K-9's work well, I will agree, but that $250,000 "puffer" in the article is not a "puffer." It's more complex than that, as it uses thermal neutron analysis.
Should I be selected as a finalist in this competition, I confirm the following:
7. I will formally licence, on terms acceptable to Microsoft, all intellectual property rights
in my film and agree to waive all moral rights in relation to my film if requested to do
so. I understand that if I do not complete the necessary documentation by the stated
date, my entry will be disqualified from the competition.
Wow! A very convincing argument for evolution possibly being a tool of creation indeed. Thanks for spending so much time in your explainations. Where can I read about all this tranistional species stuff? I'd like to see how they got to the conclusions you wrote of. As for the "heresy" issue, that's a good one too. I'll have to look at that one closely. That just leaves the question of "where did this 'spark of human intelligence' come from?" But that's for another time. Thanks for the dialog. It was certainly edifying.
I'd like to help clarify what I meant by "plain vanilla Christianity" for you. By that I mean, Christianity distilled to the basics. No dogma, no rituals, no Pope, no deacons, no cardinals, etc. Just plain old "believe in Jesus and thou shalt be saved" Christianity. No extras. C.S. Lewis lays it out pretty well in "Mere Christianity." These kinds of Christians are the minority. Sorry about that. I should have been more clear.
I see your point in your last paragraph. Thank you for being so clear. I'll agree that it would be ridiculous to object to observed facts on grounds that it conflicts with superstition. But I will disagree that evolution in it's entirety is a fact.
Microevolution- where species can adapt overtime.
Macroevolution- where species become entirely different ones over time.
Microevolution, I will agree is fact. Macroevolution, however, is tougher to believe. The evidence is lacking- no serious amounts of transition species in the fossil record. The validity of macroevolution can and should be debated by any reasonable person, be they religious or not. Christianity has no problem with microevolution. It does have a problem with macroevolution, not only because it's low on evidence but because it conflicts with their faith, like I explained in my last reply.
Maybe the people arguing for ID should be more clear about micro versus macroevolution, rather than blasting the whole thing.
Your right, but I'm hoping other car companies besides Toyota try to cash in on this demand. That way, hybrids will get cheaper for the rest of us. I've heard that sales in California for hybrids have doubled in the last year. (But of course, that's doubling a small number) Anyways, I'm a cheapskate, and if rich folks buying these things at outrageous prices will make it easier for me to get a fuel efficient car later on, I'm all for it.;)
He didn't believe, for example, that Jonah actually got swallowed by the whale
Hmmm... interesting... but I thought Jesus believed that Jonah was in the belly of a fish for 3 days and nights... (Matt 12:40), and Lewis obviously believed that Jesus was real.
They are scriptures in the sense that they are divine teachings, but they are also myth (according to his line of thinking).
I'm interested in reading about Lewis's take on this. Got any links or pointers to books? I'd appreciate it. Thanks!
Thanks for the interesting take on the issues. I've often wondered what the thinking process was for the other side of the issue. Don't get me wrong. Your answers to my rhetorical questions were very insightful, and have enlightened me on how people arrive at their conclusions in respects to this topic.
I would like to return the favor with a little FYI on what I call, plain vanilla Christianity. Christianity will always conflict with evolution, or at least the part that talks about species dying to give rise to other species and then finally giving rise to us- homo sapien. Christians who believe the literal account of Genesis, believe that before the fall of man, there was no death. They believe that sin brought about death. If, however, there was death before there was man, then sin is irrelevant, because death arose from sin. If sin is irrelevant, Jesus is irrelevant. If Jesus is irrelevant, then, Christianity is irrelevant. Christians believe that God sent Jesus to die to pay for the sins of the world. This is the crux of it all for Christianity- no Jesus, no Christianity. That's why some folks get riled up about evolution, or at least the ones who have thought through the implications of evolution on their faith. The one's who haven't and then go on to yell and scream and damn us all to hell, well... God does the damning, not people...;)
I think we Chronicle's fans can have some hope. Disney only is a co-funder of it. Walden Media is funding and distributing it. Also, Lewis's step-son is supposedly making sure that the movie stays true to the book. Check out this website and the FAQ.
Here we go again... why does someone become entirely discreditted when they happen to be religious? As if being religious and a scientist is an oximoron? Is this fair and impartial? Newton, Galileo, Copernicus... folks use these men to argue against religion, but do people realize that these men were very religous and considered it their holy duty to find truth?
