Two Nations Legislate Dangerous Trends For Christianity

[100% ILL]

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/1303010.html

[STANKY808]

As far as the part referring to Canada goes, BULLSHIT, there has been NO LAW PASSED allowing for homosexual marriage.

"...the Supreme Court of Canada issued an important advisory opinion that clears the way for a vote on same-sex marriage in the Canadian Parliament.

The government of Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin is pledged to present its marriage bill to the Parliament early in 2005, and most observers expect it to pass."

The government went to the court asking for advice on how to proceed with possible legislation. There is a difference. This article you cited is therefore worthless as they have demonstrably lied/misled.

[100% ILL]

[QUOTE=STANKY808]As far as the part referring to Canada goes, BULLSHIT, there has been NO LAW PASSED allowing for homosexual marriage.[QUOTE]


http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/041216marriage

[STANKY808]

Fuck, another one that can't read!

From the link you posted...

"Since the court was responding to a "reference" from the government on the constitutionality of proposed legislation redefining marriage, its opinion is not binding."

Again, NO LAW HAS BEEN PASSED. The court was asked if the government was able, according to OUR CONSTITUTION, to redefine marriage through legislation and the court said "yes, the government can pass legislation redefining marriage". Again, get it through your head, NO LAW HAS BEEN PASSED.

[100% ILL]

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20041209-102120-2663r.htm

Speaking of someone who can't read

Re- Read Thread Title

[STANKY808]

After this I'm done with this...

from your link...

The long-awaited decision permits the ruling Liberal Party to proceed with legislation to legalize the unions, making Canada the third nation to recognize homosexual unions, after with the Netherlands and Belgium.

Can you see where it says "permits the ruling Liberal Party to PROCEED WITH LEGISLATION..."

IT HAS NOT BEEN PASSED!

[synch]

I like how they put "'s around marry, marriage etc.

Nice bit of impartial journalism.

[100% ILL]

Can you see where it says "permits the ruling Liberal Party to PROCEED WITH LEGISLATION..."

IT HAS NOT BEEN PASSED!

I did not indicate that it had been passed. Again, I ask you to look at the thread title.
Oh, ok I'll explain it to you.

The fact that they are being allowed to proceed with legislation was why I posted this. And the fact it shows a developing trend. Which I do believe is indicated(once again) in the THREAD TITLE.

Thank you and have a nice day.

[synch]

Why is same sex marriage a threat to christianity?

[Mr. Boomin'Granny]

a majority of christians are really misguided.

[100% ILL]

Why is same sex marriage a threat to christianity?

In short, it would be considered a hate crime to preach against it from the any church in Canada. And subsequently the Bible itself could be labeled a hate book and banned.

[STANKY808]

I did not indicate that it had been passed. Again, I ask you to look at the thread title.
Oh, ok I'll explain it to you.

The fact that they are being allowed to proceed with
legislation was why I posted this. And the fact it shows a developing trend. Which I do believe is indicated(once again) in the THREAD TITLE.
Thank you and have a nice day.

Hmmmm. The thread title is...
"Two Nations Legislate Dangerous Trends For Christianity" This nation, Canada, has legislated NOTHING! The title says "legislate", not "going to legislate" or "legislation will be introduced" and being that we have a minority government (I don't expect you to know this) there is every chance proposed legislation will not pass.

Have a really bad day!

[synch]

I didn't read all of the links and I didn't read the ones I did click word by word so could you point it out to me please?

The only thing I saw the church get in trouble for was calling the followers of islam "demons, liars, and terrorists".

[100% ILL]

Have a really bad day!

you said you were done.

Our disagreement it seems, is based on a misunderstanding of terms.

[STANKY808]

In short, it would be considered a hate crime to preach against it from the any church in Canada. And subsequently the Bible itself could be labeled a hate book and banned.

Where'd you get your information from huh?

"Canada's highest court gave its blessing to homosexual "marriage" yesterday, but protected religious organizations from being forced to sanction same-sex unions."

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20041209-102120-2663r.htm

[100% ILL]

http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=christian+news&page=1&offset=1&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D3 93e3e6834ab8461%26clickedItemRank%3D7%26userQuery% 3Dchristian%2Bnews%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%25 2F%252Fwww.christianheadlines.com%252F%26invocatio nType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSCPResults%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.christianheadlines.com %2F

Here's where I got some of it

TESTING THE FAITH
Prosecutor: Bible
is 'fighting words'
4 who protested at Philly homosexual event ordered to stand trial, face 47 years in prison
Posted: December 16, 2004
5:00 p.m. Eastern


© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Four Christian protesters who demonstrated at a Philadelphia homosexual event face a possible 47 years in prison if convicted of felony charges filed against them, while a prosecutor referred to Scripture verses they read as "fighting words."

The four are part of 11 demonstrators who went before the Philadelphia Municipal Court in a preliminary hearing this week. Judge William Austin Meehan Tuesday ordered four of the Christians to stand trial on three felony and five misdemeanor charges. If convicted, they could a maximum of 47 years in prison.

As WorldNetDaily reported, on Oct. 10, the group was "preaching God's Word" to a crowd of people attending the outdoor Philadelphia "OutFest" event and displaying banners with biblical messages.

After a confrontation with a group called the Pink Angels, described by protesters as "a militant mob of homosexuals," the 11 Christians were arrested and spent a night in jail.

Eight charges were filed: criminal conspiracy, possession of instruments of crime, reckless endangerment of another person, ethnic intimidation, riot, failure to disperse, disorderly conduct and obstructing highways.

None of the Pink Angels was cited or arrested.

A video of the arrest, provided by the American Family Association's Center for Law & Policy can be seen here [Windows Media].

"First, symbols of Christianity are removed from the public square; now, Christians are facing 47 years in prison because they preached the gospel in the public square. Stalin would be proud," Brian Fahling, AFA Center for Law and Policy senior trial attorney, said in a statement.

A federal appeals court in Philadelphia denied emergency relief earlier this week despite video footage Fahling calls "undisputed evidence" that shows the Christians cooperating with police and being harassed by the Pink Angels.

Fahling's group says the Philadelphia city prosecutor in the case, Charles Ehrlich, attacked the defendants as "hateful" and referred to preaching the Bible as "fighting words," a characterization, the law group says, with which Judge Meehan agreed.

Charges were dropped against the remaining seven Christians, apparently because they were not seen quoting Scripture on the videotape.

The ethnic intimidation charge stems from Pennsylvania's "hate crimes" law – to which the newest "victim" category of "sexual orientation" was recently added.

Related stories:

City will prosecute Christian protesters

'Philadelphia 11' fighting back

11 Christians arrested at homosexual event

[STANKY808]

In short, it would be considered a hate crime to preach against it from the any church in Canada. And subsequently the Bible itself could be labeled a hate book and banned.

I would be done but you keep right on posting things about Canada which are simply not true.

The link you posted has nothing I could find about Canada and gay marriage in any way never mind the quote from you regarding hate crimes. Did I miss it? Could you post a link to where you read that?

[100% ILL]

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/yz/z-misc/zieve/2004/zieve122104.htm

[synch]

Am I right in assuming that the verses they were reading had some sort of message about how homosexuality is a sin and that they deserved to die for their sins?

[STANKY808]

Thank you.

My confusion stems from the fact you are mixing up two different issues. As far as including of sexual orientation in hate crimes legislation goes, you are right, to a point. Come back when the bible is banned (I'll be the one dancing in the streets) or a church is charged with a hate crime. You are trying to interpret legislation you have not seen.

[100% ILL]

Come back when the bible is banned (I'll be the one dancing in the streets) or a church is charged with a hate crime.

I can see that I completly wasted my time in discussing this with you. Loss of freedom of speech is alarming to me. It's interesting to note that it does not concern you. (n)

[STANKY808]

I can see that I completly wasted my time in discussing this with you. Loss of freedom of speech is alarming to me. It's interesting to note that it does not concern you. (n)

Bait and switch is what they call it.

You started with the prospect of legislation being introduced (which you clearly alleged had already been passed) to allow gay marriage which is where I had taken issue with your mis-information. Then right in the middle you pulled out a fact from six months ago regarding sexual orientation being added to hate crimes legislation. While both issues pertain to a particular group, they are not connected in this instance. And just so ya know the USA has such legislation as well...

"Governor George E. Pataki signed into law July 10 the hate crimes legislation he first introduced in 1997, culminating a three-year effort to punish those who commit hate crimes in New York. "Assaulting a man or a woman because they are a member of a particular ethnic group or religious minority or because of their sexual orientation is an attack on all New Yorkers," Governor Pataki said. "People who act on hate need to know their punishment will be swift, severe and just."

So if you have a problem with hate crimes legislation start your fight at home.

[Schmeltz]

How is granting people a basic human right anywhere akin to a "dangerous trend for Christianity?" Are you trying to say that Christianity is incompatible with freedom? How can you get all hot and bothered about losing your freedom of speech, and then seek to define public policy based on your personal religious beliefs?

Damn, I'm glad our society is no longer in the hands of religious nutballs like you. I can only imagine the kind of primitive, theocratic backwater you people would impose.

[Spanishbomb808]

Yeah! Sock it to those filthy christians!

[Ace42]

I can only imagine the kind of primitive, theocratic backwater you people would impose.

O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!

[synch]

Damn, I'm glad our society is no longer in the hands of religious nutballs like you.
It isn't? :eek:

[100% ILL]

How can you get all hot and bothered about losing your freedom of speech, and then seek to define public policy based on your personal religious beliefs?
I can only imagine the kind of primitive, theocratic backwater you people would impose.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/10DumRel.htm
Religion and Politics Don't Mix

Religion is a source of values for many people, or perhaps we can say many people express their values through religion. Politics is the translation of values into policy. So this statement amounts to saying that people whose values are linked closely to religion should excuse themselves from participation in politics.

That's not only discriminatory, it's stupid. Besides, they simply won't do it

[yeahwho]

I can see that I completly wasted my time in discussing this with you. Loss of freedom of speech is alarming to me. It's interesting to note that it does not concern you. (n)

I can see that I completly wasted my time in discussing this with you. Loss of sexual orientation is alarming to me. It's interesting to note that it does not concern you.

[100% ILL]

I can see that I completly wasted my time in discussing this with you. Loss of sexual orientation is alarming to me. It's interesting to note that it does not concern you.

While I unserstand that you are being sarcastic/ jocular, I do not understand the implication.

[yeahwho]

While I unserstand that you are being sarcastic/ jocular, I do not understand the implication.

I think it does not concern you that the biological fact is lesbians and gay men are real. Consenting adults who contribute to society and pay taxes should also have rights. Like the ability to be married without your doctrine invading their rights.

While this may not concern you, it is a fact that should be considered if you want to progress on Earth. Now you may still preach against them, but I think your contributing to your own demise and cause by doing so.

[100% ILL]

I think it does not concern you that the biological fact is lesbians and gay men are real. Consenting adults who contribute to society and pay taxes should also have rights.


Of course, unlike unborn humans who are not real and do not have rights.

First of all, there's a difference between skin color-- ethnicity-- and behavior. It seems to me this is so self-evident, so obvious, that it should go without saying, but there is much confusion on this point.

When the issue of homosexuality comes up in the public square, it isn't uncommon to equate the concerns for homosexual liberty with the concern for racial equality. This is a faulty parallel because with homosexuality we're not talking about something morally benign like skin color or ethnicity. I don't know of anybody who has made a genuine case for the moral relevance of the pigmentation of someone's skin or for the moral relevance of his ancestry, per se. Ethnicity has nothing to do with morality.

Most people who consider homosexuality deeply immoral don't do so because they hate homosexuals. They have principled moral objections.

[synch]

In my opinion the bottom line is who are you (not you specifically but in general) to pass judgement on morality?

[100% ILL]

Individual people are the threads of the social fabric and the values of those people will determine if the fabric is strong or weak.

[synch]

I've tried to make this point over and over and I might grow tired of doing so but am not tired enough yet.

You are not the one that sets the standard for social fabric and values.

[100% ILL]

As I've tried to explain sir. It is the resposibility of each individual.if you hold moral relativism--let everybody make up their own rules and decide for themselves what's right and wrong and let's not push our morality on any one else--then if you're going to be consistent you have to abandon the idea that there is anything like an absolute right or wrong. If relativism is true then there is no standard like that standing outside of us so there's no sense to the notion of justice or fairness. There's no accountability. Everybody does their own thing. There's no possibility of moral improvement or moral discourse, you can't even discuss things morally in an intelligent fashion because there's no better or worse morality in the context of relativism. Ultimately there's no tolerance either because the rule that one ought to be tolerant is an absolute rule that stands outside of our individual tastes. If there are no absolute rules then the absolute "Be tolerant" is no longer there either, and therefore relativism, the fact that everybody makes up their own rules, ultimately does not lead to tolerance either.

[synch]

Either I don't get what you are saying or you are still not answering my question.

Who sets the standard that is so needed in your view of how the world should be?

[Funkaloyd]

This is a faulty parallel because with homosexuality we're not talking about something morally benign like skin color or ethnicity.

Both groups are/were fighting for liberty, and liberty isn't liberty if it's handed out of the basis of race but not creed (or, for that matter, sex).

Individual people are the threads of the social fabric and the values of those people will determine if the fabric is strong or weak.

Pretty lame analogy. Lenin was just insuring that his garment had evenly distributed strength?

[Ace42]

f there are no absolute rules then the absolute "Be tolerant" is no longer there either, and therefore relativism, the fact that everybody makes up their own rules, ultimately does not lead to tolerance either.

You are mistaken fundamentally. Moral relativism does not preclude justice. Moral relativism merely means there are no "absolutes" - that doesn't make the *arbitrary* standards a society is based around any less enforced. A society could hypothetically follow its self-confessed arbitrary morality a lot more dilligently than one that belives morality ot be absolute, and yet ignores them.

prin·ci·ple Audio pronunciation of "principles" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prns-pl)
n.

1. A basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of democracy.
2.
1. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior: a man of principle.
2. The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments: a decision based on principle rather than expediency.

So, people's principles are, in the case of homophobia, ASSUMPTIONS. Bias against homosexuals, especially by the christian right, are not COLLECTIVE, otherwise it would clearly still be a stoning offence. As for a rule or standard, it is legal.

Now, again, it comes down to backwards bible-thumpers being convinced that their ASSUMPTIONS, based on no facts whatsoever, should govern the way they treat other people, which is invariably in an intollerant manner.

By all means, be a backwards individual and lead your life based on whichever mythos you choose to believe, rather than something that is objective fact. However, don't for a second think that gives you authority (moral or otherwise) to criticise other people's ethos. Unless you have something more substantial than "I don't like it because I think an ancient copy of a book tells me not to" then just shut the hell up.

The day we start legislating on the basis of what sanctimonious fucks *feel* is the day I buy a gun off a yank and start fighting for TRUE freedom.

If I was going to subordinate my morality, it certainly wouldn't be to simpletons who think the unknowable is a good solid basis for law.

[Whois]

The day we start legislating on the basis of what sanctimonious fucks *feel* is the day I buy a gun off a yank and start fighting for TRUE freedom.

Buy?

Hell I'll give you a firearm and ammo...but you can't have my M1A, I'm already using it.

[yeahwho]

You are mistaken fundamentally. Moral relativism does not preclude justice. Moral relativism merely means there are no "absolutes" - that doesn't make the *arbitrary* standards a society is based around any less enforced. A society could hypothetically follow its self-confessed arbitrary morality a lot more dilligently than one that belives morality ot be absolute, and yet ignores them.



So, people's principles are, in the case of homophobia, ASSUMPTIONS. Bias against homosexuals, especially by the christian right, are not COLLECTIVE, otherwise it would clearly still be a stoning offence. As for a rule or standard, it is legal.

Now, again, it comes down to backwards bible-thumpers being convinced that their ASSUMPTIONS, based on no facts whatsoever, should govern the way they treat other people, which is invariably in an intollerant manner.

By all means, be a backwards individual and lead your life based on whichever mythos you choose to believe, rather than something that is objective fact. However, don't for a second think that gives you authority (moral or otherwise) to criticise other people's ethos. Unless you have something more substantial than "I don't like it because I think an ancient copy of a book tells me not to" then just shut the hell up.

The day we start legislating on the basis of what sanctimonious fucks *feel* is the day I buy a gun off a yank and start fighting for TRUE freedom.

If I was going to subordinate my morality, it certainly wouldn't be to simpletons who think the unknowable is a good solid basis for law.

That just about sums it up (y) .
I'm just waiting for the response, I have a feeling it will be an imaginary retort fresh from the moral fantasyland of WWJD.

[Whois]

That just about sums it up (y) .
I'm just waiting for the response, I have a feeling it will be an imaginary retort fresh from the moral fantasyland of WWJD.

IOW...a Bible quote.

[100% ILL]

Moral relativism merely means there are no absolutes that doesn't make the *arbitrary* standards a society is based around any less enforced. A society could hypothetically follow its self-confessed arbitrary morality a lot more dilligently than one that belives morality ot be absolute, and yet ignores them.

Now, again, it comes down to backwards bible-thumpers being convinced that their ASSUMPTIONS, based on no facts whatsoever, should govern the way they treat other people, which is invariably in an intollerant manner.

By all means, be a backwards individual and lead your life based on whichever mythos you choose to believe, rather than something that is objective fact. However, don't for a second think that gives you authority (moral or otherwise) to criticise other people's ethos. Unless you have something more substantial than "I don't like it because I think an ancient copy of a book tells me not to" then just shut the hell up.

The day we start legislating on the basis of what sanctimonious fucks *feel* is the day I buy a gun off a yank and start fighting for TRUE freedom.

If I was going to subordinate my morality, it certainly wouldn't be to simpletons who think the unknowable is a good solid basis for law.

It would seem a bit judgmental on your part to start shooting, but then that's what hypocritical thinking often leads to. You assume to be so learned and enlightened, when in reality you are simply arrogant and intolerant yourself.
The accusation is unwarranted that those who hold to absolute truth are absolutely arrogant or ignorant. There simply is no automatic contradiction between holding firmly to one’s convictions and treating with dignity and respect those who disagree. Living harmoniously with people who hold radically different views is a hallmark of maturity.

If the relativist is to remain consistent, he can’t legitimately criticize another’s point of view. Furthermore, the relativist is guilty of the morally superior attitude that signals judgmentalism. He really thinks that he possesses a virtue that others don’t. Isn’t the relativist being *arrogant* for disagreeing with the exclusivist?

Although many accuse absolutists of intolerance, these accusers most likely have an unclear and distorted notion of what tolerance really is. They often are unaware that the concept of tolerance implies a close relationship to truth. Contrary to popular definitions, true tolerance means putting up with error—not being accepting of all views. We don’t tolerate what we enjoy or approve of. By definition, what we tolerate is what we disapprove of or what we believe to be false and erroneous. Furthermore, tolerance presupposes an adequate grasp of what another person believes—as well as a knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of such belief. Actually, if disagreement didn’t exist, then tolerance would be unnecessary. It is because real differences exist between people that tolerance becomes necessary and virtuous. The contemporary definition of tolerance as acceptance is simply wrong-headed. It lands a person in massive inconsistencies. True tolerance grants people the right to dissent.

[Schmeltz]

Can I please have the principled moral objections to homosexuality explained to me? What makes homosexuality so deeply immoral that it should be legally confined and repressed, expunged from a moral society?

Note: any explanations that rely on ancient, obsolete religious texts will not be considered; "God says it's wrong" is not a basis for legislation.

[SobaViolence]

God says it's wrong that's pretty much all they got... (n)

[100% ILL]

Can I please have the principled moral objections to homosexuality explained to me? What makes homosexuality so deeply immoral that it should be legally confined and repressed, expunged from a moral society?

Note: any explanations that rely on ancient, obsolete religious texts will not be considered; "God says it's wrong" is not a basis for legislation.

First, homosexuality is an activity that is inherently dangerous and cannot be made healthy . It carries with it health risks that, though they may be reduced in some cases, can't be avoided entirely. Second, homosexual conduct also puts people at risk who are not engaged in the activity. Since this activity can't be made healthful, and puts people at risk who do not choose to be involved in the activity, it seems to make sense that, we ought not do anything to encourage it.

[yeahwho]

First, homosexuality is an activity that is inherently dangerous and cannot be made healthy . It carries with it health risks that, though they may be reduced in some cases, can't be avoided entirely. Second, homosexual conduct also puts people at risk who are not engaged in the activity. Since this activity can't be made healthful, and puts people at risk who do not choose to be involved in the activity, it seems to make sense that, we ought not do anything to encourage it.

Not healthy in the fact that it goes against your belief? Or do you mean not healthy like unprotected sex?

I think freedom, choices and the ability for people to live their lives protected from religious bigotry is of bigger concern here. You have defined nothing but a perpetuated myth (http://www.avert.org/usastatr.htm). That is unless your only concern is only white men who reside in the US.

