Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 199435 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

“If it ain't broke don't fix it”

Level 9

Since: Jul 09

Arcadia, LA.

#121621 Sep 3, 2014
Krypteia wrote:
<quoted text>My wife has a rabbit it runs on batteries..
hahahaahahhaahhaha!

Yeah, but are they energizer batteries?

:)

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#121622 Sep 3, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
But my aim was never to "prove" anything except that *a circular argument is an essentially valid argument and is indispensable...*
Absolute fact/ Truth WILL take the form of a circular argument.
I am God.
This is true because I say so and God can't lie.
I am God.

The above is a circular argument. You may accept it as truth if you wish.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#121623 Sep 3, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Now, I find that interesting.
You can describe something which was created by an intelligent being (assuming car manufacturers are intelligent) in terms of evolution.
So what is there preventing people from seeing that the fact of evolution, does not conflict with the Idea of an Intelligent Creator of the Universe?
<quoted text>
So there was prior held conviction/s before the science began?
<quoted text>
If both our houses are made with concrete; does it mean the materials for both of the houses originated from the same location?
Because there is evidence of manufactured items. You really need that explained to you? The idea of the intelligent creator/designer requires some evidence before you can make that assumption, and please remember it was never a conviction, more of an assertion in place of knowledge. You are repeating the old watchmaker argument that's been out of date for well over a century.

Actually there was doubt about a creator well before science began. Religious tracts rarely could answer real questions. Patterns in natural events were well documented without requiring the need for a deity. Ideas on non-religious origins for most phenomena predates the beginning of a methodical approach we call science. Many inventions were done, lenses come to mind, about 2700 years before science was used to fully explain how they worked. I don't recall reading about how someone prayed over a pile of sand and it turned into not only glass, but the precise shape needed for vision, or a telescope? When you want something made, you rarely turned to a deity.

Your last question is silly. Concrete is a man-made product not a natural one. It's made all over the world in a multitude of formulas and ingredients. While various natural mixes can approximate some of the characteristics of concrete, it's not concrete. I live not 5 miles from a concrete plant, yet the concrete foundation and basement for my house originated from over 50 miles away and mixed on-site. The concrete used in my neighbors house was from 5 miles away. The reasons were economic and technical when it comes to concrete availability, there are also timing issues when ordering certain quantities.

Do you bother putting gas in your car? Why? Because of science and engineering. If your deity was on the job, a quick prayer should be enough to keep your tank topped off, right?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#121624 Sep 3, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know what repentance is? If someone continued in wrongdoing, God did not like it.
Only because it wasn't God doing it.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#121626 Sep 3, 2014
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>And when you look at a series of years in the life span of a specific car model, you can see the progression quite easily. It's very rare when the changes from one model year to the next as so drastic that you cannot see the old in the new. In fact I can't remember one that different. So based on that criteria, you can certainly use the term evolution to describe a chain of descent for automobiles.<quoted text>The mistake you make is that you used only genetic similarity. There are more studies linking ape to man. In fact the relationship was clear well before genetics, genetic testing was more the cherry on top than an earth-shattering revelation ... well except for Creationists who continue to deny the relationship. Genetically, we are closely related to a number of animals, but when all evidence is taken into account, we are more closely related to modern Chimpanzees than Holsteins.
.
quoted text>And when you look at a series of years in the life span of a specific car model, you can see the progression quite easily. It's very rare when the changes from one model year to the next as so drastic that you cannot see the old in the new. In fact I can't remember one that different. So based on that criteria, you can certainly use the term evolution to describe a chain of descent for automobiles.
.
Yet even a child can tell you this is a result of intelligent design.
.
<quoted text>The mistake you make is that you used only genetic similarity. There are more studies linking ape to man. In fact the relationship was clear well before genetics, genetic testing was more the cherry on top than an earth-shattering revelation ... well except for Creationists who continue to deny the relationship. Genetically, we are closely related to a number of animals, but when all evidence is taken into account, we are more closely related to modern Chimpanzees than Holsteins.
.
When dealing with evolution, what is more important than genetic similarity? As you stated in your car example similarity in appearance is not that important.
.
Lastly is seems to me that if evolution is as predicted, we wouldn't expect this similarity with the cow.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#121627 Sep 3, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
It would seem that if you could give evidence of your assertion you would have done it, but consistent with your MO, you have just made another assertion and coupled it with invective.
.
Secondly, I am not anti-science, what I dispute is the conclusions drawn from the evidence. An example of this is the "chain of descent" offered as evidence that one creature descended from another because of similarity. One could just as well reason that one car descended from another due to similarity.
First you're lying again. You've already stated your Biblical stance. Second you are anti-science because we have shown you to be numerous times. It doesn't matter if your "interpretation" of the evidence differs, what matters is which hypotheses pass the scientific method. Ours do, yours don't. Period.
messianic114 wrote:
Lastly I hyperlinked a study which showed the genetic similarity between cow and man was closer than chimp and man. I asked is it reasonable to state that man descended from cow because the similarity was closer. You all had opportunity to look at the study yourself and make a rebuttal but none of you did. Its no wonder most of the world does not believe your position and the majority of Americans (who are not uneducated) don't either. If you want to berate anyone it is yourself for your inability to convince supposedly evolved people (the highest in the animal kingdom) of your position. I would suggest to enhance your potential to convince you take a course in manners.
Actually we DID provide a rebuttal, and as usual you ignored it. This was a month ago. But as I keep pointing out this always happens because evidence does not matter in the slightest to your position.

