AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: Stanton

form_srcid: Stanton

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.205.175.144

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Stanton

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Stanton%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2008/02/27 15:40:38, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 27 2008,11:10)

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:05)
I'm sorry these guys are confused, Carlsonjok, but if you go back to my original question, what I'm asking is, why is panspermia considered scientific and ID is not. I think I made it pretty clear there.


Panspermia is regarded as a scientific hypothesis because it builds on the observed facts that a) water and organic molecules are found in outer space, b) spores of bacteria and fungi are capable of surviving intact in outer space-like conditions (whether or not they can remain viable has yet to be seen), and c) bacteria, fungi and other microorganisms are capable of living and thriving in Mars-like conditions, and then proposes that life, or certain lineages of organisms on Earth are descended from life and or organic molecules from outer space.

Panspermia can not progress beyond the hypothetical stage because no "alien" lifeform has been found and recognized with which to compare indigenous lifeforms with.

Intelligent Design proposes that, because biological systems are complicated, biological systems could not have appeared or evolved without the assistance of an "intelligent designer" that is beyond the scrutiny of mere mortal scientists.  Having said this, Intelligent Design proponents have been extremely hesitant to demonstrate how one can go about detecting "design."

Dembski alleges that his "Explanatory Filter" can detect design, but, he leaves very much to be desired, given as how he has never actually demonstrated how to detect design with his filter in a genuine organism.

Behe's idea of "irreducible complexity" has been repeatedly killed and butchered by the fact that all of the biological systems he labeled as being "irreducibly complex," including the vertebrate immune system, the blood-clotting cascade, and the eukaryote and bacterial flagella have all had their evolutionary histories discovered, as well as how the details of the mechanics of each system relate to related details in other biological systems, i.e., in that echinoderms have a similar immune system to chordates, or that the proteases used in blood clotting are the same proteases used in digestion, or even the documentation of the evolutionary history of the genes that produce the "antifreeze" glycoproteins in Antarctic icefish, or the appearance of the 2 versions of nylonase.

Then there is the fact that all Intelligent Design proponents have been extraordinarily hesitant in either explaining how Intelligent Design "theory" would help contribute to Science, or even how Intelligent Design "theory" is even science.

Date: 2008/03/25 19:13:58, Link
Author: Stanton
Charles Darwin and a baby rhesus macaque are the mother and father of Adolf Hitler?

Date: 2009/09/14 19:36:53, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 14 2009,19:01)
In order for this debate to have even the smallest hope of becoming a productive conversation, we're going to need to reach some sort of agreement on a working definition of Christianity, along with the minimum set of beliefs that one must hold to be legitimately considered a Christian.  Otherwise, this isn't going to work.

You mean, as in, a Christian being anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as being their (spiritual) Lord and Savior, the one who will bring him/her salvation?

Date: 2009/09/15 13:42:37, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 15 2009,11:04)
You misread. Jesus is the one being labeled as a glutton and drunkard. I assume you are not claiming to be Jesus--so the passage makes no statement regarding your degree  of inebriation--so your outrage is misplaced.

Are you sure that they aren't arguing over being like Jesus, rather than arguing over being Jesus?

Date: 2009/09/15 13:49:33, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 15 2009,13:33)
This is, like, the. worst. debate. ever. Not nearly as exciting as Richard Hughes debating Tina Yothers on whether "Gauss' Law" is an acceptable alternative to "Gauss's Law".

This is not the worst debate ever:  The worst debate ever was the time this one guy attempted to convince me that the Bible was right because 1) no one could have ever survived an explosion as big as the Big Bang, and 2) recent scientific discoveries (which the gentleman never bothered to specify) were proving the accuracy of the Bible left and right.

Either that, or when this other guy told me that God was going to send me to Hell to suffer for all eternity because I apparently didn't think like him, or because I offered to tutor him when he was whining about how hard the Biology professor was.

Date: 2009/09/15 20:15:31, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (nmgirl @ Sep. 15 2009,18:51)
Hey, I logged in here for FL's great debate.  Where is his indisputible proof that christianity and evilution are incompatible.  Enquiring minds want to know!

Cthullhu will awaken, have itself a glass of warm something or other, then go back to sleep, or worse yet, Carol Burnett will finally admit she isn't a natural redhead before FL will actually produce evidence for the incompatibility between Christianity and evilution.

Date: 2009/09/16 01:18:33, Link
Author: Stanton
I want to point out some things concerning the situation

1) Notice how FL ignores the actual reason that caused Charles Darwin's crisis of faith: the death of his daughter due to disease.

2) Notice also how FL ignores deadman's inquiry concerning the Pope being a Christian who has had absolutely no qualms about accepting Jesus as his savior, as well as accepting evolution as a fact.

3) And notice how FL never advocates abandoning the use of the numerous products made possible through evolution or through any sciences that utilize evolutionary biology and or its offshoots, products like antibiotics, vaccines, petroleum products, dinosaur-themed products, food made from domesticated plants and animals, or the keeping, raising and breeding of domesticated plants and animals.  The last time I brought this to FL's attention, he had the moronic, hypocritical gall to claim that because these things were actually the products of microevolution, it was perfectly okay to reject evolution while still using such products without fearing for their immortal souls.

Date: 2009/09/16 01:33:37, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Sep. 16 2009,01:01)
Did you notice that FL completely ignored my comment?
:D

That is because the sole purpose of FL being here is to preach at us, not to discuss anything, not to debate anything, and most definitely not to speak the truth about anything.

Date: 2009/09/16 09:53:40, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (nmgirl @ Sep. 16 2009,09:27)
FL, what is a "biblical christian"? Is this your definition who believes in a literal interpretation of every word in the bible?  so what do you call us who are not literalists?  Oh wait, i know the answer:  hell bound, spawns of Satan, evilutionists.

FL is a hypocrite even when it comes to taking the Bible literally.  One thread where this came up, he essentially said it was alright not to kill people who disobey the many, many laws in the Book of Deuteronomy that demand death as punishment, i.e., eating milk with meat, eating shellfish, eating pork, wearing fabrics of mixed thread, working on Saturday, being a fussy or unruly child, etc.

If he were a genuine Biblical literalist, he would be making demands that goat breeders breed striped goats by showing the copulating animals striped sticks, in addition to demanding death to people who violate the laws of Deuteronomy.

Date: 2009/09/16 10:18:44, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Quack @ Sep. 16 2009,04:09)
   
Quote
Now, I won't do any blatant insults on him, but for me "Big Daddy Chuck Darwin" is within the boundaries.  
I do not owe him any reverence---and quite frankly, given what he said about black folks in The Descent Of Man, I honestly think I'm being too lenient on his butt anyway.

Darwin has been dead for quite some time and I can’t see how whatever ideas most white people had about black people 150 years ago are relevant wrt evolution vs. Christianity.

FL is either lying out of his piehole when he claims that Darwin was being an evil racist bigot in Descent of Man, as he's obviously relying solely upon the patently false anecdotes of other creationists, or he really did read Descent of Man, and the very idea that Charles Darwin had the unmitigated gall to assume that blacks and whites (and pretty much every single other ethnic group Mr Darwin came in contact with) were all the same species apparently fills FL with quaking anger.

Date: 2009/09/16 15:52:10, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 16 2009,15:28)
Oh shit.  Heddle just said something nice about the Welsh.  This will not end well.

All's welsh that ends welsh.





Date: 2009/09/16 19:02:35, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (nmgirl @ Sep. 16 2009,17:44)
FL, what about the nearly 12000 christian pastors who signed up in the Clergy Letter Project? Are they all wrong?

You notice how FL has also refused to touch the point about how the Pope has no problems reconciling his faith with the fact of evolution, too?

Date: 2009/09/16 20:58:14, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Dan @ Sep. 16 2009,20:38)
FL has not yet addressed the topic of this debate.  He is behaving as if he didn't bother to install MrSID LizardTech image decoder on his Windows computer, and claims that therefor MrSID LizardTech is incompatible with Windows.

FL refuses to address the actual topic of this debate specifically because he is not here to debate: he is here to preach at us so he can convert us to his own peculiar sect of Christianity, whereupon he will then return to his own flock so he can strut about how he entered a (cyber)den of evil pagans and single-handedly vanquished the lot of them in order to score more brownie points for Jesus.

Date: 2009/09/17 10:58:31, Link
Author: Stanton
Let us recap, shall we?

FL's argument is that evolution is incompatible with Christianity because the description/explanation of evolution's mechanism specifically excludes direct intervention from God.  Of course, FL then fails to explain why all other sciences, which, too, do not involve the direct intervention of God as descriptions/explanations, are not incompatible with Christianity, nor does he explain why, if evolution and evolutionary biology are incompatible with his version of Christianity, he also insists on using products of evolutionary biology on a daily basis.  And, more importantly, there is the fact that FL's dilemma is false, given as how the vast majority of Christians have no problems reconciling the fact of evolution with their faith: after all, FL refuses to explain on this thread how the Pope can be a Christian while still accept the facts of evolution.

I'm also morbidly curious to see what halfbaked excuse FL will dredge up to justify the teaching of Intelligent Design in science classrooms, even though Intelligent Design proponents have already confessed that it was never intended to be any sort of science or even alternative explanation, AND that it's been legally ruled as being nothing more than religious propaganda.

Date: 2009/09/17 11:09:25, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,10:43)
Quote
Floyd, that if you are going to apply your “Incompatibility …theory? hypothesis? idea? opinion?” to biology (specifically evolutionary biology), then you must equally apply it to geology, cosmology, chemistry, and quite possibly a good piece of physics. Yes or no?

See my response to Someotherguy's question,

(It's just a couple posts previously, see "Posted on Sep. 17 2009, 10:07".)

The words "hypocritical" and "inconsistent" come to mind to describe your response to Someotherguy's question, actually.

Date: 2009/09/17 11:12:21, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,11:07)
(1) start educating themselves (and their fellow Christians, and their clergy and teachers and choir memebers and Sunday School and CCIA groups) with the specific details of how evolution is incompatible with Christianity and is eroding and corroding Christian faith.
Like how the Pope really isn't a Christian?

Quote
(2) start supporting positive Science Education Reform by initiating and supporting positive, critical-thinking-oriented changes in State Science Standards such as what Louisiana and Texas have successfully accomplished.   THAT's the way to do things right!

FloydLee
Then explain why Texas and Louisiana are "successful" if their science education programs rank the very worst in the nation.

Date: 2009/09/18 10:34:17, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,10:13)

So, FL, are you saying that the Pope is a spiritually damaged atheist because he accepts evolution as a fact and sees no problems reconciling such fact with his faith?

Date: 2009/09/18 10:54:12, Link
Author: Stanton
[quote=FloydLee,Sep. 18 2009,10:25]
Quote

The only rational answer is nope.   Don't stop teaching 'em.
It would help if Creationists started teaching their children something other than lies or a demand for fanatical obedience.
Quote
Instead, it's time for Christians and churchgoers to start educating themselves (and their pastors and priests and teachers and choir directors and youth ministers) on this incompability issue.
Like teaching that the Pope is really an evil, spiritually damaged atheist?
 
Quote
It's also time to support positive, critical-thinking-oriented, science education reform efforts such as the successful changes in Texas and Louisiana.

Yet, you still don't explain how exposing children to the very worst science education programs in the country will help strengthen them spiritually.

I mean, you have to be aware that Texas and Louisiana have the poorest test scores specifically because their educational programs were made more Creationist-friendly.

Date: 2009/09/18 11:02:21, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (nmgirl @ Sep. 18 2009,10:35)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 17 2009,18:18)
Not any more, apparently. Jesus has little or nothing to do with Floyd's version of Christianity. Now it's all about imposing your will on other people. Control, it's all about control. If you can convince people to bend their most natural drives to your will for no apparent rational reason, convincing them to hand you money and power is a minor thing.

Then Floyd must be a catholic.

Then he's a very peculiar Catholic if he refuses to admit that the last 2 Popes issued very clear statements about how evolution was perfectly compatible with being a Christian.

Date: 2009/09/18 13:06:48, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,12:58)
Quote
1. The Pope is a Christian.

2. The Pope holds that evolution happens.

3. Therefore, Evolution is compatible with Christianity.

A simple three-line proof.

So, let's check out this "proof".  Let's ask a few questions.  Better yet, let's just ask one question.

What exactly does (1) have to do with (2)?

Note carefully:  It is entirely possible, according to your 3-point set-up, that the Pope is affirming that "evolution happens" even though it creates a conflict with his personal belief in Christianity.  That would kinda wreck the claim of "proof."

(After all, you'll notice that nowhere in your e-point set-up did you actually claim that the Pope says that evolution is compatible with Christianity, nor is any evidence provided by the Pope to support such a claim, nor does the Pope offer any specific resolutions of any of the Big Four Incompatibilities.)

FloydLee

Pope Benedict would beg to differ with your claims, FL

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/

Or, are you saying that the Pope is lying?

Date: 2009/09/18 13:09:11, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 18 2009,13:05)
...Floyd Lee thus far has no argument at all.

That is because FL is not here to present an argument, and he is not here to debate: he is here to preach at us in a vain attempt to convert us horrible pagan heathen atheist sorcerers to his version of Christianity.

Date: 2009/09/18 17:53:20, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,17:41)
Well, there's some OTHER biblical beliefs that are foundational to Christianity too.  Deny these other biblical beliefs--and as we've seen already in four areas, evolution DOES deny them--and you are effectively eroding, corroding, undercutting Christian belief.  

Doesn't mean necessarily that you're not a Christian, but goodness, look at that danger and damage, that potential to erode and corrode important beliefs---and look at the people who are no longer holding on to the Christian faith you're holding on to, people for whom the damage is already done.

And that's happening right now.

Please explain to us how acceptance of evolution has eroded and corroded Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul.

Date: 2009/09/19 21:19:34, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Sep. 19 2009,17:05)
Quote
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y153310  


Did he ever address my arguments there? Appearantly not!

Given as how FL is reluctant and or unwilling to back up his claim that accepting evolution corrodes/erodes one's faith by explaining how the faith of the current and previous Popes eroded/corroded because they accepted evolution, FL will never attempt to address your arguments, Dale.

Date: 2009/09/21 14:51:50, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 21 2009,14:37)
Quote
Gee, it seems that I already debunked FL's claim that evolution is incompatible with Christianity by showing that one may believe in God and Jesus and not be blind followers of everything the Bible says as literally true. Why? Because the Bible was written by fallible, sinful men, not any God, and it would be insulting God Himself to claim otherwise.


Well, let's see Dale.  First, you've just denied the operation of the providence of God in the making of the Scriptures.

Second, your particular argument attacking the reliability of the Scriptures, is just as quickly applicable to the Gospels as well as Genesis, and is just as severe an attack on the historical claims of the Cross of Christ as well as the Creation.

So you haven't reconciled anything between evolution and Christianity by your specific argument there.  Instead, you've denied an important biblical attribute of God, and ALSO succeeded in employing a skeptic-argument that actualy attacks Christianity itself, not just Creation.  Good job!

How does all of this mewling word-lawyering, cherry-picked testimonials, and quotemining are supposed to convince us that evolution is incompatible with Christianity when the current and previous Popes have demonstrated that they have had no problems reconciling faith with the acceptance of evolution?

Are you saying that your definition of Christianity, which apparently excludes Roman Catholics, including Popes Benedict and John Paul is the one true Christianity?

Or are you saying that the Pope is the only Christian alive who has the sole privilege of reconciling evolution and faith in Jesus Christ?

Date: 2009/09/21 15:20:22, Link
Author: Stanton
My prediction is that FL is going to spend the next two to three dozen comments harping on how his so-called 4 points demonstrate the incompatibility between evolution and Christianity, even though he continues to evade everyone's counter-points, as well as ignoring the fact that the Pope is a walking, talking, benedicting refutation of all four of FL's points.

Date: 2009/09/21 15:25:42, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 21 2009,15:10)
Quote
Or are you saying that the Pope is the only Christian alive who has the sole privilege of reconciling evolution and faith in Jesus Christ?

Don't leave out most mainstream protestant denominations.

According to FL's innuendo, any Christian who has the satanic gall to accept the fact of evolution while accepting salvation from Jesus Christ, and who isn't the Pope, are either deluded fake Christians, or are evil atheistic Pagan sorcerers pretending to be Christians in order to ensnare and devour the unwary among the True Christians (T).

Date: 2009/09/21 15:39:14, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 21 2009,15:30)
So aside from Roman Catholics no true Christan accepts evolution, aside from Methodists and aside from Episcopalians and Presbyterians (PCUSA only), no TRUE Christian accepts evolution, aside from those that do.

No, according to FL, any Christian, of any denomination, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Unitarian, Baptist, Episcopalian, or even Epulopiscium, who isn't the Pope, but who accepts the fact of evolution, isn't actually a Christian.

Either that, or FL is apparently too polite to admit that he thinks that the Pope isn't a Christian.

Date: 2009/09/21 15:42:50, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 21 2009,15:36)
He hasn't had the guts to come out and say so explicitly, but FL seems to think that the Pope puts sugar in his porridge and ice in his whisky, so he doesn't count.

Undoubtedly.

Date: 2009/09/21 16:04:07, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 21 2009,15:58)
And of course, I like ID, particularly on the science front.

What "science" has Intelligent Design put out in the past couple of decades?

Date: 2009/09/21 16:23:23, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 21 2009,16:10)
continuing:
 
Quote
2. At no time (so far) has Floyd offered up any evidence that any part of evolutionary theory is invalid. (He has only made some disparaging remarks without any examples to support them)

Probably true.  The fact is that you simply DON't have to prove that "evolutionary theory is invalid" in order to establish that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.  Establishing that point can be accomplished whether evolution is scientifically 100% right or 100% wrong.

Then how come you refuse to explain why the Pope contradicts all four points you've made?

Are you saying that the Pope is an exception to your rules, or are you saying that the Pope isn't a True Christian?

Date: 2009/09/21 17:09:38, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 21 2009,16:45)
Quote
abiogenesis and evolution "leaves him [God] with nothing to do".

Interesting statement by Richard Dawkins, Dan.  
Thanks for looking it up and putting it on the table.  

Sorta reminds me of what Slate.com editor Jacob Weisberg said:
   
Quote
"Post-Darwinian evolutionary theory, which can explain the emergence of the first bacteria, doesn't even leave much room for a deist God whose minimal role might have been to flick the first switch."

Sure doesn't sound compatible with Christianity, folks!!

:)

It appears that your definition of Christianity is incompatible with the Pope's definition of Christianity.

Date: 2009/09/21 17:13:45, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 21 2009,16:12)
FloydLee:

Quote
And of course, I like ID, particularly on the science front.


Okay!

Yep, expectations were set at zero, and FL limbos right under them, exactly like the scientific achievements of Intelligent Design for the past 2 decades.

Date: 2009/09/21 17:27:04, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 21 2009,17:17)
Cherry-picking quotes from scientists or palming off your "creative interpretations" of Bible bits as "authoritative" is about as good as your arguments have gotten so far, Floyd.

And that's pretty bad. Even for YEC apologetics

Massive failure so far on your part, Floyd. Excellent.

You want we should start moving on to discussing how and why FL's insistence that Intelligent Design is epic fail?

Date: 2009/09/22 09:28:00, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,08:43)
Quote
Note the quote mine.  I showed why Dawkins was wrong, but FL, bless his heart, left that part out!


No quote mine there, Dan.  Dawkins said exactly what HE meant, and your attempt to escape his statement demonstrates that indeed it was a statement of incompatilibility.  It simply reminded me of somebody else's similar statement and all I wanted to do was mention it (and of course, to thank you for bringing up Dawkins' line in the first place! )

You must be a sad person, FL.  I mean, you wail and moan about how your faith is threatened by biological reality, and now you tell us that you follow the dictations of an atheist you've quotemined over what you can and can't believe.  I mean, why can't your faith be as robust as, say, the Pope?

And yes, we automatically assume that you're quotemining because we know you long enough to have learned that if you're not lying, you're either quotemining or you're purposefully misrepresenting whoever or whatever it is you're mentioning, be it a science textbook or the Bible, or whatever.

