Question for Christians

[kal-el]

You have to look to who wrote what. Different scribes had different writing styles. What are the origins of the text in question? In what context is it presented?

Translation: I have no proof that the book of Job is a parable, I just believe it is because it depicts satan as god's homeboy. God created satan, and he keeps him on a tight leash. 99.9% of the bloody acts in the bible are perpetrated by this "god" fellow, or via his instructions. You seem to be giving satan alot of credit saying Job is a parable, you are elevating him to the status of an entity comparable with this "god."

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

Jumping on the illogical change-the-subject-by-Attacking the Person-wagon, I see.

I meant to include my view of evolution as a side note, not to claim this thread in the name of Allah.
See the work of my afore referenced author, the rest we should leave for an evolution thread.

What is the purpose of this rant?

God didn't leave His word here so that it could be perverted, He left it here so that we would know it.

Oh, so tiring. If this god is all knowing, he would know that these scribes or authors would pervert his word, hence he would have placed his word on more capable authors.

Perverts misconstrue God's word because they are perverts, not because God left it here.

Ha. I'm waiting on this "god" fellow to speak for himself here, as I'm rather tired of Chrisitans acting as his ****ing secretaries.

 

[Busta]

The entire book has systematically been refuted. I'm sorry, it's just wrong - there is no debate in the biological community about the validity of Evolutionary Theory, it's pretty much the foundation of modern biology.

*Ahem*

"In fact, despite his touted scientific credentials, Wells doesn't produce a single piece of original research to support his position. Instead, Wells parasitizes on other scientists' legitimate work".

So he didn't use "original" research? So what? I care about the information, of which your quotation did not refute; instead they, also, saut to discredit Wells.

Wikipedia----

"The authority must have competence in an area, not just glamour, prestige, rank or popularity. A sports or entertainment figure making claims about foreign policy is an example of how this rule is frequently violated.
The judgment must be within the authority's field of competence.

Yup.
Wells received a doctorate in molecular and cell biology from Berkley in 1994....to say the least.

As a tangent, what are the standard qualification requirements for the average science teacher in your state?

 

[Busta]

Translation: I have no proof that the book of Job is a parable, I just believe it is because it depicts satan as god's homeboy. God created satan, and he keeps him on a tight leash. 99.9% of the bloody acts in the bible are perpetrated by this "god" fellow, or via his instructions.

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

I see that you are closing yourself back into your shell of hate, again. Putting words in my mouth....using sarcasm.
My words stand as I said them, not as you would twist them to be.

You seem to be giving satan alot of credit saying Job is a parable, you are elevating him to the status of an entity comparable with this "god."

Lucifer had the exact position and power as Jesus has now, before he fell.
Before the crucifixion, Lucifer's power and knowledge was second only to God himself. Post crucifixion, Lucifer is now 3rd only to Jesus and God.

Oh, and be carfull not to use the works of others ( www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html ) when making your view known. Engimo doesn't like that.

 

[steen]

Ah, see there, that's what steen likes to do as well: change he subject with an Appeal to Authority or attacking one's character, instead of addressing the information.

Do NOT! <stomps feet> :censored

You could look to Jonathan Wells for one example of a scientifically sollid critique of Darwin and evolution.

Actually not. Wells, did not provide scientific evidence, nor critique. He misrepresented and quote mined big time. he deliberately lied. There have been numerous analyses of Wells' text from a scientific standpoint if you doubt this. Do you want the links, or don't you want to look at the evidence?

 

[steen]

*Ahem*

So he didn't use "original" research? So what? ..

Did you miss the rest of that post where it was pointed out that Wells used misrepresentations and falsehoods?

 

[kal-el]

I see that you are closing yourself back into your shell of hate, again. Putting words in my mouth....using sarcasm.
My words stand as I said them, not as you would twist them to be.

Huh? Won't stand up for your conviction? I believe you made the assertion, so you are obligated to prove it:

Take the book of Job, for example. A parable completely

That's really stretching the truth. Job probably wrote it, that is up in the air, and it was most likely written around 2000 B.C.

