20 Sep 06
Given the current political/quasi-religious machinations, it appears that we are on the verge of a return to the all-out (so-called) holy wars of the Dark Ages.
The last round of battles yielded a an 'X' in the 'Win" column for the 'Christians,' while the hapless Muslims were forced into retreat to lick their collective wounds for a few hundred years.
Now back with a rag-tag group of dedicated terrorists, as well as a plot to infiltrate Europe/UK and demand equality with whatever fragmented culture still exists, Islam is on the rise.
In light of either sides policies, which of the two would you prefer to see 'win' this time around?
20 Sep 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMaybe they'll bleed each other dry and leave the rest of us alone.
Given the current political/quasi-religious machinations, it appears that we are on the verge of a return to the all-out (so-called) holy wars of the Dark Ages.
The last round of battles yielded a an 'X' in the 'Win" column for the 'Christians,' while the hapless Muslims were forced into retreat to lick their collective wounds for a few hundred years.
...[text shortened]... either sides policies, which of the two would you prefer to see 'win' this time around?
20 Sep 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOh really? Funny, but they've only been around for about 1% of human history now. And unless we all kill each other in some cataclysmic crusade/jihad then we'll be here for a lot longer.
Doubtful, if history is any indication. Thanks to Abraham's blunder, these two (really, three) groups will be around for all of human history.
20 Sep 06
Originally posted by dottewellYou might not be too far off the mark. It wouldn't surprise me at all if some otherworldly intelligence shows up with the 'solution' to all of man's problems.
I predict Zorg from planet Zarg will launch a full-scale inter-stellar invasion, drawing together Muslim, Christian and Jew in common cause.
Things will look pretty bad for a bit until Will Smith destroys the invading hordes with a computer virus.
20 Sep 06
Originally posted by rwingett1%? Surely you jest. Recorded history would account for prit near 100% of human history.
Oh really? Funny, but they've only been around for about 1% of human history now. And unless we all kill each other in some cataclysmic crusade/jihad then we'll be here for a lot longer.
20 Sep 06
Originally posted by David CWell, since the creation of the world was in the year 3760 (on either March 29th or September 25th; apparently there is some dispute), no evidence of anything prior to that date (e.g., Sumerian writing, fossil records of pre-history humans—or anything else—geological studies, etc., etc., etc.) counts. There is really no way to date anything prior to 3760 because near that point there is a “singularity” which causes all scientific dating methods (as well as any other empirical analysis) to fail by many orders of magnitude.* There may be a few biblical liberalists who are willing to push it back to the beginning of the 4th millenium, but on what evidence?
errr....no. I can't recall any "recorded" history much before ~4000 B.C.E. Unless you've got some Late Pleistocene literature to share?
* That is, at that point, one would not be able to say that a putatuve Da Vinci mural was a fake because it appeared to be painted with Sherwin-Williams housepaint, let alone trying to date the paint or the canvas itself by other means. At the point of the “genesis singularity” no conclusion of any kind could be drawn from any physicial evidence, even if we were there.
Frankly, I believe the Mona Lisa was painted by Adam, and was only much later attributed to Da Vinci, with an appropriate myth created to support that attribution.
20 Sep 06
Originally posted by vistesdFrankly, I believe the Mona Lisa was painted by Adam, and was only much later attributed to Da Vinci, with an appropriate myth created to support that attribution.
Well, since the creation of the world was in the year 3760 (on either March 29th or September 25th; apparently there is some dispute), no evidence of anything prior to that date (e.g., Sumerian writing, fossil records of pre-history humans—or anything else—geological studies, etc., etc., etc.) counts. There is really no way to date anything prior to 3760 ...[text shortened]... much later attributed to Da Vinci, with an appropriate myth created to support that attribution.
I can see it now. Dan Brown's follow-up to "The DaVinci Code," another suspense-filled novel of historical intrigue, "Adam's Brush: I Love it When She Smiles."
20 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdMight explain that androgenous appearance. Adam didn't know a woman from Adam.
Frankly, I believe the Mona Lisa was painted by Adam, and was only much later attributed to Da Vinci, with an appropriate myth created to support that attribution.
There may be a few biblical liberalists who are willing to push it back to the beginning of the 4th millenium, but on what evidence?
Just like those darned liberals. Bunch of wet blankets, they are.
on either March 29th or September 25th
On either the (approximated) vernal or autumnal Equinox, you say? Very interesting.