[synch]

First, homosexuality is an activity that is inherently dangerous and cannot be made healthy . It carries with it health risks that, though they may be reduced in some cases, can't be avoided entirely. Second, homosexual conduct also puts people at risk who are not engaged in the activity. Since this activity can't be made healthful, and puts people at risk who do not choose to be involved in the activity, it seems to make sense that, we ought not do anything to encourage it.
This post has me balancing between pity and rage.

Name one health risk that a heterosexual doesn't have that a homosexual does.

You know what, never mind, I consider myself fairly open minded and rarely walk away from a discussion but I don't that I'm going to get anywhere positive while discussing this with you.

You sir, are very misguided.

[100% ILL]

I think freedom, choices and the ability for people to live their lives protected from religious bigotry is of bigger concern here. You have defined nothing but a perpetuated myth (http://www.avert.org/usastatr.htm). That is unless your only concern is only white men who reside in the US.

To imply bigotry on the basis of Biblical principle is unfounded. An objection based on a princple is not bigotry.

[yeahwho]

To imply bigotry on the basis of Biblical principle is unfounded. An objection based on a princple is not bigotry.

So how do Gay principles develop legal action?

[100% ILL]

So how do Gay principles develop legal action?

Define Gay principles.

[yeahwho]

Define Gay principles.

Exactly. Now your starting to come around.

[100% ILL]

This post has me balancing between pity and rage.
You know what, never mind, I consider myself fairly open minded and rarely walk away from a discussion but I don't that I'm going to get anywhere positive while discussing this with you.

You sir, are very misguided.

I applaud your restraint.

[Qdrop]

First, homosexuality is an activity that is inherently dangerous and cannot be made healthy . It carries with it health risks that, though they may be reduced in some cases, can't be avoided entirely. Second, homosexual conduct also puts people at risk who are not engaged in the activity. Since this activity can't be made healthful, and puts people at risk who do not choose to be involved in the activity, it seems to make sense that, we ought not do anything to encourage it.

that is the most pathetic, pre-1986, piece of shit argument against homosexuality i have ever heard.

[Qdrop]

This post has me balancing between pity and rage.

Name one health risk that a heterosexual doesn't have that a homosexual does.



exactly.
answer the question, ILL.....

[Schmeltz]

Sorry, 100%ILL, but as synch pointed out everything you said could equally be applied to heterosexuality and seems to be based mostly on sanctimonious mythology. But then, almost everything you say seems to be based mostly on sanctimonious mythology.

Care to try again? Come on, you said you had principled moral objections; to me that sounds as though you can construct an objective argument around the morality of homosexuality without being so ambiguous as to be ridiculous.

[100% ILL]

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0088.html
http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html
The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its diagnostic list of mental disorders in 1973, despite substantial protest (see Socarides, 1995). The A.P.A. was strongly motivated by the desire to reduce the effects of social oppression. However, one effect of the A.P.A.'s action was to add psychiatric authority to gay activists' insistence that homosexuals as a group are as healthy as heterosexuals. This has discouraged publication of research that suggests there may, in fact, be psychiatric problems associated with homosexuality.


This statement was made by Greg Quinlan, a former member of the homosexual community, who testified before the Ohio Defense of Marriage Act in November, 2003. Quinlan claimed that the physical and mental devastation caused by homosexual behavior, and the cumulative effect of that behavior "is incalculable."

The American public has been left largely in the dark about the extent of the medical problems associated with homosexual activity because of the influence of pro-homosexual political agendas. Some even believe they are being "compassionate" by not disclosing vital health information for fear of offending homosexuals.

For those health professionals like Greg Quinlan who minister to the dying, compassion is the last word they would use to describe the deliberate withholding of potentially life-saving information from active homosexuals.

[SobaViolence]

excuse my rudeness, but you're a fucking douchebag.

[Ace42]

It would seem a bit judgmental on your part to start shooting, but then that's what hypocritical thinking often leads to. You assume to be so learned and enlightened, when in reality you are simply arrogant and intolerant yourself.

Sorry, you think that to be "tolerant" I have to let you tell me what to do, and go along with it? Fuck you pal, fuck you up your stupid self-important ass.

Living harmoniously with people who hold radically different views is a hallmark of maturity.

Harmoniously just so long as you actively deny homosexuals rights that everyone else is denied.

If the relativist is to remain consistent, he can’t legitimately criticize another’s point of view.

You are completely correct. That is, if you disregard all logic and common sense and start making shit up as you go along. A relativist can base his judgements on quantifable and objective fact. Just because a relativist believes *abstracts* are vairable, doesn't mean that he therefore must mean that logic and fact do not exist. If you weren't desperately trying to legitimise your own shoddy viewpoint, you'd not jsut assume flaws where there are none.

Furthermore, the relativist is guilty of the morally superior attitude that signals judgmentalism.

When dealing with *FACTS* rather than BELIEFS, morals do not come into it. Being able to correctly analyse and process facts *is* superior to people who cannot do so, or choose to disregard fact in favour of *feelings*

This has nothing to do with "judgementalism" it has to do with being "correct" or "incorrect"

He really thinks that he possesses a virtue that others don’t. Isn’t the relativist being *arrogant* for disagreeing with the exclusivist?

"Arrogance" presupposes there is not a "correct" and "incorrect" which is distinct from "good and bad."

Although many accuse absolutists of intolerance, these accusers most likely have an unclear and distorted notion of what tolerance really is. They often are unaware that the concept of tolerance implies a close relationship to truth. Contrary to popular definitions, true tolerance means putting up with error—not being accepting of all views.

Yes, again, you are absolutely correct. IF you choose to define tolerance in your strictly personal and private sense. If, however, you choose to use the word *correctly* (and by that, I mean to use the word in both its historical and current litteral sense) then what you have just said is bollocks you have made up on the spot to make yourself seem less intollerant.

tol·er·ance Audio pronunciation of "tolerance" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tlr-ns)
n.

1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
2.
1. Leeway for variation from a standard.

That's what it means. To say that your definition is "correct" (And tha tthe dictionary definition must thus be incorrect") is frankly astounding. Although, I have come to expect semantic wrangling from you fundamentalists, this is reaching new levels. No wonder you believe the bible is literally true when you choose to believe words mean things which they do not.

By definition, what we tolerate is what we disapprove of or what we believe to be false and erroneous.

No shit, Sherlock. However, has been made patently clear, what you BELIEVE counts for jack shit, as it is based on the most spacious and flawed of reasoning. Unless you can present FACTS, instead of "what you believe" then you can shut the fuck up. Since when has "what you believe" been "intrinsically related to the truth" ?!? How dare you accuse ANYONE of arrogance when you yourself claim a monopoly on the truth which just happens to coincide with your beliefs?

Furthermore, tolerance presupposes an adequate grasp of what another person believes—as well as a knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of such belief.

Bullshit. You can tolerate something you do not understand at all. I could have no knowledge whatsoever about the spiritual implications of the eucharest. Just because I do not understand why they are doing it, doesn't mean that me saying "whatever, it is their right, they can do it" is not being *tolerant* - irrespective of my beliefs on the matter.

Actually, if disagreement didn’t exist, then tolerance would be unnecessary. It is because real differences exist between people that tolerance becomes necessary and virtuous.

Duh...

The contemporary definition of tolerance as acceptance is simply wrong-headed. It lands a person in massive inconsistencies. True tolerance grants people the right to dissent.

See, the contemporary definition as nothing to do with "accepting it pleases God or not" and no-one says it is. It is to do with ACCEPTING THEIR RIGHT TO PERFORM THE ACT WITHOUT BEING THE VICTIM OF PREJUDICE. What God does to queers is his own goddamn business, and if stupid fucking fundamentalist left the business to HIM, instead of taking it upon themselves to act like fucks and use the law of MAN against them, then it would be a different matter all together.

No-one objects to the right of close minded biggots to be close-minded biggots whererever and however they choose to do so. What they DO object to is close-minded biggots FORCING PEOPLE TO CONFORM TO THEIR WORLD VIEW.

The only inconsistancy here is your understanding of what people is saying with what they are really saying. We don't care that you are a homophobe. Shout it out. We are tolerant. However, don't expect us to like you for it, and certainly don't expect us to grant you the right to act *against others* on your backwards and perverted thinking.

No-one is asking you to suck cock, FFS. No-one is saying "Hey, it's your obligation as a tolerant individual to go out and match-make a gay couple, and help them fuck each other" - and you painting it as all us crazy hippie liberals expecting you to "go queer" is frankly the most pathetic straw-man argument you have ever constructed. Really, you should shut up. Not because what you say is "offensive" but solely because it is irrational tosh.

It is always telling that you think "The Truth" is some nebulous ephemereal thing which you cannot touch or know. For the rest of us here on Earth, "The Truth" is objective fact, and thus is not up for debate. If you want to talk to people here on Earth, and interact with the things here on Earth, you had better get with the goddamn program. Otherwise you are doomed to repeat your frequent misrepresentations, and stay divorced from *how things really are*

[Ace42]

First, homosexuality is an activity that is inherently dangerous and cannot be made healthy . It carries with it health risks that, though they may be reduced in some cases, can't be avoided entirely. Second, homosexual conduct also puts people at risk who are not engaged in the activity. Since this activity can't be made healthful, and puts people at risk who do not choose to be involved in the activity, it seems to make sense that, we ought not do anything to encourage it.

Well, that is heterosexuality out the window then. Let's just allow the human race to die out, as there can be NO heterosexual intercourse that does not include the risks you have alluded to.

Unless you are proposing we all start invitro-cloning, thus eliminating any intercourse whatsoever?

Also, since when has "homosexuality" been synonymous with Anal sex? Are you saying a guy who has only and does only wank people off with thick rubber gloves isn't gay because he hasn't been bummed?

No-wonder you are so prejudiced when you think that all homosexuals go around filling each others ass's with semen. Something which is frankly untrue.

Also, I am amused that the articles you cite go on about "pro-gay propoganda" - it reminds me of the BNP talking about the "Islamophile BBC"

Go on, through in something about "liberal bias in the media" - I DARE you.

[racer5.0stang]

Also, since when has "homosexuality" been synonymous with Anal sex? Are you saying a guy who has only and does only wank people off with thick rubber gloves isn't gay because he hasn't been bummed?

No-wonder you are so prejudiced when you think that all homosexuals go around filling each others ass's with semen. Something which is frankly untrue.

That is about the stupidest thing I have seen you post yet, and I'm not counting the whole "ape" debate.

So by your argument, in order for a male to be homosexual, he has to have anal sex with another male. But if he participates as the middle man in a circle jerk, he is clearly not homosexual.

You might lie to yourself with that argument, but the person you described is clearly homosexual.

Tish and fispy.

[synch]

Actually I think he's trying to make the same point you are.

[Ace42]

That is about the stupidest thing I have seen you post yet, and I'm not counting the whole "ape" debate.

This coming from the moron who doesn't even know that chimps have opposable thumbs. Do you even know what a chimpanzee looks like? It would certainly explain your position on the issue if, as is quite likely, when we use the word "primate" referring to apes and chimpanzees, etc, you think people are talking about snails or something.

So by your argument, in order for a male to be homosexual, he has to have anal sex with another male.

No, idiot, what I said was quite the opposite. Read what I said again, the words in it, then reply to what *I* am saying. Not what you think the words mean, but what they ACTUALLY mean. How someone with such a weak grasp of the language, not to mention how the world works, has the audacity to throw around terms like "stupid" is beyond me.

Oh wait, it isn't. You're a yank, and therefore you think that shouting your mouth off about things you don't understand is perfectly acceptable.

Really, just stop posting and start reading. You have nothing to say that anyone should ever consider reading, and you don't even have the good manners to properly read through what is being discussed.

[Qdrop]

, and you don't even have the good manners to properly read through what is being discussed.

this from Ace42......

cause we know how "well mannered" his remarks are....







Racer: i think 90% if what you say is ridiculous and BS (and just plain annoying)......but never let anyone tell you not to post anymore, me included.
you have the right........never stop using it.




although you could try picking up a science book once in a while.....

[racer5.0stang]

You have nothing to say that anyone should ever consider reading, and you don't even have the good manners to properly read through what is being discussed.

And yet you still respond.

Oh, and lets not get started on good manners.

[racer5.0stang]

Racer: i think 90% if what you say is ridiculous and BS (and just plain annoying)......but never let anyone tell you not to post anymore, me included.
you have the right........never stop using it.

Well, thanks.

[Ace42]

Oh, and lets not get started on good manners.

Let's not get started on anything, as even the simplest of concepts elude you.

[Qdrop]

Can you just imagine what Ace's family life was like growing up?

i imagine he was constantly brow-beaten and made to feel inferior on a daily basis....

hence the inferiority complex he so brilliantly displays.


"YOU'RE ALL IDIOTS! STUPID! YOU'RE BENEATH ME! YOU CAN'T COMPREHEND WHAT I'M SAYING! YOU RETARDED PEASANT.....
YOU'RE NO SON OF MINE!...YOU'RE no son....of mine.......you're stupid...*sniff*....you're....*sob*.......why daddy?....why?.....

[100% ILL]

Sorry, you think that to be "tolerant" I have to let you tell me what to do, and go along with it? Fuck you pal, fuck you up your stupid self-important ass.

You are completely correct. That is, if you disregard all logic and common sense and start making shit up as you go along. A relativist can base his judgements on quantifable and objective fact. Just because a relativist believes *abstracts* are vairable, doesn't mean that he therefore must mean that logic and fact do not exist. If you weren't desperately trying to legitimise your own shoddy viewpoint, you'd not jsut assume flaws where there are none.

When dealing with *FACTS* rather than BELIEFS, morals do not come into it. Being able to correctly analyse and process facts *is* superior to people who cannot do so, or choose to disregard fact in favour of *feelings*

It is always telling that you think "The Truth" is some nebulous ephemereal thing which you cannot touch or know. For the rest of us here on Earth, "The Truth" is objective fact, and thus is not up for debate.

Your attitude clearly shows the position from which you are coming at me, which would indicate a certain unnecessary amount of emotion; which is highly unnecessary, dare I say detrimental in a debate such as this. And yes the truth is open to debate especially if your truth and my truth differ, which is so obiously the case.
Humans intuitively know that certain objective moral values exist. For example, we know that kindness is a virtue and not a vice, that torturing babies is immoral, that child abuse is wrong, that a person like Hitler or Stalin is morally repugnant. We know these things virtually without reflection, without thinking them through. While reason confirms the basic rightness of these intuitions, we don’t seem to know this by means of reason. And we regularly rely on these intuitions to make practical, everyday moral judgments. To deny such beliefs flies in the face of basic human knowledge and instincts.

Athiest Kai Nielsen offers evidence to deny that God is necessary to explain the existence of objective morality. He says that when Christians, for example, make moral judgments about God’s acts and commands or about the super ethic of Jesus Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, that implies a standard of goodness independent of whether God exists. To make moral assessments about God’s actions or Jesus’ teachings presupposes the existence of an objective morality.

This apparently persuasive argument, however, is flawed. It rests on a confusion of being and knowing. The normal sane person certainly knows—or at least acts as though he knows—that objective morality exists. But here is the crucial question: How did we get to be that way—moral beings who recognize right and wrong? We have to be moral beings before we can know what is moral. An atheist might suggest that if all humans—both those who believe in God and those who don’t—have correct, objective moral sensibilities, that fact implies moral intuition isn’t somehow rooted in God.

Christians see an unbreakable connection between objective morality and God. If objective moral values exist, as even atheists believe, it seems plausible to argue that a personal, transcendent, perfect God is the source of and ground for morality. We are moral beings because we have been created in the image of a moral God. Even those who don’t believe in God possess an ingrained moral sense that corresponds in some measure to God’s moral sense.
In Romans 2:14-15, we read,For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, not having the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or excusing one another. Scripture assumes that God has written this binding law on the hearts of people.



It’s critical to distinguish truth and knowledge.
Truth is a characteristic of statements that properly describe aspects of the real world. This is called the correspondence view of truth.
The correspondence view of truth isn’t a method for testing truth claims or discovering knowledge. It’s a definition of what we mean when we say that a statement “is true.” According to the correspondence view, what makes a statement true is reality itself. A statement like, “This car is red,” is true, simply if the car in question actually is red. Truth doesn’t depend on anyone knowing the truth. So, for instance, even if no one’s around to discover that it’s 115° at 2:00 p.m. on August 15, 1977, in the middle of Death Valley, it’s still true that it’s 115° out in that desert. Truth is independent of human minds.
The word knowledge denotes a person’s proper understanding of the true nature of reality. For a belief to count as knowledge for a person, it must meet three conditions.

First, knowledge must be true. We don’t just mean that someone thinks the idea is true. We mean that the idea is true. Members of the Flat Earth Society think that the earth is flat. Do we count their belief as knowledge? Of course not! They believe the earth is flat, but their belief is false and hence can’t count as knowledge. Genuine knowledge is true.
Second, knowledge must be believed. We must believe a claim (that is, we have to hold a belief as true) in order to know it. Of course, believing something isn’t enough to make it true, and not believing it doesn’t make it false. But without believing, a true idea isn’t knowledge for us. Suppose it’s true that one of my great-great-grandfathers was a Confederate Army lieutenant whose troops played a key role at the Battle of Fredericksburg. Now suppose I don’t know this fact and don’t have any particular beliefs about the lieutenant. In this case, it’s obviously true that my great-great-grandfather was this lieutenant, but it would be very odd to say that I know this about my great-great-grandfather. In fact, I probably have very few beliefs about my great-great-grandfathers. I can know generic things: eight persons who lived sometime in the last 250 years are my great-great-grandfathers. They were males; they fathered my great-grandparents; and none of them ever watched TV or received an e-mail. But since I don’t believe anything individually about any of them, I can’t be said to know anything distinctive about them as individuals. We must believe something to know it.

Obviously, we shouldn’t consider a true belief as knowledge if that belief was the result of a wild guess. Say I win the lottery by guessing the winning numbers. Sure, I hoped that the winning numbers would be the first five digits of my Social Security number, but it’s wrong-headed to say that I knew that they would be the winning numbers! In sum, by the word knowledge, we mean a true belief held by a person for an appropriate reason—that is, grounded in a legitimating “something else.”

If knowledge is true belief plus some legitimating fact, then how should we set the standards for assessing these legitimating facts? The 17th century philosopher Rene Descartes concentrated on this very problem. His philosophy set the stage for modern discussions of knowledge. Descartes’ approach posited very high—too high—standards for that “something else,” that legitimating fact that distinguishes merely true belief from genuine knowledge.

In order to weed out false beliefs and gain genuine knowledge, Descartes required that all candidates for genuine knowledge must arise from a method. Correct method (for Descartes, the geometric method) is the key to finding true knowledge.
Here’s a specific example. Suppose someone asks me whether I know the statement, “My coffee cup is blue.” (Let’s call this statement p.) Methodism requires that before I can truly know p, I must follow a proper method by which I know p. So to know any particular truth, methodism says I must follow a proper epistemic method.
Although Descartes’ methodism may seem like a promising way to ground knowledge, it’s fundamentally flawed. Methodism requires that before I can know anything, I must have prior knowledge of the method by which to know that thing. But then how do I know that method itself? My coming to know what method to use would itself require following a prior method. This quickly leads to what’s called an infinite regress. Every time I try to answer the problem, the problem keeps appearing. I start moving back a chain of questions. But every time I move back to a prior link in the chain, the problem repeatedly emerges. It’s like asking, “What explains Michael’s existence?” If I say, “His parents,” I just raise again the very question I hoped to answer: “What explains his parents’ existence?” “Their parents?” Ultimately, given the methodist approach, there’s no way to end this infinite series of questions. In the end, if methodism were true, I’d have to know something (the right method) before I could know anything. There’s no way out of this double bind.

But there’s another approach to finding the legitimating fact that separates true belief from knowledge. It’s called particularism. Particularism starts by assuming that it’s right to know particular things directly (that is, without following a method) since we find that we already know many particular things.. In certain conditions, we directly and properly form true beliefs. And we form these beliefs through a variety of means. We see a tree or hear a train. We compute things. We infer conclusions from things we see or hear. We learn from experts. We read the Bible. Each of these processes generally leads to true beliefs. And so it’s legitimate, particularism says, to count particular beliefs like these as knowledge.