Date: 2009/09/22 09:59:53, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,09:28)
Notice how, under critical examination by evolutionists, evolution does NOT make God's plan look "majestic" at all, but instead cruel and sadistic.

ANOTHER incompatibility.

So, tell us of God's majesty when He annihilated all life on Earth that could not be stuffed into Noah's Ark simply because humans were too noisy and too naughty.

Or, tell us of God's kindness when He sent those she-bears to kill children.

Date: 2009/09/22 10:01:19, Link
Author: Stanton
Anyone else notice how FL is too cowardly to acknowledge that the Pope continues to contradicts FL's so-called points?

Date: 2009/09/22 10:16:09, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:09)
Quote
cherry-pick

So far, none of the evolutionist statements I've quoted WRT the Big Five, have been cherry-picked or quote- mined.  

Each person quoted has meant exactly what he or she said on each point for which they were quoted WRT the Big Five.  

Nobody in this forum has come up with an extended quotation that contradicted the point expressed in the original quotation that I supplied.  Your felow evolutionists, authors, professors, are quite serious about what they are saying here.  They're not backing down one bit.

Then how come numerous Christians, SUCH AS POPE BENEDICT, don't listen to these people whom you're misrepresenting into saying that Christianity and Evolution are incompatible?

Unless you can explain how the Pope can get away with ignoring your pathetic points, you have to realize that you're nothing but a bag of mean spirited hot air.

Date: 2009/09/22 11:36:00, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:54)
Quote
Neither one (Pope Benedict, Francis Collins) has come up with any solution for the Big Five Incompatibillities.   Simply not able to, so far.
 
Anybody able to refute this particular statement?

So, in other words, you're claiming that you know Christianity better than the Pope?

Why haven't you excommunicated the Pope yet, then?

Date: 2009/09/22 12:22:28, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 22 2009,12:11)
I think it's apparent to all of us now that FloydLee knows Christianity better than anyone.  We're all going to hell except Floyd and Jesus, and he's a bit unsure about Jesus.

Quote
Why, I don't believe I've ever been fired by an employee, before...

-Zelda Spellman

Date: 2009/09/22 13:51:56, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Robin @ Sep. 22 2009,13:44)
[quote=FloydLee,Sep. 21 2009,16:10][/quote]
Quote
continuing:
 
Quote
2. At no time (so far) has Floyd offered up any evidence that any part of evolutionary theory is invalid. (He has only made some disparaging remarks without any examples to support them)

Probably true.  The fact is that you simply DON't have to prove that "evolutionary theory is invalid" in order to establish that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.  Establishing that point can be accomplished whether evolution is scientifically 100% right or 100% wrong.


Umm...who in their right mind cares if Christianity is incompatible with evolutionary theory if evolution theory is scientifically 100% accurate? Wouldn't you just abandon such a obviously irrational institutional belief system that you felt didn't mesh with an absolutely accurate scientific theory?

But the problem is, my dear, that the fear that one is unable to frighten and or bully others into thinking exactly the way that one wants them to think, for whatever logical or illogical reason, drives many people to do odd, and sometimes repugnant things.

Date: 2009/09/22 14:40:39, Link
Author: Stanton
So we have FL boasting about how his points 1 through 4 about how evolution is allegedly incompatible with Christianity, are some sort of sacrosanct, divinely inspired holy laws, yet, can not be bothered to explain why literally millions of Christians, including Pope Benedict, ignore these 4 points.

And as for FL's so-called 5th point, well, he has a very warped definition of "cruel," if it includes tigers eating sambar deer, internal parasites and tongue isopods, yet, not includes cursing all life to suffer and die as a direct result of the first pair of humans' disobedience, the utter annihilation of all life that couldn't be fit into Noah's Ark simply because the humans were naughty, or divine commandments to slaughter the enemies of Israel, their families, neighbors and livestock, save for their enemies' underage, virgin daughters, who were to be made into the Israelite soldiers' sex slaves.

Date: 2009/09/22 14:45:12, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,14:36)
Quote
Umm...who in their right mind cares if Christianity is incompatible with evolutionary theory if evolution theory is scientifically 100% accurate?

Wouldn't you just abandon such a obviously irrational institutional belief system that you felt didn't mesh with an absolutely accurate scientific theory?


VERY perceptive question there Robin.  Combine it with those evolutionist self-testimonies and the Big Five issues that you read earlier in the thread, and you will see for yourself that

(1) evolution is VERY capable of eroding and corroding Christian faith and therefore
(2) there is a good warrant to seriously consider (and in light of all the reasons taken together, to accept) the claim that Evolutin is Incompatible with Christianity.

So explain to us why the Pope still hasn't gotten your memo about the insidiously pernicious effects of accepting the fact of evolution.

Date: 2009/09/22 15:02:05, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,14:45)
Quote
I'll go one better; neither one (Pope Benedict, Francis Collins) thinks there are Big Five Incompatibilities.

And specifically how does this prove that the Big Five do not exist (especially at a time when evolutionists are clearly saying that they do exist?)

FloydLee

The fact remains, FL, that there are millions of Christians who have no trouble reconciling the acceptance of evolution with Christianity, including the Pope.  Then there is also the fact that none of the "evolutionists" (sic) you've cherrypicked are the official spokespeople of evolutionary biology or science, and you are a conniving, lying fool to suggest otherwise.

Or, can you explain why, according to your logic, the Pope isn't a Christian because he heeds neither your proclamations, nor the proclamations of the atheists and scientists you've quotemined?

Date: 2009/09/22 17:29:57, Link
Author: Stanton
So, tell us, FL, if there was a global flood 4000 years ago as described in the Bible, why is there no evidence of it?  How were the Pyramids built if they were constructed at a time where the population was 8?  Why do all of the ancient cities of Mesopotamia, or any other civilization from 4000 years ago, show no sign of being obliterated by a global flood?

Tell us, why doesn't the Pope care about your moronic points?

Why do you think that a tiger eating a deer is cruel and horrible, but not divinely mandated genocide and child rape?

Date: 2009/09/22 17:35:21, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,17:24)
Stanton speaks of:
 
Quote
....the fact that the Pope is a walking, talking, benedicting refutation of all four of FL's points.

So, Stanton, sounds like you've worked your way through this.  Please do me a favor, then?  Please locate exactly (online, print, any way you can) where Pope Benedict has stated a specific refutation for each of the Big Four (actually, now it's the Big Five, so please include each of the Big Five.)  

Then show 'em to me so I can examine and consider them.

Thanks in advance!     :)

I provided a URL mentioning the Pope saying that it was nonsense to believe in Young Earth Creationism and a literal reading of the Bible earlier in this thread.

It's not my fault you're too tangled up in your smarm and stupidity to have noticed it, and that you're too busy being an arrogant jerk to admit that the Pope accepts both evolution and faith in Jesus Christ.

Date: 2009/09/22 17:38:54, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 22 2009,14:19)
At least it's a little more fun, now that some o' that old-timey crazy is coming out.

Yes, especially since FL thinks that carnivores, old age and parasites are terrible, evil and cruel, but divinely mandated genocide, murder and child rape are perfectly acceptable.

Date: 2009/09/22 18:03:12, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 22 2009,17:45)
I'm curious as to why Floyd Lee posted up that last bit concering a "Global  V. Local Flood."

That's because FL's goal here is not to debate, but to preach at us.
Quote
Rather than behaving honorably and adhering to his "good faith" agreement and dealing with the many unanswered direct questions put to him today alone, he chose to post up that bit.  

I went back and looked a few pages in this thread, and I can't find any reason for it -- certainly nothing today that I saw.

ETA: Interesting. I don't see anything from the beginning of this thread onwards that would lead him to post that ; it's not a response to anyone that I can see on this thread at all.
Only a total, utter fool would possess the fatally naivity required to trust FL to "act honorably" or, laughably, "act in good faith."

Date: 2009/09/22 20:06:58, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 22 2009,18:05)
Quote (Stanton @ Sep. 22 2009,15:38)
Yes, especially since FL thinks that carnivores, old age and parasites are terrible, evil and cruel, but divinely mandated genocide, murder and child rape are perfectly acceptable.

And not believing in Jesus means you have no moral compass and are capable of the worst atrocities (e.g., genocide, murder and child rape).

Did I guess right?

Of course: the fear of God's hateful, all-consuming wrath is what allegedly keeps people turning into hyper-sexual God-hating, anti-social deviants who obsess about how to apply evolutionary biology towards inappropriate behavior.

On the other hand, using the excuse that you're either doing it for God, or that God told you to do it is a blank check to do whatever you want, be it lying, slandering, manipulating, bullying or murder.  I mean, granted, Jesus made a big song and dance about how He will deny salvation to anyone who does any evil in His name, but, if you say you're doing whatever it is for God and or Jesus, who gives a withering fig over what He said?

Date: 2009/09/22 20:34:02, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Dan @ Sep. 22 2009,20:13)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 22 2009,14:49)
Cherry-picking who to respond to -- despite initially agreeing to act in good faith , Floyd? And actual responses to interlocutors was part of that "good faith" deal.

For shame, sir. For shame.


FL said he was here to debate.  But his actions show that he's here to debase.

And preach.

Date: 2009/09/22 20:42:35, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Keelyn @ Sep. 22 2009,20:40)
Of course, Floyd will totally deny that he is close-minded, irrational, or fanatical. Close-minded, irrational fanatics always do.

Hence the term "invincible ignorance"

Date: 2009/09/23 00:52:46, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Sep. 22 2009,23:40)

The important point to remember is that Christianity is not based on the literal truth of the Book of Genesis. It is based on whether you beleive that Jesus was the Messiah predicted to come and save the world.


 
Quote


Matthew 16:15-19 (King James Version)

15 [Jesus] saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.



Nothing there about believeing in Creationism. Especially not the Young Earth kind.

Unfortunately, FL demonstrates that he does not give a flying fig tree about what Jesus said if Jesus contradicts what FL is preaching.

Date: 2009/09/23 10:24:33, Link
Author: Stanton
Firstly, you fail to point out specifically where the Pope was demanding that evolution must be denied in order to be a Christian, and you fail to point out specifically where the Pope was demanding that the Book of Genesis must be read literally, and you also fail to point out where the Pope was demanding that a True Christian must follow the five points you pulled out of your arse in order to be a True Christian.

We bring up the Pope to counter your pathetic and ridiculous points, FL, because he is an example of a Christian who finds no need to deny evolution to maintain his faith in God.

In fact, FL, you haven't produced a single example of a Christian who is a better Christian because he holds the Bible to be the ultimate authority on literally everything to the point of denying reality and accusing other Christians who don't hold to sola scriptura to be wrong and broken.  That, and if being a True Christian means not only denying reality, but to also be like you, a smug, gossiping liar who apparently takes arrogant pride that his word has less value than soiled toilet paper, millions of Christians would sooner become soulless apostates than to be like you.

Date: 2009/09/23 18:15:16, Link
Author: Stanton
So then how come you refuse to address the problem of how you appear to consider the concepts of predation, old age, and internal parasites to be worse than divinely mandated genocide, divinely commanded murder, and using child slaves as a reward for either behaviors?

Date: 2009/09/23 18:16:14, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (khan @ Sep. 23 2009,18:14)
Do you think you're making sense?

FL does, but, he's the only person to think so.

Date: 2009/09/23 18:31:59, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 23 2009,18:15)
Floyd...seriously, do you imagine that you're making a valid point here?

If the Pope
(1) Is a Christian that
(2) Holds evolution to be compatible with Christianity, then
(3) Christianity is held compatible with Evolution by a Christian.
That's all the "proof" consists of. Deriving (3) from facts one and two is ...well, axiomatic.

Note: I'm sorely tempted to simply bring in the Lolcats after this display of stupid on the part of FloydLee.

According to FL's logic, because FL was taught to hate, fear and despise evolution, the Pope doesn't believe in evolution, despite statements to the direct contrary.

Date: 2009/09/23 23:53:15, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 23 2009,21:21)
FL, knock off the used car salesman's patter.

Apart from making you look like a homo it's a little distracting when I'm trying to figure out which snakeskin boot to aim for.

It's rather ironic, then, given as how the primary reason FL gave for despising President Obama was that the President had no intention of outlawing homosexuality.
Quote

Your shorthand endless loop internal dialog "(I am) Not even thinking in those terms" whilst a revealing Freudian slip is completely redundant, it's not a thought. Your concept of 'thinking' would fail to excite most intelligence tests above mediocre if that. Thinking FL is not repeating the same tired uneducated save the rapture for those who lost out when 'Le grand fromage' was dishing out brains, it's sales talk.
Of course FL's unctuous babbling is supposed to be sales talk.  He's trying to guilt-trip and pulpit-bully us all into swallowing his narrow, nonsensically bigoted version of Christianity.
Quote
What you meant to say was "That is not part of FL's strategy since the whole purpose is not to acquire new knowledge but repeat misinformation in the hope that FL's opponents will tire and FL can retire to pushing shit to the stupid with the added bonus that no one here succeeded in educating FL

One would have better luck convincing stones to weep tears than try and educate someone who takes enormous pride in being invincibly ignorant as a creationist.

Date: 2009/09/23 23:55:22, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Dan @ Sep. 23 2009,20:12)
FL has gotten it into his head that there is a "big fifth" incompatibility between evolution and Christianity, namely that evolution is "cruel and sadistic".

The reason this is not an incompatibility is simple: Christianity is totally compatible with cruel and sadistic behavior.

And apparently, FL finds examples of nature not being nice to be horrific abominations, while, all of the various unpleasant things documented in the Bible, from murder, genocide, rape, etc, etc, are apparently hunky dory.

Date: 2009/09/24 18:20:20, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 24 2009,16:14)
Let's hope you can "defend" your claims on Intelligent Design better than this first farcical flailing, Floyd. I figure you'll be facing floods of future "F's".

Unlikely: FL's defense of his claim that Intelligent Design is supposedly a-okay to teach in a science classroom is going to be even more pathetic than the idiocy he's regurgitated now.  Or, to reword it: a snowball tossed into the flaming fords of the Phlegethon in Hades has better survival odds.  I mean, FL harped on and on and on about how he had this "three plank theory" that explained how Intelligent Design was scientific and nonreligious for years, but, he never seemed to be able to get around to explaining what it was.

Among other things, Intelligent Design was determined in court to be nothing but dressed up religious propaganda, and has no legitimate or legal place in a science classroom.

There was one time when FL made an impassioned plea that evolution was a religion, and that science classrooms were apparently the churches of "evolutionists" (sic).  Even if such a ridiculous claim was true, you still couldn't teach Intelligent Design in a science classroom, as last I heard, in the US, it's illegal to demand that the religious propaganda of one religion be taught in the church of a different and or rival religion.

And then there's the problem how the founders of the Intelligent Design freely admit that Intelligent Design was never intended to be a science, or even be an attempt at providing alternative explanations beyond the token GODDESIGNERDIDIT.

Date: 2009/09/25 12:09:20, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,09:52)
Quote
Actually, the TOE says nothing about biological origins or cosmological origins.

The ToE doesn't even say anything about biological origins, Robin?

No, FL, the Theory of Evolution describes how life changes with each successive generation, and describes the mechanisms that cause these changes, as well as describes the results of these changes.

Only perfidious, forked tongued piety shysters, like yourself, FL, would imply that a definitive understanding of abiogenesis is vital to understanding and explaining observed examples of evolution, from fruit flies and antibiotic resistant bacteria to wild flowers and fossil lineages.

Date: 2009/09/25 16:00:57, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,14:35)
Quote
If you say the Origin of SPECIES is really about the origin of life,

That's not what I said.  That wasn't even suggested in the post.  
(Where did you even get that idea from?)

Read my post again, Deadman.   It's quite clear.  Take another look.

The fact of the matter remains that On the Origin of Species is about how speciation occurs as according to Charles Darwin's notes and observations.  Yes, Darwin touches upon the subject of abiogenesis, but, the problems are that a) it's quite obvious to the honest reader that he's simply speculating, b) the honest observer will also note that scientists studying abiogenesis have come a long, long, long, long way since Darwin's mental meanderings about a "warm pond," c) Darwin's speculation on abiogenesis have little bearing on the rest of his book, and served only as a suggestion or idea of the origin of the common ancestor to all life, d) On the Origin of Species is not some sort of magical holy book that is supposed to be worshiped by biologists.

Even so, it's quite clear, FL, that you have absolutely no intention of reading even a single word from On the Origin of Species or any other book on any topic remotely to do with biology without the intent to quotemine for Jesus for the utterly irrational fear that God will punish you for your visual blasphemy by sending a pair of irate eagles to peck out your eyes.

Date: 2009/09/26 13:11:38, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Sep. 26 2009,11:51)
I think there is a difference between the two.

Such as disapproving of someone/something versus protesting to have him/her/it burn in Hell for ever and ever and ever for offending their sensibilities?

Date: 2009/09/26 18:04:44, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (sledgehammer @ Sep. 26 2009,17:46)
Can we all agree that we have established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that evolution, as defined by FloydLee (as well as geology, paleontology, astronomy, biology, and probably all of science) is incompatible with FloydLee's personal version of Christianity?

I'm magnanimously willing to concede this.  Any disagreements on this point? This discussion has become quite tedious, IMHO.  Is it time to move on?

Actually, evolution as anyone, scientists, the Pope, or even Jesus, defines it is incompatible with FL's personal interpretation of Christianity.

And then there's how FL refuses to admit that his personal reasons for claiming evolution is incompatible with Christianity would not only excommunicate the Pope and the majority of Christians, but render all other sciences incompatible with Christianity, too.

Those, and FL conflates his own personal view and opinof Christianity, along with his own personal view on literally anything with fact and or mainstream opinion.

And yes, it's time we should move on.

Date: 2009/09/26 21:30:02, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 26 2009,19:11)
But move on to what? His next proposed topic was Biblical perspective on biology, IIRC.

And once we've counted the legs on an insect, checked the digestive organs of rabbits (or whatever species that was), checked bats for feathers, and listened to snakes and donkeys not talk, what else is there?

Henry

Once FL demonstrates to us how demanding that we revert back to a Biblical perspective on Biology in this modern day and time would not only drive a stake through the heart of science, but of modern medicine (what with the Bible shaming the ill and suffering who lack the faith to trust God to instantly and miraculously heal them), too, he's going to tell us how Intelligent Design is hunkydory to teach in science classrooms instead of actual science.

And we all remember FL's non-schtick about the "three planks," right?

Date: 2009/09/27 10:38:12, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (tsig @ Sep. 27 2009,10:20)
Quote (Stanton @ Sep. 22 2009,11:36)
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:54)
 
Quote
Neither one (Pope Benedict, Francis Collins) has come up with any solution for the Big Five Incompatibillities.   Simply not able to, so far.
 
Anybody able to refute this particular statement?

So, in other words, you're claiming that you know Christianity better than the Pope?

Why haven't you excommunicated the Pope yet, then?

NOMA?

It's not a matter of overlapping magisteria, FL was brainwashed a long time ago to think that evolution was of the devil, and was taught to denounce it no matter what, even if it means lying, slandering, misrepresenting, or putting words into the mouths of other people, including the Pope and corpses.

Then there's the problem of how FL is a hypocrite, in that he thinks it's okay to denounce something and imply it's some sort of soul-eating monster, and yet, still think it's peachy keen to continue using any and all of its products.

I mean, even if we put aside the fact that Creationism, as a "science" is so barren so as to make the fig tree Jesus withered out of spite look like a cornucopia with a trunk, for FL to denounce evolution with his stupid, catty innuendo, and his idiotic points, and yet, not advocate the ban of its products is hypocrisy, pure and simple.

It's akin to a fire and brimstone rabbi who preaches and screeches at his flock about how even thinking of straying from kosher laws will turn one into a super-whore, complete with flashing neon genitals and exploding breasts, while, the rabbi, himself, spends most of his time screaming and shouting in restaurants about how the cook didn't put enough cheese on his lobster-stuffed pork chops.

Date: 2009/09/27 14:32:10, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 27 2009,12:19)
pssst

He's YEC

say no more, say no more.  

if you think you're going to get an intelligent conversation out of one of THOSE, well, you haven't been paying attention

on the other hand it's fun to punt the tard around but christ let's not expect  such a beast to be rational or to even value intellectual honesty.  