I also find it deliciously ironic that a monumentally massive liar such as yourself is lecturing others on manners. I don't worry about convincing fundies, as by your very nature you are pretty much non-convincable. All we do is present facts you fundies can't refute. That's all that's necessary. The uneducated opinions of fundies do not matter since science is not decided upon by fundies, or even average joes like me. It's decided upon by scientists working in the field. That, coupled with your complete and total utter rejection of the scientific method is why you fundies aren't taken seriously by the scientific community in general.

As for the rest of the world you will find that survey after survey shows that the acceptance of science (that you reject) is about 50-50 in the US. While the acceptance of evolution tends to be higher in countries that tend to do better with education.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#121628 Sep 3, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Was there a need for him to?
Yup. Otherwise all claims are valid even if they have no evidence. All one needs to do is just assume absolute truth as you do to avoid presenting evidence.

Therefore Superman is real.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Did he deny the fact that there was such a character; regardless of how much superstition was thought to surround him?
May I point out to you that Pilate himself was illusive as a historical figure?
This doesn't help your case.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Oh.
Hence or otherwise, we know for sure that there was a "Jesus" of sorts.
What he is/was will ever be subject to question
There were many. But preachers don't demonstrate Gods.

And if a real Jesus ever did, the evidence of this was lost 2,000 years ago. Oh well.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Contemporary as opposed to what?
Does the passage of time itself render evidence invalid and automatically make "contemporary" evidence more valid?
Furthermore, we are dealing with events that happened long ago; in the past.
... it is what was left FROM THE PAST which will be judged as evidence. And while the events are NOT ONGOING BUT PAST, your demand for "contemporary" evidence is meaningless.
False. For instance we have evidence of T-Rex BECAUSE we have contemporary evidence. While we DON'T have evidence of Jesus because we DON'T have contemporary evidence. And you're stupid enough to invoke AS evidence Romans who DISAGREED with you that he was God's sprog, and further, didn't in themselves necessarily claim that the character of Jesus even existed in the first place. And again even further, when it appeared that they did, their writings were altered by Christian apologists (such as Josephus by Eusegus). This is why your claims are not reliable in the slightest.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Without direct experience of the events, it will be impossible to prove anything with certainty.
Even if you arrive on a scene to see a man holding on to a knife which is buried in a dead man's chest; you will not be able to prove that the man holding the handle was the killer.
Your point?
But we can at least see a man holding a knife over a dead corpse, which is at least evidence of a man holding a knife that is buried in a corpse. All you got is excuses as to why a tomb is empty.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
If you dont know what Truth is; quit the search for God till you do.
What a contradictory method of operation.