What are the procedures or strategies for evaluating competing beliefs? First, our beliefs should be rational. At a minimum, this means that our beliefs shouldn’t contradict one another. This is coherence, a negative test. Say I believe both that “I’m the world’s leading microbiologist” and that “I don’t know much about microbiology.” These beliefs are obviously incompatible, and so holding both beliefs at the same time is irrational. One of the two (or maybe both) must go. Coherence is necessary. But it doesn’t guarantee truth. Incoherence is a significant red flag. It guarantees that some beliefs are false. We should pursue strategies in order to avoid holding incoherent beliefs.
Second, our belief should fit with the evidence. If a belief doesn’t fit with data we know to be true, we should give up that belief. we look for beliefs that fit the evidence. But notice something very important. We don’t stipulate a rule: “Every belief must be proved by evidence before it counts as knowledge.” Among other problems, that rule would land us back in methodism. The problem with making this rule into an absolute requirement for knowledge is that the rule itself can’t be proved by evidence. No evidence could ever prove that “Every belief must be proved by evidence before it counts as knowledge.” So we do look for evidence to help us, but only when it’s appropriate.
Skeptics place a very high standard for admissible evidence. For some skeptics, the standard is so high that every belief becomes doubtful.
We agree that avoiding falsehood is vital. And given our virtue-oriented epistemology, the notion of evidence is important. But more important is whether we rightly handle the evidence we have! An unscrupulous person can twist evidence to support the position he holds. But if we’re intellectually virtuous, we’ll operate differently. We’ll treat evidence honestly, overcome our biases toward our own culture’s preconceived notions, and refuse to misuse evidence to gain power or to pretend that our own pet beliefs are superior.
So is knowledge possible? Even though people have many false beliefs, Yes! The existence of junk car yards doesn’t count as evidence against the existence of new cars. Similarly, the existence of intellectually non-virtuous people doesn’t show that intellectually virtuous people fail completely in their quest for genuine knowledge. In sum, due to human limits, some things are beyond knowing. But if we exercise the intellectual virtues, we can achieve genuine knowledge about important things.

[Qdrop]

100% ILL: what do you do all day where you have time to write all that? ^^


do you have a job?

[synch]

I am going to come straight out and tell you that I haven't read all of that, but I'm fairly sure that my point will stand either way (if not, let me know).

You can't legislate morality. You can't force your set of beliefs on someone else. Not in speech, not in text, not by law.

You are free to believe whatever you want but you shouldn't expect other people to live by your set of rules.

[Qdrop]

laws and morality ( a man-made construct) must be based on nature or natural law.

they must have a concrete basis in biology, group survival,...basically science and history in general.
otherwise, they are purely subjective, debatable views that will always require force, not reasoning, to enforce.

[Ace42]

Humans intuitively know that certain objective moral values exist.

Do they? How many case studies can you cite where this can be proven? In the case of "feral" children (Children who grow up alone in the wild with no human contact) there is no "intuitive morality" - theft, random violence, etc etc are common. There is certainly not an "innate" morality which the adopt in abstentia from society.

For example, we know that kindness is a virtue and not a vice, that torturing babies is immoral, that child abuse is wrong, that a person like Hitler or Stalin is morally repugnant.

We know this because we have been taught it both by example, by parable, and by all manner of systems since childhood. This does not make it "intuitive" at all. Infact, quite the opposite. Even if we are not conscious of it, "operant conditioning" is not intuitive, it is programmed into an individual. It is "learned".

We know these things virtually without reflection, without thinking them through.

That is how all operant conditioning works. It bypasses conscious thought. It is NOT intuitive, it is learned.

While reason confirms the basic rightness of these intuitions, we don’t seem to know this by means of reason. And we regularly rely on these intuitions to make practical, everyday moral judgments. To deny such beliefs flies in the face of basic human knowledge and instincts.

A "practical" (pragmatic) right or wrong is directly opposed to moral absolutism. As the practical needs of a society can change, so can what is "right and wrong." - for example, if all of one gender were obliterated, incest might be necessary to repopulate a society. Thus, practically, it would be "necessary" and thus no longer "bad" (for that society)

We have to be moral beings before we can know what is moral.

Wrong, someone can be clinically amoral (without morals) and yet understand what morality others subscribe to.

If objective moral values exist, as even atheists believe, it seems plausible to argue that a personal, transcendent, perfect God is the source of and ground for morality.

Totally illogical. An innate "rightness" or "wrongness" doesn't in any way shape or form indicate the presence of a deity.

Even those who don’t believe in God possess an ingrained moral sense that corresponds in some measure to God’s moral sense.

It is illogical to assume that God defined human morality, rather than man ascribed the innate morality being argued for, to god.

It’s critical to distinguish truth and knowledge.

On the whole, very interesting, if of questionable relevance. Where did you copy and paste this from?

Truth doesn’t depend on anyone knowing the truth.

For sake of argument, this is practically useful. However, Zen Buddhists famously challenge this perception. IE "tree falls in wood, no-one to hear" etc. To accept it as "right" is useful, not rigorous.

Do we count their belief as knowledge? Of course not! They believe the earth is flat, but their belief is false and hence can’t count as knowledge. Genuine knowledge is true.

This could equally apply to fundamentalism.

Second, knowledge must be believed.

I'd say 'awarable' (That is a new word to mean 'available for people to be made aware of') rather than "believed" - belief implies a level of confidence or acceptance. You can "know" a fact, and yet not truly believe it.

Obviously, we shouldn’t consider a true belief as knowledge if that belief was the result of a wild guess.

Which is why I maintain that racerstang has absolutely 0 'knowledge' - if he was by chance correct, it would be through chance not through actual reasoning or methodology.

Descartes’ approach posited very high—too high—standards

*exacting* standards. The fact that these standards are *impractical* does not mean that adhering to them is wrong. We disregard them because they are too hard for us to use effectively, not because they are demonstrably incorrect.

Although Descartes’ methodism may seem like a promising way to ground knowledge, it’s fundamentally flawed.

In that it is essentially "anti-axiomatic." However, if you disregard the (admittedly intrinsic) distrust of the axiom (and accept axioms as necessary evils) it is still workable.

But there’s another approach to finding the legitimating fact that separates true belief from knowledge. It’s called particularism. Particularism starts by assuming that it’s right to know particular things directly (that is, without following a method) since we find that we already know many particular things.

I'd say this system is more fundamentally flawed than Cartesian methodism. Assuming it is *necessary* to accept particular things as true is a lot more rigorous than merely assuming things are intrinsically true.

In certain conditions, we directly and properly form true beliefs. And we form these beliefs through a variety of means. We see a tree or hear a train. We compute things. We infer conclusions from things we see or hear.

And this should be evidently a flawed methodology. We hear a "train" but it turns out to be a shopping cart. We see optical illusions as things which they are not. The assumption that things are inherantly true (particularly the bible, the source of many subsequent beliefs) is sloppy to say the least.

First, our beliefs should be rational. At a minimum, this means that our beliefs shouldn’t contradict one another.

For example, what the Bible says about the world, and what we see and learn about the world should not disagree. If the bible says the world is flat, and we see it is round, it has failed this test.

Incoherence is a significant red flag. It guarantees that some beliefs are false. We should pursue strategies in order to avoid holding incoherent beliefs.

If only Racerstang would take note <sigh>

Second, our belief should fit with the evidence. If a belief doesn’t fit with data we know to be true, we should give up that belief.

And yet, creationists either are unaware of, or choose not to believe data we know to be true. Evolution is an objective fact. You can watch microscopic organisms evolve before your own eyes in laboratory experiments. Does this prove that evolution is the source of human life? No, but it certainly does disprove the creationist argument that it is "a load of tosh."

But notice something very important. We don’t stipulate a rule: “Every belief must be proved by evidence before it counts as knowledge.”

Important point. And yet, one that is only used as a matter of conviniance as I mentioned above. Certainly not a point that legitimises spurious claims without evidence. Especially issues that are controversial.

[Qdrop]

Do they? How many case studies can you cite where this can be proven? In the case of "feral" children (Children who grow up alone in the wild with no human contact) there is no "intuitive morality" - theft, random violence, etc etc are common. There is certainly not an "innate" morality which the adopt in abstentia from society.

wrong. wrong. wrong.
Ace could look this up himself.....but he refuses to.


We know this because we have been taught it both by example, by parable, and by all manner of systems since childhood. This does not make it "intuitive" at all. Infact, quite the opposite. Even if we are not conscious of it, "operant conditioning" is not intuitive, it is programmed into an individual. It is "learned".


wrong! wrong! wrong!!!
jesus, Ace...are you living in 1950?
pick up ANY contempory social science book.....fuck.
he's still stuck in the whole "blank slate" theory.
such a liberal.

while we do learn certain behaviors from our soceity, things essential to group social living are mostly innate (no murder within the group, no theft, no adultry). these behaviors evolved through evololution...as they are necessary for group survival.
they are of course re-enforced through learned social morays or laws...but that is not the innitial source.
after all......where did they originally come from...GOD?
no.
nature.


That is how all operant conditioning works. It bypasses conscious thought. It is NOT intuitive, it is learned.


yeah, cause he saw this in Con Air.



A "practical" (pragmatic) right or wrong is directly opposed to moral absolutism. As the practical needs of a society can change, so can what is "right and wrong." - for example, if all of one gender were obliterated, incest might be necessary to repopulate a society. Thus, practically, it would be "necessary" and thus no longer "bad" (for that society)

that is correct.



Wrong, someone can be clinically amoral (without morals) and yet understand what morality others subscribe to.

also correct.


Totally illogical. An innate "rightness" or "wrongness" doesn't in any way shape or form indicate the presence of a deity.

correct.


It is illogical to assume that God defined human morality, rather than man ascribed the innate morality being argued for, to god.

yep.


On the whole, very interesting, if of questionable relevance. Where did you copy and paste this from?

probably the same outdated sources you use to get your info on "no innate knowledge/instinct" blank slate bullshit.


And this should be evidently a flawed methodology. We hear a "train" but it turns out to be a shopping cart. We see optical illusions as things which they are not. The assumption that things are inherantly true (particularly the bible, the source of many subsequent beliefs) is sloppy to say the least.



For example, what the Bible says about the world, and what we see and learn about the world should not disagree. If the bible says the world is flat, and we see it is round, it has failed this test.

correct.



And yet, creationists either are unaware of, or choose not to believe data we know to be true. Evolution is an objective fact. You can watch microscopic organisms evolve before your own eyes in laboratory experiments. Does this prove that evolution is the source of human life? No, but it certainly does disprove the creationist argument that it is "a load of tosh."


agreed, although the "microscope" example demonstrates microevolution (change within a species)...not macro evolution (change from one species to another).
it is the macro that creationsist and "intelligent design" believers don't want any part of.

[bb_bboy]

First, homosexuality is an activity that is inherently dangerous and cannot be made healthy . It carries with it health risks that, though they may be reduced in some cases, can't be avoided entirely. Second, homosexual conduct also puts people at risk who are not engaged in the activity. Since this activity can't be made healthful, and puts people at risk who do not choose to be involved in the activity, it seems to make sense that, we ought not do anything to encourage it.

Even legislation explicitly barring homosexual activity would not prevent it from happening. I don't think that people who are 'practicing' homosexuals necessarily need encouragement - and discouragement would not change their sexual orientation, only increase the effect of the stigma that it carries in many societes. I don't think that anyone will decide to become homosexual simply because of legislation allowing gay marriage who wasn't predisposed to the lifestyle to begin with.

[100% ILL]

A "practical" (pragmatic) right or wrong is directly opposed to moral absolutism. As the practical needs of a society can change, so can what is "right and wrong." - for example, if all of one gender were obliterated, incest might be necessary to repopulate a society. Thus, practically, it would be "necessary" and thus no longer "bad" (for that society)

It is illogical to assume that God defined human morality, rather than man ascribed the innate morality being argued for, to god.


And yet, creationists either are unaware of, or choose not to believe data we know to be true. Evolution is an objective fact. You can watch microscopic organisms evolve before your own eyes in laboratory experiments. Does this prove that evolution is the source of human life? No, but it certainly does disprove the creationist argument that it is "a load of tosh."

If all of one gender were obliterated there would be no possibility of procreation.
Microevolution has been proven, but that certainly is not macroevolution, not by a long shot.
When there are two possible answers to the creation of the world/mankind,that are empirically equivical, In this case creationism and natural selection; wouldn't it make sense to examine both of them? Instead naturalists exclude creationism due to it's adherance to design by diety. You cannot disprove the exsistance of God simply by stating that there is not one
I'm asking where is the evidence that makes the God option an intellectually untenable one, without bringing in a mere philosophic assumption namely naturalism?

[Qdrop]

Microevolution has been proven, but that certainly is not macroevolution, not by a long shot.

in a lab, no.
but come the fuck on. do you really need me to "link you to death" with all of the evidence for evolution?


When there are two possible answers to the creation of the world/mankind,that are empirically equivical, In this case creationism and natural selection;

empiracally equivacal?....are you kidding?
the mountains of virtually unasailable evidence through science and anthroplogy on the side of evolution make up it's evidence.
where is there proof of the existance of god or creation?
your "evidence" or what you refer to as evidence is simply the act of trying to disprove science and it's findings.
that is not evidence.
if you prove that a ball is not red...that does not mean it's blue.


I'm asking where is the evidence that makes the God option an intellectually untenable one, without bringing in a mere philosophic assumption namely naturalism?

there is no conclusive evidence that God does or does not exist.
that's the fucking point.
it's called FAITH!!

YOU are not supposed to go around proving the existance of god or counter attacking science that says otherwise.
you are supposed to just have faith that he is real....without proof.
thus proving your worth to god.
showing him you do not need proof to believe....
isn't that how you get into heaven?

[100% ILL]

The THEORY of evolution goes against the 2nd LAW of thermodynamics (out of order, chaos will be created) A theory is weaker than a law.

The problem of genetic improbability

From The Myth of Natural Origins; How Science Points to Divine Creation
Ashby Camp, Ktisis Publishing, Tempe, Arizona.

Even on a theoretical level, it does not seem possible for mutations to account for the diversity of life on earth, at least not in the time available. According to Professor Ambrose, the minimum number of mutations necessary to produce the simplest new structure in an organism is five , but these five mutations must be the proper type and must affect five genes that are functionally related. In other words, not just any five mutations will do. The odds against this occurring in a single organism are astronomical.
Mutations of any kind are believed to occur once in every 100,000 gene replications (though some estimate they occur far less frequently). Davis, 68; Wysong, 272. Assuming that the first single-celled organism had 10,000 genes, the same number as E. coli (Wysong, 113), one mutation would exist for every ten cells. Since only one mutation per 1,000 is non-harmful , there would be only one non-harmful mutation in a population of 10,000 such cells. The odds that this one non-harmful mutation would affect a particular gene, however, is 1 in 10,000 (since there are 10,000 genes). Therefore, one would need a population of 100,000,000 cells before one of them would be expected to possess a non-harmful mutation of a specific gene.
The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific (functionally related) genes is the product of their separate probabilities. Morris, 63. In other words, the probability is 1 in 108 X 108 X 108 X 108 X 108, or 1 in 1040. If one hundred trillion (1014) bacteria were produced every second for five billion years (1017 seconds), the resultingpopulation (1031) would be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what was needed!

But even this is not the whole story. These are the odds of getting just any kind of non-harmful mutations of five related genes. In order to create a new structure, however, the mutated genes must integrate or function in concert with one another. According to Professor Ambrose, the difficulties of obtaining non-harmful mutations of five related genes "fade into insignificance when we recognize that there must be a close integration of functions between the individual genes of the cluster, which must also be integrated into the development of the entire organism." Davis, 68.
In addition to this, the structure resulting from the cluster of the five integrated genes must, in the words of Ambrose, "give some selective advantage, or else become scattered once more within the population at large, due to interbreeding." Bird, 1:87. Ambrose concludes that "it seems impossible to explain [the origin of increased complexity] in terms of random mutations alone." Bird, 1:87.
When one considers that a structure as "simple" as the wing on a fruit fly involves 30-40 genes (Bird, 1:88), it is mathematically absurd to think that random genetic mutations can account for the vast diversity of life on earth. Even Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist who made assumptions very favorable to the theory, computed the odds against the evolution of a horse to be 1 in 10300,000. Pitman, 68. If only more Christians had that kind of faith!
This probability problem is not the delusion of some radical scientific fringe. As stated by William Fix:

Whether one looks to mutations or gene flow for the source of the variations needed to fuel evolution, there is an enormous probability problem at the core of Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory, which has been cited by hundreds of scientists and professionals. Engineers, physicists, astronomers, and biologists who have looked without prejudice at the notion of such variations producing ever more complex organisms have come to the same conclusion: The evolutionists are assuming the impossible.

[synch]

The THEORY of evolution goes against the 2nd LAW of thermodynamics (out of order, chaos will be created) A theory is weaker than a law.
Holy shit, I don't pay attention for a second and you lot go from homosexuality to thermodynamics?

[Ace42]

If all of one gender were obliterated there would be no possibility of procreation.

Clearly I meant with a couple of survivors. The next generation would have no alternative but to inbreed, as they can only be sired by a small number (say, 1) male parents. There are numerous other scenarios which would suffice.

Microevolution has been proven, but that certainly is not macroevolution, not by a long shot.

Mainly because long-term observations of a billion year+ process is not possible, considering the theory has only been around for a century or so. The mechanisms are the same. To suggest that what we can observe happening on a small scale cannot happen on a larger scale is not rational. The people who denied evolution could occur denied the whole package. To go back and say "well, you are part right, but we STILL don't like the rest of it" is rather peevish. I would be like me saying "Women can't drive, they don't have the directional or manual skills" and then seeing a woman riding a bike and saying "Well, it doesn't prove that they can drive cars!"

Well no, but it sure as hell shoots down my primary argument. To retrospectively change the argument isn't rational at all.

When there are two possible answers to the creation of the world/mankind,that are empirically equivical, In this case creationism and natural selection; wouldn't it make sense to examine both of them?

Empirically equivical? Hello, FOSSIL RECORDS. There is lots and lots of evidence to support natural selection. Not only can it be observed in microbes, but by studying entymology, development in insects has been observed. While pond-scum to human is a different story, seeing it occur in an organism is not exactly "Microevolution." Geology also disproves the fundamentalist timeline (which they conviniantly rewrite every time another piece of evidence crops up to show how nonsensical it i) - we can radiocarbondate materials that predate the "date of creation" that even the most conservative creationist puts on the process.

Darwinism (and its subsequent spin-off theories) has been supported by scientific discoveries that one after the other add credibility to Natural Selection. Things Darwin could not have seen coming.

There is tangible first-hand evidence to support evolution theory, there is NO tangible evidence and a whole heap of detracting evidence that contradicts creationism. Even using your own "knowledge" criterion, saying "a magic force the like of which we have never seen or experienced and can have no frame of reference for whatsoever made it so in the face of the sum total of human knowledge and understanding" is unnacceptable.

Instead naturalists exclude creationism due to it's adherance to design by diety.

No, they do it because it does not adhere to observable fact. Homosapien remains have been found in strata that predates the bible's recorded history. Predating homosapien fossils are homo-erectus and other homonid fossils which are not accounted for in the bible.

To put it simply, humanoid lifeforms did walk the Earth years before man and darwinism predicted it, and the bible not only draws a blank, but all but excludes the possibility.

If you look at various sciences, radio-carbon-dating, anthropology, geology, geography, etc, etc, you will see that there is vast amounts of evidence to show that it is impossible that mankind suddenly appeared in the form of two people in one day and we all then followed. There is vast amounts of incontrovertable evidence to support evolution, and it is mounting all the time. Again, your comment said that if there is inconsistancies, then there are errors, and it is not evolution that is inconsistant with the facts.


You cannot disprove the exsistance of God simply by stating that there is not one

I don't recall saying there is not one. However, creationism is patently absurd, and apart from the words of long dead Jews, there is nothing to support the case whatsoever. Not one iota of observable evidence.

I'm asking where is the evidence that makes the God option an intellectually untenable one, without bringing in a mere philosophic assumption namely naturalism?

The "God" option isn't untenable, just the fundamentalist creationism one. There is plenty of evidence to show an ongoing process of evolution all around us. Millions of years of dinosaur remains can be tracked and catergorised into dates, speices waxing and waning, etc. All these things the bible doesn't mention, and yet Darwinism saw coming before even the merest possibility was voiced.

Creationism as expressed by fundamentalists is a fairy story. You could argue that "7 days" represents "7 stages" or even "7 million years" - you could argue that by "God created men in his own image" it means that men are so mentally, in that they are sentient. As not all humans are "sentient" (congenitally retarded people can have such critical brain damage that they are "non-functioning" and are only kept alive by life support, and then in a permanent vegitative state) it could thus be argued that humanity only has the *potential* to be sentient, not that all humans are created with the inate ability. Thus evolution could be seen as a process used by God to create. None of this waving magic wands business, pure science in motion.

However, that is not what the bible literally says (it couldn't literally say it, they did not understand the terms then) and thus if you take it fundamentally (literally) it can only be false.

I have no problem with "creationism" - just so long as it is in accordance with observable fact. Big "no" to the fundamentalists out there. Thumbs up to the unitarians.

[Ace42]

The THEORY of evolution goes against the 2nd LAW of thermodynamics (out of order, chaos will be created) A theory is weaker than a law.