"good faith"  never done done it.  he started from tard-zero and he'll end there.

yawn

He stared at "tard-zero," and has been able to work his way down to "jerk-negative sixty."  At his current rate, FL will probably hit the bottom of the Russian oil reserves by next month.

Date: 2009/09/27 15:24:58, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (rhmc @ Sep. 27 2009,14:53)
it's surely been amusing to watch the stupidity flow by...the links to the "answers" to the flud were highly amusing.  

another science FL doesn't quite grasp is physics.  

but i suspect ya'll have done broke another toy...it won't be back...

He'll be back, and he's gonna pretend that no one was able to out-argue him, acting like a smug jerk in the process.

Date: 2009/09/27 17:12:27, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (tsig @ Sep. 27 2009,16:13)
The magesteria were Floyd's and the pope's.

I know, but Lou says it better.

Date: 2009/09/29 00:11:20, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 28 2009,22:23)
Quote
Another question, doesn't FL have any friends that would post here and back him up?

Back him up? A real friend would try to educate the guy.

Henry

Who on earth would want to remain friends with an invincibly stupid, holier than thou snob who thinks he knows better than the Pope and has no compunctions about lying and misrepresenting other people, and is quick to accuse others of lying and or misrepresenting in order to cover his own ass?

Date: 2009/09/29 10:20:05, Link
Author: Stanton
So the best explanation FL can provide to explain why so many Christians, including the last two Popes, have absolutely no conflict with accepting the facts of evolution is a big whiny fit about how they're some how afraid to discuss their faith with secular people?  Obviously, it didn't occur to FL that some people don't feel it necessary to find faith and salvation in ancient absurdities.

Date: 2009/09/29 14:53:45, Link
Author: Stanton
Lying and quotemining what the Popes have said.

How unoriginal FL.

Date: 2009/09/30 11:00:05, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 30 2009,10:14)
your quote mining exercise is boring.  why don't you explain how many people were on earth in 2500 BC

Perhaps if FL is too cowardly to explain how many people were on Earth during 2500 BC, and how they were able to build the Pyramids and all other structures dating from that time, perhaps FL would like to explain why, if Creationism is so superior to Evolutionary Biology, then how come a) Louisiana, Texas, and Florida, states that mandate the teaching of Creationism in science classes, have education systems that rank the very worst in the entire system, b) why is Intelligent Design worth teaching in a science classroom, instead of actual science, even though all Intelligent Design proponents have no desire to do actual science, and c) where is all the evidence that points to a Young Earth and Intelligent Design?

Date: 2009/09/30 11:02:00, Link
Author: Stanton
I also noticed that FL is too cowardly to explain why all the bad things in nature, i.e., predation, internal parasites and old age, are supposed to be worse than the various bad things mentioned in the Bible, including divinely ordained murder, genocide, and rewarding soldiers with child-slaves.

Date: 2009/09/30 15:03:00, Link
Author: Stanton
Who uses "Darwinism" as a synonym for Modern Evolutionary Biology besides Creationists and other reality denying anti-science proponents?

Date: 2009/09/30 18:09:14, Link
Author: Stanton
So FL is saying that because Darwin's explanation of how life changes over generations no longer requires GODDIDITACCORDINGTOTHEBIBLE, it's evil, as according to FL's quotemine of Mayr.

Date: 2009/09/30 18:41:19, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 30 2009,18:10)
Quote
(Newton's Gravitational Theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory) reject all supernatural phenomena and causations.

Yes, yes, y'all have already tried that line of argument (of course, you can't find that specific statement in the physics articles and textbooks, but that hasn't stopped you from falsely subscribing to it anyway. )

However, Robin's line of argument is different from the line of argument that you offer here.  Mayr's article clearly shoots down Robin's line of argument.

Your denial does not excuse the fact that people have provided quotes and references that contradict every single one of your fallacious claims.

To say of nothing of pointing out your grotesque, smarm infested hypocrisy or your blatant quotemining..

Date: 2009/09/30 18:42:42, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 30 2009,18:27)
Floyd, if I was to produce a statement by a biologist to the effect that evolution was compatible with Christianity, how would you evaluate it against Mayr? Is Mayr correct because of his understanding of the nature of God (or Christianity, or any other religion, come to think of it)? Or is it because of his qualifications etc as an evolutionary biologist?

FL would either ignore you, claim that the quote doesn't matter because it contradicts his claims, or accuse you of lying.

Date: 2009/09/30 19:32:46, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 07 2009,15:35)
Just wait for the Earth's next birthday, then count the candles on the cake. (But wear a fireproof suit! )

Henry

Phyllis Diller once said,

Quote
(You know you're old when) your birthday cake looks like a prairie fire

Date: 2009/09/30 20:27:16, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Scienthuse @ Sep. 30 2009,19:38)
A 150 foot deep canyon was cut in 1 to 5 days at Mt St Helens by a mud slide.

You do must realize that different types of rocks have different rates of erosion, right?

I mean, you must be made aware that sandstone, shale and slate erode much much more slowly than freshly lain volcanic ash.

Date: 2009/09/30 22:28:50, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 30 2009,21:45)
it's kinda like going to the ward to make yourself feel better.

c'mon floyd tell us about duh flud.  and all that.  we all concede that reality is incompatible with your magick beliefs.

What sort of nitwit would bully us into thinking that descent with modification is both impossible and evil, while simultaneously expect us to assume that all terrestrial animals originated from survivors at Mt Ararat 4 thousand years ago?

Date: 2009/09/30 23:13:42, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 30 2009,22:56)
Quote (Stanton @ Sep. 30 2009,21:28)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 30 2009,21:45)
it's kinda like going to the ward to make yourself feel better.

c'mon floyd tell us about duh flud.  and all that.  we all concede that reality is incompatible with your magick beliefs.

What sort of nitwit would bully us into thinking that descent with modification is both impossible and evil, while simultaneously expect us to assume that all terrestrial animals originated from survivors at Mt Ararat 4 thousand years ago?

HA!

I mean, does FL honestly believe that koalas and wombats were able to make it to Australia before gazelles and tigers could, or that one of the very first things Noah and his family did after the Flood was to trek to Egypt and build the Pyramids and the Sphinx?

Or, are these little absurdities the sort of "pathetic levels of detail" FL ignores while demanding that we swallow his religious claptrap?

Date: 2009/10/01 09:37:29, Link
Author: Stanton
Actually, I would ask readers to carefully look at that specific paragraph.  So far we've just been talking about Mayr WRT the first two incompatibilities, but Mayr just reinforced the thirdincompatibility with those comments. [/quote]
If depriving "Man" of his status as "being made in the image of God" is such a terrible thing done by Evolution, FL, then please explain why, historically, Christians have not cared about this particular tenet when Christians have promoted slavery, murder, torture, horrifying racial, religious and sexual inequalities against other people, even other Christians?  So, why weren't Christians remembering that the Jews, Muslims, gays, lesbians, asians, africans and other Christians that they bullied, murdered, tortured, raped, stole from, disenfranchised, sold into slavery, and or cannibalized were also "made in the image of God"?

For you to whine about how evolution deprives humans of their special status due to a special technicality that Christians have historically either ignored or found loopholes to avoid makes you a sanctimonious hypocrite.  But, I doubt that you'd have the courage or backbone to address this, FL.

Quote
However, Mayr is an evolutionary biologst by profession, not a theologian.  He knows his business primarily on the topic of evolution.  So yes, if Mayr is saying that these incompatibilities exist, then yes, one has to take him seriouslyl

And yet you still refuse to understand that Mayr is not saying people can not accept evolution and be Christians, not matter how much you quotemine and deny.

Or can you tell us who invested Mayr with the power to meddle with other people's faith and spirituality without permission?

Date: 2009/10/01 09:39:10, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 01 2009,09:31)
If the earth was created ~6000 years ago FL what's the maximum number of people that could be alive 2500BC?

8 to 16

Date: 2009/10/01 09:48:43, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,05:30)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 30 2009,18:42)
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Sep. 30 2009,18:32)
 
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 29 2009,04:29)
Darwin was a nut case even before publishing his evil satanic work. It was inevitable that his son would die young - probably of shame and embarrassment - after his screwed-up father named him Annie. This proves that gay marriage is socialistic.

Further proof, if it were needed, that evolution is evil is in the fact that the evidence showing its falsity is visible only to true believing fundagelicals living in the USA.

You must be winding us up....surely ?

Amadan is, yes. He's pointing out that "Scienthuse" said that Darwin's SON'S death was relevant -- when it was his daughter, Annie.

Yes, excuse me.  You are correct. It has been a while since I read on Darwin. My point was that Darwin lost a child and it would be easy for that to affect one's opinion toward a supposed deity if he was borderline anyway.  Also it could possibly cater to the view that the universe is final and a cold uncaring place.  

Are you willing to say that death and suffering is not a factor in many people's unbelief?

And it was the death of Annie Darwin, as well as the idea that his father, and several of his friends, would all burn in Hell forever and ever and ever simply because they were no longer Christians, irregardless of any good works they did, that caused Charles Darwin's faith to waver, not his research, contrary to the lie that thousands upon thousands of creationists repeat time and time again.


BTW, Charles Darwin became an agnostic, not an atheist.

Date: 2009/10/01 10:46:19, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 01 2009,10:32)
Quote
I think every and all sanctimonious ignoramus fanatics such as FL should take a look at Augustin's work, just for the sake of it...

I have, actually.   Augustine wrote that the earth was less than 6000 years old, he believed that God created everything instantly, (yes, literally), and he believed that the global Noahic Flood was literally true.

A very good YEC, to be sure!

FloydLee

It was Bishop James Ussher who, in 1650, came up with the idea that the world was 6000 years old.

Can you provide a source of St Augustine saying that the world was 6000 years old?

Date: 2009/10/01 10:48:19, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 01 2009,10:32)
Quote
I think every and all sanctimonious ignoramus fanatics such as FL should take a look at Augustin's work, just for the sake of it...

I have, actually.   Augustine wrote that the earth was less than 6000 years old, he believed that God created everything instantly, (yes, literally), and he believed that the global Noahic Flood was literally true.

A very good YEC, to be sure!

FloydLee

Or, perhaps you should revise the relevant Wikipedia articles to mention how Bishop Ussher stole St Augustine's idea?

Date: 2009/10/01 12:07:02, Link
Author: Stanton
Let me rescind my previous comment and replace it with this:

Why does FL think that St Augustine supports his argument that faith in Jesus Christ is only possible if one adheres to a literal interpretation of Genesis in grotesque contrast to the current evidence, AND that Jesus Christ never said He would reject anyone who didn't read Genesis literally?  I mean, FL is aware that St Augustine did argue about how inherently pernicious it is to use faith in God to protect ridiculous ideas?

I mean, that's like arguing that Jesus wants us to steal from, cheat, lie to and murder anyone who disagrees with us.

Date: 2009/10/01 14:43:52, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 01 2009,13:50)
FL,

Augustine did not take Genesis literally.  Instantaneous does not mean six days. Instantaneous creation is an infinite number of orders of magnitude different from six days. A 14 bya universe only differs by a mere 12 OOM. In that sense, Augustine is the most radical non-literalist of all time. He would say to you: "My god don't need no six days to create a universe!"

FL does not care one wit that St Augustine was a biblical literalist or not, all he cares about is quotemining and distorting what others have said in order to support his own ridiculous, fallacious claims.

Date: 2009/10/01 15:34:08, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 01 2009,15:23)
Quote
It no longer requires
God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution).

Ummm, Dan.....Please notice Mayr does not offer you any rational reason to continue "believing in God" after pointing out that evolution no longer requires God as creator or designer.

Mayr is NOT removing the Incompatibility, ohhhh no he's not.  He just says that, given the situation at hand, you're at least personally free to believe whatever you want about God's existence (but he's not supplying you any rational reasons for it).  

You're free to believe whatever you want about God, he says, as long as you understand that,  because of evolution), God is NO LONGER the required explanation for biological origins, including the origin of humans.  Period.

So, FL is saying that either we have to believe that God magically and mysteriously poofed everything, including people, plants and fake evidence, into existence 6,000 years ago, or we're automatically godless heathens who automatically reject Jesus.

And yet, FL thinks the Christians against him here have weak faith.

Date: 2009/10/01 16:53:27, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 01 2009,15:59)
Quote
So, FL is saying that either we have to believe that God magically and mysteriously poofed everything, including people, plants and fake evidence, into existence 6,000 years ago, or we're automatically godless heathens who automatically reject Jesus.

Hmmm.  You wouldn't be mis-representing my position a little, would you, Stanton?

No.

Isn't the whole point of your ridiculous "five points of incompatibility between Evolution and Christianity" about how the only way to be a Christian is to believe in a God who magically and mysteriously poofed the whole world and everything in it into existence as according to a literal reading of the mistranslation of the Book of Genesis or else, even though Jesus gave very different reasons for denying people Salvation?

Date: 2009/10/01 17:29:28, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 01 2009,17:11)
Quote
The fact is, believing in any god is not rational....

Hmmm.   Just gotta comment on that one.
 
Quote
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

----Rom. 1:20

Believing in God is a VERY rational act because you would be basing that decision on observational evidence, as Romans 1:20 makes clear.

In fact, it's so rational that anybody who chooses to adopt atheism or agnosticism is WITHOUT EXCUSE for doing so.  Something to think about, for sure.

Hope you're not an atheist or agnostic, Robin.....!

Why do you care if Robin was an atheist or not, FL?

Is your own faith in God and Jesus so frail that it's threatened by other people's beliefs or lack thereof?

That is, besides the fact that (biological) reality also threatens your frail faith?

Date: 2009/10/01 20:08:52, Link
Author: Stanton
You think Austin is a reliable source?

Then explain why he deliberately sent the wrong sorts of rocks to the laboratories specifically in order to get inaccurate readings.  If Austin is correct about his claims, then why did he have to resort to using underhanded methods to support himself?

Date: 2009/10/01 21:40:18, Link
Author: Stanton
Why would we except helium to escape from a type of rock that is nonporous?

And why would we expect your arguments to get better when you insist on repeating lies and distortions from known liars?

Date: 2009/10/01 22:45:23, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,22:32)
Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 01 2009,21:40)
Why would we except helium to escape from a type of rock that is nonporous?

Nonporous to you Stanton--you are not a helium atom.  Helium is so small it will dissipate into the atmosphere.

This is from talkorigins:"Helium is a very light atom...When ion outflow is considered, the escape of helium from the atmosphere balances its production from radioactive elements"talk  
"radioactive elements" would be radioactive decay--particularly uranium decay.  It produces helium.
You fail refuse to realize that helium can not traverse substances like rubber, ceramic, metal, or the rocks that they are trapped in.  If helium escapes from the radioactive rocks that form them as soon as they are formed, then how would anyone expect to know that they are formed from radioactive decay in the first place?

If helium atoms are so small that they can pass through any substance, how come we have helium-filled balloons (not to mention the tanks of helium that are used to fill them in the first place)?  I mean, are you that stupid to assume that I'm that stupid to not know what helium-filled balloons are filled with?

That, and if all the helium that's produced on Earth automatically escapes into the atmosphere upon creation, then how come we have a relatively burgeoning helium gas industry?

Quote
Quote
And why would we expect your arguments to get better when you insist on repeating lies and distortions from known liars?

Common debate technique on this forum in particular--slander.  Its easy to accuse someone you don't know.  It's called hearsay.

I'm slandering: I'm stating the obvious.  So, explain to me why I should not point out that Austin isn't a liar if he had to resort to blatant manipulation to support his claims, and explain to me why I should not call you a liar because you not only insist on claiming that Austin is a reliable source, but resort to distortion, and repeating Creationist lies?

I mean, if anything, according to your moronic attempt at snarky smarminess with your comments about helium, I would suspect that you're not only extraordinarily dishonest, but rather dim and an incompetent judge of intelligence, too.

Date: 2009/10/01 22:47:40, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 01 2009,22:28)
Quote
What does the dispersion of plants and animals have to do with the impossibility of a worldwide deluge?

Such a deluge would have killed the vast majority of the species previously alive, and left the survivors with a severe genetic bottleneck (i.e., very little variety would be left in the surviving species). Both of these situations are contrary to what is in the world today.

Henry

Not to mention that biogeography would point to all terrestrial life originating from Mount Ararat.  Of course, creationists routinely [fail to bother to explain why biogeography actually does not suggest that all terrestrial life originated from Mount Ararat.

Date: 2009/10/01 22:51:05, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 01 2009,20:37)
hey Floyd! Do you frown upon shrimps or lobster? Would you stone your child to death if he/she is disobedient? Do you hate your daddy or your mommy?

if the answer to any of these questions is "no", then you are not a True Litteral Christian©

Christian litteralism is not a fuckin' buffet where you can pick whatever you like and leave aside the horse-radish!

Be true to yourself, if that's even possible at all...

Once when the topic of the laws of Deuteronomy were brought up, FL said he prefers excommunication over execution.  That is, when he could be bothered to be reminded that the Book of Deuteronomy existed, that is.

Date: 2009/10/02 00:21:23, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Chayanov @ Oct. 02 2009,00:03)
So, is FL supposed to be an example of that sophisticated theology that theists keep claiming atheists are never able to address?

I don't think so, given as how FL apparently gives more weight to the opinions of atheists than theists concerning matters of his faith, which he then foists onto other theists in order to browbeat them into thinking exactly like he does.

Date: 2009/10/02 09:21:14, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Oct. 02 2009,09:15)
Why is it that the sum total of IDCers' interest in science manifests itself in strenuous attempts to throw doubt on the research and conclusions of science, and absolutely no interest is ever shown in performing any of their own research to support their own hypotheses (which as far as I've seen do not exist)?  Rhetorical question.

That's because the ultimate purpose of Intelligent Design is a convoluted plot to illegitimately obtain a veneer of scientific legitimacy for the Bible, so it can become and remain the science textbook, as well as the law and history textbook of the land, forever and ever, until Judgment Day.

You'd know that if you read the Wedge Document.

Date: 2009/10/02 12:03:10, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,09:58)
(While responding to various people today, I'm going to try to get in a few more responses for Deadman.  I'm starting from a few pages back and trying to catch up.)
   
Quote
(....From page 11)

The Popes (or anyone else) are free to speculate (add, append, tack on their faith-based belief)  regarding what can be said (in their belief) about established evolutionary science.

What it doesn't mean is that you have somehow shown an inherent, incontrovertible incompatiblity between Christianity and evolutionary science.

But it sure does mean that merely saying "the Pope accepts evolution and he's a Christian" (as some of you have done) does NOT eliminate the Big Five Incompatibilities that are currently sitting on your table.

Yet, you refuse to explain how the Pope is able to accept both evolution, and his faith in Jesus Christ in direct spite of your five inane points.

That is, refuse to explain beyond lying about what he's said, as well as quotemining and misrepresenting him.

Date: 2009/10/02 12:37:35, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,12:29)
Quote
FL's version may be compatible only with YEC creationism, while other versions have no problems with science whatsoever.


Well, there are five huge incompatibilities on the table.  If those "Other Versions" can actually resolve and reconcilate them, I'm definitely listening.

Of course, somebody would have to actually PRESENT their "Other Version(s) Of Christianity" (preferably a version that they personally believe and live out) so we can see if said version is supportable and actually reconciles any of the Big Five or not.  

Any takers?

For your fifth alleged incompatibility, why do you think that things like predation, internal parasites or old age are terrible, horrible things that conflict with the Love of God, when the Bible mentions numerous terrible, horrible things done either by God, or done as per the commands of God, including total annihilation of life on Earth simply for the sin of humans, numerous murders, and genocide of entire nations, save for the virgin daughters who were taken as child slaves to reward the Jewish army?

Your continued silence suggests that you are either too cowardly to discuss this, or perhaps that you think things like genocide, murder or child slavery are good things when done on God's behalf.

Date: 2009/10/02 12:40:53, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,11:03)
Quote
Is "God" part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill?

Yes or no.


Nope.  He's not.  Furthermore, hydrologists (unlike evolutionists) are silent on the issue of God as a required explantion.