No wonder you never get anywhere.(shrug)
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
If you know what Truth is; you are being a hypocrite and a liar.
I've never claimed "Truth". But you have no trouble with being a hypocrite and a liar whether you know what "Truth" is or not.

Not that uh, you're very convincing with your claims of Truthiness though eh.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#121629 Sep 3, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>

.
Yet even a child can tell you this is a result of intelligent design.
Now, the real question. Why can a child identify an object like a car as a manufactured item? It's called experience. Even a child has experience in good produced by people. It is an assumption to say that the same concept can be automatically be assigned to biological organisms. There is no evidence supporting it where there is much evidence of manufactured goods.
When dealing with evolution, what is more important than genetic similarity? As you stated in your car example similarity in appearance is not that important.
No, what I stated with that the appearance is only part of the equation. And you cannot assume appearance is a reality. Yes, there are many biological organisms that have the appearance of being designed. But that appearance doesn't automatically mean they were designed by an intelligence of any sort.
.
Lastly is seems to me that if evolution is as predicted, we wouldn't expect this similarity with the cow.
Actually we have many documented similarities between many mammals, including cows. Why wouldn't there be? The similarities are part of the the theory of common descent, which is part of the over arching theory of evolution. Seems like the similarities confirm the theories rather than refute them.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#121630 Sep 3, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Now, I find that interesting.
You can describe something which was created by an intelligent being (assuming car manufacturers are intelligent) in terms of evolution.
So what is there preventing people from seeing that the fact of evolution, does not conflict with the Idea of an Intelligent Creator of the Universe?
Go ask the fundies.(shrug)

It's them who claim that God could not have used evolution because God is limited by some ancient book that says the Earth is flat.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
So there was prior held conviction/s before the science began?
Sure. It was called theism.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
If both our houses are made with concrete; does it mean the materials for both of the houses originated from the same location?
Poor analogy. Concrete can be made in many places on the planet. However if you want a genome that looks like 50 percent HOG's Pa and 50 percent HOG's Ma plus between one and two hundred different bases then the only way of doing that if by Ma and Pa... well, you know. We know this because the mechanisms of DNA reproduction are quite well understood by scientists and have been observed ever since its discovery in the 1950's.

But if you can point to a cactus in Africa with DNA that matches your own, or point to another HOG with matching genome that spontaneously appeared in China then we'd be happy to consider the evidence should you present it.

Until then we shall assume that DNA acts like, well, DNA.(shrug)
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#121631 Sep 3, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
Yet even a child can tell you this is a result of intelligent design.
And most could probably give good reasons why.

One of those reasons will NOT be the chain of descent.
messianic114 wrote:
When dealing with evolution, what is more important than genetic similarity? As you stated in your car example similarity in appearance is not that important.
Again, why are you asking for stuff for which you have no interest in?

Especially when it was dealt with MONTHS ago.
messianic114 wrote:
Lastly is seems to me that if evolution is as predicted, we wouldn't expect this similarity with the cow.
And again, we rebutted this last month. Try a base for base comparison and you'll find chimps are closer than cows. When you compare the size and shapes of different genes and chromosomes one has to remember that you can get a new one in just one generation via duplication, but the parents will still be the closest match to the offspring when measuring base for base. Different ways of measuring different aspects of the genome, and you're abusing the systems involved. In which case you can go and perform the same tests as HOG and go and find a cactus in Africa with a genome identical to yours, or a twin brother that spontaneously appeared in China that did not share your parents.