Ahem, thermodynamics does not apply to genetics. By your argument, my sock drawer will, of it self, cease to have correct coloured pairs. However, this never happens. Why? Because my sock drawer, like the complex interelated systems that allow evolution to occur, aren't simple thermodynamic scenarios, obviously.

Even on a theoretical level, it does not seem possible for mutations to account for the diversity of life on earth, at least not in the time available. According to Professor Ambrose, the minimum number of mutations necessary to produce the simplest new structure in an organism is five , but these five mutations must be the proper type and must affect five genes that are functionally related. In other words, not just any five mutations will do. The odds against this occurring in a single organism are astronomical.

Occuring spontaneously. And yet bacterium can evolve relatively quickly to be resilient to the most potent anti-bacterial agents. To say "God is changing each bacterium manually" is a totally facile explanation, and again, not fitting with the facts.

Mutations of any kind are believed to occur once in every 100,000 gene replications (though some estimate they occur far less frequently).

This is in "controlled" conditions. IE "due to their own devices" - this does not mean that in primeval conditions they were that infrequent. And Darwinism doesn't name *genetic mutation* as the principle method for development.

Ambrose concludes that "it seems impossible to explain [the origin of increased complexity] in terms of random mutations alone." Bird, 1:87.

And yet, genetic mutation being the sole explanation ("random mutations alone") has not been considered a plausible theory in decades. So, a theory that went out of vogue before I was born, before the human genome was mapped, before the first PCs were available is implausible. Well, I guess you have stumbled on a flaw which proves all these stupid (and highly qualified and experienced) scientists wrong!

The evolutionists are assuming the impossible.

The improbable does not equal the impossible. Infact, the improbable, over a sufficiently long timeline, becomes not only the probable, but the assured.

Furthermore, I think it is the Hindus (although I might be confusing them with another middle-eastern religion) believe the world is incredibly old (several times more than scientists currently estimate the universe to be at) and is reborn in cycles. If this is the case, then evolution becomes not just likely but highly probable. Even their old musty religion bares a closer relation to the facts than creationism.

Advances are being made in genetics all the time, which give us a greater and greater insight into human biology and development. Now, considering we can synthesise human life from genetic material artificially, us limited human beings, you honestly believe that God thought "I know, I'll create woman from a rib. Yes, I could do something that even mortal fallible humans can do. But instead I'll do something so complicated that it is beyond human comprehension, and thus is in direct conflict with the physical laws I have created upon the Earth" - yeah that makes perfect sense. God, in his infinite wisdom, decides to do it the hard way.

[Qdrop]

The THEORY of evolution goes against the 2nd LAW of thermodynamics (out of order, chaos will be created) A theory is weaker than a law.

here... (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html)



The problem of genetic improbability

From The Myth of Natural Origins; How Science Points to Divine Creation
Ashby Camp, Ktisis Publishing, Tempe, Arizona.

Even on a theoretical level, it does not seem possible for mutations to account for the diversity of life on earth, at least not in the time available. According to Professor Ambrose, the minimum number of mutations necessary to produce the simplest new structure in an organism is five , but these five mutations must be the proper type and must affect five genes that are functionally related. In other words, not just any five mutations will do. The odds against this occurring in a single organism are astronomical.
Mutations of any kind are believed to occur once in every 100,000 gene replications (though some estimate they occur far less frequently). Davis, 68; Wysong, 272. Assuming that the first single-celled organism had 10,000 genes, the same number as E. coli (Wysong, 113), one mutation would exist for every ten cells. Since only one mutation per 1,000 is non-harmful , there would be only one non-harmful mutation in a population of 10,000 such cells. The odds that this one non-harmful mutation would affect a particular gene, however, is 1 in 10,000 (since there are 10,000 genes). Therefore, one would need a population of 100,000,000 cells before one of them would be expected to possess a non-harmful mutation of a specific gene.
The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific (functionally related) genes is the product of their separate probabilities. Morris, 63. In other words, the probability is 1 in 108 X 108 X 108 X 108 X 108, or 1 in 1040. If one hundred trillion (1014) bacteria were produced every second for five billion years (1017 seconds), the resultingpopulation (1031) would be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what was needed!

But even this is not the whole story. These are the odds of getting just any kind of non-harmful mutations of five related genes. In order to create a new structure, however, the mutated genes must integrate or function in concert with one another. According to Professor Ambrose, the difficulties of obtaining non-harmful mutations of five related genes "fade into insignificance when we recognize that there must be a close integration of functions between the individual genes of the cluster, which must also be integrated into the development of the entire organism." Davis, 68.
In addition to this, the structure resulting from the cluster of the five integrated genes must, in the words of Ambrose, "give some selective advantage, or else become scattered once more within the population at large, due to interbreeding." Bird, 1:87. Ambrose concludes that "it seems impossible to explain [the origin of increased complexity] in terms of random mutations alone." Bird, 1:87.
When one considers that a structure as "simple" as the wing on a fruit fly involves 30-40 genes (Bird, 1:88), it is mathematically absurd to think that random genetic mutations can account for the vast diversity of life on earth. Even Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist who made assumptions very favorable to the theory, computed the odds against the evolution of a horse to be 1 in 10300,000. Pitman, 68. If only more Christians had that kind of faith!
This probability problem is not the delusion of some radical scientific fringe. As stated by William Fix:

Whether one looks to mutations or gene flow for the source of the variations needed to fuel evolution, there is an enormous probability problem at the core of Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory, which has been cited by hundreds of scientists and professionals. Engineers, physicists, astronomers, and biologists who have looked without prejudice at the notion of such variations producing ever more complex organisms have come to the same conclusion: The evolutionists are assuming the impossible.

oh really: this could help you (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance.html)

i'm not gonna cut and paste it all......
just go to that sight......it will demolish everything you think to be true.
i have no idea why ace goes through the trouble to "re-explain the wheel" on all this shit...
so much easier to just re-direct to best source.

[100% ILL]

Empirically equivical? Hello, FOSSIL RECORDS. There is lots and lots of evidence to support natural selection. Not only can it be observed in microbes, but by studying entymology, development in insects has been observed. While pond-scum to human is a different story, seeing it occur in an organism is not exactly "Microevolution." Geology also disproves the fundamentalist timeline (which they conviniantly rewrite every time another piece of evidence crops up to show how nonsensical it i) - we can radiocarbondate materials that predate the "date of creation" that even the most conservative creationist puts on the process.
There is tangible first-hand evidence to support evolution theory, there is NO tangible evidence and a whole heap of detracting evidence that contradicts creationism. Even using your own "knowledge" criterion, saying "a magic force the like of which we have never seen or experienced and can have no frame of reference for whatsoever made it so in the face of the sum total of human knowledge and understanding" is unnacceptable.

No, they do it because it does not adhere to observable fact. Homosapien remains have been found in strata that predates the bible's recorded history. Predating homosapien fossils are homo-erectus and other homonid fossils which are not accounted for in the bible.

To put it simply, humanoid lifeforms did walk the Earth years before man and darwinism predicted it, and the bible not only draws a blank, but all but excludes the possibility.

If you look at various sciences, radio-carbon-dating, anthropology, geology, geography, etc, etc, you will see that there is vast amounts of evidence to show that it is impossible that mankind suddenly appeared in the form of two people in one day and we all then followed. There is vast amounts of incontrovertable evidence to support evolution, and it is mounting all the time. Again, your comment said that if there is inconsistancies, then there are errors, and it is not evolution that is inconsistant with the facts.

There is plenty of evidence to show an ongoing process of evolution all around us. Millions of years of dinosaur remains can be tracked and catergorised into dates, speices waxing and waning, etc. All these things the bible doesn't mention, and yet Darwinism saw coming before even the merest possibility was voiced.

I have no problem with "creationism" - just so long as it is in accordance with observable fact. Big "no" to the fundamentalists out there. Thumbs up to the unitarians.

http://www.creationmoments.com/resources/article.asp?art_id=12

http://www.creationmoments.com/resources/article.asp?art_id=19

http://www.creationmoments.com/resources/article.asp?art_id=101

Many people hold to the notion that man-like beings existed long before Adam and may even have been his contemporary. The idea is usually hazy and half-formed, while comfort is drawn from the fact that many of the spiritual giants of Christendom have given their approval to pre-Adamic or pre-Adamite man. Those seeking biblical support admit this is not explicit but point out that the Bible makes no claim to be a complete record of the history of the world. This argument from silence is cause for suspicion, so it will be as well to see where the idea of pre-Adamite man arose, who has sustained it and what effect it has had on our thinking.

THE BIBLE IS A BOOK OF SCIENCE.
ASTRONOMY
A Spherical Earth

Contrary to Bible interpretation of the middle ages that the earth is flat, we find statements suggesting the earth is spherical. Proverbs 8:27 states "When he set a compass upon the face of the depth" and Isaiah 40:22 says "It is he that sitteth above the circle of the earth." In both instances the Hebrew word "khug" is used, which may be translated to refer to the circle of the horizon, but may also be translated as "spherical." In Job 22:14 the same word is translated in the King James version as "circuit of the heavens." An authority on Bible Hebrew, Gesenius, translates this word in Job and Proverbs as "vault of the heavens," and suggesting that in the Isaiah passage it might refer to the circle of the earth, meaning a spherical earth. Another authority on Bible Hebrew, Brown, translates all three passages as "vault of the heavens." See Has God Spoken? by A. 0. Schnabel (1965).


Universe a Continuously Spreading Expanse

Astronomers today are suggesting an expanding universe based on the red shift in the spectrum. The more red indicated in the spectrascope, the faster the object is receding is their contention.

According to the red shift, the most distant galaxies and quasers seem to be receding fastest, quasers recede at 149,000 miles per second. Quasers are quasi-stellar objects seemingly as large as our entire solar system.

Possibly this is suggested in the Bible. The Hebrew word for "firmament" is "raquia" and in its verb form means "to beat as with a hammer, to spread out" according to Gesenius in his Lexicon.8 We are reminded of a coppersmith beating out a piece of copper until it becomes a plate. Psalm 104:2 states that God "stretches" (imperfect, continued tense) the heavens as a curtain, and may still be so doing. In Jeremiah 31:37 and 33:22 we are told that we shall never be able to count all the stars. Isaiah 40:22 and 42:5 also speak of the heavens still being stretched out. These references may indicate an expanding universe.

Binding the Pleiades

We read in Job 38:31”Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades?” According to Clark "modern astronomy has discovered the fact that the stars of this cluster are actually bound together as if by chains. If their speed could be multiplied a billion times, they would appear like a swarm of bees in a great circle and held in their circuits by unseen forces." page L 1-9.11

[Ace42]

Hah, that is hilarious. You actually set stock in that nonsense? That is as bad as the people saying Nostradamus is a seer because something has happened that if you read it backwards, and squint a bit, and take the words to mean something a bit different than what they actually do, it kinda sounds about rightish with hindsight.

Introduction. The study of early man is known as paleoanthropology and, although scientific techniques are used, this discipline deals with non-repeatable and non-observable events of the past and by definition cannot be considered as a science. The exercise begins by assuming that man evolved from the animal Kingdom then looking for evidence that would confirm it.

What drivel. "Non-repeatable and non-observable" - like the bible then? Just how does he propose we observe events of millenia past? Our magic-time-TV? How does he intend we repeat it? We attempt to create our own big bang, then observe it for all of history until our creation writes this very article about its own origins? "The exercise beings by assuming..." Well yes, in his world maybe. However, in the real world, valid and quantifiable scientific methodology is used.

Many people hold to the notion that man-like beings existed long before Adam and may even have been his contemporary.

Maybe that is because we can actually see their bones in museums. But don't let something you can see with your own eyes interfere with what a guy who believes in things there is no physical evidence for, tells you to believe.

[Qdrop]

100% ILL: you are like a unsinkable rubber duck.

your questions and points get dismantled or shown to be false (i redirected to you a source that would answer ALL of your "questions" or talking points), yet you continue as if the each posted reply doesn't exist.

you should bow out.
you should at least have the decency and respect to admit you have been proven incorrect.
at least acknowledge your defeat on some fuckin level.

but you persist......with pig headed stubborness.


whatever.......guess we can just let Ace re-invent and re-explain the wheel with each and everyone of his long winded posts.....
getting absolutely nowhere.....

[100% ILL]

100% ILL: you are like a unsinkable rubber duck.

your questions and points get dismantled or shown to be false (i redirected to you a source that would answer ALL of your "questions" or talking points), yet you continue as if the each posted reply doesn't exist.

you should bow out.
you should at least have the decency and respect to admit you have been proven incorrect.
at least acknowledge your defeat on some fuckin level.

but you persist......with pig headed stubborness.


whatever.......guess we can just let Ace re-invent and re-explain the wheel with each and everyone of his long winded posts.....
getting absolutely nowhere.....

First you insult me, then you insinuate that I am not familiar with evolutional theory. I have not ignored anyone's post. No matter I'm done here. At least Ace 42 will like you now.

[Ace42]

I still think he is a tosser, and would be grateful if you refrain from quoting him. You know what he said, he knows what he said. There is no need to oblige me to see his dross.

[100% ILL]

I promise to oblige in the future, I assumed (erringly) that you would garner some enjoyment from his statement.












well, so much for agreeing to disagree.

[Qdrop]

At least Ace 42 will like you now.

foolish man.
:rolleyes:



if Ace ever "likes" me, than i'm doing something wrong.

[Qdrop]

I still think he is a tosser

"not that there's anything wrong with that..".....right Ace?

[100% ILL]

"Tolerance" in the classroom?

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/42005c.asp

[synch]

Oh no! Tollerance! *cough* *spit*

And teaching tollerance to children too!

What's this world coming to :mad:

[100% ILL]

Yes we STRONGLY URGE you to comply with this "training."

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41667

LAW OF THE LAND
View homosexual film,
or school faces lawsuit
ACLU tells district: Force students
to watch 'tolerance training' video

If administrators of Kentucky's Boyd County school district can't find a way to force all students to attend sexual orientation and gender identity "tolerance training," the American Civil Liberties Union is threatening to take them to court – again.

[Qdrop]

Yes we STRONGLY URGE you to comply with this "training."

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41667

LAW OF THE LAND
View homosexual film,
or school faces lawsuit
ACLU tells district: Force students
to watch 'tolerance training' video

If administrators of Kentucky's Boyd County school district can't find a way to force all students to attend sexual orientation and gender identity "tolerance training," the American Civil Liberties Union is threatening to take them to court – again.

well fuckin A! how else can we rid the world of close-minded bigotry without education?

you must be educated on all sides of any issue...
and tolerance is an essential ideal in american society.
not acceptance...but tolerance.
that is what this country was built on...DESPITE any initial judeo-christian backbone (alleged, that is.)

if the parents, or even society as a whole, is going to try and put "blinders" on their kids and force them into bigotry, that is harmful to society.

the public school systems need to combat that.

these films are not "pro-gay", nor are they gay recruitment films.

they are educational films that explain homosexuals from another angle, and explain the reasoning and need for tolerance, not persacution.

[100% ILL]

http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0027070.cfm

Q. Now, wait a minute. We hear all the time from gay activists that "there is no such thing" as a gay agenda. They snicker at the very idea.

A. But there is an agenda. They admit it privately, but they will not say that publicly. In their private publications, homosexual activists make it very clear that there is an agenda. The six-point agenda that they laid out in 1989 was explicit:

1. "Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible." That was aimed at making people so tired of the issue they would want to give them anything they want to make them shut up.

2. "Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers." That's why they exploited things like the tragic murder of Matthew Shepard. It was a tragic murder, yet they have used that and spun that to demonize people like Dr. James Dobson and other Christian leaders who have taken a biblical stand on homosexual behavior — people who have love and compassion for those trapped in that behavior.

3. "Give homosexual protectors a just cause." That was designed to tap into and exploit the almost innate sense of fairness that Americans have; to the sympathy that we have — especially liberals have — for those who seem to be disenfranchised.

4. "Make gays look good." That's what they've done through media campaigns, through television programs, like "Will and Grace" and others, where homosexuals are portrayed as the most normal, stable people in America.

5. "Make the victimizers look bad." They portray people of faith — people who have legitimate and biblical reasons to oppose homosexual behavior — as homophobes and bigots. They also try to "muddy the moral waters" by getting liberal churches, many of which have thrown out a great deal of the Bible, to say that homosexual behavior is just fine from a theological perspective.

6. "Get funds from corporate America." In fact, they have. They have gotten corporate America to sign on to their agenda, and it is very interesting how they have done that. It's based on fudging the truth — and outright lies.

By the way, the authors of "After the Ball" admit that the use of lies is perfectly fine in their struggle. Their main thing is to get people to believe them. That is all that is important.






http://www.forthechildreninc.com/issues/homosexuality/TheAgenda/InTheirOwnWords.html

Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill, in Overhauling of Straight America, advocate using the camel-in-the-tent approach:
In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay-rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much a possible. First, let the camel get his nose inside the tent — and only later his unsightly derriere!

Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.

From Washington Times, 9/8/94, openly homosexual U.S. Patents and Trademark Commissioner Bruce Lehmen says it with force:
When a diversity consultant in 1994 asked whether some employees might be reluctant to undergo sensitivity training on homosexuality, openly homosexual U.S. Patents and Trademark Commissioner Bruce Lehmen replied: Its got to be forced down their throats. If they want to be bigots, they can go work for someone else’s department.


http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0027070.cfm


Q. Isn't one of the key features of the gay agenda to silence opponents?

A. Yes. Homosexual activists have always said that what they want is tolerance of homosexuality. Well, the pretense of "tolerance" is over. What they really want is to make sure that there is no verbal dissent.

They don't want anyone to be able to say that homosexuality — like adultery, or lying, or whatever — is a sin. As long as that word is out there, it makes them "stigmatized" — or so they believe.

[Qdrop]

and people on this section say I'M misguided.

where in the fuck did you get that agenda shit?

what gay publication is that from? "after the ball"?

did you bother to look up the validity of any of these "interviews" or FAQ's?

no, of course not.
they appeal to you and your side, so why challenge them.
just post them on the BBMB and hope no one checks up on em.


what ever, ILL......
people like you and your way of thinking will not last.
education will prevail.
you've seen a recent upsurge lately (thanks to the bush campaign) in "traditional christian values".....but your time is limited.
your bigotry will slowly be marginalized.
you voices will be drowned out by education and tolerance.

homosexuality will, over a generation, be seen as what is is: not a choice, but a biological anomoly that occurs in a small percentage of all animals.
it poses no threat to the community on a biological level, nor on a social/moral level.
a generation from now, even after near complete acceptance, the percentages of homosexuals within communities will not rise (as you fear they will) because it is not a choice, or cultural trend, but a natural biological anomoly.
there will be no rise in homosexual rape, or pedophilia, or sodomistic sex on prime time TV.

those are outlandish and ill-informed nightmares thought up by the right as scaretactics.

you will lose, ILL........
you will be marginalized.

[100% ILL]

Dude, Gooogle search. It is a book written by Gay activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.

http://www.albatrus.org/english/lien_of_oz/pursuing_the_homosexual_agenda.htm


A far more detailed account for achieving homosexual goals were drafted by the activists, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, in their book– After The Ball: How America (& the West) will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90’s. (New York: Plume 1990)

This publication has outlined the ‘propaganda campaign’ to normalise homosexuality, as an (acceptable) alternative lifestyle through planned ‘brainwashing’ on a massive scale.

The authors state… "At the core of our program is a media campaign to change the way average citizens view homosexuality."

The Authors and their purpose

Both Kirk and Madsen are Harvard trained academics educated respectively in social psychology

and commercial advertising. Their particular career backgrounds provided the ideal combination to achieve their planned three stage strategy to [A] desensitise, [B] jam, and finally [C] convert, an innocent community and reshape public opinion and attitudes toward acceptance of homosexuality– namely-gays; lesbians; bisexuals and also transsexuals.

They don't want anyone to be able to say that homosexuality — like adultery, or lying, or whatever — is a sin.

[Qdrop]

A far more detailed account for achieving homosexual goals were drafted by the activists, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, in their book– After The Ball: How America (& the West) will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90’s. (New York: Plume 1990)

This publication has outlined the ‘propaganda campaign’ to normalise homosexuality, as an (acceptable) alternative lifestyle through planned ‘brainwashing’ on a massive scale.

The authors state… "At the core of our program is a media campaign to change the way average citizens view homosexuality."

The Authors and their purpose

Both Kirk and Madsen are Harvard trained academics educated respectively in social psychology

and commercial advertising. Their particular career backgrounds provided the ideal combination to achieve their planned three stage strategy to [A] desensitise, [B] jam, and finally [C] convert, an innocent community and reshape public opinion and attitudes toward acceptance of homosexuality– namely-gays; lesbians; bisexuals and also transsexuals.