Lucifer had the exact position and power as Jesus has now, before he fell

I thought Jesus was god? So you are equating god with satan? You are not making sense here? Satan and god sat down for a chat. Satan made the accusation that Job was only faithful to god because he had a good life. God denied it, and gave Satan permission to make Job's life a living hell.

Before the crucifixion, Lucifer's power and knowledge was second only to God himself.

Where do you dig this **** out of? It's not in the bible, that's for sure.

Post crucifixion, Lucifer is now 3rd only to Jesus and God.

Ha. Provide evidence for this claim.

 

[Engimo]

*Ahem*

So he didn't use "original" research? So what? I care about the information, of which your quotation did not refute; instead they, also, saut to discredit Wells.

How about you read the site, buddy. It has a factual refutation of every single section of his book, I just posted part of the conclusion that they came to. I can post the entire site if you want, but that'd take a couple posts, methinks.

Wikipedia----
Yup.
Wells received a doctorate in molecular and cell biology from Berkley in 1994....to say the least.

I know reading is difficult, but this is not a valid Appeal to Authority:

The authority must have competence in an area, not just glamour, prestige, rank or popularity. A sports or entertainment figure making claims about foreign policy is an example of how this rule is frequently violated.
The judgment must be within the authority's field of competence. Linus Pauling won a Nobel Prize for chemistry, then later made claims that massive quantities of vitamin C would prevent cancer in humans. This claim was in the field of medicine and thus outside his field of competence.
The authority must be interpreted correctly. This is particularly a problem in religion; where the Koran, Bible, Torah, etc., have been interpreted with varying and contradictory results.
Direct evidence must be available, at least in principle.
The expert should be reasonably unbiased (not unduly influenced by other factors, such as money, political considerations, or religious beliefs). This is why appealing to one's own authority is always illegitimate. The Pope claiming that the Sun revolved around the Earth was an example of an authority making a false claim biased by their religious beliefs.
The judgment must be representative of expert opinions on the issue (as opposed to an unrepresentative sample). Lawyers sometimes find a non-representative "expert" to offer a theory which is not generally accepted (such as a so-called Twinkie defense) in hopes of winning their case.
A technique is needed to adjudicate disagreements among equally qualified authorities. If scientific testing of the claim is not possible, then the majority of expert opinions is sometimes used to develop a consensus.

He is a single person. I am appealing to the authority of the scientific community as a whole, which overwhelmingly supports Evolutionary Theory. You are citing a single person who is out of the mainstream. Invalid.

As a tangent, what are the standard qualification requirements for the average science teacher in your state?

Generally a B.Sc. in Education, with a specialization in whatever field they are teaching, I believe. Several of the teachers that I've had had B.Sc.'s in their fields, though.

 

[teenonfire4him77]

Oh, so tiring. If this god is all knowing, he would know that these scribes or authors would pervert his word, hence he would have placed his word on more capable authors.

O so you know what God would have done now eh? This should prove to be interesting...

Ha. I'm waiting on this "god" fellow to speak for himself here, as I'm rather tired of Chrisitans acting as his ****ing secretaries.

Well you claim time and time again you know the bible back and forth, so you should know that God used Prophets to speak for him:lol:
Now it is up to us, those guided by holy spirit, to judge whether what is coming out of the prophets mouth is of God or of Satan.
Hence, the verse in the bible about testing the spirits.

 

[Busta]

Do NOT! stomps feet :censored

Heh,
Do too,
Do not,
Do too,
Do not,
Do too,
Do not......

The vast majority of your posts, that I have seen, are filled with calling people liers, etc, just because they disagree with you.
It is not enough for you to simply point out their error, you also bring their charactor to question when they do not conform.

Actually not. Wells, did not provide scientific evidence, nor critique. He misrepresented and quote mined big time. he deliberately lied. There have been numerous analyses of Wells' text from a scientific standpoint if you doubt this. Do you want the links, or don't you want to look at the evidence?

Yes, please. I would love a couple links.
If Wells is a fake, I must know.

 

[Busta]

Did you miss the rest of that post where it was pointed out that Wells used misrepresentations and falsehoods?

