Awesome things "god" does.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

those who do not grasp science will often do anything they can to ensure they continue not understanding it. After all, it's hard!

Not much...except for thermodynamics. For some reason that kicked my ass and made me actually sit down and study.

How did you get on with quantum mechanics?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[winsor 236]

Quote

Quote

Quote

those who do not grasp science will often do anything they can to ensure they continue not understanding it. After all, it's hard!

Not much...except for thermodynamics. For some reason that kicked my ass and made me actually sit down and study.

How did you get on with quantum mechanics?

Well, Volkswagen called the Quantum the "Dasher" in the US - but their guys who turn wrenches are first rate!

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

those who do not grasp science will often do anything they can to ensure they continue not understanding it. After all, it's hard!

Not much...except for thermodynamics. For some reason that kicked my ass and made me actually sit down and study.

How did you get on with quantum mechanics?

First date didn't go well.
Dinner was Fig Newtons.
Movie was The Man Who Knew Too Little

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Evolution Refuted

Must invoke.
Scopie’s Law
States: “In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a credible source loses the argument immediately, and gets you laughed out of the room.” First formulated by Rich Scopie on the badscience.net forum.

This law makes little sense without a background knowledge of Whale.to, a conspiracy theory site which includes such items as the complete text of the anti-Semitic hoax Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as well as claims that Aids is caused by vaccination programmes, and that Auschwitz never happened.

It has been expanded by posters on rationalwiki.com to include any use of Answers in Genesis in an argument about creationism and evolution.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[DanJohnson 0]

***I have been convinced of things where it turned out that I was mistaken, and I give you the same credit.

Quote

By next Thursday Winsor, I will,.., in this forum , proove the existence of a fifth natural force. One as yet undiscovered by "scientists".
This force may be what some refer to as God!


Short of that I've set up holigram projectors across the globe which will convince the people of a Santa Clause look alike "deity"

• Quote

[jaybird18c 25]

Quote

Specifically, one of the biggest bits of misinformation they intentionally spread, and which you clearly have been deceived into believing, is that there is no evolutionary mechanism for increasing the genetic information/complexity available to an organism. If you were to actually take the time to open any current text on genetics or molecular biology, you would find that several mechanisms that lead to an increase in genome size are extremely well documented. A short (and incomplete) list includes gene duplication, transposon-mediated capture and duplication of segments of the genome, chromosome duplication, duplication of the whole genome leading to increases in ploidy, and endosymbiosis (permanent capture of another cell type, initially as a symbiont and over time developing into an organelle). Most of these occur because the process for replicating chromosomes, and then splitting them up during mitosis/meiosis, does not always occur with 100% fidelity, so sometimes a daughter cell or gamete will end up with extra copies of a chromosome or even a complete set of chromosomes. It seems odd that, if we were "designed" by an omnipotent deity, that design would be for a flawed genetic system that rather frequently makes mistakes.

Why not cite the scientists from Answers in Genesis? They clearly demonstrate that there is not consensus on the subject.

Gene Duplication

[jaybird18c 25]

Quote

It is clear that all eukaryotic organisms (those whose cells have a nucleus) have descended from a endosymbiotic event where a larger cell captured a smaller one, probably by phagocytosis (the process of engulfing cells, usually resulting in the internalized cell being killed and digested). We know this because all eukaryotic cells have mitochondria, which carry on the energy-releasing process of oxidation of glucose and storing that energy in ATP. Mitchondria have a double membrane around them, the outer membrane resulting from the vacuole the original larger cell produced around the phagocytized smaller cell, and the inner membrane resulting from the original cell membrane of the smaller engulfed cell. Mitochondria even retain their own DNA, which is circular (as in present day prokaryotes) and retains a codon bias typical of prokaryotes. Plant chloroplasts resulted from a similar process, and chloroplasts have a double membrane and their own DNA (which retains genes with a codon bias typical of present-day blue-green algae).