Best of luck to ya, Messy.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#121632 Sep 3, 2014
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
Because there is evidence of manufactured items. You really need that explained to you? The idea of the intelligent creator/designer requires some evidence before you can make that assumption, and please remember it was never a conviction, more of an assertion in place of knowledge. You are repeating the old watchmaker argument that's been out of date for well over a century.
Actually there was doubt about a creator well before science began. Religious tracts rarely could answer real questions. Patterns in natural events were well documented without requiring the need for a deity. Ideas on non-religious origins for most phenomena predates the beginning of a methodical approach we call science. Many inventions were done, lenses come to mind, about 2700 years before science was used to fully explain how they worked. I don't recall reading about how someone prayed over a pile of sand and it turned into not only glass, but the precise shape needed for vision, or a telescope? When you want something made, you rarely turned to a deity.
Your last question is silly. Concrete is a man-made product not a natural one. It's made all over the world in a multitude of formulas and ingredients. While various natural mixes can approximate some of the characteristics of concrete, it's not concrete. I live not 5 miles from a concrete plant, yet the concrete foundation and basement for my house originated from over 50 miles away and mixed on-site. The concrete used in my neighbors house was from 5 miles away. The reasons were economic and technical when it comes to concrete availability, there are also timing issues when ordering certain quantities.
Do you bother putting gas in your car? Why? Because of science and engineering. If your deity was on the job, a quick prayer should be enough to keep your tank topped off, right?
.
<quoted text>
I don't recall reading about how someone prayed over a pile of sand and it turned into not only glass, but the precise shape needed for vision, or a telescope?
.
Yet you expect me to believe that given enough time a more complex molecule would develop in a primordial soup?
.
<quoted text>
Do you bother putting gas in your car? Why? Because of science and engineering. If your deity was on the job, a quick prayer should be enough to keep your tank topped off, right?
.
If we were to assume that a G-d existed that could speak the universe into existence, don't you think he would have more sense than to be a Santa Claus? If he were everyone would serve him not out of love but out of greed!
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#121633 Sep 3, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And most could probably give good reasons why.
One of those reasons will NOT be the chain of descent.
<quoted text>
Again, why are you asking for stuff for which you have no interest in?
Especially when it was dealt with MONTHS ago.
<quoted text>
And again, we rebutted this last month. Try a base for base comparison and you'll find chimps are closer than cows. When you compare the size and shapes of different genes and chromosomes one has to remember that you can get a new one in just one generation via duplication, but the parents will still be the closest match to the offspring when measuring base for base. Different ways of measuring different aspects of the genome, and you're abusing the systems involved. In which case you can go and perform the same tests as HOG and go and find a cactus in Africa with a genome identical to yours, or a twin brother that spontaneously appeared in China that did not share your parents.
Best of luck to ya, Messy.
.
As usual you said nothing. I didn't write the study, I just referenced it. If you made a criticism of the study I didn't see it. You could have referenced a post# but you didn't as usual. Secondly, what confidence do I have in your opinion of a published study? Do you have a degree in genetics?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#121634 Sep 3, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
I don't recall reading about how someone prayed over a pile of sand and it turned into not only glass, but the precise shape needed for vision, or a telescope?
.
Yet you expect me to believe that given enough time a more complex molecule would develop in a primordial soup?
.
<quoted text>
Do you bother putting gas in your car? Why? Because of science and engineering. If your deity was on the job, a quick prayer should be enough to keep your tank topped off, right?
.
If we were to assume that a G-d existed that could speak the universe into existence, don't you think he would have more sense than to be a Santa Claus? If he were everyone would serve him not out of love but out of greed!
You do serve out of greed. Greed and fear. Your only interest is avoiding eternal torment or the attainment of eternal paradise. Hence you're not even serving Him, you are serving yourself.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#121635 Sep 3, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
As usual you said nothing. I didn't write the study, I just referenced it. If you made a criticism of the study I didn't see it. You could have referenced a post# but you didn't as usual. Secondly, what confidence do I have in your opinion of a published study? Do you have a degree in genetics?
Do you? Even better, do you have evidence that the study you linked to was written by someone who did not accept evolution and/or was claiming that this demonstrated evolution to be incorrect?