Well of-coarse I did, silly.
That's what the post said, but did not show.
I will read through the referenced text in it's entirety, and I will see if Well's acid survives.

 

[Busta]

I know reading is difficult, but this is not a valid Appeal to Authority:

Ah, yet another personal attack.....
If you will review the lase 2 pages, you will see that you targeted me with the appeal to authority. Only after I referenced Wells did you redirect.
If I am not qualified to have an opinion, which the Constitution says that I, as a citizen, am, then neither are you.

He is a single person. I am appealing to the authority of the scientific community as a whole, which overwhelmingly supports Evolutionary Theory. You are citing a single person who is out of the mainstream. Invalid.

Popularity contests aside, I referenced the first one off the top of my head.
You did not post an entire website, I did not post a laundry list of scientists skeptical of Darwin.
Fair is fair.

Generally a B.Sc. in Education, with a specialization in whatever field they are teaching, I believe. Several of the teachers that I've had had B.Sc.'s in their fields, though.

Thanks for that.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Just when Muslim bashing time starts, let me remind you that these men were religious fanatics, just like the Christian Phalangists who murdered Muslims in that massacre in Lebanon.

Truthfully, I don't even think they were fanatics - just pretty much your average, fairly well-educated Middle Eastern Muslim that hates America. We're hatching them over there faster than we can kill them.

 

[Engimo]

Ah, yet another personal attack.....
If you will review the lase 2 pages, you will see that you targeted me with the appeal to authority. Only after I referenced Wells did you redirect.
If I am not qualified to have an opinion, which the Constitution says that I, as a citizen, am, then neither are you.

Oh, Jesus. My Appeal to Authority is valid. Your's is not. I am citing the opinions of the scientific community as a whole, which I will now show are the opinions of the scientific community as a whole - even though it is commonly known fact.

According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14% 5 However, the American public thinks very differently.

Of course, that's only part of it. If you read the table below it, you'll see that 95% of Scientists accept Evolution. Now, these are numbers from nearly 10 years ago, and many advances in Evoluton have come since then so the numbers are undoubtedly higher now.

 

[Busta]

Huh? Won't stand up for your conviction? I believe you made the assertion, so you are obligated to prove it:

Your attitude is in line with one who has already made up their mind, so there would be no point.

That's really stretching the truth. Job probably wrote it, that is up in the air, and it was most likely written around 2000 B.C.

I'll give you that.

I thought Jesus was god?

The Eternal Spirit was one with the Eternal Being, yes, but Jesus had not yet inherited his authority. That happened after, and because of, His crucification.

So you are equating god with Satan?

Using God as the ruler, I measured Lucifer's power with God.
It was a comparison, not an equation.

Satan and god sat down for a chat. Satan made the accusation that Job was only faithful to god because he had a good life. God denied it, and gave Satan permission to make Job's life a living hell.

Yes.

Where do you dig this **** out of? It's not in the bible, that's for sure.
Ha. Provide evidence for this claim.

Are you open to manuscripts outside of the bible? Or do you hold Revelations 22:18 applicable to the entire bible, rather than just Revelations?

 

[Busta]

Oh, Jesus. My Appeal to Authority is valid. Your's is not.

Where did I make an appeal to authority?
You lost me there.
I showed that Wells had the creds. to say what he said.....is that what you are referring to?

I am citing the opinions of the scientific community as a whole, which I will now show are the opinions of the scientific community as a whole - even though it is commonly known fact.

Of course, that's only part of it. If you read the table below it, you'll see that 95% of Scientists accept Evolution. Now, these are numbers from nearly 10 years ago, and many advances in Evolution have come since then so the numbers are undoubtedly higher now.

Sure. Social polotics to secure the next grant/contract/degree, etc. Nothing more.
Appeals to popularity don't work with me either.

I don't care if every last scientifically minded person, save one, agrees with evolution regarding the origin of life, and said one person dissents. The proof is in the pudding. If the one person is correct, then the one person is correct; regardless of how many other scientists disagree.

 

[Engimo]

Where did I make an appeal to authority?
You lost me there.
I showed that Wells had the creds. to say what he said.....is that what you are referring to?

