Evolution vs. Creation

[Subduction Zone]

[QUOTE who="Monkey's Paw"]<quoted text>
NOT!
Nice try on covering your ass but it fails.
[/QUOTE]

Fine, then if you disagree with me you are saying that KJV does not think the ERV's are Junk DNA and that he agrees that they prove evolution. I don't think that he will agree.

[Subduction Zone]

Just in case Monkey's Paw is too lazy to follow my link here is what Einstein said about the Jewish religion, the one he was born into;

"For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

And about Christianity:

"The religion of the fathers, as I encountered it in Munich during religious instruction and in the synagogue, repelled rather than attracted me."

[HTS]

buckwheat wrote:

<quoted text>It's more laughable to watch a christian jumping up and down trying to convince the rest of the world that god is real. It's not so much funny as sad, though.
I'm sorry that you can't shake off the brainwashing that you went through as a child and admit the hilarity of an all-seeing being who lives in the sky and makes promises of an eternity of peace, love and togetherness to all who will believe in him and give money to him through his evangelists. I can see a child believing those stories, but it blows my mind to think an adult can actually fall for that crap in this day and age.
Forcing small children to go to church and have religion pounded into their heads is sad, but teachnig them to beg god not to kill them in their sleep when they go to bed is nothing more than child abuse.
Some day religion will go the way of witchcraft and it can't come too soon. It won't happen in my lifetime, but it will happen. Kids are getting smarter and smarter.

Although you are pretending to be objective, your unbridled arrogance is obvious. You are simply drinking atheist kool-aid because you want validation of your immoral worldview.

[Subduction Zone]

Oh crap. Did I break all of the Cretinists tonight? Not to worry. The stupid will build up in them and they'll be back tomorrow.

[Subduction Zone]

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>Although you are pretending to be objective, your unbridled arrogance is obvious. You are simply drinking atheist kool-aid because you want validation of your immoral worldview.

I guess not HST was hiding. HST, how is that explanation of the fossil record coming along?

[thewordofme]

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>Although you are pretending to be objective, your unbridled arrogance is obvious. You are simply drinking atheist kool-aid because you want validation of your immoral worldview.

Hey, whats with pairing us with 'drinking the kool aid' I thought that was something the Christian protestants had a lock on??

(Hint: Jim Jones)

[JBH]

-------Romney's attacks on Obama foreign policy show neocons' dominance
- Inside the swag bags that reporters received at the Republican National Convention last month were copies of Mitt Romney's book " No Apology ." In an election predicated on jobs and the economy, the candidate's foreign policy treatise, which articulates his hawkish views and his belief that Barack Obama had turned his presidency into an apology --------

*()_+)====YOU JUDGE IT!--=======

Specifically tell what the above statement means,in respect to calling Neo-cons.

What is that--does it mean a Neo-con Romney versus a war-Monger Obama?

HOW COME, IS BY THAT SAYING --AS WAR-MONGERING IS ACTUALLY HAWKISH, WHILE A NEO-CON WHO SAYS NO WORDS OF WAR LANGUAGE IS HAWKISH, BY ONE'S LABELLING?
SIMPLY, it is wrong and untrue to perceive this way by the press or others.

(See following:)

On Afghanistan: Romney (Neo-con but not war- monger) calls for time table for withdrawal as Obama (the HAWKISH war-monger) has added troops to prolong war.

On Libya and Egypt: Romney has not done those things like that Obama (the HAWKISH war-monger) has done, in Libya and Egypt.

On Iran and Syria: Romney speaks for not being seen as using war words by just calling tough sanctions, while Obama's (the HAWKISH war-monger's) war language to Iran by saying as not bluffing, and his all ready game with war in Syria has demonstrated his war monger aspiration for former Germany's Hitler.

[It aint necessarily so]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

It means that mountains can be moved with enough faith. It's a false promise.

Doctor Who Two wrote:

Prove that it is a false promise.

Seriously? It's already been done. It's done every day.

I've got a better idea: move a mountain with faith and prove that it's not a false promise.

[It aint necessarily so]

HTS wrote:

It is laughable to watch an atheist pretend to be morally outraged, when its entire philosophy is founded on an absebce of morality.

Secularists are leading the world in moral theory. Already, Christians are beginning to recognize that burning witches, stoning sassy children, and owning and beating slaves is immoral, which contradicts your god's absolute, perfect, and unchanging moral instructions. Our ethics are rational, and based on compassion. Yours are random.

And soon, we will teach you not to scapegoat gays and atheists. It's immoral.

[It aint necessarily so]

HTS wrote:

If Darwinism is not a religion, why do its adherents become so emotionally charged when their cherished religion is attacked?

You're the one that loses his cool and calls other posters "moron" and "jackass," which makes YOU the religious one by your definition.

"Peace that passeth all understanding"? Another false promise. Obviously.

