd.
I can only hope you're joking. You don't think people are threatened on the internet who give out too much information for expressing their views (Facebook, Blogs, etc.)?

Why 'do' you think they left their names out? People often want to make a name for themselves, and when they remain anonymous, it's either out of humility (which I doubt is the case in this case), or for personal protection.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
SCIENTIFIC ERRORS of the BOOK OF REVELATION. (Sep '08) 50 min arrow on 55
The end times started when Jesus walked this ea... 6 hr RiccardoFire 198
Why should God bless America!? (Dec '15) 6 hr RiccardoFire 166
Bad Experiences When Praying (Jan '11) 10 hr Big Al 73
Christianity Wed dollarsbill 2
The Jesus Delusion Wed dollarsbill 11
dealing with homosexual child Wed dollarsbill 3