(Please note, however:  In the Bible, God IS the required explanation for the origin of water itself.)

And also He is the Required Explanation for the origin of plants, animals, and (this is where you come in) humans too.

Of course, evolution and evolutionists deny that.  Which is why there's an Incompatiblity there.

Explain to us why you don't think that God is a necessary requirement for explaining the science of how water flows downhill, yet, think that God, or more precisely, GODPOOFEDIT is the only explanation necessary, under pain of eternal torment at the hands of God, for explaining the origin and diversity of life?

Date: 2009/10/02 12:43:54, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 02 2009,12:39)
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 02 2009,18:37)
Before we can determine whether Christianity is compatible with evolution we have to determine which version of Christianity we are up against. FL's version may be compatible only with YEC creationism, while other versions have no problems with science whatsoever. I believe religion and God are matters of spirit and not about the material world, and I suggest the problem is FL, not science or Christianity.

Before we can get any further with this we have to see FL's evidence that his version is the only true version of Christianity.

Not to be redundant, but Quack is fuckin' right!

Let's stop everything until FL gives us some evidence!

You mean like how FL claimed to know the exact location where the Garden of Eden was, then tried to imply that I was insane when I asked why no one has ever found anything at that location to suggest that it was the Garden of Eden in the first place?

Date: 2009/10/02 13:03:25, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 02 2009,12:49)
Sorry to post-a-lot, but maybe at this point we should just stop everything, let Deadman (instigator of the thread) ask ONE single question to Floyd and not post until he's answered it?

If that were the case, then we might as well lock the thread.

Date: 2009/10/02 19:59:56, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,18:19)
Quote
Eh, he'll just pull a disappearing act to avoid specific questions anyway.

You wish, baby!  You got a full plate right there, (and ummm, you'll need to address it NOT duck it, okay?), and I got more comin' out the oven for you!

So then, why don't you cut out the smarm and explain why evolution allegedly denies that humans are made in the image of God is a problem when Christians, themselves, have historically either ignored the fact that humans are made in the image of God, or have denied that particular groups of humans are made in the image of God in order to visit all manner of atrocities on their fellow humans, including disenfranchisement, pogroms, racism, slavery and genocide?

Date: 2009/10/02 20:53:02, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 02 2009,20:25)
The last time you were asked to address {the problem of the Pope}, you wound up making a complete fool of yourself and slinking away without actually addressing it, Floyd.

You've been asked to address it many times, Floyd -- say, nearly a dozen or so times. It was in my very first post to YOU here, Floyd -- WEEKS ago.  

Yet, you've never managed to respond directly to this, Floyd (save the aformentioned debacle when you crawled away).

So...Why is that, Floyd?

That's because FL is here solely to preach at us with lies and distortions about how the only path to God is through believing that God magically and mysteriously poof everything and everyone on Earth into existence in grotesque contrast to the evidence, not to discuss anything, let alone discuss anything in a truthful manner.

Date: 2009/10/02 22:43:45, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 02 2009,21:07)
Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 02 2009,20:53)

That's because FL is here solely to preach at us with lies and distortions about how the only path to God is through believing that God magically and mysteriously poof everything and everyone on Earth into existence in grotesque contrast to the evidence, not to discuss anything, let alone discuss anything in a truthful manner.

Stanton, I hate to tell you you're wrong. FL is here to tell preach at us that he is the only person on this planet who speaks for God.  And until everyone accepts him as the second coming of Christ, he will just keep on blathering.

There, fixed for you, sweetie.

Date: 2009/10/03 09:16:56, Link
Author: Stanton
If Heddle honestly thought that FL was going to respond to his criticisms of FL's inane points in a thoughtful (and we're not even going to pretend that FL can respond honestly) manner, I own some Nevada beachfront property he'd be dying to acquire.

Date: 2009/10/03 13:20:30, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 03 2009,12:00)

Clay is not a mineral: it is a kind of sediment formed from fine grains of various different minerals, very water-absorbent, and showing a huge range of plasticity (malleableness) depending on the moisture content.

Date: 2009/10/03 14:38:26, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 03 2009,13:32)
Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 02 2009,12:40)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 02 2009,11:03)
 
Quote
Is "God" part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill?

Yes or no.


Nope.  He's not.  Furthermore, hydrologists (unlike evolutionists) are silent on the issue of God as a required explantion.

(Please note, however:  In the Bible, God IS the required explanation for the origin of water itself.)

And also He is the Required Explanation for the origin of plants, animals, and (this is where you come in) humans too.

Of course, evolution and evolutionists deny that.  Which is why there's an Incompatiblity there.

Explain to us why you don't think that God is a necessary requirement for explaining the science of how water flows downhill, yet, think that God, or more precisely, GODPOOFEDIT is the only explanation necessary, under pain of eternal torment at the hands of God, for explaining the origin and diversity of life?

I think a better analogy might be that since evolution is an ongoing process, a comparable non-biological function might be the weather.  I know YHVH was supposed to have been a sky or mountain god, but is He behind every cloud that forms, every breeze that blows, etc...

Hypocritically, FL sees no conflict between Christianity and Meteorology, even though Meteorology does not posit God as an explanation for any weather-related phenomena, let alone positing God as the penultimate explanation for all weather-related phenomena, and that FL apparently sees nothing horrible and conflicting about the fact that millions upon millions of people suffer horrifying hardships and or death directly due to weather-related phenomena every year (i.e., drought, tornadoes, floods, storms, hurricanes).

Date: 2009/10/03 20:21:44, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote
csadams said
Quote
FloydLee saidBut,again we're kinda wandering a bit.   Let's bring it back a little.  
Csadams, you say you are a Christian.  Can you tell me your specific reasons, based on your own professed Christian beliefs, why you believe that evolution is somehow compatible with Christianity?


Asked and answered.  You've been shown a multitude of examples of Christians who've no problems with evolution.  That your sect has those problems isn't my problem, isn't evolution's problem, it's your problem.  Besides, Jasper summed it up pretty well earlier.

FL's response to all of the examples of Christians who have no conflict between their faith and accepting the reality of evolution has been to either pretend that such Christians never existed, or lie and quotemine them as claiming that they do have conflict between their faith and accepting the reality of evolution.

Says alot about FL's own faith if he has to resort to such underhanded and despicable tactics to support his own claims.

Date: 2009/10/03 20:27:59, Link
Author: Stanton
The fact of the matter stands, Scienthuse, is that you made fallacious statements, and what little efforts you made to support these fallacious statements were to appeal to the authority of known liars, or accuse us of slander when we pointed out that you and your authorities were lying.

Claiming that the duties of real life preclude and or prevent you from answering our questions and rebuttals to your fallacious claims will not win any sympathy from us, especially since you obviously appear to have more than enough time to whine about our tone, as well as accuse us of slander when we dissect your claims for bullshit content.

Date: 2009/10/04 11:33:54, Link
Author: Stanton
So what personal studies lead you to assume that chert can be "rapidly" deposited from 40 days and 40 nights of magic rain?

Date: 2009/10/04 23:00:19, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 04 2009,21:51)
Quote
For your fifth alleged incompatibility, why do you think that things like predation, internal parasites or old age are terrible, horrible things that conflict with the Love of God, when the Bible mentions numerous terrible, horrible things done either by God, or done as per the commands of God, including total annihilation of life on Earth simply for the sin of humans, numerous murders, and genocide of entire nations, save for the virgin daughters who were taken as child slaves to reward the Jewish army?

Okay, back again.  Sort of starting with page 20 but will go back and forth, try to respond to as many as possible.

The above quotation is Stanton's, and it simply echoes what another poster or two already tried to argue in response to the Fifth Incompatibility.   The general idea seems to be:

"Evolution is cruel and sadistic, but hey that's okay, evolution is still compatible with Christianity because God is cruel and sadistic too."

Actually, the line of reason is why do you consider evolution to be cruel and evil when God is depicted in the Bible doing cruel and evil acts, or commanding people to be cruel and evil?

You refuse to realize that evolutionary biology is descriptive, not proscriptive or prescriptive.  If Creationism is true, and evolution false because it's horrible to conceive that predation, internal parasites and old age are a part of the natural world, you're still going to explain why we have such things occurring.  As for Creationism's explanation for everything not nice in the world...  You suppose you could explain why God loves all of us if He's also punishing every single living thing with pain and death for the actions of the first two humans?

Quote
To which I once again reply, "How many Christians do you honestly think will buy into that line of argument?"

So please explain to us why the current Pope does not buy your line of argument.

Date: 2009/10/04 23:33:49, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 04 2009,23:11)
And finally, the Fifth Incompatibility.  Check to see if I've quote-mined anybody as claimed by Deadman.

 
Quote
"Evolution by natural selection, you see, is an awful process. It is bloody, sadistic, and cruel. It flouts every moral precept we humans hold dear.

It recognizes only survival and gene propagation, and even on those rare occasions where you find altruism and non-selfishness you can be certain that blind self-interest is lurking somewhere behind the scenes.

All of this suffering, pain and misery, mind you, to reach a foreordained moment when self-aware creature finally appeared.

What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport? If humans were inevitable why didn't God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years?

....Reconciling evolution and Christianity is not as simple as theistic evolutionists often try to pretend."


---Jason Rosenhouse's Evolutionblog, "My Review of Only A Theory", June 21, 2008.


Unchallenged.  Nobody's claimed that it's a quotemine.  (The article is online if you wanna check for yourself.)

******

Okay, that's that, Deadman.  All five.  Your move.   Support your accusation of quote-mining.

Are you a vegan, FL?  I mean, with the way you eagerly bring up your alleged fifth point of incompatibility like an old war scar, one would get the idea that you find the idea of eating meat to be incompatible with Christianity, or at least, makes you nauseous with anxiety.

Date: 2009/10/04 23:42:22, Link
Author: Stanton
Essentially, Scienthuse's argument boils down to "yes, Austin and Morris are right about how limestone can magically solidify, then be eroded because of a magical flood, and you should take a chill pill because you get mean in the way you get impatient with my inane non-responses!"

And this also fails to explain how there can be several fossil reefs preserved within the Grand Canyon, nor how the various layers of igneous rock were also magically lain down then eroded in a magical flood lasting 40 days and 40 nights.

Date: 2009/10/04 23:49:33, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 04 2009,23:34)
Animals have been eating other animals for food for as long as there have been animals, regardless of whether they evolved or not. So if Christianity is incompatible with that fact, then inserting evolution as a scapegoat is invalid logic.

Henry

Likewise, if Christianity is incompatible with the idea that there is cruelty in nature, then inserting evolution as a scapegoat is invalid logic, as well.

Date: 2009/10/05 08:09:46, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 05 2009,06:18)
Quote
This afternoon (it's 1 pm here right now) , I will go to the St Helene Parish, 100 meters from my place. It is a Catholic parish, where I was baptized, and the priest there is really nice (not much kiddy-fundling, plus he did my grand-aunt's funeral admirably). I will try to get his views on the subject and get back to you...

Sincere thanks.  You'd think the professing Christians in this forum would come up with their OWN personal compatibility/incompatibility theology for examination and consideration, but since that's obviously not the case, I'm grateful for your plans to import somebody who can actually step up to that plate.......  

As was stated to you earlier, repeatedly, the Christians on this site do not want or need your approval of their current state of faith and or spirituality, especially since you've done nothing to earn such a right, and the only thing you'll do is ridicule them for not being like you.

Date: 2009/10/05 08:11:50, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 05 2009,06:27)
Also, it wouldn't hurt you to acknowledge that your "simple 3-line proof" did receive at least one considered reply already from me.  
Statements like "Still unanswered from page one of the thread" simply aren't accurate in this case.  You did get an answer, though you disagreed with it.

Yet you've never answered it.  In fact, you've repeatedly lied that Pope Benedict issued contradictory statements.
Quote
You want to preach about honesty Deadman?  Then start modeling the desired behavior.

a) Deadman is being honest, b) you first.

Date: 2009/10/06 12:58:26, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,12:44)
Needless to say, the next time you guys try to suddently pretend that abiogenesis is separate from evolution, I'll be quoting not only Oro but De Duve as well!!

Please explain why it is necessary to have a definitive understanding of abiogenesis before one can understand examples of evolution.

In other words, FL, tell us why we have to know exactly how life began before we can study bacteria, fruitflies, fossils, or understand how to breed orchids, dogs, cats, fish, sunflowers or vegetables.

Oh, wait, you can't because you're lying through your orifices yet again.

Date: 2009/10/06 13:03:50, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,12:52)
Quote
The rest of your quibbles are irrelevant

Funny how if you see something you don't like in my responses, it's always "irrelevant" whether or not it really is.  Will look at your post further.

Maybe we think your points are irrelevant because your so-called attempts to explain why you think the Pope lied about accepting evolution is to make up lies and become unbearably smug while wandering off topic, or that you've supported all of your other claims with lies, quote-mines, or nonsensical logic, like how for your fifth inane point of how it's an abomination for tigers to eat deer, or for tapeworms to exist, though humans have been given divine licence to do whatever they please with plants and animals, including eating, torturing, or simply pleasure-killing them as necessary.

Date: 2009/10/06 13:06:37, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 06 2009,12:59)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,12:52)
 
Quote
The rest of your quibbles are irrelevant

Funny how if you see something you don't like in my responses, it's always "irrelevant" whether or not it really is.  Will look at your post further.

Don't quote-mine me as you have so many others, Floyd.

I stated why they were irrelevant -- THEN demonstrated them to be illogical and unsupported by fact as well.

I'm not surprised that you chose that tiny bit to pick out and skew, in light of all the valid objections to your fights-of-fantasy scenarios.

You honestly, honest to goodness, thought that FL would be above quotemining you?

Hahahahahaha, if that's so, I have some Nevada beach property to sell you.

Plus, I think you mean "fight-for-fantasy."  (I was going to "I think you mean "flight-of-fantasy," but....)

Date: 2009/10/06 13:08:18, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,13:05)
Quote
You calling them "rational reasons" does not make that so. I view your claims as completely irrational.

Hey, I view YOUR claims as completely irrational.  Which means if we're gonna get anywhere, we both must provide rational reasons for whatever we claim, as best we can.

If you need a model, look at Dan's post.  He's at least trying to be specific.

***

And yet, you haven't actually tried to address them beyond saying that the Pope agrees with you, while ignoring that the Pope has made numerous statements repeatedly contradicting your claim of incompatibility.

Date: 2009/10/06 13:09:31, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 06 2009,12:59)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 06 2009,12:46)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 05 2009,17:24)
please explain why    
Quote
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?

Floyd, please address.  Coward.

Floyd while you are playing pocket pool might want to address this.

While you're waiting for FL to address this, I recommend you take up a hobby: like knitting afghans for Clydesdales or piano cozies.

Date: 2009/10/06 13:16:01, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 06 2009,13:10)
Oh, and I was quite specific, Floyd. Your objections require actual evidential support for you to claim them as valid. Hard to get more specific than that.

Go easy on FL: it's not his fault that he neither knows or cares that his Lies for Jesus are not the same as actual evidence.

Date: 2009/10/06 13:40:13, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 06 2009,13:30)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,13:22)
Probably need to ask something else, too.  Have you ever taken a course in ancient or modern philosophy, Deadman?  They usually discuss when something can be said to be "proof" or not.

A syllogism is a particular form of a proof, Floyd.
1 All people are mortal. Premise
2 Socrates is a person. Premise
3 Therefore, Socrates is mortal. Conclusion

This is called what by Aristotle, Floyd? Hint: it starts with an "E"

The "Pope accepts evolution as compatible with christianity" syllogism takes the same form

-------------------------------

Your claims are tantamount to stating something akin to "Socrates isn't really mortal, because  his words live forever and he may not have been a person, anyway, but a space alien."

Both of the above objections would have to be supported by evidence relevant to the issues, just as your objections must be supported by evidence, Floyd.

The Pope will out himself as a reptilian space alien before FL will provide actual evidence to support himself.

Date: 2009/10/06 21:39:28, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,17:58)
typo correction:  the sentence should read  "the Pope might not be aware of Rosenhouse's argument...."

Why should the Pope care about Rosenhouse's opinions?

Why would you expect that the Pope's faith was as weak and shallow as your faith that you have to take the otherwise unwanted advice of meddling atheists to figure out your relationship with God?

Date: 2009/10/06 21:42:32, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 06 2009,18:46)
Even more amusingly, when you are saying " maybe the pope isn't aware of my made-up list of incompatibilities" you are merely saying "the Pope isn't really a Christian until he agrees with me" in a slightly different way. You haven't established the validity of any of your objections at all, FloydLee.

Weren't the Pharisees doing something very, very similar that got Jesus so pissed off that Our Savior threw a temper tantrum in the Temple?

Date: 2009/10/07 07:58:27, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,07:40)
{snip} Reed's and Deadman's statements absolutely depend on using the philosophy of methodological naturalism to define what science is.  

The next post shows why that dependence is wrong.

FloydLee

Define how one can do tests, rely on observations or even make logical explanations in a science that uses appeals to the supernatural as explanations.

Oh, wait, you can't, and that's why the Intelligent Design movement has both done absolutely nothing in the last 2 to 3 decades since it was conceived, and why the higher-ups in the Intelligent Design movement have confessed that Intelligent Design was intended to be nothing more than a Trojan Horse for Creationism and Jesus, and was never to be an alternative to Evolution(ary Biology) in the first place.

Date: 2009/10/07 08:01:06, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 07 2009,04:34)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 07 2009,03:38)
ETA: Oh you want a serious analysis, with examples? You think their schtick is worth it?

Yes. I'd like that in Finnish and ...ummm...one of those African click languages, plz.

You mean like the !Kung?

Date: 2009/10/07 21:01:23, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 07 2009,18:47)
You really don't have ANY honor or real ethics, do you?

You're new around these parts, aren't you kid?

Date: 2009/10/07 21:04:17, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 07 2009,20:02)
floyd just answer the question

He never will.

Date: 2009/10/08 13:52:59, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 08 2009,13:28)
I don't think you can even discuss evolution without an acceptance of deep time. And i don't understand how you can know anything about geology and deny deep time.

I also don't see how you can deny all the evidence of an old earth by claiming that god deliberately faked all that evidence. I think it's blasphemy to claim that god is a fraud.

Well, technically, you can discuss evolution without mentioning deep time if you're talking about recent examples of evolution, i.e., the development of new breeds of domesticated animals, new biological innovations among agricultural pests, etc.

On the other hand, when you move on to more esoteric and or touchy matters like the interrelationships of big taxa and or fossil taxa (i.e., birds vs reptiles, or ammonites, etc), then the acceptance of deep time is automatic.

Date: 2009/10/08 20:58:52, Link
Author: Stanton
Among other things, it was pointed out that there were three reefs, composed of very different organisms, stacked within the stratum of the Grand Canyon, with no species from one reef found within any of the others, nor fossils of any modern day reef-dwelling organism found within any of them.  How is your explanation supposed to imply that there was one reef buried?

Furthermore, even if there was one reef, how does your explain demonstrate that the whole structure was formed, and then eroded within the same flood that lasted 40 days and 40 nights?  I mean, you do realize that the limestone, shale, gneiss and granites of the Grand Canyon are profoundly different than the loosely consolidated ash of Mt St Helens, right?

As for the crinoids: when they're found intact, that means they were buried quickly, because of a storm, not a flood.  A catastrophic flood would suggest a great deal of violent turbation, something that would not lend to preserving intact crinoids.  Also, you fail to explain how a catastrophic flood would not only bury a reef with great violence, yet, be also able to preserve footprints, as well.

As for your whining about cancerous hate, well, it seems very odd that you would whine about being so busy with your real life, yet, find plenty of time to piss and moan about us being assholes, even though you, yourself, have demonstrated that you're an even bigger Asshole for Jesus.

Date: 2009/10/08 21:09:16, Link
Author: Stanton
One more thing, why would there be dolomite in the Grand Canyon, if dolomite can not be formed or deposited in a flood?

Date: 2009/10/08 21:15:41, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 08 2009,20:27)
Me, I think this is the funniest part of his post:

"If you research you will find that crinoid heads decay very quickly."