Plasmodium, the "protozoan" that causes malaria, has organelles that have up to four sets of membranes around them, indication they are the product of multiple rounds of endosymbiosis. Some of the most promising of the new antimalarial drugs were initially developed as herbicides; they work on Plasmodium because certain organelles originated from plant (algae) cells, and they still retain the ability to produce enzymes that drive biosynthetic pathways typical of plants. These biosynthetic pathways are absent in animals, fungi, and other types of organisms, but we need the products of these pathways as essential nutrients so we have to get them by eating plants (or animals that had themselves eaten plants). The ancestor of Plasmodium that first "captured" a blue-green alga no longer was dependent on eating plants to get those nutrients. This is just one of many thousands of examples I could give where evolutionary processes resulted in both an increase in complexity and a fitness advantage.

Quote

Since most scientists are heavily influenced by the evolutionary worldview, they often miss indicators of purpose. For example, the section of DNA discussed above is a transposon (a type of mobile genetic element or transposable element). After the putative transfer, it was copied and integrated into several different parts of the genome in the various species. This requires that the proper tools (e.g., enzymes) be in place so that the section of DNA can be incorporated into the genome initially, then modified and copied appropriately. Given that decay has occurred over time, it is not surprising to creationists that there are examples of transposons where this process doesn’t work properly and disease occurs.

Diseases draw attention and research dollars, so the problems associated with transposons have been recognized before the benefits are understood (much like was true of bacteria). Many people still view these mobile genetic elements as “parasitic” or “selfish.” However, they are quite widespread in the genome of plants, animals, and man. If their insertion was always purely “random,” it seems they should more consistently cause problems in a complex system such as the genome. Therefore, it seems more logical to believe that transposons have purpose and were designed in a way to benefit their possessor.

Evidence of Horizontal Gene Transfer

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Quote

Why not cite the scientists from Answers in Genesis? They clearly demonstrate that there is not consensus on the subject.

The "scientists" at "Answers in Genesis", and at the "Discovery Institute" for that matter, do no publishable research. The only "lack of consensus" in the field is due to them, and their stance is typified by Behe (of "irreducible complexity" fame) who testified under oath at the Dover trial that he didn't even read the current literature about the topics he "addressed" in his book, because in his mind no amount of evidence would ever suffice to prove to him that evolution had occurred. This behavior disqualifies those people as scientists, they are simply advocates for a theological perspective who openly declare they have no interest in hypothesis testing, experimentation, or rational open-minded examination of any topic whatsoever. Their strategy is to use legal maneuvering to shoehorn their fundamentalist crap into teaching curricula, as they have failed miserably to use any form of a scientific approach to generate any evidence that their ideas have any merit.

If you can, find me some research papers, published in recognized research journals, that offer any evidence that gene duplication, transposon mediated mutagenesis, genome duplication, and endosymbiosis cannot occur in biological systems.

As I said before, you are welcome to your beliefs, but don't try to tell me that I must accept moonbeams and creation mythologies over rigorous observation and experimentation.

Beyond the obvious issues of "creation science", such as substituting dogmatic beliefs of one specific religion (Christianity) for objective scientific inquiry, there is the larger issue that creationism implies (well, pretty much states right out loud) that 1) the only path to scientific knowledge is in literal reading of a bronze (or iron if you prefer) age scientifically illiterate document; 2) the Universe has been created in such as was as to ensure that any open-minded inquiry will be sure to lead straight to Hell, and 3) despite being created in "God's image", we somehow have ended up with a curious nature that dooms us to an eternity of torment, and anyway we're too stupid to figure out how anything works so there's no point in even trying. I absolutely reject the idea of such a "trickster God" as repugnant on every possible level.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[jaybird18c 25]

Quote

The "scientists" at "Answers in Genesis", and at the "Discovery Institute" for that matter, do no publishable research. The only "lack of consensus" in the field is due to them, and their stance is typified by Behe (of "irreducible complexity" fame) who testified under oath at the Dover trial that he didn't even read the current literature about the topics he "addressed" in his book, because in his mind no amount of evidence would ever suffice to prove to him that evolution had occurred. This behavior disqualifies those people as scientists, they are simply advocates for a theological perspective who openly declare they have no interest in hypothesis testing, experimentation, or rational open-minded examination of any topic whatsoever. Their strategy is to use legal maneuvering to shoehorn their fundamentalist crap into teaching curricula, as they have failed miserably to use any form of a scientific approach to generate any evidence that their ideas have any merit.