They don't want anyone to be able to say that homosexuality — like adultery, or lying, or whatever — is a sin.

first off,
this is just one book written by 2 gay men.
you cannot simply claim that this one random book, out of thousands that have been written about gay culture, is automatically the "blueprint" for gay activism in the america.

i'm sure i could do a google search and find at least ONE book written by some militant christian righties that states it's own agenda to force christianity on america through any means necessary or whatever.
does that mean that that book is the "sanctioned blueprint" for the entire christian right?

you are trying to give broad credence to just one publication.


aside from that,
what is so evil about what they are writing?
their goal is not to take over, but to be streamlined and accepted.
they are offering a step by step "marketing plan" to achieve that.
if you were tired of being persacuted, you would probably use a little "marketing savy" if need be.
you imply malicious intent where there is none.
a staple in the christian propaganda machine.

[ASsman]

Who needs tolerance! Not I!


The White Knights will ride again!

Niggers, fags, and Jews better keep out of my country!

[100% ILL]

what ever, ILL......
people like you and your way of thinking will not last.

you will lose, ILL........
you will be marginalized.


We already have been marginalized. You know, Don't say Christmas say Happy Holidays, No manger scenes in public, wouldn't want to cram any thoughts of Jesus down anybody's throat. Can't sing Silent Night at any school function in regards to Christmas...oh I mean X-Mas, too religious.

But it is apparantly okay to come into a public school and practically condone the homosexual lifestyle, and teach children it's totally acceptable by using their favorite cartoon characters to preach it to them?

[synch]

I never knew spongebob was gay.

The pants were a dead giveaway though.



edit: Oh what the hell, let's give this 'discussion' thing another shot.

It can't be a 'sin' if you don't believe in the concept of sinning. You may consider the ten commandments to be the law of the land but even though Mr Bush doesn't live by the constitution there is a separation of church and state last I heard of.

[Qdrop]

We already have been marginalized. You know, Don't say Christmas say Happy Holidays, No manger scenes in public, wouldn't want to cram any thoughts of Jesus down anybody's throat. Can't sing Silent Night at any school function in regards to Christmas...oh I mean X-Mas, too religious.

i too, disagree with that.
that comes from the fascist far left wing.....and that shit pisses me off as well.
i'm sick and tired of people and thier "don't offend me" PC bullshit.
i have no problem with a manger scene in the town square. no one should be offended to point of tears by that, no matter what their religion (or absence of). i really don't think anyone is truly offended by any of these public shows of religion....they just use them as talking/action points because they have an axe to grind (for variable reasons) and get drunk with power (ACLU).
perhaps, in there own twisted minds.....they really think they are doing society a favor by banning manger scenes. they must think every little bit counts when maintaining the separation of church and state...when in fact they are making mockeries of the legal system, as well as the idea of social toleranced and the american ideal.
prayer in school? -no
gov't handouts or support to significant religous causes or establishments? -no
a manger in the town square? - who cares? sure....



But it is apparantly okay to come into a public school and practically condone the homosexual lifestyle, and teach children it's totally acceptable by using their favorite cartoon characters to preach it to them?

it should be condoned. it is acceptable.
there is no scientific or historically-grounded social reason why it should not be.

[synch]

Banning every link to religion from christmas is ridiculous, no arguement there.

I still don't see how that ties in with homosexuality but hey :)

[Qdrop]

I still don't see how that ties in with homosexuality but hey :)

nor do i.

[100% ILL]

Homosexual activists have always said that what they want is tolerance of homosexuality. Well, the pretense of "tolerance" is over. What they really want is to make sure that there is no verbal dissent.

They don't want anyone to be able to say that homosexuality — like adultery, or lying, or whatever — is a sin.

[synch]

Maybe because it is disrespectful to call someone's lifestyle (which is nobody's business but their own) a sin.

Is this that big an issue for you? Are you so self righteous that you want to continue to judge and condemn someone elses lifestyle?

I assume you eat meat. What if a vegetarian came pestering you about how eating meat is a sin, wouldn't you consider that to be short sighted, just an opinion and none of their business in the first place?

[100% ILL]

Maybe because it is disrespectful to call someone's lifestyle (which is nobody's business but their own) a sin.

Is this that big an issue for you? Are you so self righteous that you want to continue to judge and condemn someone elses lifestyle?

I assume you eat meat. What if a vegetarian came pestering you about how eating meat is a sin, wouldn't you consider that to be short sighted, just an opinion and none of their business in the first place?

If it's no one's buisness but their own, why do they feel it necessary to tell everyone? Why teach children about it?

[Qdrop]

If it's no one's buisness but their own, why do they feel it necessary to tell everyone? Why teach children about it?

the same reason you teach them the evils of racism.....and any other form of ignorant bigtotry.

And tolerance is best learned early.


I am neither judging or condemning,

bullshit


I am simply pointing out that in my opinion it is wrong to make children in public school learn about homosexuality, and to try to force the public to embrace it.

well, if you wanna teach your children to "hate those queers", the american gov't and the gov't funded public school systems shouldn't make it easy for you.
that would go against the american ideal that this country was based on --namely tolerance and freedom.

sure, you have the freedom to teach your kids whatever you want. no one can stop you from doing that in your home.
that's the freedom of america.
BUT, if you want to live in america, the supposed land of tolernace and expressive freedom, you must be tolerant. you must be open minded. not accepting....but tolerant.

to force you to be accepting (taking away your freedom of expression, ect) would be unamerican. that is true.
but to not be TOLERANT and to expect to not have tolerance expected of you and taught to your children, is also unamerican.

if you want to teach your children to be biggots and intolerant without ANY opposition.....you are living in the wrong country.

you don't have to love gays, you don't have to accept them or personally condone them....but you must tolerate. and you WILL accept tolerant teaching by the american society. Deal with it.


It's like someone saying "well you know, your daughter's screwing her boyfriend right? well wouldn't it be better if you just let her do it on the couch in the living room while your wathcing the news?, I mean she's just expressing who she is."
god , that is fuckin retarded.
why did you even type that?.....that is even close to the point. it doesn't even make sense.

[100% ILL]

"hating queers" isn't the point. But like most of the left wing moral toilets on this board, you see what you want to see.

[synch]

If it's no one's buisness but their own, why do they feel it necessary to tell everyone? Why teach children about it?
Because it's important that kids are taught that two men holding hands aren't freaks of nature.

[yeahwho]

"hating queers" isn't the point. But like most of the left wing moral toilets on this board, you see what you want to see.

If it isn't hate, what sort of propaganda are you selling. I'm free in the United States to be intolerant as I want to be, I do not have to accept anything. I can walk down the street with likeminded folk and believe in any form of mucky muck I choose. It's your choice 100%ILL, legalizng Gay marriage is not going to change your choice, it will just put a line of law into your tolerence.....this gives you the oppurtunity to be wrong by the letter of the law, just like all those gays you so dearly fear live with today.

Turnabout is fairplay, once you've been proven wrong by law you will have the same perspective as those you deny.

An agenda to be treated as equals just doesn't fit into your muck.

[racer5.0stang]

So it is perfectly ok for our children to learn a/b homosexuality and not a/b Jesus(nativity scene).

Does anyone else see a problem with this?

[yeahwho]

So it is perfectly ok for our children to learn a/b homosexuality and not a/b Jesus(nativity scene).

Does anyone else see a problem with this?

Whatever you want to do racer, I'll probably be a big boy and teach my children about everything. I pretty much figured out what a homo was before somebody taught me. It isn't going to be as traumatic as you think.

[Spanishbomb808]

Wow, those are some deluded christians (n)

They really have put down their ignorance-inducing smut rags and adopt modern secular values.

...I bet they're gonna bombard me with their beloved bible-extracted fluff now :p

[SobaViolence]

fuck christianity.

[ASsman]

It is obvious people can't handle religion. It has been proven time and time again. This privilege should be revoked.

And I understand what you mean ILL, and I don't think kids should be taught to look faggots in school. The same way I don't think they should be taught that niggers are equals. But to cut the snakes head off and not it's tail, we have to regulate baby making. Else the cycle will continue, the same way kids who get beaten by their parents grow up and beat their kids. Sure there is nothing cuter than a 3 year old wearing a KKK cloak, but really, if you want the prejudice to stop, you can come up with a better plan.

I for one don't "approve" of man on man loving, it kind of grosses me out. I don't go out gay bashing though. The same way I don't go out bashing Jews (that often).

[SobaViolence]

you're a fucking comic genius.

[synch]

So it is perfectly ok for our children to learn a/b homosexuality and not a/b Jesus(nativity scene).

Does anyone else see a problem with this?
Teach religions in school, but note the plural. Teach kids about christianity, about the jewish faith, about muslims and buddha but don't let them pray before class or force christianity upon them.

I still don't see why you lot keep putting those two very unrelated things in the same sentence though.

[Qdrop]

It is obvious people can't handle religion. It has been proven time and time again. This privilege should be revoked.

And I understand what you mean ILL, and I don't think kids should be taught to look faggots in school. The same way I don't think they should be taught that niggers are equals. But to cut the snakes head off and not it's tail, we have to regulate baby making. Else the cycle will continue, the same way kids who get beaten by their parents grow up and beat their kids. Sure there is nothing cuter than a 3 year old wearing a KKK cloak, but really, if you want the prejudice to stop, you can come up with a better plan.

I for one don't "approve" of man on man loving, it kind of grosses me out. I don't go out gay bashing though. The same way I don't go out bashing Jews (that often).

this shit just isn't funny.

this dog needs a new trick.

[100% ILL]

Because it's important that kids are taught that two men holding hands aren't freaks of nature.

Because otherwise they would naturally draw the conclusion that they were?

[Qdrop]

you're a fucking comic genius.

i really hope that's sarcasm.

don't encourage his fiened bigotry.

he takes it too far and seems to actually take pleasure in typing that shit.

[Qdrop]

Because otherwise they would naturally draw the conclusion that they were?

often, yes.

bigotry is unfortunately biological in many ways. fear of differances. group think. "us vs. them".
it requires education to curb it.

[synch]

Indeedy.

[racer5.0stang]

Teach religions in school, but note the plural. Teach kids about christianity, about the jewish faith, about muslims and buddha but don't let them pray before class or force christianity upon them.

I still don't see why you lot keep putting those two very unrelated things in the same sentence though.

Well in the US, the national holidays are of Christianity. Back when I was growing up, it was ok to for the school to have a nativity scene at Christmas time. Now it is just Happy Holidays. Which if you want to get technical, holiday is derived from holy day.

Now, kids are encouraged not to talk about Jesus, but they can talk about Islam, Hindu or any other false reglion.

And to top it off the schools are catering to the homosexuals and they want to teach our children about it. Again, when I was coming up, yeah we knew what homosexuals were, but we did not have a class to teach us.

Teach religions in school, but note the plural. Teach kids about christianity, about the jewish faith, about muslims and buddha but don't let them pray before class or force christianity upon them.

So you are saying teach them a/b religion but don't let them practice it. You talk about forcing religion on kids, what about forcing the secular views on them.

This used to be a great country and it still is on some levels, but we as a country are losing the very things that made us.

I guess my point being, where does it all stop? You take Christianity, namely Jesus, out of schools, businesses, and the government. How long will it be before I am persecuted for being a Christian? Even the most extreme liberal must see a pattern.

[Qdrop]

Teach religions in school, but note the plural. Teach kids about christianity, about the jewish faith, about muslims and buddha but don't let them pray before class or force christianity upon them.

I still don't see why you lot keep putting those two very unrelated things in the same sentence though.

exactly. i learned about communism and fascism in highschool and college..but we weren't required to stand up and pledge allegiance to the USSR flag.

kids should learn ABOUT christianity and hinduism and shinto, ect....and how they have affected world history and such.
but it should be in an informative, educational sense....with no preferance or PRACTICE involved.
teach....don't preach.

[racer5.0stang]

[Qdrop]

Well in the US, the national holidays are of Christianity. Back when I was growing up, it was ok to for the school to have a nativity scene at Christmas time. Now it is just Happy Holidays. Which if you want to get technical, holiday is derived from holy day.

and i agree that that is really annoying....and is just plain "liberals throwing thier wieght around."
it serves a purpose..but a surporfulous one.


Now, kids are encouraged not to talk about Jesus, but they can talk about Islam, Hindu or any other false reglion.

bullshit.......there is no public school that says "NO JESUS!....BUT YAY ALLAH!"
you could, perhaps, find some red herring news report on the contrary....but it is just that.....a red herring.

(oh, and i noticed you put "false religions" in there. how open minded of you...)


Again, when I was coming up, yeah we knew what homosexuals were, but we did not have a class to teach us.


yeah, and look how YOU turned out.
we are trying to avoid bigots such as you....


So you are saying teach them a/b religion but don't let them practice it. You talk about forcing religion on kids, what about forcing the secular views on them.


that is such an over-used strawman that you christians employ.
secular views are NOT being pushed on them.
schools can teach about ANY religion- in a historical sense.
but the teacher cannot lead the class in A PRAYER OR PRACTICE of ANY religion.
that makes perfect sense along the lines of church/state separation.

and any kid can sit in his desk and pray to himself without persacution.
but no, a teacher cannot lead the whole fuckin class in prayer catering to ANY religion.
period.

schools can teach about ANY religion- in a historical sense.
but the teacher cannot lead the class in A PRAYER OR PRACTICE of ANY religion.
schools can teach about ANY religion- in a historical sense.
but the teacher cannot lead the class in A PRAYER OR PRACTICE of ANY religion.schools can teach about ANY religion- in a historical sense.
but the teacher cannot lead the class in A PRAYER OR PRACTICE of ANY religion.schools can teach about ANY religion- in a historical sense.
but the teacher cannot lead the class in A PRAYER OR PRACTICE of ANY religion.

DO YOU GET IT?!! THERE IS A DIFFERANCE!!


This used to be a great country and it still is on some levels, but we as a country are losing the very things that made us.

BALONEY. we are refining and recapturing what made us great.
the separation of church and state and the NON-OFFILIATION OF OUR GOV'T OR PUBLIC SOCIETY WITH ANY RELIGION.


I guess my point being, where does it all stop? You take Christianity, namely Jesus, out of schools, businesses, and the government. How long will it be before I am persecuted for being a Christian? Even the most extreme liberal must see a pattern.
yes, yes..and next week you'll all be eaten by bears.

[racer5.0stang]

(oh, and i noticed you put "false religions" in there. how open minded of you...)

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

The truth is often a narrow path.

[synch]

Now, kids are encouraged not to talk about Jesus, but they can talk about Islam, Hindu or any other false reglion.
That shows that it's absolutely no use discussing with you.

I said before that it's ridiculous how the link between religion and christmas is being done away with.

[SobaViolence]

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

The truth is often a narrow path.


fucking christians.

[Ace42]

Now, kids are encouraged not to talk about Jesus, but they can talk about Islam, Hindu or any other false reglion.

Bullshit from you yet again. Kids are not "discouraged from talking about Jesus."

Since when has not being *obliged* to give preferential treatment to Christianity been the same as *persecuting* Christianity.

So you are saying teach them a/b religion but don't let them practice it. You talk about forcing religion on kids, what about forcing the secular views on them.

"Don't let them practice it" - How fucking stupid are you? No-one's suggesting that if they see a kid praying in the playground, they run up to them and say "oh, you can't pray in school!"

However, a school is NOT a church. It's a place for learning about *objective fact* - not indoctrinating children into a mythos. No workplace offers "God breaks" - how many jobs (Jobs, not vocations, which would include the Clergy) do you know that oblige their staff to all get together and say prayers before working? What, none? Colonel Sanders doesn't schedule prayer-breaks for his workforce?

And yet you expect a professional environment like a school to? Ha.

Would you like it if, 5 times a day, all lessons had to stop while the Muslim children went out to do their daily prayers? Would that be fair on the other children? All the Christian kids have to sit at their desks while the Muslims are off praying? Hah. And yet you expect all the non-Christians to all bend to your view of how things should be?

It is only your gross stupidity that prevents you from seeing how patently absurd people conforming to your ignorant world-view would be.

This used to be a great country and it still is on some levels, but we as a country are losing the very things that made us.

Indeed, the country was always seperate from church. All of the founders were skeptical about the merger of church and state. This is being changed by idiots like you. If you look at the *facts* you'd know that even just 50 years ago, the religious system in the US was far more pragmatic. Christianity in the past was a science based religion. That is why the Pope had official astronomers at the Vatican, and why the person that discovered planets rotate around the Sun (not the Earth) - Copernicus, was working for the Pope. It is only since the introduction of Eastern mysticism in the 60s, and advances in science which have challenged the (wrong) assumptions about how the world works that ignorant plebians have departed from an essentially intellectual understanding of religion, into the mythical hogwash fundamentalists churn out today.

It is a mistake to suggest that your literal interpretation of the bible is in accordance with ANY traditional doctine. Racerstang, YOU are the new kids on the block, it is people like YOU that are diverging from the original American Puritans and other Christians. So if you want something to blame for America "changing" - why not take a good look at you and your fellow morons.

I guess my point being, where does it all stop? You take Christianity, namely Jesus, out of schools, businesses, and the government. How long will it be before I am persecuted for being a Christian? Even the most extreme liberal must see a pattern.

Yeah, treating Christians like everyone else on the planet MUST mean persecution. How can anyone not see that fairness and equality means persecution!

Fucking idiot.

[ASsman]

It is obvious people can't handle religion. It has been proven time and time again. This privilege should be revoked.

And I understand what you mean ILL, and I don't think kids should be taught to like faggots in school. The same way I don't think they should be taught that niggers are equals. But to cut the snakes head off and not it's tail, we have to regulate baby making. Else the cycle will continue, the same way kids who get beaten by their parents grow up and beat their kids. Sure there is nothing cuter than a 3 year old wearing a KKK cloak, but really, if you want the prejudice to stop, you can come up with a better plan.

I for one don't "approve" of man on man loving, it kind of grosses me out. I don't go out gay bashing though. The same way I don't go out bashing Jews (that often).


Uh, WTF. I didn't quote myself. I guess it was too old to edit..or something.


Now, kids are encouraged not to talk about Jesus, but they can talk about Islam, Hindu or any other false reglion.
So is Christianity part of those "false reglion".

[racer5.0stang]

No workplace offers "God breaks" - how many jobs (Jobs, not vocations, which would include the Clergy) do you know that oblige their staff to all get together and say prayers before working? What, none? Colonel Sanders doesn't schedule prayer-breaks for his workforce?

In the U.S. before every sporting event, but who's to say what goes on in
Ace42 Land.

Yeah, treating Christians like everyone else on the planet MUST mean persecution. How can anyone not see that fairness and equality means persecution!

I never said I was being persecuted now, I merely asked when. Where is your mastery of the English language?

However, a school is NOT a church. It's a place for learning about *objective fact* - not indoctrinating children into a mythos.

Like the "objective fact" that humans evolved from apes. It works both ways.

So lets take religion out, but at the same time lets take evolution out as well.

"Don't let them practice it" - How fucking stupid are you? No-one's suggesting that if they see a kid praying in the playground, they run up to them and say "oh, you can't pray in school!"

I said that in reference to Synch. His post as follows:

Teach religions in school, but note the plural. Teach kids about christianity, about the jewish faith, about muslims and buddha but don't let them pray before class or force christianity upon them.

Christianity in the past was a science based religion. That is why the Pope had official astronomers at the Vatican, and why the person that discovered planets rotate around the Sun (not the Earth) - Copernicus, was working for the Pope.

You should take a closer look into the Catholicism doctrine.

[Spanishbomb808]

Like the "objective fact" that humans evolved from apes. It works both ways.


Yes, because an unprovable Big Guy made all of us, and the only reference is a book compiled by hazy, unreliable sources and hacks who use circular logic to prove their points.

Sure, that sounds "objective."

[Ace42]

In the U.S. before every sporting event, but who's to say what goes on in
Ace42 Land.

Since when has sporting events been "places of work" ? Oh, I see, the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people who are NOT working doesn't count. The praying and such is purely for the benefit of the team. Yeah right. And *every* sporting event? I find that hard to believe.

I never said I was being persecuted now, I merely asked when. Where is your mastery of the English language?

Hey, fuckhead. You were blatantly being rhetorical. If you were genuinely asking a legitimate question (you weren't) the answer would be "never, so there is no need to discuss this further as your point is invalid."

You said there was a pattern that everyone should be able to see. If there is a pattern that is so obvious, the question becomes irrelevant, thus rhetorical.

Like the "objective fact" that humans evolved from apes. It works both ways.

Evolution is a theory based on *objective fact* - Creationism is a theory which is supported by *no* objective facts. So it does not "work both ways" they are very different. If you weren't such an imbercile, you'd know this to be the case.

So lets take religion out, but at the same time lets take evolution out as well.