You may be right that some of these ID folks may just be trying to push their "religion" or philosophy but has anyone stopped to think that there may be certian philosophical aspects of evolution as well, and maybe evolutionist are pushing their philosophy too? You can't get away from it- both sides will have philosophy in it. I've said it before. We can argue all we want. It all depends on what one's intitial assumptions/philosophies are- is there more to this universe than what we can see or not? How you answer that question will bring you to one side or the other. And both sides are not morons. They are just looking for answers.
I will agree that these ID folks shouldn't be shoving it down the throats of these kids, but that's what these folks feel about evolution. They believe that it's been shoved down the throats of kids for a long time. They just want a level playing field. At the core of it all, you cannot prove either side. You can't prove that God created us, nor can you prove that we arose from the cosmic nothing. So both theories will remain just that- theories. I say show the kids what's out there- what kind of evidence exists for both arguments and then let them decide.
Honestly, just what is the deal with these fundamentalists?
We must deal calmly and reasonably in open dialog with those who want to dialog openly, calmly and reasonably.:)
You bring up some good points, but there are plenty of clues in the fossil record that can be used for both sides of the arguement. I offer up one: the Cambrian explosion. They say before that, there was practically nothing- no fossils of fair sized life forms, let alone transition species of any kind. One side says it's possible that this is evidence supporting creation. The other side says this is evidence supporting the idea of evolution in "spurts" as some scientists have postulated. Either way, we can argue till we're blue in the face. It all depends on one's initial assumptions. One side starts with the assumption that there is more to this universe than what we physically "see." They end up with creation/intellegent design theory. The other side starts with the assumption that there is nothing more to this universe than what we can physically "see." They end up with evolutionary theory. But both sides are not necessarily ignorant or "unscientific." In fact there are many real, reasonable, credible scientists out there who are having a tougher and tougher time with evolutionary theory, so they've proposed a new theory. It's just science, pure and simple. It's like the atomic Bohr model. It doesn't work anymore, so you find a better model. Some folks are honestly just reaching out for better models.
As for your second point of view, you are right. Intellegent design doesn't necessarily have to conflict with evolution. It's Evangelical Christianity that conflicts with it. Under that doctrine, evolution- at least the part about survival of the fittest, cannot be a tool of God to create us. Evangelical Christianity assumes that before the "fall of man", all life was created, and there was no sin and therefore death on earth. Therefore there could not have been species dying, giving rise to new species. If there was death before the "fall of man", there would be no "fall of man", and if there was no fall, there would be no need for Jesus and his dying for the sins of the world. Christianity is nothing without Jesus and his work (C.S. Lewis- Mere Christianity). That's why most true-to-their-faith Evangelical Christians are against evolution, because, logically it takes Jesus out of the picture.
I switched to open source software in my mid-college days for two reasons: morality and economy. In other words, I was poor and really tired of trying sleep at night knowing that I got the latest version of windows or office from a friend with a CD labelled with a magic marker.
I caught a good deal of flak from my best friend when I switched over to linux. He jokingly complained about the ugly windowing system (fvwm at the time), and how I lost sleep at night from trying learn how to install and use linux (took me a month to figure out how to get dial-up to work). I took it in stride though. At least I wasn't loosing sleep out of guilt.
Funny thing is that I would never have gotten my current job if I did not play around with linux and open source programs like samba, and rsync for 3 years. Go figure. My best friend got out of school and loafed around for 2 years before joining the navy. (Haha! He'd laugh with me about this too, so it's all good)
Anyways, I'm not saying that switching to open source is the final and only moral answer for everyone. It all depends on you. But really, look at the signs of the time and act accordingly. I suggest open source solutions to everyone who ask me to "hook" them up with a sweet rig for cheap. I tell them, "I can help you, but it's not gonna be like the windows you know and you aren't going to be able to play games you installed from a CD labelled with a magic marker, but it'll be cheap like you want." They usually say, "no thanks." Some folks do want to work with me, so I make a compromise and install windows oem, but openoffice instead of ms office, and gimp instead of photoshop for them. These folks are usually truly strapped for cash and need to be "compliant." Like I said earlier. It all depends on you and what you want to give up to get what you need.
You can't go to the meeting if you like Kerry... You can't be a judge if you are religious... You can't be in the Iranian military if you are a Christian... You can't be a patriot if you don't like Bush...
(throws arms up in frustration) What a messy unfair world...