Wow. Time-travel machine? Secret extinct-crinoid farm in Atlantis? Aliens in his head whispering arcane secrets? Extrapolation from modern crinoids? Will we ever know?

The tests and skeletons of echinoderms, except sand dollars, do indeed tend to disarticulate very quickly due to decomposition of the connecting tissue: we see this in both fossil and modern species.

On the other hand, this doesn't mean that the intact crinoids prove that the Grand Canyon was lain down in a magic flood.  Echinoderm tests and skeletons will also quickly disarticulate when exposed to violent forces, such as turbulence caused by a (magic) flood.

Date: 2009/10/08 21:54:30, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 08 2009,21:46)
all right louis the jig is up.  you are clownshoes right?

You should be bushwhacked with a gorse bush for suggesting something so utterly obscene.

Date: 2009/10/08 23:02:34, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 08 2009,22:53)
In other words, there's a great deal of meat he could have added to his "research" to substantiate his belief. It's hand-waving of the worst sort. Maybe  you don't find it funny, but I do, Stanton.

I suppose so.  I used to laugh at similar such things and situations when I was a child, but, I was forced to grow out of it, as my mother kept lecturing me, "De-de, stop staking the slugs on pine needles for the ants. It's not a nice hobby to have."

Date: 2009/10/08 23:03:51, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 08 2009,22:41)
Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 08 2009,22:54)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 08 2009,21:46)
all right louis the jig is up.  you are clownshoes right?

You should be bushwhacked with a gorse bush for suggesting something so utterly obscene.

i'm sorry.

i know in some parts of the world that "jig" has connotations that I didn't mean to imply.

my apologies.

You mean, along the lines of "Ahah!  The jig is up!" "And gone!"

Date: 2010/11/04 21:34:52, Link
Author: Stanton
It seems odd that IBelieve would attempt to prove the existence of absolutes, and by proxy, prove that his (mis)interpretation of the Bible is 1110% correct and has to be worshiped as God immediately, by asking deliberately stupid and illogical questions.

It also seems odd that IBelieve wants us to obey him when he claims that God, via a literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible, is the absolute source of all morality, even though that would mean murdering children, and taking underaged girls as sex slaves is morally good.

Date: 2010/11/04 21:43:18, Link
Author: Stanton
Speaking of whales and dolphins, has anyone heard about the fossil pilot whale, Platalearostrum hoekmani, that was just described Tuesday?

Date: 2010/11/04 21:58:24, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,21:41)
Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 04 2010,21:34)
It seems odd that IBelieve would attempt to prove the existence of absolutes, and by proxy, prove that his (mis)interpretation of the Bible is 1110% correct and has to be worshiped as God immediately, by asking deliberately stupid and illogical questions.

It also seems odd that IBelieve wants us to obey him when he claims that God, via a literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible, is the absolute source of all morality, even though that would mean murdering children, and taking underaged girls as sex slaves is morally good.

Very true.  What's interesting is that there has been no discussion of the ten commandments in his 'absolute morality' crap.

What's even funnier, is that if the Bible is 1100% correct and literal, then Jesus cannot be the messiah, which means the Jews were right all along... funnier and funnier.

He's also missed two avenues of attack on the discovery article quote-mine.  He just doesn't have the knowledge or critical thinking ability to see them.

I wonder if the reason why he isn't mentioning the 10 Commandments because even he realizes that his demanding that we forsake science and logic in order to worship his misinterpretation of the Bible, thereby massaging his ego, would entail the breaking of no less than 3 Commandments (i.e., bearing false witness, taking God in vain, and worshiping something other than God).

Plus, wasn't IBelieve's argument concerning the parts of the Bible saying that Jesus wasn't the Messiah was that a) those were some of the parts of the Bible that were up for interpretation, and that b) we weren't given permission to interpret the Bible?

Or am I confusing that with when IBelieve said that the Bible magically stated that a "prophetic year" was magically 360 days instead of 365(.257) because he said so?

Date: 2010/11/05 07:37:27, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,03:45)
Again it is clear that Discovery is not guilty of quote-mining, and again you are arguing an absolute, which doesn't make any sense considering you don't even believe in absolutes!

If the Discovery Institute is not guilty of quote-mining, then why is it that they were arguing that evolutionary development disproves evolution, even though this conclusion contradicts both the original statement, AND reality?

That, and tell us how this is supposed to prove that God and the Bible are the absolute source of absolute morality.

Date: 2010/11/05 07:41:29, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,03:49)
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 04 2010,23:36)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,16:07)
Are there any square circles?:)

Do you even know what that refers to?

Is it over your head?

Please explain to us why asking us about the existence or non-existence of square circles is supposed to demonstrate that the Discovery Institute has magically never lied, that your own literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible is supposed to be the absolute source of God's absolute morality, and please explain to us how this is supposed to disprove Evolution, while proving that God magically poofed the world into existence 10,000 years ago using magic.

Date: 2010/11/05 17:15:24, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,09:12)
...This is directly related to evolution by common descent, and not changes that have actually been observed. You see evolutionists see little changes, and then make grand claims from the little changes. I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years.

So explain to us how we're supposed to believe you when you claim that God magically poofing the world into existence 10,000 years ago, using magic, with no physical evidence, is supposed to be more scientific than actual science.

Why do you constantly imply and insist that interpreting the English translation of the Bible literally is logical, sound and scientific, while simultaneously denouncing actual science and scientific investigation is useless speculation, devil worship conspiracy for genocide?

Date: 2010/11/05 17:19:24, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2010,12:30)
...

If I could prove to you that they lied would you continue to support them?

Of course IBelieve would continue supporting and mindlessly repeating the Discovery Institute's anti-science soundbites and quotemines: that is what his handlers programmed him to do, under pain of eternal damnation.

Date: 2010/11/06 09:56:30, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 06 2010,07:29)
I still find it folly that you are still stuck on an alleged quote-mine that the author of, hasn't even spoke out about. I still don't believe that it is a quote-mine, and you believe that it is, so why don't you move on.

So how is this supposed to prove that the Discovery Institute has never lied?

The Discovery Institute claims to be at the forefront of developing and nurturing Intelligent Design and Scientific Creationism, and yet, why have they not produced a single peer-reviewed paper?

Why did the Discovery Institute lose at the Dover trial?

Date: 2010/11/08 07:44:35, Link
Author: Stanton
I wonder why IBelieve is so reluctant to answer our questions?  I mean, he refuses to explain why it is folly for us to assume that the Discovery Institute lied when they were quoting that scientist, even though the Discovery Institute deliberately rephrased the author's words to imply that she was saying that evolutionary development magically disproves evolution, and that her original words claimed something completely opposite?

On the other hand, the moment IBelieve gets back, he's going to make some condescending excuse about how he interrupted his precious internet trolling time because he needed to do some errand for his alleged real life where he makes gobs upon gobs of more money that stupid evil scientists.

And then he's going to change the subject, and then mock us because he is physically incapable of answering any of our questions truthfully.

Date: 2010/11/10 21:18:20, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,19:24)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 09 2010,00:26)
[SNIP]

TARDbucket

[SNIP]

Terry Pratchett introduced me to the idea of a "crab bucket". Fill a bucket with crabs, if one crab tries to leave, another crab is sure to grab him with a pincer and prevent him. As the crabs in the bucket are due for slaughter, this guarantees no crab survives because of the thoughtless selfishness of the other crabs.

I am wondering if an analogy can be made. Let me see...

Fill a bucket with humans, if one human tries to leave, another human is sure to infuritate him with meaningless TARD and prevent him doing something productive. As the humans in the bucket rely on each other to be able to do anything productive, this guarantees no human can progress because of the thoughtless selfishness of the other humans.

Nah, couldn't be right could it?

Louis

Well, if you examine crabs a little more closer (while still remaining out of reach), the "crab bucket" analogy fails, if only because a crab is capable of, and somewhat willing to shed a limb when the circumstance arises.  (In fact, ask my mother about any of the times I've tried to recapture escaping crabs from their bucket at the local supermarket)

On the other hand, what with humans being mostly incapable of, and largely unwilling to shed limbs (overly gory horror films notwithstanding), and given humans' often deliberately stupid behavior is often exacerbated in a crowd and or tight spaces, the "crab bucket" analogy fits humans to a tee.

Date: 2010/11/11 13:32:20, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 11 2010,13:23)
Ah, so humans are harder to disarm than crabs are?  :O

By arthropod standards, that is our fatal flaw, even.

Date: 2010/11/11 17:33:55, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 11 2010,13:38)

Don't trifle with me, Louis, I know a recipe for crab that's so delicious that, if you spilled any on yourself, you'd spontaneously cannibalize the bodypart it spattered on.

Date: 2010/11/11 20:46:55, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (phhht @ Nov. 11 2010,20:11)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 11 2010,18:44)
 
Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 11 2010,23:33)
 
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 11 2010,13:38)

Don't trifle with me, Louis, I know a recipe for crab that's so delicious that, if you spilled any on yourself, you'd spontaneously cannibalize the bodypart it spattered on.

Crab trifle? Doesn't sound that good. Either way, I'm not intimi...imint...inimt...afraid. I have a picture of Robocop on a unicorn and I'm willing to use it.

Don't push me, man. I've had some lager.

Louis

Be cautious, Louis.  The crab recipe may have scorpions in it, or worse, pumpkinated vodka.

Worse, far worse...
It has sherry and tapioca flour...

Date: 2010/11/13 23:46:39, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 12 2010,21:14)
Quote (EyeNoTwo @ Nov. 12 2010,11:26)
Was that a fluke?

There's blenny more where that came from.

Lots mola where that came from.

But don't ask me, I've got jackfish.

Date: 2010/11/14 09:34:44, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (EyeNoTwo @ Nov. 14 2010,07:06)
You folks can't tell your wrasse from a sole in the sound.....

Know your plaice!

Date: 2010/11/16 07:52:13, Link
Author: Stanton
So, is this it?

IBelieveInGod declares defeat by slinking off and disappearing?

Louis is a roaring drunk?
(not that that has anything to do with the situation)

Date: 2010/11/30 07:35:15, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 29 2010,21:57)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 27 2010,18:17)
Why are you such an asshole?  Seriously.  What made you into such an angry, bitter, nasty, mean-spirited, hateful person?  

Questions for the ages, really.

Because the Nobel Prize Committee doesn't make "pity prizes"?

Date: 2010/12/02 21:17:17, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 02 2010,18:59)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 01 2010,16:54)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 01 2010,07:20)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 30 2010,22:20)
Joe seems to be arguing that you don't have more information with two copies of a dictionary than you do with just one. Trivially, though, you have the information of how many copies there are. That will increase as log_2(n) with increasing n. (I think we covered that in Elsberry and Shallit 2003.)

Given a species with n base pairs, sometimes a tetraploid daughter species can be produced that has 2n base pairs. If there is no change in information for that case, as it appears Joe argues, would we expect that parent and daughter species of that sort are morphologically indistinguishable?

No Wes, if you have two copies of the same dictionary you do not have more information than if you just had one.

Ya see Wes the information is the same in both.

Your problem is you are wed to Shannon's version of information which isn't information at all.

The bit about being wed to Shannon is a swing and a miss. In critiquing Dembski, we made extensive use of Algorithmic Information Theory.

OK, Joe, now take your claim to the world of biology: Do you expect a parent species and its tetraploid daughter species whose genome is simply copied twice to be morphologically indistinguishable? Doesn't your stance on the information content of copies demand that conclusion?

Algorithmic Information Theory - nope that doesn't do it either. Complexity measures do not deal with meaning/ function.

ASs for polyploidy- any new body parts, new body plans or new protein machinery?

Or are things just a little bigger well because there is more stuff in the package?

IOW Wes just make your point.

Ya see my stance would say there are not two times the body parts, two bodies and twice the protein machinery.

So how would you use your Algorithmic Information Theory to determine what the information values of Lamarck's Evening Primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana and its observed daughter species, O. gigas are?

Date: 2010/12/03 21:42:59, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Dr.GH @ Dec. 03 2010,20:43)
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 03 2010,01:20)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Dec. 03 2010,01:57)
[SNIP]

And I'm actually a swallower, not a spittler.

Due to the enormous amount of respect I have for you I am not touching that comment with a ten foot stick. I will say two things though:

1) I expect credit for my restraint. Please speak to the Official Global Union of Women and Lady Persons about getting my points total updated.

Good Lord! She does restraints too!

You should see the glint in his eyes when she puts him on the Rack.

Date: 2010/12/19 17:14:01, Link
Author: Stanton
In my opinion, Mad, your assessment of IBelieve's intellect is severely sugarcoated.

Date: 2010/12/19 18:58:05, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 19 2010,17:19)
Frankly?

Yes.  Yes, it is.  With sprinkles, even.

I admit it openly.  Just as I have been pulling my punches with another moron, not that they seems to appreciate the extra benefit of the doubt I've given them.

Biggy does not deserve the full eloquence of what wordsmithery I can summon when properly motivated.


The MadPanda, FCD

You mean like the time you killed a guy in a barfight with nothing but a bawdy limerick?

Date: 2010/12/19 21:30:31, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 19 2010,19:08)
That was actually a misquote: it wasn't a dirty limerick.

I was quoting Cyrano de Bergerac at length, and the poor drunken fool thought to come after me with a blunt sonnet in the Italian vein.  So of course I had to resort to an unfortunate excess of e e cummings in self defense.  Nobody was killed, but the other fellow had to have fifteen stitches.

Since, at the time, I was dating someone who liked to improvise Gilbert and Sullivan patter-songs, it could have been far worse.


The MadPanda, FCD

Sounds suspiciously similar to what Gilda Radner went through on the Muppets Show.

Especially the part where she was forced to join forces with a snotty, 7 foot carrot to tackle "Pirates of Penzance"

Date: 2010/12/20 13:10:51, Link
Author: Stanton
Well, I reminded the nitwit of his cowardliness here, and, Mad, Gilda's Fiasco

Date: 2010/12/20 20:18:13, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 20 2010,15:18)
Just call me MP, please  :)   And no, nobody ever calls me MISTER Panda.

We'll have to wait for that to get tacky, then.

Date: 2010/12/22 00:41:46, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 21 2010,22:43)
Quote (Stanton @ Dec. 20 2010,13:10)
Well, I reminded the nitwit of his cowardliness here, and, Mad, Gilda's Fiasco

I have now seen the seven foot tall talking Carrot of Penzance and...it was, in a nutshell, more intellectually fulfilling and enjoyable than anything Biggy (or Steve P., or Kris, or FL, or...) has ever typed over at PT.


Thanks for the link, Stanton!  Quite enjoyable.


The MadPanda, FCD

Oh, you root for anything.  What about the time you started up that torrid affair with that parsnip?

Date: 2010/12/27 21:04:19, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Dec. 27 2010,19:01)
I don't have to answer anything. I'm not the scientist here, and I never claimed to be a scientist, but if you are convince me or anyone else that you are correct, then you would just answer the questions. If you don't answer the questions then you really come across as having no evidence. If you can't answer the simple questions that I posted, then you have just demonstrated how weak your evidence is for evolution from common descent!!!

And yet, you are the one who hypocritically claims to know more about science than all of the actual scientists of the world.

And you are also the one who hypocritically implies that God magically poofing the world and all of its inhabitants into existence, without any evidence whatsoever, is supposed to be more scientific and more logical than actual science.

Date: 2010/12/27 21:13:28, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Dec. 27 2010,21:09)
Quote (Stanton @ Dec. 27 2010,21:04)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Dec. 27 2010,19:01)
I don't have to answer anything. I'm not the scientist here, and I never claimed to be a scientist, but if you are convince me or anyone else that you are correct, then you would just answer the questions. If you don't answer the questions then you really come across as having no evidence. If you can't answer the simple questions that I posted, then you have just demonstrated how weak your evidence is for evolution from common descent!!!

And yet, you are the one who hypocritically claims to know more about science than all of the actual scientists of the world.

And you are also the one who hypocritically implies that God magically poofing the world and all of its inhabitants into existence, without any evidence whatsoever, is supposed to be more scientific and more logical than actual science.

Yet your assumptions are no more scientific then my belief in a Creator.

Why is basing assumptions according to current scientific knowledge not scientific?

Why do you insist on saying that your belief in God is supposed to trump science?

How come you refuse to explain why saying God magically poofed everything into existence is supposed to be more scientific and more logical than actual science?

Date: 2010/12/27 21:20:24, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 27 2010,21:16)
So far, all (IBelieve has) demonstrated is badly mangled rhetoric and willful ignorance, to say nothing of repeated assertions about your imaginary friend.  Make an effort to avoid fallacious non-logic.


The MadPanda, FCD

To ask that IBelieve refrain from using fallacious non-logic is an utterly impossible, implausible act tantamount to demanding that one fly to the moon in an empty tissue box.

Date: 2010/12/27 21:28:17, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Dec. 27 2010,21:25)
You the ones who require evidence, yet when you have none your assumption is perfectly acceptable to you. An ASSUMPTION IS NOT EVIDENCE!!! That is the problem with origin science, and why I don't believe it is true science. There is no way of confirming anything, there will never be any more then assumptions, conjecture, speculation, presuppositions, etc... Your theories are built on a house of cards of assumptions stacked on assumptions:)

Then how come you refuse to explain why "origin science" (sic) is less scientific than saying that God magically poofed everything into existence 10,000 years ago, even though there is no evidence for this latter statement, and plenty of evidence for Abiogenesis?

How come you refuse to explain why you have the magical ability to negate evidence you don't like by pretending it doesn't exist?

Date: 2010/12/27 21:32:52, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 27 2010,21:27)
Quote (Stanton @ Dec. 27 2010,21:20)

To ask that IBelieve refrain from using fallacious non-logic is an utterly impossible, implausible act tantamount to demanding that one fly to the moon in an empty tissue box.


Alas, this is undoubtedly true.

He can't even tell the difference between basing an assumption on available evidence (which is not only reasonable but acceptable) and the fallacious use of assumption as evidence.  He does this a lot, I've noticed: elsewhere he's demonstrated confusion between an argument based on evidence, which leads to a state of incredulity...and an argument from incredibility, which is what he uses.

I'm not sure Biggy passed English Comp 101.


The MadPanda, FCD

One gets the impression that his inability to distinguish between making an assumption based on available evidence and making an assumption without any evidence is deliberate.

As for his constant appeals to personal incredulity: they make him look like a lying hypocrite, especially whenever he denies claiming that he knows more about science than actual scientists.

Date: 2010/12/27 21:36:52, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 27 2010,21:33)
Reflect, repent, and depart, or pull out the cork and stop lying.

Like I said, this is physically impossible for IBelieve to do.  It would be far easier to fly to the moon in an empty tissue box than for IBelieve to stop proclaiming that he knows more about science than all of the scientists in the world (because his FAITH told him so).

Date: 2010/12/28 10:52:36, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Quack @ Dec. 28 2010,05:56)
Quote
Tell me again who the writer of Genesis is and when exactly he wrote it

I wish I had a time machine and could go back to the centuries before it was written and listen to their palaver around the campfire.

That would be an abominable waste of a good time machine.

Why not go back to the arcane era when globular hairstyles were still in fashion, and wild bellbottoms roamed free?

Date: 2010/12/30 18:16:29, Link
Author: Stanton
If Evolutionary Biology and the totality of science is against your bigoted religion, FL, why do you keep eating industrially made food, and continue using medicine, vaccines, plastic and the Internet?

Hypocrite, much?

Date: 2010/12/30 19:52:49, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Texas Teach @ Dec. 30 2010,19:11)
I don't know about any of the rest of you, but I come here to mock the ridiculous.  FL is in good company there.  From Denyse's prose to GEM of TKI's Lewontin obsession. From Clive's (Hi, Clive!) ruthless hypocrisy to JoeG's thinking ice is only the same as water if it's the same size.  This is why I'm here.  (Well and the mum jokes)

So carry on Floyd.  Please tell me more about how I secretly worship your god.  Just warn me next time so I can set down my drink.

Actually, FL thinks that you, I and everyone else who doesn't worship his inanity are actually evil satanists who worship Evolution as a literal god, regard Charles Darwin as a literal bible, and worship in science classrooms, because to FL, science classrooms are just another church.