So what we have is one group stating that they’re right and have a consensus while discounting the opposition and declaring them not to be qualified because they do not agree. That doesn’t sound very scientific. Those people are as qualified as you to speak on the subject. Their findings are based on presuppositions as are yours. Many of the things discussed are not provable based on experimentation. It is speculative, improvable, and grounded in the overall assumption that God does not exist….yet….presented as foundational truth.

Quote

If you can, find me some research papers, published in recognized research journals, that offer any evidence that gene duplication, transposon mediated mutagenesis, genome duplication, and endosymbiosis cannot occur in biological systems.

Answers Research Journal

Of course, those who deny their own presupposition foundation and refuse to examine anything to the contrary will disapprove.

Quote

As I said before, you are welcome to your beliefs, but don't try to tell me that I must accept moonbeams and creation mythologies over rigorous observation and experimentation.

The condescending commentary (moonbeams, etc.) is unnecessary and does nothing to disprove their stance.

Quote

Beyond the obvious issues of "creation science", such as substituting dogmatic beliefs of one specific religion (Christianity) for objective scientific inquiry, there is the larger issue that creationism implies (well, pretty much states right out loud) that 1) the only path to scientific knowledge is in literal reading of a bronze (or iron if you prefer) age scientifically illiterate document; 2) the Universe has been created in such as was as to ensure that any open-minded inquiry will be sure to lead straight to Hell, and 3) despite being created in "God's image", we somehow have ended up with a curious nature that dooms us to an eternity of torment, and anyway we're too stupid to figure out how anything works so there's no point in even trying. I absolutely reject the idea of such a "trickster God" as repugnant on every possible level.

That’s what it really boils down to, doesn’t it? You want to live your life how you want. Once there “is” a God who created you and everything around you, then the realization that you are accountable to Him and subject to His laws comes front and center. It’s easier to rationalize Him out of the picture and come up with another explanation (any explanation but God). What you fail to admit is that your belief in atheistic evolution and naturalism is every bit as dogmatic as the religious person’s stance.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

The "scientists" at "Answers in Genesis", and at the "Discovery Institute" for that matter, do no publishable research. The only "lack of consensus" in the field is due to them, and their stance is typified by Behe (of "irreducible complexity" fame) who testified under oath at the Dover trial that he didn't even read the current literature about the topics he "addressed" in his book, because in his mind no amount of evidence would ever suffice to prove to him that evolution had occurred. This behavior disqualifies those people as scientists, they are simply advocates for a theological perspective who openly declare they have no interest in hypothesis testing, experimentation, or rational open-minded examination of any topic whatsoever. Their strategy is to use legal maneuvering to shoehorn their fundamentalist crap into teaching curricula, as they have failed miserably to use any form of a scientific approach to generate any evidence that their ideas have any merit.

So what we have is one group stating that they’re right and have a consensus while discounting the opposition and declaring them not to be qualified because they do not agree. That doesn’t sound very scientific. Those people are as qualified as you to speak on the subject. Their findings are based on presuppositions as are yours. Many of the things discussed are not provable based on experimentation. It is speculative, improvable, and grounded in the overall assumption that God does not exist….yet….presented as foundational truth.

Quote

If you can, find me some research papers, published in recognized research journals, that offer any evidence that gene duplication, transposon mediated mutagenesis, genome duplication, and endosymbiosis cannot occur in biological systems.