Folks may think the author of parent is funny but HumanTorch has a good point. We don't see one type of species changing into another. The author of the article claims that researcher's have "caught evolution in the act":
Furthermore, DNA analysis shows that the changes were passed on genetically from one generation to the next, until they were no longer needed, thus confirming that the researchers had caught evolution in the act.
If you ask me, I believe this is a classic case of species adaptation, but not real "evolution" of one species to another. Now if those researchers found solid evidence akin to "seamonkeys" turning into tuna fish, then I'll agree with the author of the article that they "caught evolution in the act."
The A+ Cerification exam textbooks actually suggest that you can put your keyboard in the dish washer. I was skeptical at first, but I tried it and it works. Just had to wait for the keyboard to dry thoroughly. (I had to assume that they meant the modern kinds of keyboards with membranes rather than the very old kinds with capacitors in them.)
And, I'll say it again--compressed video isn't going to fly.
You never know. Most folks don't seem to care about all the special features of a DVD when they go rent one or get one from netflix. They just want to watch the movie. (Or maybe all the folks I know who have Netflix DVD's delivered are honestly not serious video/audio-phyles. Heck, some of my friends don't even have the audio in stereo coming out of their TV!) I really have to wonder what the actual statistics are of people watching DVD's. Do they care about 1 to 1 DVD quality? Do they care about the special DVD features? If they really don't, then a 700MB Xvid download from a 3Mb/s pipe really isn't that horrible. But like I said earlier, who knows?
I don't know if keeping the public ignorant is the entire purpose of the Chinese government in this case. I have friends who came from the PRC, and they say that the government is pretty open with allowing adults go on the net, read literature, have a religion, etc. But the government there keeps a tight reign on things concerning children. I got the feeling from my friends that the Chinese government is of the mindset: "You can mess with our adults, but don't mess with our kids."
I can definitely see your point, however. If you fully indoctrinate the kids, you probably won't need to worry about them being dissident when they are adults.
Ummm... this is NOT an example of doctors/researcher going overseas to play with cloning. This guy was the one who cloned the sheep, Dolly. I commend him for trying to find a cure for this neurological disease, but not his methods.
I'm still of the persuasion that in the end, cloning = slavery.
Amen. I love America, but I hate our pragmatic transportation system (fix only if it's busted, no upgrades). I would like to see high tech public transport systems like in Europe and Japan, but with so much cars and freeways in America, I'll just have to dream on. I guess we can't have both nice freeways/cars and nice public transit.
(To parent) AMEN! I'm sorry, ATI. Maybe I'm lazy, or maybe I just don't have time to try to figure out why the flgx rpm won't install on my boss's laptop or for my FC1 box with a 9700 Pro... I've honestly had an overall better time with nVidia's drivers. They make me happy.
Probably old news, but the guys who made Skype made a linux and PocketPC version. So many people already use Skype to talk to each other over IP for free. One could use a PocketPC device and Skype as a WiFi phone very easily. Battery power stinks for PPC's right now, but when they get better, I think the cell phone companies will start to worry then.
I am by no means justifying all that you have listed. This world is messed up. And we all know that that in this world, stuff happens. My point was to look at the bigger picture.
As for these stories detailing "intollerance" and such, just because these stories exist doesn't mean that hate is justifiable.
Now, you definitely have a point when the "deities" start saying we should kill these people and plunder those people. I understand. That's a hard one to justify at all. In this vein, one would have to ask a question: if one group of people were harming another, would it be justifiable to stop them? Or even kill and plunder them?
And specious reasoning? Realize that that accusation cuts both ways. The assertion that "'saying other religions are evil' is intollerant", is also intollerant.
Ruth was a non-Jew (Moabite) who married Boaz, a Jew. Incidentally, Ruth and Boaz were in the lineage of David and then Jesus.
Again, stuff out of context... Interracial was banned for the Israelites because they were the "chosen" people of God, and God did not want them to be swayed in their allegiance to Him. Back then race, culture and religion were so completely inter-woven that marrying someone outside of your race was synonomous with accepting that person's religion. Ruth on the other hand took the religion of Boaz. Check the whole thing out, not just one piece.
Out of context, everything can be misconstrued. I don't care if it's the Quran, the Bible or even Jack Handy's Deep Thoughts. Read the whole thing! If you can't, read the stuff around it. You'll gain insight as to why stuff was written or stated.
Slashdot Mirror
K-9's work well, I will agree, but that $250,000 "puffer" in the article is not a "puffer." It's more complex than that, as it uses thermal neutron analysis.