So your rationale is "because we are taking out something that *is* wrong, me must also take out things which *might* be wrong." Well, that's very sensible. And you mean "evolution as an explanation for creation" which is not taught. What is taught is "microevolutionary" Darwinism which is objective fact. As I have said, and you have ignored, you can get pond scum, put it under a microscope, and watch it evolve. This isn't some spurious theory, it is something you can do and see with your own eyes. Now, you might not think it is a good idea to teach kids stuff which is undeniably true, but you don't think at all.

Just because you are a dumb son of a bitch, doesn't mean everyone else in your country should be as stupid and misinformed as you. Give the kids of a your nation a chance to escape the shakles of idiocy you morons feel the need to contrain them with.

I said that in reference to Synch. His post as follows:
Teach kids about christianity, about the jewish faith, about muslims and buddha but don't let them pray before class or force christianity upon them.

I took that to mean "Don't waste everyone's time by giving them 'god-breaks' when they should be learning. Let them practice their religion on their own time, not the school's, tax-payer's, other student's time"

I agree his wording was ambiguous, however to assume he meant "forcibly deny them the right to religious expression *in their own time*" is an incredibly contrived interpretation.

But then, I am used to you intentionally misreading something in a bizarre sense, just to try and get one wobbly and injured leg to stand on.

Like I said, you'd not like classes to be delayed because the Moslem children need prayer-breaks, thereby disrupting the whole class. Well, it is only fair not to waste everyone else's time with obligatory prayer time before each class. It's a school, not a church.

You should take a closer look into the Catholicism doctrine.

You should use google before you start telling other people what to do. You are the one telling people Chimps don't have opposable thumbs. You are a no-nothing morons. So the next time someone says anything, even that grass is neon-pink, check before you say they are wrong. Really. Because so far, your record for saying "this is fact" and it actually being so is very disappointing.

As it stands, I wouldn't even trust you to reliably tell the time.

[synch]

Sorry if I caused some confusion here.

I meant kids shouldn't be obligated to pray before class. That does not mean that kids shouldn't be taught about religions (again, note the plural) or denied the right to practice theirs.

[racer5.0stang]

Since when has sporting events been "places of work" ? Oh, I see, the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people who are NOT working doesn't count. The praying and such is purely for the benefit of the team. Yeah right. And *every* sporting event? I find that hard to believe.

So you would say that proffesional baseball players, for example, are not working? I think that they would disagree with you. And it is the team and coaches that pray. Turn off those anime cartoons and come back to the real world.

Evolution is a theory based on *objective fact* - Creationism is a theory which is supported by *no* objective facts. So it does not "work both ways" they are very different. If you weren't such an imbercile, you'd know this to be the case.

Evolution is in fact a theory, it has not been proven. The only thing that has been proven is microevolution. But guess what, when E.coli evolves it is still E.coli. Not another completely different organism.

So your rationale is "because we are taking out something that *is* wrong, me must also take out things which *might* be wrong."

No, I said since we can not teach or even mention religion in schools we should remove mention of macroevolution which includes the Big Bang Theory and Darwin in order to explain creation.

What is taught is "microevolutionary" Darwinism which is objective fact. As I have said, and you have ignored, you can get pond scum, put it under a microscope, and watch it evolve. This isn't some spurious theory, it is something you can do and see with your own eyes. Now, you might not think it is a good idea to teach kids stuff which is undeniably true, but you don't think at all.

Yes but just because an organism can "evolve" does not automatically suggest that macroevolution is fact.

Like I said, you'd not like classes to be delayed because the Moslem children need prayer-breaks, thereby disrupting the whole class. Well, it is only fair not to waste everyone else's time with obligatory prayer time before each class. It's a school, not a church.

I agree, but no one ever said that the school should offer an obligatory prayer time.

Just because you are a dumb son of a bitch, doesn't mean everyone else in your country should be as stupid and misinformed as you. Give the kids of a your nation a chance to escape the shakles of idiocy you morons feel the need to contrain them with.

Wow, didn't you just tell me to express "good manners"? Can you say hypocrite? Do as I say not as I do---King Ace42, ruler of Ace42 Land.

You should use google before you start telling other people what to do. You are the one telling people Chimps don't have opposable thumbs.

I said monkeys not chimps.

[racer5.0stang]

[Qdrop]

Evolution is in fact a theory, it has not been proven. The only thing that has been proven is microevolution. But guess what, when E.coli evolves it is still E.coli. Not another completely different organism.


"Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory"
"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."


No, I said since we can not teach or even mention religion in schools we should remove mention of evolution which includes the Big Bang Theory and Darwin.

why?.....what the fuck is the connection?



I agree, but no one ever said that the school should offer an obligatory prayer time.


well, good.



I said monkeys not chimps.

you know that people laugh at you hystarically when you type shit like that....?
and any credibility you may have had (which is very little) is dashed....

[Qdrop]

more:

"Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms."

- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983



that pretty much sums it up.
(lb)

[100% ILL]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3572878.stm

In August of 2004 the BBC News reported the North Greenland Ice Core Project (NGrip) recovering what appears to be blades of grass or pine needles from cores two miles below the surface. While allegedly several million years old, the possible organic matter suggests the Greenland ice sheet formed quickly.

Evolution means change, but when we look to the living world, we see no significant change.

Australia is the home of a beetle discovered alive in 1998 but supposed by Darwinists to have been extinct for "200 million years." It hasn't changed at all. There are dragonfly fossils over "300 million years old" with wing venation virtually identical to dragonfly wings today. There is no change. Millipedes supposedly have been crawling around for "420 million years"! A fascinating plant example is the "150 million-year-old" Wollemi Pine discovered in 1994 and 2000 west of Sydney, Australia. One must ask: Is it logical to assume that a stand of trees can stay in one physical location for over 150 million years and not come to any demise?

Another young-earth indicator involves the degradation of organic compounds (i.e., protein) in a geological environment. There's no question, even among some evolutionary naturalists, that unmineralized dinosaur bone still containing bone protein resides in many locations throughout the world. This is amazing, and destroys the mantra of dinosaurs becoming extinct "65 million years ago." Simply put, bone containing such well preserved protein could not possibly have existed for more than a few thousand years in the geological settings in which they are found.

Creation biologists view the age of the earth in terms of only thousands of years. Living fossils, ancient "plant matter," and dinosaur protein are not a problem if the earth is young. Evolutionists on the other hand, must posit impossibly long periods of no evolutionary change when an "extinct" creature appears alive, and then make excuses why the creature never changed.

(lb)

[racer5.0stang]

you know that people laugh at you hystarically when you type shit like that....?
and any credibility you may have had (which is very little) is dashed....

It was a joke, which you obviously did not get.

"Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory"

Webster describes a fact as being something that exists or occurs. Webster also desribes a theory as a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle offered to explain observed facts. But Webster also says that a theory is a hypothesis or guess.

So the fact that humans evolved from another creature (monkey or chimp) is a mere guess.

[Qdrop]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3572878.stm

In August of 2004 the BBC News reported the North Greenland Ice Core Project (NGrip) recovering what appears to be blades of grass or pine needles from cores two miles below the surface. While allegedly several million years old, the possible organic matter suggests the Greenland ice sheet formed quickly.


point?.....several ice ages....one only 20,000 years ago, have occured.
yay......


Evolution means change, but when we look to the living world, we see no significant change.

strawman.....
and it shows you have no understanding of evolution. your dunce cap grows heavier.....
see below....

Australia is the home of a beetle discovered alive in 1998 but supposed by Darwinists to have been extinct for "200 million years." It hasn't changed at all. There are dragonfly fossils over "300 million years old" with wing venation virtually identical to dragonfly wings today. There is no change. Millipedes supposedly have been crawling around for "420 million years"!

yep. and how does this dissprove evolution?
it doesn't. see, you have this ass backwark definition of evolution in your head.
"everything must change, constantly and always.....that's evolution" is a complete falacy.
it SHOWS that dispite your claim to the contrary...you have never bothered to read up on and investigate evolution.

if a species is well adapted to it's enviroment....no additional change in the species will likely have significant impact on it's rate of survival and breeding. in a sense, no change is necessary for the species survival, and it is likey to stay unchanged until a change in enviroment necessitates or pre-empts a change. or if a signifacant adaptation (through random mutation) takes place that give that mutated group a very significant edge over its brethren. but this is rather unlikely, and almost impossible in just a few generations.

that is a VERY simplified summary.....but the point gets made.


A fascinating plant example is the "150 million-year-old" Wollemi Pine discovered in 1994 and 2000 west of Sydney, Australia. One must ask: Is it logical to assume that a stand of trees can stay in one physical location for over 150 million years and not come to any demise?

yes.


Another young-earth indicator involves the degradation of organic compounds (i.e., protein) in a geological environment. There's no question, even among some evolutionary naturalists, that unmineralized dinosaur bone still containing bone protein resides in many locations throughout the world. This is amazing, and destroys the mantra of dinosaurs becoming extinct "65 million years ago." Simply put, bone containing such well preserved protein could not possibly have existed for more than a few thousand years in the geological settings in which they are found.

sigh.
you'll believe ANYTHING that supports your side, huh?
if a little kid on the corner said evolution was fake, you'd post it here as a quote....
first, state your source for the above quote.
next, that is false and again shows a misunderstanding of archeology and science.


Evolutionists on the other hand, must posit impossibly long periods of no evolutionary change when an "extinct" creature appears alive, and then make excuses why the creature never changed.



no excuse necessary.....long periods of little or no change are evident in fossil study and evolutionary studies.......



you really did it this time, ILL......
you thouroughly embarrassed yourself with this post.
you showed your weakness: you don't even understand evolution or read up on it.
how can you challenge it if you don't understand it?

[Qdrop]

Webster describes a fact as being something that exists or occurs. Webster also desribes a theory as a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle offered to explain observed facts. But Webster also says that a theory is a hypothesis or guess.

So the fact that humans evolved from another creature (monkey or chimp) is a mere guess.

i'm crying. i am seriously crying at your level of intelligance.
please don't have children....please.

so a dictionary proves evolution is a guess?
is that your idea of science?
a battle of semantics and definitions out of context?


really?







no...really?






please never have children.

[racer5.0stang]

i'm crying. i am seriously crying at your level of intelligance.
please don't have children....please.

so a dictionary proves evolution is a guess?
is that your idea of science?
a battle of semantics and definitions out of context?


No I was merely pointing out the definitions of fact and theory which you seemed determined to post concerning evolution.

[Qdrop]

No I was merely pointing out the definitions of fact and theory which you seemed determined to post concerning evolution.

sigh.

here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof)

and here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html)


read them. READ ALL OF IT!
ALL OF IT!
ALL!



GOD DAMMIT!

[100% ILL]

Here's your requested link.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/ori/ori-0410.htm

Strawman? I think that's your favorite expression in trying to determine logical fallicies.

STRAW MAN

Description: It is a fallacy to misrepresent someone else's position for the purposes of more easily attacking it, then to knock down that misrepresented position, and then to conclude that the original position has been demolished. It is a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that one has made.

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: "e-v&-'lü-sh&n, "E-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations

**A process of CONTINUOUS change.**

your dunce cap grows heavier...

^This is an Ad Hominem, when you attack the person instead of the argument.
http://www.locksley.com/6696/logic.htm

ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM

Description: An argument that attempts to disprove the truth of what is asserted by attacking the speaker rather than the speaker's argument. Another way of putting it: Fallacy where you attack someone's character instead of dealing with salient issues. There are two basic types of ad hominem arguments: (1) abusive, and (2) circumstantial.

Back to the topic, If evolution is all about continuous change and as I clearly indicated these animal have not changed, it means that either the earth isn't as old as you think it is and evolution has not had time to occur, or or the earth is as old as you think it is (benefit of the doubt) and evolution just has not ocurred in these particular species. Either way it is at least cause for suspiscion of the validity of the continuous change argument.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-262.htm

The Nature of Theories on Origins

On the other hand, the theory of creation and the theory of evolution are attempts to explain the origin of the universe and of its inhabitants. There were no human observers to the origin of the universe, the origin of life, or, as a matter of fact, to the origin of a single type of living organism. These events were unique historical events which have occurred only once. Thus, no one has ever seen anything created, nor has anyone ever seen a fish evolve into an amphibian nor an ape evolve into man. The changes we see occurring today are mere fluctuations in populations which result neither in an increase in complexity nor significant change. Therefore, neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory. Creation and evolution are inferences based on circumstantial evidence.

Thus the notion that evolution is a scientific theory while creation is nothing more than religious mysticism is blatantly false. This is being recognized more and more today, even by evolutionists themselves. Karl Popper, one of the world's leading philosophers of science, has stated that evolution is not a scientific theory but is a metaphysical research program.[1] Birch and Ehrlich state that:

Our theory of evolution has become . . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observation. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus "outside of empirical science" but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.[2]

Green and Goldberger, with reference to theories on the origin of life, have said that:

. . . the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture.[3]

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-282.htm

SHOULD EVOLUTION BE IMMUNE FROM CRITICAL ANALYSIS IN THE SCIENCE CLASSROOM?

# Document from the fossil record the transitional forms leading up to the first fish, from their assumed invertebrate ancestors.

# Describe one undisputed example of a creature that was transitional between fish and amphibian.

# Is it possible to document from the fossil record the series of transitional forms that led up to any dinosaur species?



As no theory in science is immune from critical examination and evaluation, and recognizing that evolutionary theory is the only approved theory of origins that can be taught in the [province/state] science curriculum: whenever evolutionary theory is taught, students and teachers are encouraged to discuss the scientific information that supports and questions evolution and its underlying assumptions, in order to promote the development of critical thinking skills. This discussion would include only the scientific evidence/information for and against evolutionary theory, as it seeks to explain the origin of the universe and the diversity of life on our planet.

If science is a search for truth, no scientific theory should be allowed to freeze into dogma, immune from critical examination and evaluation.

[Qdrop]

Here's your requested link.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/ori/ori-0410.htm

Strawman? I think that's your favorite expression in trying to determine logical fallicies.

STRAW MAN

Description: It is a fallacy to misrepresent someone else's position for the purposes of more easily attacking it, then to knock down that misrepresented position, and then to conclude that the original position has been demolished. It is a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that one has made.



yeah?...and?.....that's what you do....constantly.

"It is a fallacy to misrepresent someone else's position (your and quotes author's false understanding and explanation of evolution) for the purposes of more easily attacking it, then to knock down that misrepresented position, and then to conclude that the original position has been demolished. It is a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that one has made. (your and quotes author's false understanding and explanation of evolution)


all set?


Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: "e-v&-'lü-sh&n, "E-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations


that's you argument?.....a dictionaries definition?
funny how you stay clear of biology books though.
pathetic.





^This is an Ad Hominem, when you attack the person instead of the argument.
http://www.locksley.com/6696/logic.htm

ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM

Description: An argument that attempts to disprove the truth of what is asserted by attacking the speaker rather than the speaker's argument. Another way of putting it: Fallacy where you attack someone's character instead of dealing with salient issues. There are two basic types of ad hominem arguments: (1) abusive, and (2) circumstantial.


you make me angry......that's what you get.
i try to keep it to a minimal......i, too, hate when people do that alot.
stop fustating me with you purposeful sabotage of the debate through underhanded misdirection, incorrectly stating facts, quoting out of context, and arguing over semantics and dictionary definitions.


Back to the topic, If evolution is all about continuous change

it is not.
see, that's a strawman.
again.


and as I clearly indicated these animal have not changed, it means that either the earth isn't as old as you think it is and evolution has not had time to occur, or or the earth is as old as you think it is (benefit of the doubt) and evolution just has not ocurred in these particular species. Either way it is at least cause for suspiscion of the validity of the continuous change argument.

wrong wrong wrong.
you're getting sloppy.



The Nature of Theories on Origins

On the other hand, the theory of creation and the theory of evolution are attempts to explain the origin of the universe and of its inhabitants. There were no human observers to the origin of the universe, the origin of life, or, as a matter of fact, to the origin of a single type of living organism. These events were unique historical events which have occurred only once. Thus, no one has ever seen anything created, nor has anyone ever seen a fish evolve into an amphibian nor an ape evolve into man. The changes we see occurring today are mere fluctuations in populations which result neither in an increase in complexity nor significant change. Therefore, neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory. Creation and evolution are inferences based on circumstantial evidence.

false.
well creation is......
but evolution is not.


Thus the notion that evolution is a scientific theory while creation is nothing more than religious mysticism is blatantly false. This is being recognized more and more today, even by evolutionists themselves.

false (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm)






SHOULD EVOLUTION BE IMMUNE FROM CRITICAL ANALYSIS IN THE SCIENCE CLASSROOM?

# Document from the fossil record the transitional forms leading up to the first fish, from their assumed invertebrate ancestors.

# Describe one undisputed example of a creature that was transitional between fish and amphibian.

# Is it possible to document from the fossil record the series of transitional forms that led up to any dinosaur species?




try this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4)
and this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html)

[bb_bboy]

I think that as we continue these discussions of tolerance vs. intolerance, theories vs. facts, beliefs vs. opinions vs. accetpted truths, that we take a step backwards to realize that we are not only debating Christianity vs. secularism, but most of the world's religions vs. secularism. For example, with the discussion surrounding evolution, we must think about the fact that it is not only Chrisitan beleifs, but the beleifs of many other religions, that fundamentally oppose the theories of micro- and macro- evolution.

I think that Chrisitianity is attacked here because it is conveinient and it is conveinient because we have here such easy targets as representatives for Chrisitan fundamentalism (we all know how they are). But I think that it is interesting that these same debates could be had in all regions of the world, in all different languages, with the subsitution of any major religion. I am not trying to imply that the sheer number of religions butressing the argument for creationism makes it any more valid - I beleive in evolution although I cannot, unfortunately debate quite as intelligently about it as many others on this board - I am simply trying to discuss an issue that is personally fascinating.

I took a course at university that was meant to examine a handful of the world's major religions at the high acedemic level in regards to their architecture along with with a firm understanding of their fundamental systems of beliefs. One item of note was the overlapping of ideas from religion to religion. Not just in terms of generalizations, but in specific aspects of their fundamental teachings, literary and figurative and moral parallels in their parables, and common ways of expressing themselves through culture and their built environments. It was in discovering all the congruities that helped me realize that all of these varied groups were really trying to get the same set of points across. But, to understand this, one must be willing to release themselves from literal interpretations on both sides of the religious arguement and interpret meanings rather than look for discreet points to either support or dismiss.

I don't know how better to say that. It is funny that when quoting single passages from the bible, people forget that they are in fact expressing a generalized idea than a discreet fact in context. I think that most people would better appreciate religious texts and the cultures that produced them if they could look at things that way, with their minds eyes slightly squinted so that the black and white lines blurred together a bit and they could see the bigger picture than the fine detail. Keep the specifics for science, that is where they can be most appreciated, and where they will prove the most useful.

[Qdrop]

I think that as we continue these discussions of tolerance vs. intolerance, theories vs. facts, beliefs vs. opinions vs. accetpted truths, that we take a step backwards to realize that we are not only debating Christianity vs. secularism, but most of the world's religions vs. secularism. For example, with the discussion surrounding evolution, we must think about the fact that it is not only Chrisitan beleifs, but the beleifs of many other religions, that fundamentally oppose the theories of micro- and macro- evolution.

I think that Chrisitianity is attacked here because it is conveinient and it is conveinient because we have here such easy targets as representatives for Chrisitan fundamentalism (we all know how they are). But I think that it is interesting that these same debates could be had in all regions of the world, in all different languages, with the subsitution of any major religion. I am not trying to imply that the sheer number of religions butressing the argument for creationism makes it any more valid - I beleive in evolution although I cannot, unfortunately debate quite as intelligently about it as many others on this board - I am simply trying to discuss an issue that is personally fascinating.

I took a course at university that was meant to examine a handful of the world's major religions at the high acedemic level in regards to their architecture along with with a firm understanding of their fundamental systems of beliefs. One item of note was the overlapping of ideas from religion to religion. Not just in terms of generalizations, but in specific aspects of their fundamental teachings, literary and figurative and moral parallels in their parables, and common ways of expressing themselves through culture and their built environments. It was in discovering all the congruities that helped me realize that all of these varied groups were really trying to get the same set of points across. But, to understand this, one must be willing to release themselves from literal interpretations on both sides of the religious arguement and interpret meanings rather than look for discreet points to either support or dismiss.

I don't know how better to say that. It is funny that when quoting single passages from the bible, people forget that they are in fact expressing a generalized idea than a discreet fact in context. I think that most people would better appreciate religious texts and the cultures that produced them if they could look at things that way, with their minds eyes slightly squinted so that the black and white lines blurred together a bit and they could see the bigger picture than the fine detail. Keep the specifics for science, that is where they can be most appreciated, and where they will prove the most useful.

i think you make valid points.
a nice calm for the storm.
thank you.

[Ace42]

So you would say that proffesional baseball players, for example, are not working? I think that they would disagree with you. And it is the team and coaches that pray. Turn off those anime cartoons and come back to the real world.