Of course, FL also thinks he has the power to say who can and can not receive salvation from Jesus, and claims that all true Christians are forbidden from associating with Evolution in any way at all, except for its products, or if they're the Pope, for no apparent reason.

And there is the fact that FL claims that Jesus will send anyone to Hell who doesn't believe that the Book of Genesis is literally, word for word true, even though FL refuses to quote or even mention which Biblical passage says this.

Date: 2011/01/05 20:18:47, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 04 2011,18:04)
I.B.I.G. is back!  Thanks for coming to the forum named in your honor.

I've been spending way too much time reading the Bathroom Wall at Panda's Thumb. It's been tedious, but enlightening.

IBIB was the central focus of the BW in 2010.  After thousands of posts, what was IBIG's point?

I think he finally posted it recently on Panda's Thumb, but here it is for those of you who haven't read it.

IBelieveInGod said: "I believe the sole purpose of the scientific claim of Abiogenesis is to imply that there is no God. If one were not to believe in God, and wanted to promote such a view, then creating an unprovable, and unfalsifiable hypothesis that life came to be by natural causes without a Creator would be the way to go about it. Abiogenesis would be a great tool for evangelizing young minds away from believing in God, and turning them into Atheists. Implying God doesn’t exist with an unprovable, and unfalsifiable hypothesis should be prohibited from being taught in public school."

That's what he was trying to convince everyone of, for an entire year. Not interest in hearing counter arguments, he fights science because he feels it exists soley to deny his God. And his fight is holy and his cause is just.

Evidently there's a US patent for abiogenesis, the object of his wrath.

What does that do to your argument IBIG? The government handed out a patent for abiogenesis. It must be real. I guess you were wrong.

IBelieve demonstrates that he hypocritically hates science: if he doesn't hate science, why would he make up a ridiculous story of how the sole purpose of Abiogenesis is to turn children into God-hate atheists?

He's not interested in hearing counter-arguments, he's here to preen and satisfy his ego: Why else would he set up such painfully stupid gotcha games in order to exalt how he worships his own ignorance (which he mistakes for Jesus and God, no less)?  Why else would he lie so much, only to hypocritically turn around and accuse everyone of putting words into his mouth, or screech about how everyone who points out his bullshit is really an evil atheist out to get him?

And then there's how he refuses to explain how saying that God "spoke the laws into existence" is suppose to be science beyond him saying that his "FAITH" tells him so.

He even refuses to explain how God "speaking the laws into existence" is supposed to be different from God magically poofing everything into existence using magic.

Date: 2011/01/05 20:29:28, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 05 2011,08:51)
hmmm... I didn't hear about IBIG's final admission of why he's here.

So, a scientific explantion of molecules (using known chemical processes) self assembling into structures that are able to reproduce (and therefore evolve) is against God.

But, a magic sky fairy breathing on mud and out pops a human being is OK.  Got it, thanks.

BTW: If the scientific explanation of chemistry is wrong, IBIG, do you pray every morning that your car will run and that all the chemistry that keeps you alive works correctly and that all the food you eat will miraculously turn into fuel and nutrients for your body?

If you don't, then you are a hypocrite.  But we all knew that already.

I don't believe IBelieve has bothered to answer this question of yours.

I wonder why.

Date: 2011/01/05 21:09:16, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 05 2011,20:47)
Hell, it took us over 6 months to get to answer why he was here.

That he wants us to repent our unforgivable sin of assuming science is science, and not a nefarious, evil atheist plot to mutate children into evil, God-hating zombie monsters in a deliberate attempt to spite IBelieve because he has "FAITH"?

Or, was it that we had to believe whatever bullcrap IBelieve says, under pain of eternal damnation, because IBelieve has "FAITH," and thereby knows more about science than all of the scientists in the whole wide world?

Or was it that "God speaking the laws into existence" is somehow, magically different from saying that "God magically poofed the world into existence using magic," despite a stark refusal to explain why?

Date: 2011/01/06 08:10:55, Link
Author: Stanton
IBelieve, you are a colossal moron if you are stupid enough to conflate "Muslim" with "Evil Atheist" simply because they are not Christian.

Or, explain to us in fine detail exactly why Mullah Omar is an atheist even though he did all those abominable things for God in Afghanistan.

Date: 2011/01/06 21:17:50, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 06 2011,21:09)
Is 'small' a sufficient word for the organ in question?  I should think the words 'limp' or 'flaccid' as well as 'ridiculous' might apply...or so I hear from the few persons who count as credible witnesses whenever they can stop laughing long enough to answer questions.


The MadPanda, FCD

"Atrophied" is a far better descriptor.

We are talking about the brain, yes?

Date: 2011/01/07 00:03:45, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 06 2011,23:57)
Quote (brobotsb2 @ Jan. 06 2011,21:30)
 
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 06 2011,21:28)
LOL!  Crazy, stupid, dickless little fuckweasel creotard iz teh funeez!   :D

wolfhound - we're going to exterminate you as well...

you are going to be a martyr for ATHEISM....

You do realize, you blasphemous nutcase, that you make your God look as crazy as you are.

Dave Mabus doesn't care one bit, so long as he gets to (try and completely fail to) intimidate us with his inane murder fantasies that he is totally incapable of fulfilling.

If he could make good on his empty threats, then, bully for God.  If he can't, then he'll still have internet access.

Date: 2011/01/07 07:51:36, Link
Author: Stanton
You have to be an idiot to say that suppressing and oppressing other people because their religion offends you makes you an atheist.

You have ignored the very fact that the primary reason why Hitler was able convince so many people to help him commit genocide against the Jews was because there was a centuries old tradition of Anti-Semitism in place in German culture thanks directly due to the anti-Semitic rantings of Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism.

According to your inane logic, Martin Luther, and all Protestant Christians, and their offshoots, are all atheists.

Furthermore, we keep telling you that the Holocaust was perpetrated by Christians, not atheists.  For you to accuse us of agreeing with the Holocaust denial rhetoric of that moronic bigot of a puppet ruler of Iran is the depths of hypocrisy, what with you always screeching about we're allegedly putting words into your mouth.

And then there is the fact that Communist regimes suppress religion because the ruling elite establish cults of personality for their rulers, and see other religions as competition.

Date: 2011/01/07 07:55:13, Link
Author: Stanton
And IBelieve, you still haven't explained how abortions ties into with Atheism and the Nazis.

Among other things, because Adolf Hitler thought of "Aryan" women as being precious soldier factories, the Nazis prohibited abortion.  Also, being an atheist was grounds for arrest, and eventually, deportation to concentration camps.


And you haven't explained how or why Abortion is supposed to tie into Abiogenesis, either, beyond the fact that both offend your bigoted sensibilities.

Nor have you explained how or why Mullah Omar is supposed to be an Evil Atheist, despite the fact that it's a documented fact that he's a God-fearing Muslim.

Date: 2011/01/07 07:58:22, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 07 2011,07:12)
Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 06 2011,18:13)
IBIG!

You said, "Okay let’s see you create non-living matter from nothing, and then let’s see you create life from that non-living matter, and then I will talk with you:):):) If it is so easy for life to have come about from non-living matter without the intervention of a Creator, then it should be so much easier for science to CREATE life in a lab:):):) And I’m supposed to be delusional?"

How come the US government has granted a patent for ABIOGENESIS?

So talk to me. I've just shown you what you said can't be done.

I've never found where the US Government actually granted such a patent for abiogenesis, but even if it were true, why do you think it somehow proves abiogenesis actually occurred?

Abiogenesis isn't just improbable, I believe it is impossible!

And you still haven't explained to us why we must be forced to believe that you know more about science than all of the scientists in the whole wide world, simply because you "believe"

Explain to us why saying "God spoke the laws into existence" is supposed to be more scientific than actual science, and explain to us how saying "God spoke the laws into existence" is supposed to be different than saying "God magically poofed the world into existence"

Date: 2011/01/07 08:01:03, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 07 2011,07:58)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 06 2011,11:29)
IBIG,
If abortion was illegal, as I presume you would like it to be, what would be your suggested punishment for those who have illegal abortions?

Miss this did you? It's all very well to say such things like abortion ==murder, but unless you are prepared to follow up with what the consequences would be then it's easy to assume the worst.

So, IBIG, unless you come out and say what punishment women who have abortions should receive I'll assume you want a biblical punishment.

I.E. Stoning.

Ironically, according to the Bible, the punishment for abortion is to have the causer pay the pregnant woman 11 shekels for each month she was pregnant, or give her a livestock of equal value.

Date: 2011/01/07 08:17:54, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 07 2011,08:06)
So, you lose sucka.

IBelieve already lost the very day he came to Panda's Thumb, screeching and picking fights about how he was able to magically disprove Abiogenesis by quotemining Wikipedia.

He's been bottoming out ever since.

Date: 2011/01/07 22:07:27, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 07 2011,18:10)
Double?

Double scotch?

Double Up (my BlackJack Bet)?

Doublemint Twins (yum)?

I actually don't drink scotch so, a double hot chocolate... Thanks, I think I will.

Maybe he's (trying and failing miserably to) imitate Team Rocket's catch-rant?

Date: 2011/01/08 00:10:07, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 07 2011,23:15)
Quote (phhht @ Jan. 07 2011,08:17)
   
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 07 2011,07:12)
Abiogenesis isn't just improbable, I believe it is impossible!

Poofster,

Once there was no life.  Now there is life. Therefore abiogenesis is not only possible, it has demonstrably occurred.

As usual, your contention is confused and your explication off the target.

I understand you to mean that abiogenesis could not occur without the
intervention of a magical power.  Is that more correct?

Phhht,

Evidently IBIG is very busy, or at the least very hard to get a hold of (or it's just hard to get his attention).

I do not presume to put words into IBIG's mouth, but from having read almost the entire BW I think I can guess what IBIG would say.

I think IBIG would say that life on Earth didn't come from non-life but from God, who is alive. Thus life on Earth came from Life. And God has always been alive.

That position may not be acceptable to you and me, but I think that is IBIG's conviction.

Perhaps IBIG himself would like to clarify?

We don't have to worry about whether or not we're going to put words into IBelieve's mouth, as he's going to accuse us of doing so even when we don't.

And I really doubt he will bother to, or is capable of clarifying.

Date: 2011/01/08 10:18:47, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,08:50)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 07 2011,08:53)
Hey, IBIG,

You still haven't answered the question: Are those other 37,999 Christian religions all wrong?  Which Bible do you use and why?  Have you read any other Bible?

Now, let's see... so let's see if I understand your argument correctly... which of these is true...

1) Christians kill others (even after "Thou shalt not kill", "turn the other cheek", "Do unto others...", and the "peace of God")

2) Atheists kill others

3) Other religions kill others

4) It's OK that Christians have killed others because atheists have too.

5) There is not a higher standard for Christians that for non-Christians.  (Or, if you prefer, Christians don't have to live up to Christ's standards, they'll be forgiven after all.)

What's very interesting, IBIG, is you have totally destroyed your previous argument that there is a universal morality.  LOL

Thanks

As far as the Communist removal of religion.  I would disagree that it was based on atheism.  I would be perfectly willing to argue that Stalin wanted to get rid of religion for the sole purpose of cementing his control over the people.  His thoughts were that religion was 'another master' and that he would not be able to control people that also had religion (which, indeed, was true).

Again, I don't think it was a case of killing people solely because they were religious, but because they refused to denounce their religion in the name of the state... much like Christians in Rome were killed because they refused to recognize the god-hood of the emperor.

Where did I state that it was okay for Christians to kill?

It is justifiable to kill in self defense.

The reason Atheist regimes repress/kill those who practice religion in their countries is, because they the leaders want to replace God or gods in their country, so the government must eliminate anything preventing them from imposing their evil, immoral, repressive laws on the people. If there is no moral standard and dissent, then they the government can set their own moral standard, since without God, morality is just a matter of opinion anyway, human rights are just a matter of opinion, the value of a human life is just a matter of opinion, then the government can impose any kind of evil and it is justifiable, because they the government have eliminated most if not all dissenters.

Moron, the vast majority of people killed by Christians were not killed in self-defense: they were killed because a) their very existence was deemed to be offensive to God, b) their deaths would be amusing, or c) they would not convert to a form of worship deemed suitable by their killers.

And what is your point?  That atheists are inherently more evil than Christians (and thus, Catholics being more inherently evil than either atheists and Christians), because atheists don't use God as an excuse to commit atrocities?

Date: 2011/01/08 10:22:45, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 08 2011,09:02)
Quote
I never said that killing people, because of their religion makes one an Atheist. My point is that Atheist leaders/regimes have killed to repress and/or eliminate religion altogether in the countries a very different point.
And the point of that is?

He's saying that atheists are evil because they don't use God as an excuse to disregard and or trample human rights, or otherwise commit crimes against humanity, in direct opposition to Christians, and other theists who use God as an excuse to commit crimes against humanity.

Date: 2011/01/08 16:40:25, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 08 2011,13:27)
Hey, IBIG, I'm an atheist.

I've never raped, killed or cheated anyone.

Or even wanted to.

I don't need your imaginary friend to keep me in line.

Why do you?

Probably, IBelieve will simply assume that your good behavior is actually a nefarious Satan-inspired plot to make more people hate God, as he assumes is the norm with all atheists who do not go about raping, killing, cannibalizing and aborting babies willy-nilly.

After all, the only sort of "good behavior" is that inspired by the visceral fear of God sending you to Hell to burn forever and ever and ever for offending Him in some way.

Date: 2011/01/08 20:38:07, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,18:55)
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 08 2011,13:27)
Hey, IBIG, I'm an atheist.

I've never raped, killed or cheated anyone.

Or even wanted to.

I don't need your imaginary friend to keep me in line.

Why do you?

I don't know if you have or not, all I have is your word for that, which according to many here is not good enough! Where is the evidence to support that you never did any of those things?

That's because, unlike you, Ogre is not a pathological liar who lies for Jesus, and he does not hate the truth.

Date: 2011/01/08 20:39:36, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 08 2011,20:11)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,20:01)
Let me also add, if there were no GOD, we wouldn't be here, nothing would exist:)

Then what is the evidence that shows this?

Because IBelieve says so, and if you don't believe him, he's going to command God to send you to Hell to burn forever for the unforgivably heinous sin of doubting him.

That's why. </snark>

Date: 2011/01/08 20:44:48, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,19:37)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 08 2011,19:27)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,19:22)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 08 2011,19:04)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,16:55)
   
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 08 2011,13:27)
Hey, IBIG, I'm an atheist.

I've never raped, killed or cheated anyone.

Or even wanted to.

I don't need your imaginary friend to keep me in line.

Why do you?

I don't know if you have or not, all I have is your word for that, which according to many here is not good enough! Where is the evidence to support that you never did any of those things?

No answer, huh.

That's what I thought.

Coward.

If there were no God, it is hard to imagine how much evil there would be on the earth. You fail to realize even if you aren't a believer that you were given a CONSCIENCE, which help keep you from committing such evils. It is possible to damage and destroy your conscience, by acting on your evil thoughts against your conscience.


God is not my imaginary friend, and you will find that out someday. There aren't any dead Atheists. Any I need God, because I love Him, He is my heavenly Father. I am so thankful for Him, for all that He has done for me, for healing me, for blessing me with a wonderful family, for the incredible financial blessing He has given me, and most importantly for Saving my Soul. I never deserved anything that He has done for me, but He loved me anyone, His son died on the cross for me, I am so incredibly thankful. I look forward to the future and what He has in store for me and my family.

I'm sorry for you, because this life you have in the here and now is the closest to heaven that you will ever experience, for me it is the closest to hell that I will ever experience. I hope that you come to the knowledge of the truth before you die and it's too late.

If there were no religion, idiot, the UN Buildings in New York would still be standing.

If there was no god, I can imagine how good life on this planet would be.  Imagine a planet full of rational people who can think and critically analyze everything to reach the best possible answer.  Imagine a planet were gay people could live without fear.  Imagine a planet where nothing is impossible.

I cannot imagine how evil it would be, because there wouldn't be any need for evil.

IBIG, as far as God, you can't even convince us that it is really God speaking to you... which is a fundamental problem in your case.

Go back and read what I said! You must be having trouble with reading comprehension again!

I said if there were no GOD! I didn't say if there were no RELIGION. GOD is a BEING, and RELIGION is a SET OF BELIEFS. I believe that there is only one God, and muslims don't worship HIM. Yet you call me an idiot and you have no reading comprehension!!!

Yes, you are an idiot, IBelieve, a colossal idiot.

There are several reasons, among them is the fact that you refuse to admit that Muslims worship the same God of Abraham, whom the Christians and Jews worship.

If that's not true, then tell us why Islam is considered to be one of the three Abrahamic Religions?  Evil atheist conspiracy for Satan?

Another reason you are an idiot is because you deliberately and incorrectly define Muslims as being atheists.

Date: 2011/01/08 21:56:48, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,21:01)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 08 2011,20:44)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,19:37)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 08 2011,19:27)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,19:22)
   
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 08 2011,19:04)
   
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,16:55)
     
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 08 2011,13:27)
Hey, IBIG, I'm an atheist.

I've never raped, killed or cheated anyone.

Or even wanted to.

I don't need your imaginary friend to keep me in line.

Why do you?

I don't know if you have or not, all I have is your word for that, which according to many here is not good enough! Where is the evidence to support that you never did any of those things?

No answer, huh.

That's what I thought.

Coward.

If there were no God, it is hard to imagine how much evil there would be on the earth. You fail to realize even if you aren't a believer that you were given a CONSCIENCE, which help keep you from committing such evils. It is possible to damage and destroy your conscience, by acting on your evil thoughts against your conscience.


God is not my imaginary friend, and you will find that out someday. There aren't any dead Atheists. Any I need God, because I love Him, He is my heavenly Father. I am so thankful for Him, for all that He has done for me, for healing me, for blessing me with a wonderful family, for the incredible financial blessing He has given me, and most importantly for Saving my Soul. I never deserved anything that He has done for me, but He loved me anyone, His son died on the cross for me, I am so incredibly thankful. I look forward to the future and what He has in store for me and my family.

I'm sorry for you, because this life you have in the here and now is the closest to heaven that you will ever experience, for me it is the closest to hell that I will ever experience. I hope that you come to the knowledge of the truth before you die and it's too late.

If there were no religion, idiot, the UN Buildings in New York would still be standing.

If there was no god, I can imagine how good life on this planet would be.  Imagine a planet full of rational people who can think and critically analyze everything to reach the best possible answer.  Imagine a planet were gay people could live without fear.  Imagine a planet where nothing is impossible.

I cannot imagine how evil it would be, because there wouldn't be any need for evil.

IBIG, as far as God, you can't even convince us that it is really God speaking to you... which is a fundamental problem in your case.

Go back and read what I said! You must be having trouble with reading comprehension again!

I said if there were no GOD! I didn't say if there were no RELIGION. GOD is a BEING, and RELIGION is a SET OF BELIEFS. I believe that there is only one God, and muslims don't worship HIM. Yet you call me an idiot and you have no reading comprehension!!!

Yes, you are an idiot, IBelieve, a colossal idiot.

There are several reasons, among them is the fact that you refuse to admit that Muslims worship the same God of Abraham, whom the Christians and Jews worship.

If that's not true, then tell us why Islam is considered to be one of the three Abrahamic Religions?  Evil atheist conspiracy for Satan?

Another reason you are an idiot is because you deliberately and incorrectly define Muslims as being atheists.

Muslims do not worship the God of Abraham. They claim that they do only to gain acceptance, but their's is a counterfeit God. If they worship the same God that Christians and Jews do, then there would be no need for them kill Christians and Jews for not converting now would there be.

Where did I state that Muslims are Atheists?

If Muslims don't worship the God of Abraham, then why do they claim descent from Abraham?  You haven't explained why Muslims don't worship the God of Abraham (who is the Same God worshiped by the Christians and the Jews), and yet, considered to be members of an Abrahamic Religion.  If you actually read about the history of Islam, they claim to worship the God of Abraham because they are all descended from Abraham.