It wasn't any genuine scientific studies we criticized, it was your misinterpretations of it. And we KNOW you didn't see our criticisms because you always ignore whatever is theologically inconvenient. Maybe if you could address what we ACTUALLY said for once. Or even better, just go find ONE geneticist who outright claims that DNA can NOT be used to measure common ancestry. Email the guy/gal if you have to. Until then you're just dodging as usual.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#121636 Sep 3, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
Yet you expect me to believe that given enough time a more complex molecule would develop in a primordial soup?
No, I am not asking you to believe it. What I am asking you is to keep your religious beliefs out of the science classroom! I don't care what you wish to believe. What I expect is for you to live up to the Constitution and not force your religious beliefs on everyone else. You can live as long as you want in 1850, the rest of us will keep dragging you through the decades and centuries in spite of your religious beliefs with technology and medical advancements. If you had been at Kitty Hawk in 1903 you would have been one deriding the Wright Brothers for daring to attempt and control flight.
If we were to assume that a G-d existed that could speak the universe into existence, don't you think he would have more sense than to be a Santa Claus? If he were everyone would serve him not out of love but out of greed!
Instead most seem to believe in God out of fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of dying, fear of eternal damnation ... pretty long list. Not much of a God that requires fear to gain adherents. If you disagree, read a few of the posts on Topix that Christians use to try and convince people of their point of view, they frequently threaten them with all sorts of afterlife retribution if they fail to toe the line in this life. I don't think much of your God if anything those Christians say is true.

Now I, on the other hand, live my life in this lifetime, not the next. When I screw up, I deal with it in this life rather than assume some afterlife to make things right. I take responsibility instead of begging for absolution from my mistakes. Rather than offering some imagined deity some sort of weekly obsequious rite, I stand on my own two feet and accept responsibility for my life and how I live it. If any deity has issues with that, they are free to come on and talk to me about it.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#121637 Sep 3, 2014
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>Now, the real question. Why can a child identify an object like a car as a manufactured item? It's called experience. Even a child has experience in good produced by people. It is an assumption to say that the same concept can be automatically be assigned to biological organisms. There is no evidence supporting it where there is much evidence of manufactured goods.<quoted text>No, what I stated with that the appearance is only part of the equation. And you cannot assume appearance is a reality. Yes, there are many biological organisms that have the appearance of being designed. But that appearance doesn't automatically mean they were designed by an intelligence of any sort. <quoted text>Actually we have many documented similarities between many mammals, including cows. Why wouldn't there be? The similarities are part of the the theory of common descent, which is part of the over arching theory of evolution. Seems like the similarities confirm the theories rather than refute them.
.
<quoted text>
Now, the real question. Why can a child identify an object like a car as a manufactured item? It's called experience.
.
I like this answer, what experience do we have that can tell us that Tiktaalik had relatives that were fish and descendants that are amphibians? As you admitted you have none.
.
<quoted text>
Actually we have many documented similarities between many mammals, including cows. Why wouldn't there be? The similarities are part of the the theory of common descent, which is part of the over arching theory of evolution. Seems like the similarities confirm the theories rather than refute them.
.
And why would I not also use these similarities to argue a common designer?
wondering

Morris, OK

#121638 Sep 3, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you? Even better, do you have evidence that the study you linked to was written by someone who did not accept evolution and/or was claiming that this demonstrated evolution to be incorrect?
It wasn't any genuine scientific studies we criticized, it was your misinterpretations of it. And we KNOW you didn't see our criticisms because you always ignore whatever is theologically inconvenient. Maybe if you could address what we ACTUALLY said for once. Or even better, just go find ONE geneticist who outright claims that DNA can NOT be used to measure common ancestry. Email the guy/gal if you have to. Until then you're just dodging as usual.
various studies show various answers.