Answers Research Journal

Of course, those who deny their own presupposition foundation and refuse to examine anything to the contrary will disapprove.

Quote

As I said before, you are welcome to your beliefs, but don't try to tell me that I must accept moonbeams and creation mythologies over rigorous observation and experimentation.

The condescending commentary (moonbeams, etc.) is unnecessary and does nothing to disprove their stance.

Quote

Beyond the obvious issues of "creation science", such as substituting dogmatic beliefs of one specific religion (Christianity) for objective scientific inquiry, there is the larger issue that creationism implies (well, pretty much states right out loud) that 1) the only path to scientific knowledge is in literal reading of a bronze (or iron if you prefer) age scientifically illiterate document; 2) the Universe has been created in such as was as to ensure that any open-minded inquiry will be sure to lead straight to Hell, and 3) despite being created in "God's image", we somehow have ended up with a curious nature that dooms us to an eternity of torment, and anyway we're too stupid to figure out how anything works so there's no point in even trying. I absolutely reject the idea of such a "trickster God" as repugnant on every possible level.

That’s what it really boils down to, doesn’t it? You want to live your life how you want. Once there “is” a God who created you and everything around you, then the realization that you are accountable to Him and subject to His laws comes front and center. It’s easier to rationalize Him out of the picture and come up with another explanation (any explanation but God). What you fail to admit is that your belief in atheistic evolution and naturalism is every bit as dogmatic as the religious person’s stance.

[billvon 3,114]

>So what we have is one group stating that they’re right and have a consensus while
>discounting the opposition and declaring them not to be qualified because they do not
>agree. That doesn’t sound very scientific.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

The above link indicates that not everyone thinks the earth is flat. In other words, we have one group stating that they’re right and have a consensus while discounting the opposition and declaring them not to be qualified because they do not agree.

Does that mean you are open minded, and do not "believe" that the Earth is round?

>You want to live your life how you want. Once there “is” a God who created you and
>everything around you, then the realization that you are accountable to Him and
>subject to His laws comes front and center.

No, that's not true for Buddhists. It's only true for your religion. And that's fine; be accountable to whoever you want. It is, however, somewhat arrogant to state that anyone who believes in God must follow your beliefs.

>It’s easier to rationalize Him out of the picture and come up with another explanation
>(any explanation but God). What you fail to admit is that your belief in atheistic
>evolution and naturalism is every bit as dogmatic as the religious person’s stance.

And it's easy to claim that your religion is the only valid one when you don't understand other religions, or the science behind evolution. A great many people do understand those things, and remarkably, they are generally the ones who do not have the sort of conflicts between belief and science that you have.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/why-did-god-make-viruses

Again, I am invoking Scopies Law, as anything from AIG is completely laughable.

You would do well to read:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolution

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Quote

Since most scientists are heavily influenced by the evolutionary worldview, they often miss indicators of purpose.

"Purpose" is not a property that is subject to hypothesis testing or experimentation, and so it isn't a subject that falls within the purview of science. In fact, we can never really know "purpose" unless we can interrogate the person who instigated the action, and even that is uncertain to the extent that the interrogee may be lying, or be unclear themselves as to the nature of their motives. Further, assumptions as to purpose are often counterproductive from a scientific point of view. We have evolved to be so sensitive to patterns that we often see patterns that don't really exist, such as faces in clouds. Similarly we are conditioned to sense purpose when none really exists; from a survival/fitness perspective it is generally better to assume a purposeful intelligence (such as a lion) behind random events such as a clump of tall grass suddenly moving, because if there is a lion in the grass you're likely to be eaten if you don't run away, but if it was just a stray breeze moving the grass the consequences of running will be trivial. If as a scientist you choose to send time trying to discern purpose you likely will get now-where because purpose may not exist, or if it does exist it isn't replicable or quantifiable. On the other hand, if you make an effort to discern the mechanism behind a measurable/repeatable phenomena, you are likely to make some progress. If the mechanism happens to entail a lion in the grass, you will discover that too and then you will know where the real lion (and danger) is, and not be stuck with unverifiable fear of every clump of grass.