Should I be selected as a finalist in this competition, I confirm the following:
... sigh.
7. I will formally licence, on terms acceptable to Microsoft, all intellectual property rights in my film and agree to waive all moral rights in relation to my film if requested to do so. I understand that if I do not complete the necessary documentation by the stated date, my entry will be disqualified from the competition.
Hahahahahahah!
Wow! A very convincing argument for evolution possibly being a tool of creation indeed. Thanks for spending so much time in your explainations. Where can I read about all this tranistional species stuff? I'd like to see how they got to the conclusions you wrote of. As for the "heresy" issue, that's a good one too. I'll have to look at that one closely. That just leaves the question of "where did this 'spark of human intelligence' come from?" But that's for another time. Thanks for the dialog. It was certainly edifying.
I'd like to help clarify what I meant by "plain vanilla Christianity" for you. By that I mean, Christianity distilled to the basics. No dogma, no rituals, no Pope, no deacons, no cardinals, etc. Just plain old "believe in Jesus and thou shalt be saved" Christianity. No extras. C.S. Lewis lays it out pretty well in "Mere Christianity." These kinds of Christians are the minority. Sorry about that. I should have been more clear.
I see your point in your last paragraph. Thank you for being so clear. I'll agree that it would be ridiculous to object to observed facts on grounds that it conflicts with superstition. But I will disagree that evolution in it's entirety is a fact.
Microevolution- where species can adapt overtime.
Macroevolution- where species become entirely different ones over time.
Microevolution, I will agree is fact. Macroevolution, however, is tougher to believe. The evidence is lacking- no serious amounts of transition species in the fossil record. The validity of macroevolution can and should be debated by any reasonable person, be they religious or not. Christianity has no problem with microevolution. It does have a problem with macroevolution, not only because it's low on evidence but because it conflicts with their faith, like I explained in my last reply.
Maybe the people arguing for ID should be more clear about micro versus macroevolution, rather than blasting the whole thing.
Your right, but I'm hoping other car companies besides Toyota try to cash in on this demand. That way, hybrids will get cheaper for the rest of us. I've heard that sales in California for hybrids have doubled in the last year. (But of course, that's doubling a small number) Anyways, I'm a cheapskate, and if rich folks buying these things at outrageous prices will make it easier for me to get a fuel efficient car later on, I'm all for it. ;)
He didn't believe, for example, that Jonah actually got swallowed by the whale
Hmmm... interesting... but I thought Jesus believed that Jonah was in the belly of a fish for 3 days and nights... (Matt 12:40), and Lewis obviously believed that Jesus was real.
They are scriptures in the sense that they are divine teachings, but they are also myth (according to his line of thinking).
I'm interested in reading about Lewis's take on this. Got any links or pointers to books? I'd appreciate it. Thanks!
Thanks for the interesting take on the issues. I've often wondered what the thinking process was for the other side of the issue. Don't get me wrong. Your answers to my rhetorical questions were very insightful, and have enlightened me on how people arrive at their conclusions in respects to this topic.
;)
I would like to return the favor with a little FYI on what I call, plain vanilla Christianity. Christianity will always conflict with evolution, or at least the part that talks about species dying to give rise to other species and then finally giving rise to us- homo sapien. Christians who believe the literal account of Genesis, believe that before the fall of man, there was no death. They believe that sin brought about death. If, however, there was death before there was man, then sin is irrelevant, because death arose from sin. If sin is irrelevant, Jesus is irrelevant. If Jesus is irrelevant, then, Christianity is irrelevant. Christians believe that God sent Jesus to die to pay for the sins of the world. This is the crux of it all for Christianity- no Jesus, no Christianity. That's why some folks get riled up about evolution, or at least the ones who have thought through the implications of evolution on their faith. The one's who haven't and then go on to yell and scream and damn us all to hell, well... God does the damning, not people...
I think we Chronicle's fans can have some hope. Disney only is a co-funder of it. Walden Media is funding and distributing it. Also, Lewis's step-son is supposedly making sure that the movie stays true to the book. Check out this website and the FAQ.
I can't wait to see this movie!!!
Here we go again... why does someone become entirely discreditted when they happen to be religious? As if being religious and a scientist is an oximoron? Is this fair and impartial? Newton, Galileo, Copernicus... folks use these men to argue against religion, but do people realize that these men were very religous and considered it their holy duty to find truth?