- chimpanzees are 90% to 97% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated.
- cows are 80% to 86% genetically similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated.
- cats have 90% to 92% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice, depending on how it is calculated.
- mice 75% to 79% of genes have equivalents in humans. 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome. 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans, depending on how it is calculated.
- fruit fly shares about 60% to 62% of its DNA with humans, depending on how it is calculated.
- chickens about 60% to 64% of genes correspond to a similar human genes, depending on how it is calculated.

i think the mouse thing has some significance for many people are dirty little rats. lol

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#121639 Sep 3, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>

I like this answer, what experience do we have that can tell us that Tiktaalik had relatives that were fish and descendants that are amphibians? As you admitted you have none.
Where did I admit that? Let's see, Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil between fish and four legged animals. Why would a paleontologist make such a determination? I think you might look at experience and education. The structures match predictions made by evolutionary theory. The dating of the samples also corresponds with evolutionary predictions of when such creatures would have existed. The type of find was predicted and lo and behold, it came true. If the dating of the Tiktaalik put it farther in the past or even closer to modern times, it might have called into question parts of evolutionary theory. But it did not. We've discovered many transitional forms, and so far they all fit pretty nicely within evolutionary theory. One error many Creationist make is assuming Biology stands alone. Biology is well supported by Physics, Chemistry, Paleontology, Geography, and even Climatology, to name a few. You might question one or two fossil finds, and you might even find that as we discover more fossils the exact position in the chain of descent might shift, but that's the strength of science.Because of the physical structures Tiktaalik will remain between fish and 4-legged mammals. The people making those determinations are the ones with the training and experience to make them. Arm-chair Creationists who don't like it need more than their dislike to change it.
And why would I not also use these similarities to argue a common designer?
Because then you would be adding in a factor that has no support. You can conceptualize a common designer all you like, but all it does is complicate the picture because there is no evidence supporting a designer, the evidence only supports common descent. It's like if I make the claim flowers were caused by pixies. Unless I offer actual evidence of pixies, I cannot insert pixies into picture just because I want to believe in them. That's not how science works.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#121640 Sep 3, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
I like this answer, what experience do we have that can tell us that Tiktaalik had relatives that were fish and descendants that are amphibians? As you admitted you have none.
On the contrary, it's because evolution predicted creatures such as Tiktaalik to be found in that particular strata - creatures with both fish and amphibian characteristics.
messianic114 wrote:
And why would I not also use these similarities to argue a common designer?
Oh, plenty have. It's just you have no evidence nor good reason (beyond theological wishes) to argue for it.

Common design practices are done for only two reasons: learning curve. That places EXTREME limits on your god. The other is saving on time and/or resources. Something which an all-powerful immortal designer has an infinite supply of. Also you would have to explain why the designer would specifically limit itself to nested hierarchies. Common design doesn't have to. We can use commonly found parts for compound eyes and put them on a pig. Or give horses wings. Or give gorillas beaks. These things violate nested hierarchies but still adhere to common design. Just as we can put rockets on cars. Wheels on top of a building - pointless, but we can. Common design. Mix and match any design elements you like from a pile of parts.

Evolution on the other hand is limited to nested hierarchies. If you claim common design is too then all you're doing is claiming evolution's predictions AFTER the fact. And are therefore also claiming that the designer used evolution, or made it LOOK like it used evolution.

But as it is there's zero evidence this designer of yours even exists, much less DID anything.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#121641 Sep 3, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You do serve out of greed. Greed and fear. Your only interest is avoiding eternal torment or the attainment of eternal paradise. Hence you're not even serving Him, you are serving yourself.
.
This is just another assertion by you which you have no evidence. No surprise there!

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News new Are Disney Princesses hurting your kid's se... 2 min Spotted Girl 25
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 4 min greymouser 13,108
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 4 min grace-fallen 192,925
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) 11 min LOL 7,333
Not fit as President 12 min greymouser 3
a-z of music (Mar '08) 13 min Rider on the Storm 21,018
True False Game (Jun '11) 20 min SweLL GirL 12,429
2words into 2new words (May '12) 33 min Princess Hey 2,305
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 2 hr SMH 32,415
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 hr Crystal_Clear722 56,873
More from around the web