I do have to say that the alleged "purpose" behind God creating Man, so that He would have someone to bow down and worship Him, seems to indicate a pathological degree of narcissism. Indeed it seems a very human character trait, which fits well the "Man created God in his own image" hypothesis. Just my take on it, YMMV.

Quote

For example, the section of DNA discussed above is a transposon (a type of mobile genetic element or transposable element). After the putative transfer, it was copied and integrated into several different parts of the genome in the various species. This requires that the proper tools (e.g., enzymes) be in place so that the section of DNA can be incorporated into the genome initially, then modified and copied appropriately.

Here the poor knowledge base of the AIG folks shows itself. Transposons are genes that encode an enzyme that both copies the transposon DNA and inserts it into new sites in the genome, they don't need host enzymes to accomplish this.

Quote

Given that decay has occurred over time, it is not surprising to creationists that there are examples of transposons where this process doesn’t work properly and disease occurs.

Decay over time??? So the implication is that before the Fall there were transposons that didn't copy/insert into the host genome, or only did so in a manner that never disrupted function of the host genome? Where is the evidence?

Quote

Diseases draw attention and research dollars, so the problems associated with transposons have been recognized before the benefits are understood (much like was true of bacteria). Many people still view these mobile genetic elements as “parasitic” or “selfish.” However, they are quite widespread in the genome of plants, animals, and man. If their insertion was always purely “random,” it seems they should more consistently cause problems in a complex system such as the genome.

Transposons were first recognized by Dr. Barbara McClintock, based on color patterns in corn, hardly a disease state. As with any parasite, there is strong selection to avoid killing the host before you can move on to new hosts, either by being transmitted to new hosts for a parasitic organism, or by being transmitted to offspring in the case of transposons. For this reason transposons are self-limiting, in that they only generate a limited number of copies of themselves in an individual genome. Many transposases (the enzyme encoded by a transposon) tend to form dimers; in this condition the active site for DNA binding is masked and the transposase is inactivated. When there are only a few copies of the transposon in the genome, the concentration of transposase in the nucleus is low and most individual transposase molecules are enzymatically active. As transposase copy number increases, the concentration of enzyme goes up but so does the chance that molecules will interact and form dimers, so enzymatic activity decreases. The genome will saturate with the transposon at the point where all the transposase is bound up in dimers. It is easy to see how this mechanism could be strongly selected for, as it naturally optimizes transposon copy number in the genome at a level that is high enough to ensure it will be passed to progeny, but is low enough to make it unlikely that unsurvivable damage to the genome will result. Transposons that do not evolve a rate-limiting mechanism will indeed overwhelm the host genome, but those hosts will die, and the transposon will go extinct along with the host.

You can, of course, postulate that all this is "designed", but design is not necessary, any more than it is necessary to design a snowflake, which self-assembles following simple rules of ion pairing and hydrogen bonding.

Quote

Therefore, it seems more logical to believe that transposons have purpose and were designed in a way to benefit their possessor.

If you postulate that transposons were designed (an untestable assertion), then you might wonder why they were designed given that they have potential to cause some degree of harm to the host (by inserting into and disrupting essential genes), and the most likely benefit is an increase in evolutionary rate (due to an increase in genetic diversity), which you claim can't happen. The most parsimonious explanation is that they evolved from DNA/RNA polymerases, and they persist and have become widespread just because they are very good at spreading themselves around. It's just a game of numbers, no purpose required.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Why not cite the scientists from Answers in Genesis?

Because the scientists from AiG are liars whos stated aim is to ignore or attack any evidence in favour of evolution, even if it appears to them to be correct.

Quote

They clearly demonstrate that there is not consensus on the subject.

And one of the tramps on the high street here clearly demonstrates there is no consensus over whether dragons are stealing peoples' shoes.