His credentials do not add credibility to his claim - he is outside of the mainstream and the evidence does not support his book. He's been refuted.

Sure. Social polotics to secure the next grant/contract/degree, etc. Nothing more.
Appeals to popularity don't work with me either.

I don't care if every last scientifically minded person, save one, agrees with evolution regarding the origin of life, and said one person dissents. The proof is in the pudding. If the one person is correct, then the one person is correct; regardless of how many other scientists disagree.

...Yes, you're right. Please, show some evidence to support your claims that has not been thoroughly debunked. Like I pointed out two times above, my appeal to authority is entirely valid - THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IS A VALID SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON SCIENCE.

That doesn't make them right, by default, but unless you have something to show that has not been refuted, there is a great deal of validity in appealing to tens of thousands of people that have devoted their lives to biology and agree that Evolution works.

What are your credentials that make you qualified to disagree with Evolutionary Theory? You are no scientist, and I highly doubt that you have researched the topic to any degree of thoroughness. Please, tell me why you so dogmatically reject Evolutionary Theory when there is clearly no empirical reason to do so.

 

[steen]

The vast majority of your posts, that I have seen, are filled with calling people liers, etc, just because they disagree with you.

Your claim is a misrepresentation. If I call people liars, it is because I documented them lying. It has nothing to do with opinions, and lots of people disagree with me without me calling them liar. I only do so if they actually lie, your misrepresentation none withstanding.

If you don't like this, you can try to persuade your fellow prolifers to simply stop their lying.

It is not enough for you to simply point out their error, you also bring their charactor to question when they do not conform.

Again false. It has nothing to do with conforming and everything to do with their lack of honesty and integrity.

Yes, please. I would love a couple links.
If Wells is a fake, I must know.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/iconshe.html
http://www.ncseweb.org/pdf/QRBreview.pdf
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo2.html#p681
http://www.nmsr.org/iconanti.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/finches.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB035_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601_2_3.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601_3.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB710.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB821.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html
http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/
http://www.answersinscience.org/Coyne-IconsReview.htm
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/icon.cr.html

 

[tecoyah]

I don't care if every last scientifically minded person, save one, agrees with evolution regarding the origin of life, and said one person dissents. The proof is in the pudding. If the one person is correct, then the one person is correct; regardless of how many other scientists disagree.

This is...quite possibly...the silliest thing I have read all week, and I just read News of the Wierd. With this statement, you manage to admit to complete bias against the reality forced upon us by perception. The simple act of looking, and understanding the world you live in makes the statement counter to knowledge. If indeed you dont want to listen to those who spend lifetimes in study of the natural world you live in......dont try to debate with those who do.....you will only make a fool of yourself.

 

[kal-el]

O so you know what God would have done now eh? This should prove to be interesting...

No, I never said that. If he left his word mangled and distorted knowingly, he is a complete moron who has no idea what's going on.

Well you claim time and time again you know the bible back and forth, so you should know that God used Prophets to speak for him:lol:

Yes he did- perverts, intolerant biggots, hatemongers, and total violent people. This "loving" god dude told Abraham to slice his son (that he had in his old age, that he considered special) as a sacrifice to him.

Genesis 22:2
Then god said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, who you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

He is not an entity worth worship at all, he is a cold-blooded killer:

Genesis 6:13
So god said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to desrtoy both them and the earth."

Wow, he declared his devious plans to Noah.

Genesis 6:17
"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.

Wow, that seems like the equilvolent on worshipping Manson!:lol:

Genesis 17
But the lord inflicted serious diseases on Pharoah and his household because of Abram's wife Sarai.

Genesis 25
Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including those living in those cities.

There's so much bloodshed, barbarity, incest, sexual innuendo, and intolerance in the bible that's it's laughable that so many worship this sadistic entity.

Now it is up to us, those guided by holy spirit, to judge whether what is coming out of the prophets mouth is of God or of Satan.

This "god" fellow is quite a sadistic entity, he created satan, and being omniscient, knew he would turn.

Job 1:7
And the lord said to satan, " Where have you come from?"

What the hell, I thought he was "omniscient?"