You may be right that some of these ID folks may just be trying to push their "religion" or philosophy but has anyone stopped to think that there may be certian philosophical aspects of evolution as well, and maybe evolutionist are pushing their philosophy too? You can't get away from it- both sides will have philosophy in it. I've said it before. We can argue all we want. It all depends on what one's intitial assumptions/philosophies are- is there more to this universe than what we can see or not? How you answer that question will bring you to one side or the other. And both sides are not morons. They are just looking for answers.
I will agree that these ID folks shouldn't be shoving it down the throats of these kids, but that's what these folks feel about evolution. They believe that it's been shoved down the throats of kids for a long time. They just want a level playing field. At the core of it all, you cannot prove either side. You can't prove that God created us, nor can you prove that we arose from the cosmic nothing. So both theories will remain just that- theories. I say show the kids what's out there- what kind of evidence exists for both arguments and then let them decide.
Honestly, just what is the deal with these fundamentalists?
:)
We must deal calmly and reasonably in open dialog with those who want to dialog openly, calmly and reasonably.
You bring up some good points, but there are plenty of clues in the fossil record that can be used for both sides of the arguement. I offer up one: the Cambrian explosion. They say before that, there was practically nothing- no fossils of fair sized life forms, let alone transition species of any kind. One side says it's possible that this is evidence supporting creation. The other side says this is evidence supporting the idea of evolution in "spurts" as some scientists have postulated. Either way, we can argue till we're blue in the face. It all depends on one's initial assumptions. One side starts with the assumption that there is more to this universe than what we physically "see." They end up with creation/intellegent design theory. The other side starts with the assumption that there is nothing more to this universe than what we can physically "see." They end up with evolutionary theory. But both sides are not necessarily ignorant or "unscientific." In fact there are many real, reasonable, credible scientists out there who are having a tougher and tougher time with evolutionary theory, so they've proposed a new theory. It's just science, pure and simple. It's like the atomic Bohr model. It doesn't work anymore, so you find a better model. Some folks are honestly just reaching out for better models.
As for your second point of view, you are right. Intellegent design doesn't necessarily have to conflict with evolution. It's Evangelical Christianity that conflicts with it. Under that doctrine, evolution- at least the part about survival of the fittest, cannot be a tool of God to create us. Evangelical Christianity assumes that before the "fall of man", all life was created, and there was no sin and therefore death on earth. Therefore there could not have been species dying, giving rise to new species. If there was death before the "fall of man", there would be no "fall of man", and if there was no fall, there would be no need for Jesus and his dying for the sins of the world. Christianity is nothing without Jesus and his work (C.S. Lewis- Mere Christianity). That's why most true-to-their-faith Evangelical Christians are against evolution, because, logically it takes Jesus out of the picture.
I switched to open source software in my mid-college days for two reasons: morality and economy. In other words, I was poor and really tired of trying sleep at night knowing that I got the latest version of windows or office from a friend with a CD labelled with a magic marker.
I caught a good deal of flak from my best friend when I switched over to linux. He jokingly complained about the ugly windowing system (fvwm at the time), and how I lost sleep at night from trying learn how to install and use linux (took me a month to figure out how to get dial-up to work). I took it in stride though. At least I wasn't loosing sleep out of guilt.
Funny thing is that I would never have gotten my current job if I did not play around with linux and open source programs like samba, and rsync for 3 years. Go figure. My best friend got out of school and loafed around for 2 years before joining the navy. (Haha! He'd laugh with me about this too, so it's all good)
Anyways, I'm not saying that switching to open source is the final and only moral answer for everyone. It all depends on you. But really, look at the signs of the time and act accordingly. I suggest open source solutions to everyone who ask me to "hook" them up with a sweet rig for cheap. I tell them, "I can help you, but it's not gonna be like the windows you know and you aren't going to be able to play games you installed from a CD labelled with a magic marker, but it'll be cheap like you want." They usually say, "no thanks." Some folks do want to work with me, so I make a compromise and install windows oem, but openoffice instead of ms office, and gimp instead of photoshop for them. These folks are usually truly strapped for cash and need to be "compliant." Like I said earlier. It all depends on you and what you want to give up to get what you need.
You can't go to the meeting if you like Kerry...
You can't be a judge if you are religious...
You can't be in the Iranian military if you are a Christian...
You can't be a patriot if you don't like Bush...
(throws arms up in frustration) What a messy unfair world...
Folks may think the author of parent is funny but HumanTorch has a good point. We don't see one type of species changing into another. The author of the article claims that researcher's have "caught evolution in the act":
Furthermore, DNA analysis shows that the changes were passed on genetically from one generation to the next, until they were no longer needed, thus confirming that the researchers had caught evolution in the act.