By that argument, the street is a place of work because street-sweepers work there.

Why don't you put down the bible, and start reading about the real world.

Evolution is in fact a theory, it has not been proven. The only thing that has been proven is microevolution.

Read that again, inbred. "Evolution has not been proven. However, a form of evolution has been proven."

We all know that you are incapable of understanding simple English, but even someone as fundamentally incompetent as you must see the contradition in that statement.

But guess what, when E.coli evolves it is still E.coli. Not another completely different organism.

Even heard of "hybrids" ? Bacteria can transmute and infect different species. Now, if one Bacteria only effects humans, and one Bacteria only infects horses, they are *not the same entity*.

Infact, they are given different names to signify the difference. "Bird flu" is NOT identical to common influenza. To say "oh, it is essentially the same" is ignorant. It is like saying "Well, chimps are just a different kind of human."

Something you would not agree with. So to say "Well, E.coli evolves into a distinct form of bacteria, but because it is still bacteria it doesn't count" is a double-standard.

Note that they are not *organisms* in a litteral sense, as they do not have *organs*

No, I said since we can not teach or even mention religion in schools we should remove mention of macroevolution which includes the Big Bang Theory and Darwin in order to explain creation.

No you didn't. You said:

So you are saying teach them a/b religion but don't let them practice it.

That is your exact quote. Now, considering you there acknowledge that religion is TAUGHT in schools, how can you possibly lie to my face and tell me that you said "we cannot even mention religion in schools"

I know you are incapable of understanding simple English, but saying "We teach them about it" and then saying "They aren't allowed to mention it at all" is a fundamental contradiction. Even a chimpanzee would be able to spot that flaw. But then, even chimpanzees are considerably more evolved than you.

And even if you DID say the above, it is still incredibly stupid. Again, just because you do not teach something there is NO evidence for, and substantial evidence against, does NOT mean you should then stop teaching something there IS evidence for, even though it has not been conclusively proved.

Yes but just because an organism can "evolve" does not automatically suggest that macroevolution is fact.

Yet it suggests Dawinism is *fact* - which it is. Survival of the fittest is observable fact. Something you have ignored again and again.

Macroevolution involves things evolving from protozoa. You disbelieve the *micro*evolution (a phenomena you now finally seem to be acknowledging as fact) explanation for mankind evolving from a homonid ancestor.

While science may have problems with Men evolving from slime, Darwinism has no problem explaining men evolving from an ancient primate. Now, surely, you must admit that your criticism of *micro-evolution* in humans is totally unfounded, by your own omission.

I say "surely" - I mean that in the sense that any sane person would surely say "1+2 = 3" if they have already accepted that "1+1 = 2"

However, knowing even simple communication is beyond your cognitive powers, being able to follow simple logic would likewise seem to be the case.

I agree, but no one ever said that the school should offer an obligatory prayer time.

And no-one ever said that teaching religion in a purely *secular* fashion (teaching people what different religions believe, etc. Rather than teaching them that one of the numerous religions is 'correct') was unacceptable. Not having gone to school in America, I might veyr well be mistaken, but I assume Theology is still a subject that is taught in US Academia.

Either way, your point is moot.

Wow, didn't you just tell me to express "good manners"? Can you say hypocrite? Do as I say not as I do---King Ace42, ruler of Ace42 Land.

To me, good manners does not preclude "telling it like it is." Lying and saying you are not one of the most mentally handicapped people I have ever met, and that you are not totally incapable of rational and logical reasoning, would not be good manners.

# manners

1. The socially correct way of acting; etiquette.
2. The prevailing customs, social conduct, and norms of a specific society, period, or group, especially as the subject of a literary work.


I was using it in the second sense strictly. Swearing here (both this forum, the internet, and the UK <here in the very literal sense for me> as well as the US) and calling people stupid is not "abnormal" or "unaccustomed"

However, disregarding common sense, what the person you are replying to *actually said*, ignoring observable fact, etc are not *normal* or a prevailing custom.

I said monkeys not chimps.

Oh, I see, silly me. Of course, chimpanzees have opposable thumbs, but Monkeys don't...

Opposable Thumbs
Monkeys and apes have thumbs that are higher up on the palm than the rest of the fingers so the thumb can work with the other four digits to grasp branches or food. Howler monkeys also have five-toed grasping feet, including an opposable thumb. To gain a new appreciation for opposable thumbs, try writing with a pencil without using your thumb.

http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/SmallMammals/Exhibits/HowlerMonkeys/WatchingHowlers/default.cfm

Oh, but hang on. All monkeys and apes have opposable thumbs, so it STILL makes you a dumbass who says shit without even making the slightest effort to check that the crap he spews is even remotely true.

Seriously, I know little kids who know more about the world than you do. Logicially, that means that if I asked a little kid random questions about the world, they'd be more likely to get it right than you.

And, judging by your constant errors, this would no doubt be born out to be true.

[Spanishbomb808]

Zing!

You, sir, are the most competent argument-composing fella I've seen yet. Way to sock it to the filthy christian!

[Ace42]

So the fact that humans evolved from another creature (monkey or chimp) is a mere guess.

The fact that there were no men on the Earth before a specific period in time, and that there were numerous animals on the Earth for substantially more than one week previous, show clearly that Creation in 7 days is a myth.

Mankind was not contemporary to Dinosaurs, dinosaurs did not get made "less than a week before man" therefore the period of "creation" (by a God, natural forces, whatever) must've taken more than 7 days.

Now, again you have been assuming that macro-evolution theory is intrinsically aethiestic.

In a purely Darwinist sense, this is wrong. Darwin makes frequent references to a creator or deity.

However, Darwinism and Christian Fundamentalist creationism are not reconcileable, and the latter is clearly wrong in any objective sense of the word.

To say that evolution from a homonid ancestor (which is quite different to both Monkeys, Apes and Chimps. Something you have shown you are incapable of understanding again and again, despite it being explaned incredibly simply) is a "mere guess" is like me saying that when I throw a ball up in the air, knowing that I'll catch it again is a "mere guess."

Yes, it could suddenly hover there is midair out of reach. Yes it could possibly go flying off into outer space never to return.

However, due to scientific reasoning, we can eliminate these two possibilities as being improbable to the point of inconsequence.

Just as you would be stupid if you believed it unlikely a thrown ball would be catchable, you are stupid if you believe that evolution from a homonid ancestor is implausible.

Which clearly makes you *stupid* - for no other reason than you believe the opposite of what you can see without any good reason whatsoever.

[SobaViolence]

how did we get from legislation for same-sex marriages to evolution?


furthermore, why does it matter?

people are people. it's none of your fucking business how they live, where they work or if they can or can not love one another.

if they do not have freedom to marry whom they wish, then we are not a democratic society like we all claim. it's a lie and we are no better than Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe.

[Ace42]

it's a lie and we are no better than Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe.

Oh come on, that's unfair. I know the US has had its problems, but at the moment it still has a lower population of rag-heads and niggers than those two countries.

[racer5.0stang]

The fact that there were no men on the Earth before a specific period in time, and that there were numerous animals on the Earth for substantially more than one week previous, show clearly that Creation in 7 days is a myth.

The same could be said for macroevolution.

Mankind was not contemporary to Dinosaurs, dinosaurs did not get made "less than a week before man" therefore the period of "creation" (by a God, natural forces, whatever) must've taken more than 7 days.

Read Job 41 (the entire chapter, it is only 34 verses)

In a purely Darwinist sense, this is wrong. Darwin makes frequent references to a creator or deity.

So he was an agnostic. But he clearly did not believe the word of God, so what did he base his opinion of creation on?

Something you have shown you are incapable of understanding again and again, despite it being explaned incredibly simply) is a "mere guess" is like me saying that when I throw a ball up in the air, knowing that I'll catch it again is a "mere guess."

It is a mere guess because you will not catch it every time, unless you only throw it an inch or so in the air.

Which clearly makes you *stupid* - for no other reason than you believe the opposite of what you can see without any good reason whatsoever.

The only thing that is stupid is the fact you have declared that you are a Christian (which I seriously doubt, but sarcasm is hard to find in words) and yet refuse to believe anything about it.

I find it quite disterbing that someone with your level of intelligence (don't let your head swell) to be so ignorant to the truth.

[synch]

Oh come on, that's unfair. I know the US has had its problems, but at the moment it still has a lower population of rag-heads and niggers than those two countries.
It's getting old Ace...

[Ace42]

The same could be said for macroevolution.

No it couldn't. How does there being all manner of creatures around for a long time before mankind existed mean "macroevolution couldn't be correct" ?

If anything, it supports macro-evolutionary theory.

Read Job 41 (the entire chapter, it is only 34 verses)

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

I assume you are trying to equate the Leviathan with dinosaurs. Firstly, that is certainly not literally true, as the above will show.

Whether demon, fish, whale, sea-serpent or dragon, suggesting it represents a dinosaur contemporary to humans is a nonsense. Dragons and sea-monsters are rich in folklore and mythology, and yet they were definitely *not* originated by people witnessing dinosaurs. There is as much sense in equating the Leviathan with dinosaurs as saying that the author(s) of Beowulf had seen dinosaurs and decided to make a story about them. Preposterous.

So he was an agnostic.

ag·nos·tic Audio pronunciation of "Agnostic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.

1.
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

So, considering he attributes various mechanisms of creation to a deity, and does not state that he will believe in God when furnished with proof, there is no reason to believe he is an agnostic.

Again, it makes you look stupid when you make claims without any factual information behind them.

But he clearly did not believe the word of God

Well, as God (assuming one exists) knows how he created the world, and as he clearly did not do it in seven days, we can clearly see that any text saying that the world was *literally* created in 7 days is NOT the word of God. Unless God is intentionally lying to us, of course.

Now, as you only know relatively recent translations into English, of a very very old text, itself compiled from fragments of scripture and the product of a very hit and miss editing process throughout the last few millenia, and as God clearly did not speak in English to the Jews, we can see that it is self-evident that the modern bible is not *literally* the word of God. It is impossible to literally translate the various source manuscripts without losing key significant emphasis and rhetorical devices.

This is ignoring the fact that you have trouble understanding simple modern English, and that your understand of renaissance middle English (of KJA version) has been shown to be woefully inadequet.

so what did he base his opinion of creation on?

Why don't you find an online copy of The Origin of Species and, I dunno, read it? Then you can maybe have the smallest clue what this evolution thing you keep bashing actually says, instead of what you feel you can criticise [ineptly as it turns out.]

Then you need only study a century's worth of scientific refinement and corroborative evidence before you are even remotely qualified to comment on the subject.

It is a mere guess because you will not catch it every time, unless you only throw it an inch or so in the air.

And yet people play baseball, throw delicate objects to each other, use handgrenades, etc all without constantly doubting their own abilities.

guess Audio pronunciation of "guess" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gs)
v. guessed, guess·ing, guess·es
v. tr.

1.
1. To predict (a result or an event) without sufficient information.
2. To assume, presume, or assert (a fact) without sufficient information.


When we throw a ball, we have sufficient information about it (velocity, mass, etc) in order to correctly predict where it will land and thus catch it. The odds of catching a ball are generally quite high. Thus, you predict where a ball will travel to in order to catch it, but you do not *guess.*

While any sort of scientific theory is guesswork to you (because you do not have sufficient information on ANY subject whatsoever, due to your profound ignorance) to the rest of the world, it is not, because there is *sufficient information*

You might say it is not sufficient information, that science accepts a conclusion too readily.

And yet, this is the same science that accepts that nuclear chain-reactions can reliably be used to produce electricity via an electro-mangetic turbine. It is reliable enough to power your PC by harnassing power that can destroy a city. It is reliable enough to design and produce the break-pads that stop your SUV from hurtling off the road, killing you and some little children. It is reliable enough to produce helicopters and jet-craft and space-travel. To build sophiticated computers capable of outperforming the human brain.

It is capable of all these things due to its inherant reliability. But to YOU it is not reliable enough to make Evolution, a theory which has had numerous affirmatory texts published about it, superior to Creationism, a theory that is solely based around one interpretation of one text of dubious providence and no supporting evidence whatsoever.

The only thing that is stupid is the fact you have declared that you are a Christian and yet refuse to believe anything about it.

Last I checked, being a Christian doesn't mean you have to believe the grass is purple "just because the bible says so."

Fundamentalism is to Christianity what Kim Il Jong is to Communism. The KJA version, while one of my personal favourites, is a selective compilation of texts, with many of them *ignored* - do you know who ignored them or why? I doubt it. You believe, and yet you do not know what you believe or why. You have your book, and you'll believe it no matter what.

Here's a news flash, you believing in it doesn't make it right. Out of the dozens of different bibles out there, in hundreds of different languages, for thousands of different sects and subsects, out of the numerous religions past and present, the chances of your one being the exact word-for-word literal truth according to God is infitessimaly small.

If you work it out (use a calculator, I won't hold it against you) it is more likely that mankind evolved from a single chain of amino-acid to its present form spontaneously (despite the maths being against it at present) than it is you are right. And THAT is a long-shot. *and* that is ignoring your past track record, which is not exactly working in your favour in the whole "being right" stakes.

I find it quite disterbing that someone with your level of intelligence (don't let your head swell) to be so ignorant to the truth.

Your understanding of your copy of the Bible doesn't even close to the truth. The "truth" for you is that monkeys don't have opposable thumbs.

You take "the truth" to mean whatever you believe. Well, for the rest of us, "the truth" is a state of fact that corresponds to observable events. For the rest of us, "the truth" is what agrees with the facts, not what agrees with how we would like things to be.

The only reason I am "ignorant to the truth" in your eyes is because I am not so phenominanlly stupid as to believe the absolute drivel that you spew forth.

I could listen to what you say avidly. I could absorb every word. I could ignore every inconsistancy, every error, every claim you make that differs from reality, every word you use incorrectly, every bible passage you misinterpret, and thus I would no longer be "ignorant to the truth."

However, I'd much rather be correct than "aware of the truth-according-to-a-moron."

[bb_bboy]

If you work it out (use a calculator, I won't hold it against you) it is more likely that mankind evolved from a single chain of amino-acid to its present form spontaneously (despite the maths being against it at present) than it is you are right. And THAT is a long-shot. *and* that is ignoring your past track record, which is not exactly working in your favour in the whole "being right" stakes.

That's some insane, off the rope chain type shit. I'm digging this post like a steam shovel nigga.

[Señor Stino]

Well, as God (assuming one exists) knows how he created the world, and as he clearly did not do it in seven days, we can clearly see that any text saying that the world was *literally* created in 7 days is NOT the word of God. Unless God is intentionally lying to us, of course.




I wasn't involved in this discussion about creationism, I justed wanted to say I really like this argument, it generally sums up why people should not be creationists. If there is a God, he wouldn't want you to be one too, he does not want "his" people to be dumb and foolish, otherwise he would not have given us these brains to think.

[racer5.0stang]

I wasn't involved in this discussion about creationism, I justed wanted to say I really like this argument, it generally sums up why people should not be creationists. If there is a God, he wouldn't want you to be one too, he does not want "his" people to be dumb and foolish, otherwise he would not have given us these brains to think.

Psalms 53:1

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

[Spanishbomb808]

Psalms 53:1

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

Haha, he's qouting his smut rag.

Tommorrow, he's going to relinquish money to his religious institution, while people who haven't been brainwashed will keep their cash.

Whee.

[racer5.0stang]

I assume you are trying to equate the Leviathan with dinosaurs. Firstly, that is certainly not literally true, as the above will show.

Whether demon, fish, whale, sea-serpent or dragon, suggesting it represents a dinosaur contemporary to humans is a nonsense. Dragons and sea-monsters are rich in folklore and mythology, and yet they were definitely *not* originated by people witnessing dinosaurs. There is as much sense in equating the Leviathan with dinosaurs as saying that the author(s) of Beowulf had seen dinosaurs and decided to make a story about them. Preposterous.

The link you provided is fine if you want man's version of the Leviathan, but I asked you to read Job 41.

So, considering he attributes various mechanisms of creation to a deity, and does not state that he will believe in God when furnished with proof, there is no reason to believe he is an agnostic.

Many self proclaimed agnostics believe there is a God but they don't believe that you can know him while here on Earth.

Well, as God (assuming one exists) knows how he created the world, and as he clearly did not do it in seven days, we can clearly see that any text saying that the world was *literally* created in 7 days is NOT the word of God. Unless God is intentionally lying to us, of course.

Of course it did not take 7 seven days to create world, it only took 6. On the 7th day God rested. I will refer you to Genesis 1:5 which follows:

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The word "day" is used in scripture in three ways (1) that part of the solar day of twenty-four hours which is light; (2) such a day, set apart for some distinctive purpose, as, "day of atonement"; (3) a period of time, long or short, during which certain revealed purposes of God are to be accomplished, as "day of the Lord."

Also the use of "evening" and "morning" may be held to limit "day" to the solar day; but the frequent parabolic use of natural phenomena may warrant the conclusion that each creative "day" was a period of time marked off by a beginning and ending.

Also if you will note that the word "day" is translated from the Hebrew word "yowm". Yowm is defined as to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), in the literal sense (from the sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to to the next).

So this being said, it is safe to say that God did create the Earth and all that dwelt in 6 solar days.

Last I checked, being a Christian doesn't mean you have to believe the grass is purple "just because the bible says so."

Anyone can claim to be a Christian, but the important thing is if the person in question is saved. In order to be saved, one must believe certain things that the bible teaches.
(1) Jesus was virgin born.
(2) Jesus is the Son of God.
(3) Jesus paid the price for OUR sins when he died on the cross.
(4) Confess your sins.
(5) The death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

However, I'd much rather be correct than "aware of the truth-according-to-a-moron."

Truth is always true no matter who tells it and whether anyone believes it. By your own admission, you would rather be correct (in your own eyes) than have someone tell you that you are wrong, regardless of their level of intelligence. This is foolish and dangerous. Your judgement has been clouded by your pride.

Last I checked, being a Christian doesn't mean you have to believe the grass is purple "just because the bible says so."

Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Romans 10:10
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:18
He that beleiveth on him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Ephesians 2:9
Not of works, lest any man should boast.

[Spanishbomb808]

Wow, a dozen qoutes from a baseless source.

I'm really persuaded now :rolleyes:

[Señor Stino]

Psalms 53:1

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

I don't get it, maybe because I am bad at reading (understanding) Bible verses.

anyhow, i never said there is no God, I only intented to say that the God (as in christian belief) would not want us to be creationist, for the same reason as why we send our children to schools.

[ASsman]

It says "kill the Jews", obv. because they have fallen out of favor.

Joshua conquered the entire country; the mountain regions, the Negeb, the foothills, and the mountain slopes, with all their kings. He left no survivors, but fulfilled the doom on all who lived there, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded. Joshua conquered from Kadesh-barnea to Gaza, and all the land of Goshen to Gibeon. All these kings and their lands Joshua captured in a single campaign, for the LORD, the God of Israel, fought for Israel. Thereupon Joshua with all Israel returned to the camp at Gilgal. (Joshua 10:40-43 NAB)

From Eglon, Joshua went up with all Israel to Hebron, which they attacked and captured. They put it to the sword with its king, all its towns, and every person there, leaving no survivors, just as Joshua had done to Eglon. He fulfilled the doom on it and on every person there. (Joshua 10:36-37 NAB)

Heh, Joshua doesn't know about the Geneva Convention. Maybe back then it wasn't "obsolete".

[Ace42]

The link you provided is fine if you want man's version of the Leviathan, but I asked you to read Job 41.

I did, it said nothing of any merit. Nor anything that wasn't stated in that entry. Now, as the bible was written by men, it is foolish of you to say "if you want man's version" - unless you are claiming (against all evidence, and even fundamentalist belief) God presented the story of Job unto the people of Israel on stone tablets like the ten commandments, then it is "man's version."

Many self proclaimed agnostics believe there is a God but they don't believe that you can know him while here on Earth.

Firstly, because you have not read any Darwin, it is pathetic that you think you can catergorise him. Secondly:

ag·nos·tic Audio pronunciation of "Agnostic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.

1.
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

I do not see anything about "believing there must be a God" there.

Why don't you use the word to represent what it means, instead of your feeble misunderstanding of what it means, hmm?

That perhaps when you talk, you won't seem like the idiot you are.

Of course it did not take 7 seven days to create world, it only took 6. On the 7th day God rested.

It took neither 6 or 7. If God is truly omnipotent, then rest is immaterial as all things are equally easy. Being pedantic about which errors you believe does not change the fact that you believe things which are not true.

The word "day" is used in scripture in three ways (1) that part of the solar day of twenty-four hours which is light; (2) such a day, set apart for some distinctive purpose, as, "day of atonement"; (3) a period of time, long or short, during which certain revealed purposes of God are to be accomplished, as "day of the Lord."

Also the use of "evening" and "morning" may be held to limit "day" to the solar day; but the frequent parabolic use of natural phenomena may warrant the conclusion that each creative "day" was a period of time marked off by a beginning and ending.