Honestly, if there isn't scientific consensus over evolution then there is no such thing as scientific consensus full stop.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

So what we have is one group stating that they’re right and have a consensus while discounting the opposition and declaring them not to be qualified because they do not agree. That doesn’t sound very scientific.

No, it doesn't sound very scientific, because you've just lied to misrepresent the situation and make it sound not very scientific. They aren't discounted because they disagree, they are discounted because they don't do the work, they don't keep up to date with those who do, and they demonstrably misrepresent and flat out lie about the work they are aware of.

Quote

Their findings are based on presuppositions as are yours.

They don't have any findings. They don't do any research. They just sit at the back throwing out ifs, buts and maybes - "Maybe god just made it look like that?"

Quote

Many of the things discussed are not provable based on experimentation. It is speculative, improvable, and grounded in the overall assumption that God does not exist….yet….presented as foundational truth.

If it wasn't for the next sentence I'm about to quote, this would get a perfect irony score.

Quote

Of course, those who deny their own presupposition foundation and refuse to examine anything to the contrary will disapprove.

Are you kidding me?

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

Are you fucking kidding me?

Quote

That’s what it really boils down to, doesn’t it? You want to live your life how you want.

No. What it boils down to is that the evidence says what the evidence says. No matter how desperately you're willing to lie about it and ignore it, no matter what insane conspiracy theories you come up with to try and discredit the scientific establishment, the evidence is still there.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[GeorgiaDon 379]

To be honest I'm not at all sure if there is any point in responding to you, as you have clearly closed your mind to any perspective on the universe other than the one circumscribed a few thousand years ago by an illiterate band of sheep herders. Perhaps one of the many who lurk these forums will find something of value in what I have to say.

Quote

So what we have is one group stating that they’re right and have a consensus while discounting the opposition and declaring them not to be qualified because they do not agree.

No, we have a consensus because there is a mountain of evidence, from biology, geology, paleontology, and even astronomy that the universe is a little over 13 billion years old, the Earth is 4 1/2 billion years old, and all life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor that lived over 3 billion years ago. Many of the scientists who began this revolution in our understanding (prominently Darwin himself) began their careers believing firmly in the Genesis account, and discarded that because of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The proponents of creationism (and its twin "intelligent design") do no experiments and instead sit back in their easy chairs and distort or lie about the work of others to twist it to fit their evidence-free dogma.

Quote

Those people are as qualified as you to speak on the subject.

Respectfully, I think not. I do serious work in molecular biology, real hypothesis testing that is published in a variety of peer reviewed journals. They do not. They are more than welcome to design experiments that rigorously test their so-called "hypothesis", and publish those results, but they will not and (again in Behe's case) have publicly stated that such experiments would be meaningless, because the "designer" could simply direct the outcome of any experiment to reflect his/her whim. This is, of course, the death of rational inquiry, and a perfect example of the notion inherent in Creationism that humans are too stupid to figure anything out, despite supposedly having been created by God in His image. I trust that doesn't mean God is too stupid to figure anything out too?

Quote

It is speculative, improvable, and grounded in the overall assumption that God does not exist….

Evolution, even of new species, has been observed in real time. Overwhelming evidence (to all but the most closed-minded) from several branches of science, and from hundreds of thousands of dedicated researchers working over a period of 150 years all points to the common ancestry of all life on Earth. Every new advance, such as the ability to sequence whole genomes, only adds more evidence to the stack, and nothing has been contributed from the other side that has any weight at all. Paleontologists have been studying fossils for centuries now; all that would be required to disprove evolution would be a human, or even a bird fossil side by side with a trilobite, and such a find would ensure the fame of the collector. Yet such finds are totally absent, and creationists have been reduced to carving bad replicas of human footprints into rock alongside authentic dinosaur footprints.