But what if I stipulate to skepticism being the same as blind faith - a religion. OK. It still kicks ass over yours, which is sterile. My "religion" has brought the only useful knowledge to man. Yours has caused strife and misery for centuries.

[It aint necessarily so]

[QUOTE who="Monkey's Paw"]<quoted text>
How do you know this is a false promise? Have you knowledge of someone who had enough faith and couldn't move a mountain?
Please post it.
Or else I guess you would just be another lying atheist. Seems to be a lot of those around here.[/QUOTE]

It's proven every day.

But why do you people ask for evidence? You're Christians. What do you care about evidence or proof? You simply choose to believe whatever you believe.

[It aint necessarily so]

Monkeys Paw wrote:

What a Babbling Buffoon.

And here is the Holy Spirit speaking through his children again.

I want what you have. I want that peace, that coolness, that poise. Clearly, you have tapped into something profound and real.

Please, help me to be like you.

[MAAT]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
It's proven every day.
But why do you people ask for evidence? You're Christians. What do you care about evidence or proof? You simply choose to believe whatever you believe.

That must be fact.
Aren't they in effect waiting for the third coming?

Just your actual gospel quoted:

Luke 24:50 And he led them out until [they were] over against Bethany: and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven.
<quoted text>
So it would seem.
Luke 24:35 And they rehearsed the things [that happened] in the way, and how he was known of them in the breaking of the bread.
36 And as they spake these things, he himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace [be] unto you.
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they beheld a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and wherefore do questionings arise in your heart?
39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having.
40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.
41 And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here anything to eat?
42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish.
43 And he took it, and ate before them.

[OLD HAPPY]

Thomas Robertson wrote:

<quoted text>
If Adam and Eve were sinless, then why were they susceptible to temptation?

Was Jesus himself susceptible to wrongdoing? Temptation isn't sin until it is acted upon or planned to be.

[Thomas Robertson]

[QUOTE who="Gould, as quoted out of context by HTS"]
"Stasis, or non-change, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting non-evidence for evolution... The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, non-evolution).[/QUOTE]

What HTS doesn't know, or at least doesn't want us to know, is that the quote deletes the preceding words: "Before Niles Eldredge and I proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium in 1972, the ...".

Nor doe HTS know, or want us to know, that the following paragraph reads:

"But Eldredge and I proposed that stasis should be an expected and interesting norm (not an embarrassing failure to detect change), and that evolution should be concentrated in brief episodes of branching speciation. Under our theory, stasis became interesting and worthy of documentation -- as a norm disrupted by rare events of change. We took as the motto of punctuated equilibrium: "Stasis is data." (One might quibble about the grammar, but I think we won the conceptual battle.) Punctuated equilibrium is still a subject of lively debate, and some (or most) of its claims may end up on the ash heap of history, but I take pride in one success relevant to Cordelia's dilemma: our theory has brought stasis out of the conceptual closet. Twenty-five years ago, stasis was a non-subject -- a "nothing" under prevailing theory. No one would have published, or even proposed, an active study of lineages known not to change. Now such studies are routinely pursued and published, and a burgeoning literature has documented the character and extent of stasis in quantitative terms."

HTS, we are well aware that Stephen J. Gould gets quoted out of context.
If you're trying to shock us, you will have to do better than that.

[Thomas Robertson]

Thomas Robertson wrote:
"If Adam and Eve were sinless, then why were they susceptible to temptation?"

Old Happy wrote:
"Was Jesus himself susceptible to wrongdoing? Temptation isn't sin until it is acted upon or planned to be."

Not according to the Sermon on the Mount.

Matthew 5:21-22 says, "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago,'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment."

Matthew 5:27-28 says, "You have heard that it was said,'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

[OLD HAPPY]

Thomas Robertson wrote:

Thomas Robertson wrote:
"If Adam and Eve were sinless, then why were they susceptible to temptation?"
Old Happy wrote:
"Was Jesus himself susceptible to wrongdoing? Temptation isn't sin until it is acted upon or planned to be."
Not according to the Sermon on the Mount.
Matthew 5:21-22 says, "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago,'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment."
Matthew 5:27-28 says, "You have heard that it was said,'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

If we turn away from temptation and do not plan to do it, then we will not be held accountable for it. A way of escape is made through belief in Jesus Christ.

[15th Dalai Lama]

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>Although you are pretending to be objective, your unbridled arrogance is obvious. You are simply drinking atheist kool-aid because you want validation of your immoral worldview.

At what point in your theological journey did you divide the world into certifiable horses' asses and atheists?

[The Dude]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
The dude is just a typical atheist liar.

Yet I don't care about atheism, or ever once made a single positive case for atheism. So why are you, a known and confirmed liar accusing others of lying?

[The Dude]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
More lies.
Your correction is a lie.
These well known scientist are far more credible then you.

Yet for some reason they still disagree with you - probably has something to do with the fact you're misrepresenting science.

So got anything other than ad-hom? Thought not.(shrug)