Here's some more omniscience in action :lol: :

Genesis 18:13
Then the lord said to Abraham, "Why did Sarah laugh and say "Will I really have a child, now that I am old?"

Genesis 6:6
The lord was grieved that he made man on earth, and his heart was filled with pain.

Why would he be grieved? If he was omniscient, he would forsee that man's inclination would be evil.

"through every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood."

Uhh, he created us, he would know this.

Don't even get me started on his other "omni" properties that are self-contradictory, I can do this all day.

Hence, the verse in the bible about testing the spirits.

Why does he need to "test" anything? If he is omniscient, he would already know the answers to any test, a test woild be irrelevant.

 

[kal-el]

Your attitude is in line with one who has already made up their mind, so there would be no point.

Yes there's a point. You made the assertion. You must provide evidence to support your claim that the book of Job is a parable. I believe it's intended message is that bad times won't change the nature of god. It was a Hebrew Poem, showing life's encounter's and recored through one single writer's perspective, and he appiled it as it was meaningful to him.

I'll give you that.

Good :2razz: I was kinda hoping I would'nt have to prove that to you, if you are a Christian, you should know this already.

The Eternal Spirit was one with the Eternal Being, yes, but Jesus had not yet inherited his authority. That happened after, and because of, His crucification.

If he was god, he is perfect, and the words, "had not yet" do not apply here.

Matthew 20:23
Jesus said to them, "You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my father."

Using God as the ruler, I measured Lucifer's power with God.
It was a comparison, not an equation.

Well, remeber any power granted this "lucifer" fellow, is on god. He created him.

Are you open to manuscripts outside of the bible? Or do you hold Revelations 22:18 applicable to the entire bible, rather than just Revelations?

O, now you hold weight in things outside of the bible? You're being quite the hypocrite.

 

[Busta]

Yes there's a point. You made the assertion. You must provide evidence to support your claim that the book of Job is a parable. I believe it's intended message is that bad times won't change the nature of god. It was a Hebrew Poem, showing life's encounter's and recored through one single writer's perspective, and he appiled it as it was meaningful to him.

Yeah, I know, but I just don't care.

If he was god, he is perfect, and the words, "had not yet" do not apply here.

"Perfect" miens "with out sin". Lacking an authority does not mien 'less than perfect'. His time had not yet come, so Jesus remained atatched to the Eternal Being in a state of total betatude.

Well, remeber any power granted this "lucifer" fellow, is on god. He created him.

Sure, God made Lucifer, but God did not use a radio countrole to dictate Lucifer's actions.
We are all responsable for our oun actions. Blaming everything on your parents does not negate your responsability.

O, now you hold weight in things outside of the bible? You're being quite the hypocrite.

I don't see any hypocrisy in it. If it's truth, it's truth.
Though I will grant you that manuscripts out side of the bible do not hold as mush authority and authenticity as thoughs in the bible. I know that. But at the same time, neither are they worthless.

So I'm not a literalist. So F***ing sue me.

 

[Busta]

This is...quite possibly...the silliest thing I have read all week, and I just read News of the Wierd. With this statement, you manage to admit to complete bias against the reality forced upon us by perception. The simple act of looking, and understanding the world you live in makes the statement counter to knowledge. If indeed you dont want to listen to those who spend lifetimes in study of the natural world you live in......dont try to debate with those who do.....you will only make a fool of yourself.

I have absolutely NO idea how you fabricated that out of my analogy.

Truth is NEVER up for a vote.
If all the world were filled with nothing more than uneducated religious zealots, with steen as the soul exception in that world, would the popular opinion dictate that steens biological descriptions of a ZEF be untrue?

No, of coarse not. Because that would be "because I say so postulation"; and that never holds water.

 

[kal-el]

What I don't understand is why people think that King James' version of the bible is infallible when the bible itself says, "18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in the book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." -- Revelation, chapter 22

Sounds like it's not so infallible.

Yea, I found some OT verses with basically the same nature:

Deuteronomy 4:2
Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the lord your god that I gave you.

Deuteronomy 12:32
See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.