Furthermore, if you deny claiming that Muslims are atheists, then why did you declare several Muslims, including Mullah Omar of the Taliban, as being evil atheists who murder in the name of Atheism?

Then again, you are an idiot who thinks that Catholics are not Christian, either, so it would be expected of you to deny that Muslims worship the same God as do Christians and Jews.

In fact, if you're so smart, IBelieve, then, if Christians and Jews both worship the same God, then can you explain why have Christians murdered Jews by the thousands and millions for the past 2,000 years for religious reasons?

Date: 2011/01/08 22:00:26, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,21:47)
Quote (blipey @ Jan. 08 2011,21:07)
Stunning logic, IBIG.  Granting you this piece of idiocy, how does it explain Christians killing Jews?

Also, why do you ignore comments?

Where in the Bible does it state to kill Jews?

If Muslims worship the same God as Christians and Jews, then why are Christians and Jews considered unbelievers by Muslims, and supposed to be killed according to their Koran?

I don't have any requirement to answer anything if I want, many times questions are posed to change the subject.

That there is no specific commandment in the Bible to murder Jews has never stopped Christians from making excuses to murder Jews, such as the fact that Christians routinely blame Jews for the murder of Jesus, or the claim that Jews use the blood of murdered children to leaven matzo, or that Jews are really the spawn of Satan, among other things.

Of course, you always make up lame excuses to worm your way out of answering questions you lack the courage and intellect to answer.

Like, for example, what does abortion have to do with atheism, or abiogenesis, or why is saying that God "spoke the laws into existence" supposed to be better than science, or even why it's supposed to be different than saying God "magically poofed the world into existence using magic"?

Date: 2011/01/08 22:32:11, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,22:17)
Boy where do I start? Muslims aren't the descendants of Abraham, Arabs are the descendants of Abraham.

I don't have time tonight, but will address the rest of the post later.

The very first Muslims WERE Arabs.

You don't like it when we call you an "idiot" or a "moron" and yet, you make stupid and stupidly false claims like this that scream of your pompous idiocy.

Or, do you think that Mohamed wasn't an Arab?  Are you that stupid of a stupid bigot to think he was actually an evil, Devil-worshiping atheist?

Date: 2011/01/09 10:10:02, Link
Author: Stanton
If God isn't the author of evil, then who created Satan?

Date: 2011/01/09 10:11:44, Link
Author: Stanton
Also, IBelieve, I notice that you're not answering or explaining why you're stupid enough to think that the first Muslims were not Arabs.

Date: 2011/01/09 10:16:14, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 09 2011,08:42)
Quote (phhht @ Jan. 09 2011,08:27)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 09 2011,08:09)
Let me add to my previous post. If one were to state that once there was no biological life on earth, then that statement would be true, but that wasn't the question.

To state that once there was no life, one would have to have complete knowledge, which clearly is impossible, therefore to make such a statement would be a false statement.

OK, I'll qualify the statements to read

1.  Once there was no biological life on earth.

2.  Now there is.

You apparently accept both statements.  Yet you maintain that abiogenesis is "impossible."

Then you must redefine abiogenesis to mean something other than the  
creation of life from non-living matter.  Right?  So what does "abiogenesis" really mean?  Enlighten me, Poofster.

I believe that God created life, therefore I believe that Abiogenesis (life arose from non-life by natural causes without the aid of a Creator) is wrong. You can't get around the fact that it is not KNOWN, how life actually came to be, therefore it would be a type of belief, for one to accept any way that life may have come into existence.  

Now let me ask you this just for arguments sake (I don't believe this), but what if life came to earth from somewhere else in the universe? Are you certain that didn't happen?

So, how come you refuse to explain why your "FAITH" permits you to know more about science than all the scientists in the world, and how come you refuse to explain how saying God "spoke the laws into existence" is supposed to be more scientific than actual science, and how come you refuse to explain why saying God "spoke the laws into existence" is supposed to be different than saying God "magically poofed the world into existence using magic"?

Too stupid, too dishonest and too cowardly to answer?

Date: 2011/01/09 11:07:29, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 09 2011,10:41)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 09 2011,09:11)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 09 2011,08:42)
I believe that God created life, therefore I believe that Abiogenesis (life arose from non-life by natural causes without the aid of a Creator) is wrong.

Sigh...

And who created God?

And anyway, you yourself say that the origin of life is not known but in the same paragraph say that you know what the origin of life was.

Make up your "mind".

God always was! He wasn't created.

And how is this supposed to be an explanation of how saying GODDIDIT is supposed to be more scientific than actual science?

Date: 2011/01/09 11:09:08, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2011,11:03)
Hey IBIG, are Arabs Caucasian?

Given as how IBelieve (apparently deliberately) conflates Muslims with atheists, and that he thinks that the first Muslims were not Arabs, I think that this new question of yours is far beyond the pathetic ability of IBelieve's pitiful intellect to answer.

Date: 2011/01/09 11:31:53, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (blipey @ Jan. 09 2011,11:17)
IBIG, can you define the following words?

1.  Evidence
2.  Empirical

Thanks.

That's a question that IBelieve's massive ego and withered intellect prevent him from answering.

After all, he said so, himself, that he's free to refuse to answer any on or off-topic question we ask him, but we're still obligated to worship his every inane claim because he has FAITH

Date: 2011/01/09 16:22:41, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (phhht @ Jan. 09 2011,15:47)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 09 2011,08:42)
Quote (phhht @ Jan. 09 2011,08:27)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 09 2011,08:09)
Let me add to my previous post. If one were to state that once there was no biological life on earth, then that statement would be true, but that wasn't the question.

To state that once there was no life, one would have to have complete knowledge, which clearly is impossible, therefore to make such a statement would be a false statement.

OK, I'll qualify the statements to read

1.  Once there was no biological life on earth.

2.  Now there is.

You apparently accept both statements.  Yet you maintain that abiogenesis is "impossible."

Then you must redefine abiogenesis to mean something other than the  
creation of life from non-living matter.  Right?  So what does "abiogenesis" really mean?  Enlighten me, Poofster.

I believe that God created life, therefore I believe that Abiogenesis (life arose from non-life by natural causes without the aid of a Creator) is wrong. You can't get around the fact that it is not KNOWN, how life actually came to be, therefore it would be a type of belief, for one to accept any way that life may have come into existence.  

Now let me ask you this just for arguments sake (I don't believe this), but what if life came to earth from somewhere else in the universe? Are you certain that didn't happen?

Just as I thought, you redefine abiogenesis.   In your version, it's

1.  Once there was no biological life on earth.

POOF!

2.  Now there is.

You forgot step 3, where IBelieve then proceeds to gloat and boast how his "explanation" is magically more scientific than actual science, which is actually, magically fraudulent because it offends him and his FAITH.

Date: 2011/01/09 19:29:49, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (MichaelJ @ Jan. 09 2011,19:16)
...

That's what  gets me about these guys, they will happily make shit up then accuse Atheists of not having morals

Well, many Creationists believe that slandering and lying or committing any other sins is permissible, automatically pardoned, and aggressively encouraged if it's done for Jesus.

It is ironic that Creationists hoop and holler about how following a literal interpretation of the Bible is the primary requirement of salvation while possessing this attitude.

Date: 2011/01/11 17:46:00, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 11 2011,10:07)
...NOW will IBIG make with his speil about the real reasons behind everything?

We all know it's demons, right? Has to be, the guy's a religious kook.

Louis

You mean how IBelieve always says that science is evil and stupid because GODDIDIT is what really happened, and that every single person in the whole wide world, especially the evil, stupid scientists, who disagrees with doesn't worship his bullshit is an evil, devil-worshiping atheist who hates hates hates hates hates God?

I wish he'd explain how saying that God "spoke the laws into existence" is supposed to be better than science, as well as how it's supposed to be different than saying God "magically poofed the world into existence using magic."

But, I might as well wish for the moon if that's the case.

Date: 2011/01/11 22:05:48, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 11 2011,19:40)
Are you okay??? I would cut down one the medicine before posting, because it appears that it is influencing your post! Why don't you discuss with civility, and then I will response to your post.

It's hypocritical of you to request we be civil to you when you find the very idea of an actual civil discussion to be completely anathema.

I mean, why would we consider slave-like deference to you and your inane bullshit to be "civility"?

Why are we to consider your own behavior toward us to be "civility"?

You have never been civil to us, what with your constant setting up inane gotcha games to mock us for not being as stupid as you are, or how you accuse us of putting words in your mouth while you twist everybody else's words to suit your own bigotry or how you constantly accuse us of being hypocrites and evil, devil-worshiping, God-hating atheists simply because we point out your bullshitting.

Date: 2011/01/11 22:07:48, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 11 2011,19:56)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 11 2011,19:40)
Why don't you discuss with civility, and then I will response to your post.

Dear IBIG,

I know your business demands much of your attention. You probably haven't had time to read my earlier post.

Why don't you use your business success to file a patent for "life only comes from life"? Since there is already a patent for "creation of primordial life" from non-life, would it not be a great victory for God and Church to obtain a patent for "life only comes from life"?

Put your money where your heart is, so to speak. If your are truly convinced, then why not demonstrate it to the whole world? Forget all this forum stuff. If special creation is true, and you believe it, then why not prove it with a US patent?

Thank you for your attention.

That would be totally impossible for IBelieve to do, as it does not directly require bullshitting for Jesus or being a pompous moron for Jesus.

Date: 2011/01/12 08:07:32, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 12 2011,06:58)
Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 11 2011,19:56)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 11 2011,19:40)
Why don't you discuss with civility, and then I will response to your post.

Dear IBIG,

I know your business demands much of your attention. You probably haven't had time to read my earlier post.

Why don't you use your business success to file a patent for "life only comes from life"? Since there is already a patent for "creation of primordial life" from non-life, would it not be a great victory for God and Church to obtain a patent for "life only comes from life"?

Put your money where your heart is, so to speak. If your are truly convinced, then why not demonstrate it to the whole world? Forget all this forum stuff. If special creation is true, and you believe it, then why not prove it with a US patent?

Thank you for your attention.

I find your post amusing, because you you state, since there is already a patent for "creation of primordial life" from non-life. You stated creation of primordial life, don't you see the irony of your post?

If God created life, when He created man He created man from non-life "from the dust of the earth".  

If God created life, then what would be the purpose of a patent for what He created? According to your logic, maybe someone should get a patent on the creation of humans:)

Then explain to us why saying "God made people from dust using magic" is more scientific than saying "people share a common ancestry with apes because of fossil and genetic evidence"

Explain to us why saying "God spoke the laws into existence" is supposed to be more scientific than actual science.

Explain to us how and why saying "God spoke the laws into existence" is supposed to be different than saying "God magically poofed the world into existence using magic"

Date: 2011/01/12 08:14:00, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 12 2011,08:12)
I am wondering, as I idly sip a coffee, if IBIG knows of any specific obstacle to abiogenesis. What steps would an abiogenetic series of processes need to go through to convert "non-living" chemicals into "living" systems? What hurdles need to be overcome? Which of said hurdles are physically impossible?

The only obstacles he's "found" were obvious and deliberate quotemines of Wikipedia and other articles, as well as various pleas to the 2 Law of Thermodynamics, and that Abiogenesis is really an evil plot by evil scientists to turn children into evil God-hating zombie atheists.

Date: 2011/01/12 21:14:01, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (blipey @ Jan. 12 2011,21:09)
Nice link, IBIG.  I think you forgot either/or:

1.  the commentary
2.  the answer

Not necessarily in that order of importance.

For IBelieve to provide an answer, or a commentary that isn't about him screeching about how he's so much more smarter, richer, more powerful, and more virile than those stupid, evil, God-hating, devil-worshiping scientists, well...


That would require more brainpower than he currently possesses.

Date: 2011/01/13 21:31:42, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 13 2011,20:01)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 12 2011,18:50)
       
Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 12 2011,18:22)
         
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 12 2011,06:58)
                   
Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 11 2011,19:56)
                   
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 11 2011,19:40)
Why don't you discuss with civility, and then I will response to your post.

Dear IBIG,

I know your business demands much of your attention. You probably haven't had time to read my earlier post.

Why don't you use your business success to file a patent for "life only comes from life"? Since there is already a patent for "creation of primordial life" from non-life, would it not be a great victory for God and Church to obtain a patent for "life only comes from life"?

Put your money where your heart is, so to speak. If your are truly convinced, then why not demonstrate it to the whole world? Forget all this forum stuff. If special creation is true, and you believe it, then why not prove it with a US patent?

Thank you for your attention.

I find your post amusing, because you you state, since there is already a patent for "creation of primordial life" from non-life. You stated creation of primordial life, don't you see the irony of your post?

If God created life, when He created man He created man from non-life "from the dust of the earth".  

If God created life, then what would be the purpose of a patent for what He created? According to your logic, maybe someone should get a patent on the creation of humans:)

Dear IBIG,

I think you misunderstand.

In the context in which it was used, "creation of primordial life" from non-life, doesn't mean the US government granted a patent for God creating life. (You really need to read the patent.)

In the context of the patent, "creation of" means coming about by natural processes extant in the primeval Earth, and "primordial life" means the first appearance of life where before there was no life.

You said: "I believe that God created life, therefore I believe that Abiogenesis (life arose from non-life by natural causes without the aid of a Creator) is wrong." (IBIG-Jan 09, 2011, AtBC, IBIG forum, panel 17)

So there is no irony here. The word "creation" above does not mean divine creation. It doesn't even mean that 'scientists' created life. Life simply emerges from non-life by reproducing the natural conditions on the primeval Earth. That all that is necessary. No deities required.

This is what you define as Abiogenesis (see quote above).

So this patent is for the coming about by natural processes extant in the primeval Earth, the first appearance of life where before there was no life. (No Creator referenced.)

That's what the patent is about. That is Abiogenesis according to your definition. Your God didn't Create life. Life arose naturally.

So, if you truly believe in "life comes only from life", then why not put your money where your heart is?

Thank you if you have read this far.

Link To The Patent

Dear IBIG,

So, you found the patent. Good for you. But you didn't say anything.

Did you read it? Did you understand it?

It totally squashes your claim that abiogenesis is unscientific.

You may believe abiogenesis is impossible (this is America after all and you can believe anything you like), but you cannot say abiogenesis is unscientific.

Pretty much destroys your argument, no?

IBIG said on PT: "I believe the sole purpose of the scientific claim of Abiogenesis is to imply that there is no God. If one were not to believe in God, and wanted to promote such a view, then creating an unprovable, and unfalsifiable hypothesis that life came to be by natural causes without a Creator would be the way to go about it. Abiogenesis would be a great tool for evangelizing young minds away from believing in God, and turning them into Atheists. Implying God doesn’t exist with an unprovable, and unfalsifiable hypothesis should be prohibited from being taught in public school."

IBIG said on AtBC, Jan 7, 2011: "Abiogenesis isn't just improbable, I believe it is impossible! "

Believe what you will, but abiogenesis is scientific. It's patented!

And you are irrational (that means "without Reason").

Among other things, this proves that IBelieve neither wants to or is capable of understanding or even tolerating science.

After all, the reason why IBelieve hates and fears Abiogenesis is because he misinterprets it as (evil) scientists trying to destroy faith in God.  To claim that this is not "hating science," well, that makes IBelieve a liar on top of a science-hating bigot.

The only reason I could come to for anyone to think that a statement like this:

In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /?e?ba?.??d??n?s?s/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-?-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose

Is somehow supposed to be evil scientists' recruiting slogan to turn children into evil, God-hating atheists is if that person's faith in God rests solely in closing their eyelids as tight as can be.

Date: 2011/01/14 18:41:44, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 14 2011,17:39)
Quote (lrobotsl @ Jan. 14 2011,17:36)
ogre - do you want to see what we do to little lying shits like you?

First, I don't lie.

Second, not particularly, I don't want anymore insight into what happens in your mind than I already have.  It's a deeply disturbed place.

So many Christian fundamentalists actively encourage this disgusting sort of psychopathy, and yet, when called out about their deliberate promotion of hate and psychopathy, they're all aghast that someone dared to mention this.

Hypocrites and monsters.

Date: 2011/01/14 22:53:56, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 14 2011,21:12)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 14 2011,19:47)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 14 2011,17:34)
So the big man in the trenchcoat can kill a tiny widdle birdy... aww...

I think you'll find other things slightly tougher... coward.

Possibly, but I am skeptical.  My first thought is that is a picture of the birds that died off in ... Alabama, was it?  The ones that CNN had Kirk Cameron on to explain how this was a sign of the rapture or something.

(Although, from what I have heard, I have not seen the interview myself - wanted to save the brain cells - even Cameron was confused as to why he was on the show.)

It was my home state of Arkansas.  And it was apparently the caused by the Gays.  PZ had it covered

You ever notice how these fundamentalists always say every catastrophe occurs is because God is punishing Americans for committing the mortal sin of not persecuting and executing gays for existing?

And yet, when it's pointed out that such claims make God seem malicious, supremely petty, and very incompetent, these same fundamentalists make a big, whiny stink like someone farted in their face.

Date: 2011/01/15 16:22:34, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 15 2011,14:27)
...At least IBIG was coherent.  He was wrong a lot, but at least you could talk to him.  Not like JoeG or cowardly-trenchcoat boy.

I beg to differ on that: IBelieve's idea of "civility" is to mindlessly worship him as the Godhead, and anything less is Devil worship Atheism.

IBelieve's idea of "evidence" is to either quotemine and twist other people's words in order to deliberately distort everything they say, or to simply assert that he has "FAITH," and to ask him to provide honest support his dishonest word games is Devil worship Atheism.

IBelieve's idea of "discussion" is to make up some stupid rhetorical question that speaks volumes about his own willful stupidity, and then ignore all responses in order to boast how smart he is, except for a few responses that he maliciously distorts in order to mock and humiliate those people for not being as stupid as he is.

And then there is the fact that IBelieve conflates "Atheism" with Devil worship, Science, Evolution, Abiogenesis, Islam, hate crimes, Communism, Stalinism and Religious Intolerance.

Date: 2011/01/15 19:29:22, Link
Author: Stanton
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 15 2011,17:20)
Wow, there's Christian love for you.

BTW: I know Felix Jones and you are not him.  He's scrawny, sickly, tiny, with a bad attitude and passed every class he took with a 'D'.  In other words, he's much kinder, smarter, and tougher than you.

OK, IBIG has new competition for who damages their religion the most.

I don't know which is sadder, the fact that Dave Mabus is a psychotic twit who makes utterly impotent death threats, or the fact that Dave Mabus is stupid enough to think that he can somehow use these impotent death threats to make us do whatever it is he wants.

Date: 2011/01/16 14:41:18, Link
Author: Stanton
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 16 2011,11:53)
Quote (jonasmichael @ Jan. 16 2011,10:35)
dawkins - got you...


who's the WINGNUT?

richarddawkins.net/videos/579240-the-truth-about-the-lunatic-religious-right-in-america?page=1


THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION - JAN 1, 2011

OMENS OF DEATH:

an example and warning of the fate of those who try to divide people....


freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24191

Hey, auto posting robot. No need to make a new account each time! You don't need to! Unlike your or other ID blogs, this site allows free expression.

You can even shout "FIRE" should you wish.

So when you grow up and want to have a real conversation let me know.

Or are you one of Dembski's coursework assignments?

No, this is neither an autoposting robot, nor one of Bill Dembski's nitwit students: it's a pitiful, sociopathic troll, Dave Mabus, who constantly lashes out at everyone because he wants James Randi's million dollars, but can't actually get it.

Date: 2011/01/17 11:09:33, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 17 2011,10:57)
good to know you chaps continue to attract high quality tards here.  i've missed it

This is like being jealous of your friend contracting the Bubonic Plague.

Date: 2011/01/19 08:04:59, Link
Author: Stanton
It seems that IBelieve is back, and he's still too cowardly to respond here again.

If he really believed in the bullshit he spouts, you would at least think he would be able to make an attempt to explain how saying "God spoke the laws into existence" is somehow better than science beyond him simply having "FAITH" (sic), or at least explain to us how saying "God spoke the laws into existence" is supposed to be different than saying "God magically poofed the world into existence using magic."

Then again, I may as well be wishing for the Moon.