If you ask me, I believe this is a classic case of species adaptation, but not real "evolution" of one species to another. Now if those researchers found solid evidence akin to "seamonkeys" turning into tuna fish, then I'll agree with the author of the article that they "caught evolution in the act."
The A+ Cerification exam textbooks actually suggest that you can put your keyboard in the dish washer. I was skeptical at first, but I tried it and it works. Just had to wait for the keyboard to dry thoroughly. (I had to assume that they meant the modern kinds of keyboards with membranes rather than the very old kinds with capacitors in them.)
And, I'll say it again--compressed video isn't going to fly.
You never know. Most folks don't seem to care about all the special features of a DVD when they go rent one or get one from netflix. They just want to watch the movie. (Or maybe all the folks I know who have Netflix DVD's delivered are honestly not serious video/audio-phyles. Heck, some of my friends don't even have the audio in stereo coming out of their TV!) I really have to wonder what the actual statistics are of people watching DVD's. Do they care about 1 to 1 DVD quality? Do they care about the special DVD features? If they really don't, then a 700MB Xvid download from a 3Mb/s pipe really isn't that horrible. But like I said earlier, who knows?
I don't know if keeping the public ignorant is the entire purpose of the Chinese government in this case. I have friends who came from the PRC, and they say that the government is pretty open with allowing adults go on the net, read literature, have a religion, etc. But the government there keeps a tight reign on things concerning children. I got the feeling from my friends that the Chinese government is of the mindset: "You can mess with our adults, but don't mess with our kids."
I can definitely see your point, however. If you fully indoctrinate the kids, you probably won't need to worry about them being dissident when they are adults.
Ummm... this is NOT an example of doctors/researcher going overseas to play with cloning. This guy was the one who cloned the sheep, Dolly. I commend him for trying to find a cure for this neurological disease, but not his methods.
I'm still of the persuasion that in the end, cloning = slavery.
The U.S. transportation system is a basket case.
Amen. I love America, but I hate our pragmatic transportation system (fix only if it's busted, no upgrades). I would like to see high tech public transport systems like in Europe and Japan, but with so much cars and freeways in America, I'll just have to dream on. I guess we can't have both nice freeways/cars and nice public transit.
You just don't trust egotistical megalomaniacs. Remember, you are a visionary in your own anti-megalomaniac way. ;)
(To parent) AMEN! I'm sorry, ATI. Maybe I'm lazy, or maybe I just don't have time to try to figure out why the flgx rpm won't install on my boss's laptop or for my FC1 box with a 9700 Pro... I've honestly had an overall better time with nVidia's drivers. They make me happy.
Probably old news, but the guys who made Skype made a linux and PocketPC version. So many people already use Skype to talk to each other over IP for free. One could use a PocketPC device and Skype as a WiFi phone very easily. Battery power stinks for PPC's right now, but when they get better, I think the cell phone companies will start to worry then.
Holy smokes! I wonder if they have the checksum too. Who knows if there'll be errors after download. ;)
I am by no means justifying all that you have listed. This world is messed up. And we all know that that in this world, stuff happens. My point was to look at the bigger picture.
As for these stories detailing "intollerance" and such, just because these stories exist doesn't mean that hate is justifiable.
Now, you definitely have a point when the "deities" start saying we should kill these people and plunder those people. I understand. That's a hard one to justify at all. In this vein, one would have to ask a question: if one group of people were harming another, would it be justifiable to stop them? Or even kill and plunder them?
And specious reasoning? Realize that that accusation cuts both ways. The assertion that "'saying other religions are evil' is intollerant", is also intollerant.
Ruth was a non-Jew (Moabite) who married Boaz, a Jew. Incidentally, Ruth and Boaz were in the lineage of David and then Jesus.
Again, stuff out of context... Interracial was banned for the Israelites because they were the "chosen" people of God, and God did not want them to be swayed in their allegiance to Him. Back then race, culture and religion were so completely inter-woven that marrying someone outside of your race was synonomous with accepting that person's religion. Ruth on the other hand took the religion of Boaz. Check the whole thing out, not just one piece.
Out of context, everything can be misconstrued. I don't care if it's the Quran, the Bible or even Jack Handy's Deep Thoughts. Read the whole thing! If you can't, read the stuff around it. You'll gain insight as to why stuff was written or stated.