The notion that evolution is grounded in the assumption that God does not exist is the biggest lie of all. Evolution is a simple statistical process where genotypes that leave the most offspring come to be the most numerous in a population over time. How could it be otherwise? It's an impersonal process that says nothing of whether or not there is a God. Do you also believe that atomic theory is grounded in an assumption that God does not exist? There is no periodic table in the Bible, after all. How about quantum theory, or general relativity? Does the fact that the sun shines because of the fusion of hydrogen nuclei into helium also disavow God?

I know many people who believe strongly in the Christian God, and also are convinced that evolution is true, and find no conflict in those ideas. What say you to those people? Are they doomed to Hell because they haven't had their thought processes petrified in 2,000 BC?

Quote

That’s what it really boils down to, doesn’t it? You want to live your life how you want. Once there “is” a God who created you and everything around you, then the realization that you are accountable to Him and subject to His laws comes front and center. It’s easier to rationalize Him out of the picture and come up with another explanation (any explanation but God). What you fail to admit is that your belief in atheistic evolution and naturalism is every bit as dogmatic as the religious person’s stance.

Oh what complete and utter condescending bullshit. Who gives you the right to define what God wants for everyone else. You remind me of Baghdad Bob, the spokesman for Saddam Hussein who said, even as coalition troops were being shown on CNN entering Baghdad, that those troops were being slaughtered by the brave Iraqi army 100 miles away. His famous quote: "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes"? I'll believe my eyes, thank you, and leave you to enjoy your "all important questions were answered 2,000 years ago so we don't have to think for ourselves any more", "anyone who asks questions is going to burn forever" perversion of the Christian religion.

That’s what it really boils down to, doesn’t it? You want to control the thinking of everyone else so you won't ever be challenged to have to think for yourself.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[normiss 893]

Nah, they just want to "fix" us - like fixing the christian porn problem...they're gonna "fix" the gay people too.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

Nah, they just want to "fix" us - like fixing the christian porn problem...they're gonna "fix" the gay people too.

I thought Christian porn would look more like this;

http://1000lolz.tumblr.com/post/84108632/jesus-fucking-christ-sorry-for-the-nsfw-i-just

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Nah, they just want to "fix" us - like fixing the christian porn problem...they're gonna "fix" the gay people too.

I thought Christian porn would look more like this;

http://1000lolz.tumblr.com/post/84108632/jesus-fucking-christ-sorry-for-the-nsfw-i-just

This is why I was hoping you would've declined that friend request I accidentally sent you...

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Nah, they just want to ***"fix" us - like fixing the christian porn problem...they're gonna "fix" the gay people too.

I thought Christian porn would look more like this;

http://1000lolz.tumblr.com/post/84108632/jesus-fucking-christ-sorry-for-the-nsfw-i-just

This is why I was hoping you would've declined that friend request I accidentally sent you...

Where's your sense of humor?

[Remster 30]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Nah, they just want to "fix" us - like fixing the christian porn problem...they're gonna "fix" the gay people too.

I thought Christian porn would look more like this;

http://1000lolz.tumblr.com/post/84108632/jesus-fucking-christ-sorry-for-the-nsfw-i-just

Since we're going to hell... Image number 5 on that page

http://regretfulmorning.com/2010/05/25-inappropriate-demotivational-posters/?utm_source=scribol&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=scribol

Remster

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

Quote

***

Quote

Nah, they just want to "fix" us - like fixing the christian porn problem...they're gonna "fix" the gay people too.

I thought Christian porn would look more like this;

http://1000lolz.tumblr.com/post/84108632/jesus-fucking-christ-sorry-for-the-nsfw-i-just

Since we're going to hell... Image number 5 on that page

http://regretfulmorning.com/2010/05/25-inappropriate-demotivational-posters/?utm_source=scribol&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=scribol

I liked #20

[jaybird18c 25]

Observational Science vs. Historical Science

[beowulf 1]

It's amazing that people actually believe everything that the Answers in Genesis people put out.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

It's amazing that people actually believe everything that the Answers in Genesis people put out.

There are 156 million Americans with below average IQ; what do you expect?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.