Proverbs 30:6
Do not add to his words; or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

 

[kal-el]

Yeah, I know, but I just don't care.

Very well, so long as your not bothered by your blatant dishonesty.:lol:

"Perfect" miens "with out sin".

Now you're being less than honest with us here. Perfect means without any blemish. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Perfect

Lacking an authority does not mien 'less than perfect'.

Yes, I'm curious, where did I say that?

His time had not yet come, so Jesus remained atatched to the Eternal Being in a state of total betatude.

Wow, where do you come up with this mystical bullshit?

Sure, God made Lucifer, but God did not use a radio countrole to dictate Lucifer's actions.

Of course not, but being all knowing, he would forsee Lucifer's actions, and being all powerful, he would be able to stop them. And being loving he would.

We are all responsable for our oun actions.

OMG. The first thing you said that makes sense. There is light at the end of the tunnel.:lol:

Blaming everything on your parents does not negate your responsability.

No, but don't blame the good on this god fellow. You're being hypocritical here. He is responsible for the good and the bad.

Isiah 45:7
I form the light and create darkness; I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the lord do all these things.

I don't see any hypocrisy in it. If it's truth, it's truth.
Though I will grant you that manuscripts out side of the bible do not hold as mush authority and authenticity as thoughs in the bible. I know that. But at the same time, neither are they worthless.

So I'm not a literalist. So F***ing sue me.

Basically, they are. Alls fundies have are 11 lines from Josephus, and other hearsay which give proof for Chrisitans, not Christ. If Christians don't see the clear contradictions in their "holy book", that to me shows that they will go to great lenghts to deny the obvious.

 

[Busta]

That doesn't make them right, by default.....

Thank you! Thats all I'm trying to say.

What are your credentials that make you qualified to disagree with Evolutionary Theory? You are no scientist, and I highly doubt that you have researched the topic to any degree of thoroughness. Please, tell me why you so dogmatically reject Evolutionary Theory when there is clearly no empirical reason to do so.

What are my "credentials" that qualify me to disagree with slavery?; or have an opinion of the civil war?; Abortion?; Space exploration?; gay marriage?; to critique a movie?; a book?; how the war is being handled?;

What are my "credentials" that qualify me to disagree with murder?; rape?; fraud?; the Holocaust?;

You have more faith in Darwin then most religious zealot's have in God.
Put that in your sig and quote it.

Imagine......the idea that I must have papers to prove that I am entitled to think, have an opinion, a view or to question or challenge.

Oh, wait, I do....I have an American birth certificate, an American pasport, and an American social security card.
Gee, I guess that miens that I am qualified to disagree with Evolution: the origin of life, because I have this nifty little Constitution over here.

I guess the seed of my dissent is that evolution: origin of life, offers me nothing. It is empty, dry and void of purpose; and that contradicts the nature of my design.

You know what really pisses me off though? It's not your arrogance, actually, it has nothing to do with you or any other blogger that I have ever met.
It's these so-called "scientists" who claim to support creation.
In the deepest foundations of my soul I KNOW that Man was designed. I KNOW that God exists. Then here comes some "believers" with some creds. I read their work and it sounds fine. So I bring it up some where, like here....and it's not that their observations are flawed, or refuted, or that they are deemed uncreadable despite their good work, no.

What pisses me off is that these f***ers never jump back. They just say something, sell some books and disappear.
WTF!!!!

At least Richerd C. Hoagland (Mars Tidal Model) and Stanton Freedman (UFO's Are Real) stick it out, work the circit, debate, do interviews, and generally submit to the roast......and survive.
ANT THEIR BOTH ATHEISTS!!!!!

See, that is what I hate about the church: they just say something and leave.
F**k the church and F**k the clergy!

I'm satisfied with my other arguments: on abortion, gay marriage, gun controle and others. So, I've arranged for my account to be closed. Perhaps when I actually have something to contribute to this subject I'll come back.

But for now, apparently I'm just too F**king ignorant to discuss Evolution. In the center of my being I KNOW that we are not the result of chance. I KNOW it! But try and get some "believers" to back me up?......noooooo, my best allyes are ATHEISTS!!!

I mien, WTF is that!!?