Well, an outstanding cut and paste job. However, as you do not know what "parabolic" means, let alone the sophisticated transliteration of ancient Hebrew, through ancient Greek and Latin, to renaissance English, which you then interpret in a modern idiom, we can assume that you do not understand what this actually means, much less so what it imports.

In renaissance or modern English, a "day" is specific period of approximately 24 hours. If you take a "day" to mean 'a loose period of time' you are not taking the bible *literally* you are *interpreting* it. Thus, you could equally say that when God created man in his image, "man" looked nothing like we do now, and that God represents the process of prozoic slime evolving into a sentient primate.

You do not believe this, therefore your logic is a nonsense.

Also if you will note that the word "day" is translated from the Hebrew word "yowm". Yowm is defined as to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), in the literal sense (from the sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to to the next).

So this being said, it is safe to say that God did create the Earth and all that dwelt in 6 solar days.

Since when have you believed that the Jews were correct, and that the modern English bible (KJA) is innaccurate due to it not being directly pertaining to the original text?

I was under the impression that you believed the modern English bible to be the exact and litteral word of God (you have said as much) - not that it is a text open to the twisting and interpretation that you are desperately doing now to make it seem less absurd.

If you choose the interpret "day" as 'an unfixed period of time' you could equally choose to interpret the ancient Hebrew transliteration of "man" as "any upright walking mammal" - something that would be totally inline with suggesting man evolved directly from a homonid ancestor.

Face it, even by your own arguments, you are drifting away from the fundamentalist beliefs you have previously professed to subscribe to.

"When the bible says day, it doesn't LITERALLY mean day... the KJA translation to the word "day" is wrong. Even though the KJA bible is the exact and perfect word of God, and thus cannot have any innaccuracy or be in any way misleading."

Yeah, great one.

but the important thing is if the person in question is saved. In order to be saved, one must believe certain things that the bible teaches.

I'd believe you. Except this wisdom comes from the guy that thinks monkeys don't have opposable thumbs.

Truth is always true no matter who tells it and whether anyone believes it. By your own admission, you would rather be correct (in your own eyes) than have someone tell you that you are wrong, regardless of their level of intelligence. This is foolish and dangerous. Your judgement has been clouded by your pride.

Hah, no, that is not what I said. Again, if your ability to understand simple English was anything above remedial, you'd know that what I *actually* said is that the truth is indeed "true" irrespective of who believes what. Thus, the fact that you believe in the bible doesn't make it true. Actually, the fact that what it says did not actually occur makes it *untrue.*

I would rather be "correct" means I would rather say what is "true" is "true" rather than say "what I believe" is "true."

I deal with facts, you deal with beliefs. Your beliefs are often wrong (moneys don't have opposable thumbs? Hah) my facts are invariably true.

If I agreed with you, I would be wrong. Pride does not come into this, this is fact. If I said "monkeys don't have opposable thumbs" I would be as stupid as you. This also applies to the fact that you are incapable of understanding simple logic and applying it to the bible.

Irrespective of the bible being the word of God (and irrespective to its accuracy as a represenatation of the word of God, litteral or otherwise) there is "true and false" in the world, and what you believe in nearly always "false."

The fact that you believe God tells you to believe it is false just adds to your ignorance, not the legitimacy of your point.

If there is a God, and he does behave as your feeble mind understands, and your feeble speech tells us, then he is even stupider than I am.

I do not feel comfortable living in a world where I am smarter than God, and as I don't think anyone (myself included, despite the pride you seem to think I am consumed with) thinks I am truly smarter than God, it must clearly mean that the God you believe in DOES NOT EXIST.

I am not saying "The Christian God does not exist" - he might well do. I am not saying "The God represented in the Bible" does not exist - he might well do.

I am saying that time and time again, even on the most simplest and self-evident things (things like monkeys having opposable thumbs, things that, unlike the origins of the Bible, or complex theo-philosophical arguments) you have proved conclusively that you do not know what you are talking about.

Now you can either change your beliefs to agree with the Truth, or you can go on being wrong. Either way, your self-important pontificating about this "truth" that only you believe, and only you understand, and that no-one else (no other scholars, scientists, preachers, priests, reverend of all denominations, faiths, etc) in the world agrees with; is immaterial and just goes to show what a collossal waste of space you really are.

If you don't even know Monkeys have opposable thumbs, how dare you try and tell other people about the unknowable nature of God?

BTW, I didn't bother reading your bible quotes. You don't even know what they mean, so they cannot possibly lend justification to your case, even if we (erroneously, illogically, and without any possible reason) assume they are magically somehow "right"

[racer5.0stang]

I am not saying "The Christian God does not exist" - he might well do. I am not saying "The God represented in the Bible" does not exist - he might well do.

In your own words, what is the difference?

If you choose the interpret "day" as 'an unfixed period of time' you could equally choose to interpret the ancient Hebrew transliteration of "man" as "any upright walking mammal" - something that would be totally inline with suggesting man evolved directly from a homonid ancestor.

I clearly stated the different uses of the word "day", not different translations.

I'd believe you. Except this wisdom comes from the guy that thinks monkeys don't have opposable thumbs.

I would believe you, expect you think man evolved from monkeys.

BTW, I didn't bother reading your bible quotes. You don't even know what they mean, so they cannot possibly lend justification to your case, even if we (erroneously, illogically, and without any possible reason) assume they are magically somehow "right"

That just shows your lack of intelligence.

Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Romans 10:10
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:18
He that beleiveth on him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Ephesians 2:9
Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Here they are again, try reading them this time, you may learn something.

The fact that you believe God tells you to believe it is false just adds to your ignorance, not the legitimacy of your point.

The fact that you believe Man tells you to believe it is false just adds to your ignorance, not the legitimacy of your point.

[Ace42]

In your own words, what is the difference?

The different between the Christian God and God as represented by the bible?

Well, for starters the Jews don't believe in the Christian God (as depicted in the New Testament) but they do believe in the God as represented by the [Hebrew] bible.

Secondly, the bible was written by men in a language used by man which can only thus express concepts in a human way. The idea that the bible can thus represent God in anything but the most narrow and limited of ways is clearly a nonsense.

I clearly stated the different uses of the word "day", not different translations.

Except the word "day" is not used. There is no word "day" in Aramaic, they don't even have the letters "D A Y" in order to make the word "day" - so there are NO uses of the word "day" whatsoever.

There can only be a translation of the word "day." The English word "day" only has one meaning in the Genesis creation myth, and it is not "an unfixed amount of time" no matter how much you'd like to change it.

I would believe you, expect you think man evolved from monkeys.

Homonid ancestor != monkey. Irrespective of them having thumbs. And as you do not even know what monkeys look like (in the thumb department) - you are in no position to say what they did or did not evolve from.

That just shows your lack of intelligence.

This coming from the guy that thinks Mormons are Unitarians and monkeys don't have opposable thumbs. If you equate "understanding objective fact" with "lacking intelligence" then mea culpa.

However, disregarding your bible quotes has nothing to do with intelligence. You have demonstrated that you do not understanding simple English. You don't even understand the meaning of the bible quotes you paste. Thus, you do not "know" in any objective sense what you are talking about. Even if we were to assume that the bible quotes were intrinsically right (and there is no reason to assume they are, and many to assume they are not) - it would still be more likely to work against your argument than support it.

Here they are again, try reading them this time, you may learn something.

What are they going to teach me? That monkeys don't have opposable thumbs? That, yet again, you have totally failed to grasp the meaning of a piece of text which you claim to believe the litteral truth of?

That you are a complete dumbass who is too monumentally ignorant to see what should be immediately apparent to even the most untalented student of formal logic?

The fact that you believe Man tells you to believe it is false just adds to your ignorance, not the legitimacy of your point.

Yes, very clever. Except my arguments are based on objective fact, not hearsay, unlike yours.

"The fact that you believe in things which are true just adds to your ignorance" is what you are trying to say. And even corrected, it sounds stupid. Just like you.

I don't believe monkeys have opposable thumbs just because some "man" told me so. I believe it is true because I have seen it with my own eyes. It is undeniable fact.

You, however, are convinced all manner of things are true because some Man told you so. Nothing you believe in has any proof whatsoever. Unlike me, you have not seen things that prove or even support your case.

This makes your position untenable.

If there is a God, he certainly is capable of pointing out the logic-errors I (and everyone else here) have seen in your argument. Sorry, but unless your God is a complete dumbass, he is on my side.

[Señor Stino]

touché (lb)

[SobaViolence]

God spoke to me the other night, in a dream.

God said that you should all look about, see the crap going on around the World and help your fellow man. Shit, children in Africa are dying from DIARRHEA!

And then i awoke, sweating profusely.

it's the truth.

[racer5.0stang]

Yes, very clever. Except my arguments are based on objective fact, not hearsay, unlike yours.

So you have witnessed a human that has evolved or a Homonid ancestor that evolved into a human?

If there is a God, he certainly is capable of pointing out the logic-errors I (and everyone else here) have seen in your argument. Sorry, but unless your God is a complete dumbass, he is on my side.

Technically, God is on His own side. We have to choose to be on His side or not.

What are they going to teach me?

Anyone can claim to be a Christian, but the important thing is if the person in question is saved. In order to be saved, one must believe certain things that the bible teaches.
(1) Jesus was virgin born.
(2) Jesus is the Son of God, the second person in the Trinity.
(3) Jesus paid the price for OUR sins when he died on the cross.
(4) Confess your sins.
(5) The death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Romans 10:10
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:18
He that beleiveth on him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Ephesians 2:9
Not of works, lest any man should boast.


you are in no position to say what they did or did not evolve from.

The next step in human evolution----Pet Psychics

[racer5.0stang]

as you do not know what "parabolic" means

The parables of Jesus are treasure houses of wisdom masterfully woven in story form. They are deep, theological, practical, sometimes confusing, but always worth the effort needed to unlock their mysteries.


To put it in terms that you may understand, parabolic, simply means that it is refering to or expressed by a parable.

[Ace42]

To put it in terms that you may understand, parabolic, simply means that it is refering to or expressed by a parable.

par·a·bol·ic Audio pronunciation of "parabolic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-blk) also par·a·bol·i·cal (--kl)
adj.

1. Of or similar to a parable.
2. Of or having the form of a parabola or paraboloid.

Or it is shaped in a curved form based on an intersection of a conic. Totally beside the point.

However, I am amused you equate me saying you do not know what it means with me saying "I need you to copy a definition out of a dictionary for me."

[Ace42]

So you have witnessed a human that has evolved or a that evolved into a human?

You do not need to witness something first-hand for it to be objective fact. However, I have witnessed supportive evidence first-hand which is objective fact.

1. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
2. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.


Humanoid non-sapienient remains have been found. Anthropologists are discovering remains regularly, and from the remains, their burial site, and even grave-goods, we have learned all manner of things about them.

These are "objective facts" - something your case does not have any of.

Nothing your case relies on is "observably true" (for example, if you had ever observed a monkey, you'd know they have opposable thumbs) - and all of it is based on personal prejudices (otherwise you'd not be able to disregard Islam or any other religion, all of which have as much basis in fact as your personal preference).

Face it, your beliefs are based solely on the demented product of your own mind, and as such are inferior the the beliefs of the rest of us, whose beliefs are based on solid observable evidence.

Technically, God is on His own side. We have to choose to be on His side or not.

Technically, we cannot assume in a debate that God exists without some supportive evidence. So Technically, God can't have a side because he is a fictitious entity. However, disregarding this obvious piece of logic (just because if we did not frequently disregard the truth, we'd be unable to converse with someone as monumentally stupid as yourself) and assuming there is a God, there is *NO* reason to assume that "God has his own side."

If I construct an argument, it is *my* argument, not God's. Unless you are suggesting that God is a gestalt entity, composed of the sum total of all human consciousness (something that is directly contradicting with Fundamentalist Christian belief) - or that I am actually your God (flattering, but I very much doubt this is what you mean, even though it is what your comment implies) - then God is in agreement with me, not vice versa.

No doubt, you impressed yourself monumentally with that statement (Technically God is on his own side) - but the rest of us who dabble with common sense, logic, and an accurate understanding of the English language are not so easily impressed. The fact that it sounds pompous and grandiose (much like vast tracks of the Bible) doesn't mean that it is anything other than contrived tripe.

The next step in human evolution----Pet Psychics

Again, I did not bother reading your quotes. They are only valid if you assume (for no good reason whatsoever) that the Bible is correct. As you are incapable of giving a single good reason to believe they are correct (and there are several good reasons to believe your interpretation, as well as their litteral meaning - which are both very different - are wrong) then we cannot responsibly assume they are.

If I had a piece of paper that said "1. Everything this piece of paper said is true and the word of God. 2. Everything Racerstang believes is wrong because he is a fool. 3. None of this can be wrong, because it is all true and the word of God." it wouldn't mean that all your arguments are automatically wrong.

By your OWN ARGUMENT, nothing you say can be right.

You believe mankind didn't evolve from Monkeys? Well, no-one here believes man evolved from Monkeys, but I guess that means all of us (you included) must be wrong. How do I know?

Well I have a piece of paper that says you are wrong, and that is the true word of God.

What, you think my piece of paper is mistaken? It can't be. Look at rule #1. It says it is true and the word of God!

Don't believe rule #1? Hah, you fool! Look, rule #3 says rule #1 is right, and it is the word of God.

See, racerstang, by your argument, all you need to do to show something is "The Truth" (your words) is to have a piece of paper which says it is. It doesn't need any basis in fact, it doesn't even need to make sense. All you need is to have a piece of paper.

Well, alas, you can no longer continue debating here because I just got a piece of paper which purports to be the exact word of god, and it says you are wrong.

[Señor Stino]

Anyone can claim to be a Christian, but the important thing is if the person in question is saved. In order to be saved, one must believe certain things that the bible teaches.
(1) Jesus was virgin born.
(2) Jesus is the Son of God.
(3) Jesus paid the price for OUR sins when he died on the cross.
(4) Confess your sins.
(5) The death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.


a REAL Christian doesn't melt his religion and his beliefs in a science-shaped form, based on strict rules
no religion can be this mathematic, "if 1-5 = true, then go to: heaven"

you're a fool to believe this

[100% ILL]

a REAL Christian doesn't melt his religion and his beliefs in a science-shaped form, based on strict rules
no religion can be this mathematic, "if 1-5 = true, then go to: heaven"

you're a fool to believe this

http://www.carm.org/doctrine.htm

[Señor Stino]

with that link you only proved yourself to be a fool 100%ill

[100% ILL]

with that link you only proved yourself to be a fool 100%ill


Care to explain that?

[Ace42]

It should be self evident:

Christian Doctrine is very important. It is the basis of truth. is the opening premise of the link you provided. That assumption is demonstrably false, and thus anything that follows cannot logically be valid. The fact that you cannot see the inherant logic error is alarming.

You wouldn't give the time of day to any link that started with "Islamic law is very important. It is the basis of truth." - and yet you expect everyone else to do the same to yours?

That site is drivel, don't bother posting it any more. It can only undermine your credibility, and it certainly undermines the credibility of the apologetics it purports to represent.

[Señor Stino]

Care to explain that?

Ace basicly already did, but I'll repeat my previous argument, maybe after 2 reads you'll understand better,

how can you think that religion is like a science, like mathematics, in which the fulfilment of some doctrines, rules written down by MAN will automaticly "save your soul"

you reduce christian faith to something so simple, to an easy 1+1 =2.
that is nice if you want to explain it to children, but if you still believe this crap you're a fool and not a christian

[racer5.0stang]

Ace basicly already did, but I'll repeat my previous argument, maybe after 2 reads you'll understand better,

how can you think that religion is like a science, like mathematics, in which the fulfilment of some doctrines, rules written down by MAN will automaticly "save your soul"

you reduce christian faith to something so simple, to an easy 1+1 =2.
that is nice if you want to explain it to children, but if you still believe this crap you're a fool and not a christian

The mere fact that a child can understand the plan of salvation is alarming when a professed adult can not.

It is simple.

Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

But maybe you were looking for something more difficult, like you having to perform some fantastic obstacle course.

Ephesians 2:8,9
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

[ASsman]

The mere fact that a child can understand the plan of salvation is alarming when a professed adult can not.
Are these the same children that understand the plan of "sucking me off, else you won't be saved".

[Ace42]

The mere fact that a child can understand the plan of salvation is alarming when a professed adult can not.

Heh, you are one stupid son of a bitch aren't you? You can't even understand simple English, and yet you think you have the whole "God's will" thing nailed... It is amazing that someone so illustrably dense can be so positive that they are correct in the face of constant evidence to the contrary.

Firstly, you are confusing "understanding" with "believing."

I understand why some people are convinced the world is flat. I do not, however, believe it. This is because it is a load of *bollocks.*

No matter how completely I understand their theory, it will still remain *bollocks* - lack of belief is not caused by lack of understanding.

Infact, if anything, it is the contrary. It is *you* who has limited understanding, as has been shown again and again and again.

Secondly, children can understand all manner of things I cannot. For example, children understand how Santa can travel around the world in one day in a sled powered by flying reindeer. A principle that I, as an adult, have trouble with.

The fact that children do not find flaws in an argument that most adults do does not make the adults "more stupid than children" - it makes your line of reasoning *childish and unsophisticated*

And again, you are assuming without any evidence that "the plan of Salvation is true" - you cannot do this, it is totally irrational.

Don't you see, Racer5.0Stang? You are wrong, as are any children that agree with you, because I have a piece of paper that tells me so.

How more clear can rule #2 be?

2. Everything Racerstang believes is wrong because he is a fool.


What part of that don't you understand? God's stance on this is very very clear. It can't be made any clearer. He said you were wrong, and this is Undeniable Truth.

[Señor Stino]

The mere fact that a child can understand the plan of salvation is alarming when a professed adult can not.

It is simple.



yes, true, children are more vulnerable to indoctrination, good point Racer (y)

[racer5.0stang]

Are these the same children that understand the plan of "sucking me off, else you won't be saved".


Can you say pedophile.

[Ace42]

Can you say pedophile.

The altar boys can't, they have a mouth full of priest-dick.

[racer5.0stang]

Heh, you are one stupid son of a bitch aren't you? You can't even understand simple English, and yet you think you have the whole "God's will" thing nailed... It is amazing that someone so illustrably dense can be so positive that they are correct in the face of constant evidence to the contrary.

And yet is amazing that someone as well versed in the English language, as you claim to be, cannot "understand" simple truth.

Firstly, you are confusing "understanding" with "believing."

No, I said a child can understand or comprehend salvation. It is one thing to believe, but it is another to understand what you believe.

And again, you are assuming without any evidence that "the plan of Salvation is true" - you cannot do this, it is totally irrational.

What type of evidence do you need?

Don't you see, Racer5.0Stang? You are wrong, as are any children that agree with you, because I have a piece of paper that tells me so.

I would assume that one of your cheerleaders wrote that for you.

Go Ace, go Ace!!

[racer5.0stang]

The altar boys can't, they have a mouth full of priest-dick.

So is ASsman the child or the priest?

[Ace42]

And yet is amazing that someone as well versed in the English language, as you claim to be, cannot "understand" simple truth.

What simple truth is this? That Monkeys don't have opposable thumbs? That the bible is the literal "Truth" - even the bits which you have *arbitrarily* declared to be parabolic (ie *not* literally true, and thus open to interpretation)? RE: Genesis and Creationism.

The simple truth that you have no evidence whatsoever to support your beliefs, and thus no reason whatsoever to believe them to be true over any other religion.

No, I said a child can understand or comprehend salvation.

Once again, you are back-peddling to reinterpret your posts after getting caught out.

The mere fact that a child can understand the plan of salvation is alarming when a professed adult can not.

Now, you are clearly not talking about a hypothetical child. You would not find it alarming that a child can understand the narrative of a TV program, whereas an adult in a vegetative state would be unable.

Which adult, exactly, are you implying is so mentally retarded that they are incapable of going to www.dictionary.com and looking up the term "salvation" and applying it to the religion of their choosing?

So far you are the only one who has consistantly demonstrated an inability to understand the meaning of the written word.

What type of evidence do you need?

The objective (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=objective) / scientific (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=scientific) / irrefutable (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irrefutable) kind.

This is opposed to the subjective (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=subjective) / irrational (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irrational) / illogical (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=illogical) kind, which are worthless in debate.

I would assume that one of your cheerleaders wrote that for you.

No, God did. Didn't you see rules #1 and #3? Recheck the post.

Or are you saying God is wrong?

[Ace42]

So is ASsman the child or the priest?

Read his post again. Notice the quotation marks. Now think deeply about what they signify.

Now think very very carefully about why it is acceptable for you to waste everyone's time by stating the bloody stupid, due no doubt to your weak grasp of the English language making it impossible for you to grasp even the most simplistic and explicit irony or rhetoric.