Date: 2011/01/19 23:22:55, Link
Author: Stanton
Yeah, IBelieve is too cowardly to come back.

He's too busy whining at me about how mean I am to point out that he's a boorish, lying asshole.

Date: 2011/01/20 20:04:09, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Robin @ Jan. 20 2011,11:44)
[quote=IBelieveInGod,Jan. 20 2011,08:07][/quote]
 
Quote
In an earlier discussion I pointed out the atrocities of Atheist countries over that past 100 years. We call them atrocities, but were they really? If what they did was based on their own moral/ETHICAL standards, and there are no absolute moral standards, then were they really atrocities? If you give man the ability to create his own moral and ethical standards apart from God, then anything goes. Countries could decide that killing and eating babies is perfectly moral, and it then would be perfectly moral if morality is apart from God. Don't you see the silliness of your argument.


Oddly, you seem to have ignored the fact that more Christians have committed atrocities than so-called "atheist countries". Given that, apparently even Christians can decide that eating babies is perfectly "moral" according to your bible and actually do all sorts of similar things anyway. Makes me wonder why you think this "moral standard" you babble on about actually exists. Clearly there's no evidence of such to found in your bible or from your supposed "god".

The reason why IBelieve ignores the fact that Christians have committed far more atrocities than all "atheist" countries combined is because IBelieve deliberately conflates "atheist" with anything and anyone he dislikes.

To IBelieve, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Abiogenesis, those are all Atheist.  Islam, terrorism, brusselsprouts, devil-worship, those are Atheist, too.

Date: 2011/01/22 23:59:32, Link
Author: Stanton
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 22 2011,23:24)
Now give it up, Urbotsu.

If He Who We Don't Bother To Name Anymore could give it up by his own free will, he probably would have checked into a sanitarium, or at least remembered to take his anti-psychotic medication by now.

Date: 2011/01/23 17:20:31, Link
Author: Stanton
What I've seen for a long time is that virtually all of the anti-abortion proponents I've encountered neither understand nor care that the primary reasons for abortions are for medical/therapeutic reasons, and not for birth control.

From what I've seen, all they want is for Jesus to have yet another boot-licking minion to boss and kick around; the babies' literally suffering mother be literally damned for all they care.

Date: 2011/01/23 17:21:51, Link
Author: Stanton
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 23 2011,10:53)
Bring back Henry.   :(

I'd prefer magical syphilis over henry the moronic troll.

Date: 2011/01/23 18:03:36, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:29)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,17:20)
What I've seen for a long time is that virtually all of the anti-abortion proponents I've encountered neither understand nor care that the primary reasons for abortions are for medical/therapeutic reasons, and not for birth control.

From what I've seen, all they want is for Jesus to have yet another boot-licking minion to boss and kick around; the babies' literally suffering mother be literally damned for all they care.

I've read the statistics many times.  You're wrong, and if you believe your justified in your response, please provided statistics.  Maybe I've missed something.

Like you'd honestly bother to look at any statistic I provided.  As for the statistics you're providing: did you check and find out what reasons those women had for having abortions, or did you just automatically assume that the sole reason was they hate Jesus?

Date: 2011/01/23 18:06:06, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.

So, where did you find out that all of these abortions were done specifically to spite Jesus?  One of those websites that orders fellow Christians go out and murder abortion clinic doctors, their co-workers and their families?

Date: 2011/01/23 18:10:20, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:46)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:43)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.

It can mean I'll kill myself if I can't get it removed.

With counseling for the emotional state, it could be removed through natural birth and placed with another family would could better care for it.  9 months isn't a lifetime.

So, is that what you'd suggest for, say, a 9 year old rape victim?  Even though her doctors said that she would probably literally die by the 7th month because her body is just not big or developed to bear children?  That she should just have counseling?

Or, what about a woman whose pregnancy is causing her lungs to fill up with fluid?

Date: 2011/01/23 18:13:43, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:05)
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,17:49)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:46)
   
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:43)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.

It can mean I'll kill myself if I can't get it removed.

With counseling for the emotional state, it could be removed through natural birth and placed with another family would could better care for it.  9 months isn't a lifetime.

Gee, your idiocy and lack of empathy for pregnant women, especially rape and incest victims, just becomes all the more obvious.

You now what?  My aunt (actually my cousin) was the result of what occured due to rape.  My grandmother raised my aunt's daughter as her own.  

She is a wonderful person...is always helping others.  She lives by Mayo hospital and before my Dad passed away, she let us use her home for whatever we needed on our trips back and forth to Mayo.  She does that for many people since she lives so close to the hospital.  

I can't say enough good things about this woman.  I think about all the people who would not have received her love and kindness if her mother had opted to abort her due to a horrible incident such as rape.  Rape doesn't make the child a horrible person by any means, and it didn't ruin my aunt's life to have her.

So you're saying we should deny rape victims from having any abortion or other forms of post-sex contraception?  That, there is the off-chance that the baby conceived of this woman's violation of her very being might be a wonderful person?

Date: 2011/01/23 18:16:37, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:12)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:03)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:29)
 
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,17:20)
What I've seen for a long time is that virtually all of the anti-abortion proponents I've encountered neither understand nor care that the primary reasons for abortions are for medical/therapeutic reasons, and not for birth control.

From what I've seen, all they want is for Jesus to have yet another boot-licking minion to boss and kick around; the babies' literally suffering mother be literally damned for all they care.

I've read the statistics many times.  You're wrong, and if you believe your justified in your response, please provided statistics.  Maybe I've missed something.

Like you'd honestly bother to look at any statistic I provided.  As for the statistics you're providing: did you check and find out what reasons those women had for having abortions, or did you just automatically assume that the sole reason was they hate Jesus?

None of this has anything to do with hating Jesus.

Then how come all other anti-abortion proponents say otherwise?  Why is it that pro-lifers always talk about how their God-hating enemies want to abort every single pregnancy in order to spite Jesus?

Date: 2011/01/23 18:19:17, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:12)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:03)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:29)
 
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,17:20)
What I've seen for a long time is that virtually all of the anti-abortion proponents I've encountered neither understand nor care that the primary reasons for abortions are for medical/therapeutic reasons, and not for birth control.

From what I've seen, all they want is for Jesus to have yet another boot-licking minion to boss and kick around; the babies' literally suffering mother be literally damned for all they care.

I've read the statistics many times.  You're wrong, and if you believe your justified in your response, please provided statistics.  Maybe I've missed something.

Like you'd honestly bother to look at any statistic I provided.  As for the statistics you're providing: did you check and find out what reasons those women had for having abortions, or did you just automatically assume that the sole reason was they hate Jesus?

None of this has anything to do with hating Jesus.

So, do you know what the reasons for these 9,500 abortions were for Kansas of 2009, or are you trying to imply it was done solely for birth control and hating Jesus?

Date: 2011/01/23 18:38:49, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:25)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:06)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.

So, where did you find out that all of these abortions were done specifically to spite Jesus?  One of those websites that orders fellow Christians go out and murder abortion clinic doctors, their co-workers and their families?

Good grief, where do you come up with these statements?  This has nothing to do with Jesus.  God can forgive any sin.  This is about life...the life of a child.  There are better options...

I find them coming out of the mouths of pro-lifers, the Roman Catholic Church and fundamentalist demagogues.

From what I've seen of them, they don't care about the benefit or the condition of the mother at all: if it meant denying an abortion, they'd let her die in agony.

Date: 2011/01/23 18:48:57, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:31)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:10)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:46)
 
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:43)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.

It can mean I'll kill myself if I can't get it removed.

With counseling for the emotional state, it could be removed through natural birth and placed with another family would could better care for it.  9 months isn't a lifetime.

So, is that what you'd suggest for, say, a 9 year old rape victim?  Even though her doctors said that she would probably literally die by the 7th month because her body is just not big or developed to bear children?  That she should just have counseling?

Or, what about a woman whose pregnancy is causing her lungs to fill up with fluid?

Stanton,

These are very unusual predictaments.  This is not the norm.  I firmly believe that if a mother is at the point of having to chose life over death due to childbirth, I think God would be forgiving of letting the child come back to Him.  That does not mean that I would suggest terminating the pregnancy at the start.  I've seen very small women give birth with little complications.  Aborting the child might leave more emotional scars than the physical scars of actually having it.

That's not what the Roman Catholic Church, or any of the churches in the US say.

When this one 9 year old girl was pregnant with twins due to her stepfather repeatedly raping her, her doctors stated that, if she were to attempt to carry her twins to term, she would undoubtedly die because her body was not fully developed to handle pregnancy: and the off chance that she wouldn't die, she would still be rendered totally sterile, and either way, the twins would never survive.  When the girl was given an abortion, the Cardinal of Brazil excommunicated her mother and her doctors for doing that.  The Vatican still considers her stepfather a good, upstanding member of the Church, though, because he's never performed any abortions.

Date: 2011/01/23 18:56:33, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:38)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:16)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:12)
 
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:03)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:29)
   
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,17:20)
What I've seen for a long time is that virtually all of the anti-abortion proponents I've encountered neither understand nor care that the primary reasons for abortions are for medical/therapeutic reasons, and not for birth control.

From what I've seen, all they want is for Jesus to have yet another boot-licking minion to boss and kick around; the babies' literally suffering mother be literally damned for all they care.

I've read the statistics many times.  You're wrong, and if you believe your justified in your response, please provided statistics.  Maybe I've missed something.

Like you'd honestly bother to look at any statistic I provided.  As for the statistics you're providing: did you check and find out what reasons those women had for having abortions, or did you just automatically assume that the sole reason was they hate Jesus?

None of this has anything to do with hating Jesus.

Then how come all other anti-abortion proponents say otherwise?  Why is it that pro-lifers always talk about how their God-hating enemies want to abort every single pregnancy in order to spite Jesus?

Hmmm...I think these type of people are a minority.  This sounds more like hatred for people who are not Christian or who have made choices you disagree with.  That is not what biblical Christianity is about, and it is NOT our place to judge...that is God's job.  But, it is our right to hold our Christian values and share them with others.  It's not intolerance, it's sharing a perspective that we believe is of benefit to others.  We aren't the only ones who share are perspectives....people of all creeds do that regardless of whether they are Christian or not.

Bullshit.

If they're a minority, then why do you have people like Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh and other sacred prophets of Conservative Christians, constantly harping about how abortion is the most sacred sacrament of their enemies?  If these people are a minority, then why do you let them speak for you?  If they are a minority, then why do you condone the murder and vandalism and all the other crimes and misdeeds they perpetrate?

Date: 2011/01/23 19:01:12, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:44)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:38)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:25)
 
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:06)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.

So, where did you find out that all of these abortions were done specifically to spite Jesus?  One of those websites that orders fellow Christians go out and murder abortion clinic doctors, their co-workers and their families?

Good grief, where do you come up with these statements?  This has nothing to do with Jesus.  God can forgive any sin.  This is about life...the life of a child.  There are better options...

I find them coming out of the mouths of pro-lifers, the Roman Catholic Church and fundamentalist demagogues.

From what I've seen of them, they don't care about the benefit or the condition of the mother at all: if it meant denying an abortion, they'd let her die in agony.

Well, shame on them then.  That is not how Christ would respond.

Far too late for people like Dr George Tiller, who was gunned down in his church in 2009, after he had his clinic vandalized and being threatened nonstop by good Christians who practically applauded upon hearing of his murder.

Date: 2011/01/23 19:04:19, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:56)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,18:48)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,19:25)
 
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 23 2011,18:06)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.

So, where did you find out that all of these abortions were done specifically to spite Jesus?  One of those websites that orders fellow Christians go out and murder abortion clinic doctors, their co-workers and their families?

Good grief, where do you come up with these statements?  This has nothing to do with Jesus.  God can forgive any sin.  This is about life...the life of a child.  There are better options...

So are your gods smart enough to not implant 'souls' into fertilized eggs that he/she/it/one of them knew wouldn't make it to birth?

huh?

One of the main arguments against abortion is that souls are implanted at the moment of fertilization.

Date: 2011/01/25 08:03:28, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,05:06)
Again, it is rather obvious that god is subject to the laws of logic--unless you really think the old "can god make a stone he cannot lift?" is truly a insoluble conundrum for theists. I mean, after all, is he omnipotent or not?

The primary problems with IBelieveInGod are a) that he is a religious bigot who claims he is moral, yet, invents illogical justifications for his immoral behavior, such as accusing literally everyone who either disagrees with, or points out his misdeeds as being an evil atheist who hates God, b) his penchant for asking inane, stupid, and easily answered rhetorical questions in order to ignore all responses, just so he can boast about how he used his "FAITH" (sic) to stump the evil, stupid scientists, and c) how he constantly conflates "Atheism" with "Devil-Worship," "Hatred of God," "Science," "Communisim," "Islam," "Terrorism," "Dictatorships," "Religious Intolerance," and literally anything, anyone, everything, everyone he dislikes.

Date: 2011/01/27 17:31:59, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,10:33)
for RBH.  Just curioius about your response to that.

Please explain to us why Casey Luskin's deliberate refusal to understand basic science is supposed to simultaneously magically disprove the totality of Evolutionary Biology, as well as present evidence of God magically poofing genes into existence using magic.

He failed to explain that in his blog article.

Date: 2011/01/27 21:26:54, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (MichaelJ @ Jan. 27 2011,21:01)
I believe that you could create a theological position that supports Abortion (As somebody wrote somewhere recently "If men had babies, abortion would be a sacrament").

However, I can't see why these same people support capital punishment. Isn't this taking away the possibility that they may repent and be born again and saved?

These people feel that whoever offends them is a sinner who neither wants nor deserves forgiveness or redemption.  Therefore, they feel that whoever offends them should be sent to Hell as soon as possible.

Why else would they do things like make websites demanding that abortion clinic doctors and Democratic politicians be murdered?

Date: 2011/01/27 21:33:57, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (sledgehammer @ Jan. 27 2011,19:34)
20 minutes? It takes me longer than that to undress.  Wait ... never mind, I get it..

I now have this mental image of Hellboy wearing a corset.

Date: 2011/01/27 21:59:53, Link
Author: Stanton
Simply because you're too lazy and too embarrassed to look for such sites, FtK, does not mean they don't exist.

Date: 2011/01/27 22:34:45, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (blipey @ Jan. 27 2011,22:21)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 27 2011,22:10)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 27 2011,21:59)
Simply because you're too lazy and too embarrassed to look for such sites, FtK, does not mean they don't exist.

Must be hard to find because I've not run across any yet.  I don't think it's that difficult for you to just share a few.  I'd like to get in the discussion at these sites.

Shit, woman.  Can you Google?  There's about 100 sites dedicated to every single topic (no matter how outrageous) you could possibly string words together to title.

Just because no one here wants to provide them with more traffic doesn't mean you can't go visit them.

If she could Google, would she be sitting here, implying that I'm lying when I'm implying that a good majority of American Christians are not fluffy bunnies, frizzy kittens, and luminescent Jesuses when they wish to deny any and all women who want or need abortions, for whatever reason, through any means possible?

Date: 2011/01/27 22:36:28, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 27 2011,22:12)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 27 2011,18:17)
Quote (ccrobotscc2002 @ Jan. 27 2011,21:47)
now, the next one of you deluded little shits who speaks we're going to CUT OFF YOUR HEAD....

Please do so, I tire of this interminable existence. It is wearisome and full of twats.

Louis

well look around you, what the fuck do you expect

Sunshines and corsets filled to bursting with puppies?

Date: 2011/01/28 07:38:13, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 28 2011,03:24)
(You do all realise I am taking the piss here, right?)

British "piss" or American "piss"?

Date: 2011/01/29 07:36:53, Link
Author: Stanton
So IBelieve has returned, and he may be a sockpuppet named "Carolyn James"

Date: 2011/01/29 08:49:04, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Sol3a1 @ Jan. 29 2011,07:57)
Why is it that "defense of marriage" is still just to bar smae sex couples but being married 4 or 5 times with kids from 4 or 5 different people (maybe some of them NOT one of those they were married to) acceptable?

Why is Newt Gingrich and Rush Is Reich Limbaugh "model citizens" when both are on 3 or more wives?

In Gingrich's case, he was banging his 3rd wife while his 2nd was in the hospital yet the poor husband of that brain dead lady Terry (name escapes me) was lambasted for not staying around her when it was painfully obvious it was medical technology, not some god, that was keeping her alive?

The hypocrisy of many theists sickens me

Strange, isn't it?

One gets the impression that cheating on your current wife while she's dying of cancer is, at worst, a minor faux pas on par with spilling salt on your dinner companion.

And yet, the idea of two people of the same gender wanting to enter into a monogamous relationship for emotional, social and legal reasons is abhorrent, on par with eating living babies and puppies on the street.

Date: 2011/01/29 22:39:58, Link
Author: Stanton
Why does Dave Mabus keep insisting on claiming that the blackbird die-off is an omen of God's Wrath against atheists when it's already been determined that the flock was deliberately poisoned by US federal government agents due to that specific flock being a nuisance by eating and pooping where they shouldn't be eating and pooping?

Having said that, even if the flock was murdered by God, why would we assume that it's an omen of doom for Atheists?  It's that like saying a father is a good man if he disciplines his prodigal son by driving to a shopping center in another county and shooting up random shoppers.

Then again, Dave Mabus is an idiot.

Date: 2011/01/29 23:24:38, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (dnmlthr @ Jan. 29 2011,23:07)
The Mabus works in mysterious (but probably diagnosable) ways.

BTW, I've now resettled to the americas. Palo Alto, CA to be exact. Exchanging snow up to the crown jewels for some sort of perpetual spring/summer wasn't as traumatic as expected. Lasting effects remain to be seen.

Well, you've come just as Winter is returning from its summer vacation.

Date: 2011/01/30 19:54:25, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Sol3a1 @ Jan. 30 2011,05:38)
An actual science question:

The Cambrian Explosion.  Was it a "just" the 10 to 15 MY length or does it include the more of the precursors, including the explosion to have started in Ediacaran and lasted the entire Cambrian Period?

Did it last 5 MY?
10-15MY?
40MY?
70 to 80 MY?
Longer?

It's now thought that there wasn't really an "explosion" where (sort of) modern groups spontaneously evolved in the late Early Cambrian to Middle Cambrian, but, rather, a slow-ish turnover as the various Ediacaran organisms were replaced by more modern animals, who, in turn, evolved hard parts as the Early Cambrian oceans became more and more concentrated with calcium and phosphorus.

In other words, the "explosion," as it was, essentially started at the start of the Cambrian, got rolling with the archaeocyathan bio-herm reefs, and culminating in the "Burgess Shale-style" faunas seen in Chengjiang, Sirius Passet, Emu Bay and British Columbia.

Ironically, the "Burgess Shale-style" faunas continued to persist through the Ordovician, with some stereotypical genera, such as  Naraoia and Choia, persisting well into the Silurian.

Date: 2011/01/30 21:49:20, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 30 2011,21:29)
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 30 2011,19:21)
All I can say is "Say no to drugs!"

I think in this case saying yes to certain applied psychoactive biochemical additives would improve his condition.

"I spoke with God"?!??!?!

Um, Dennis... you know that's crazy talk, right?

edit slight misquote.

I'd settle for having Dave take some rhinoceros-strength tranquilizers.

Date: 2011/01/31 07:48:46, Link
Author: Stanton
Apparently, yes, he's apparently still mad that James Randi won't give him $1 million dollars, and yes, he was as incoherent then as he is now.

He's been throwing an extended temper tantrum for years now.  He claimed that he deserved the money because he could demonstrate that Michel de Nostredame was right.

From what I can tell, though, Dave Mabus' "demonstration" consisted of unintelligible word salad, and no actual demonstration of supernatural powers, which resulted in him being quietly ignored.

As a result, Dave Mabus has been spamming any and all sites he thinks is related to James Randi in even the most remote way, making constant, inane and impotent death threats in the slim, dim hope that he can extort what he thinks is his money from James Randi.

Nevermind the facts that he has no power to back up his threats of cartoon violence, or that his spamming speaks volumes about his mental incompetence, or even that extortion and conspiracy to commit extortion are felonies in both the United States and Canada.

Date: 2011/02/09 16:20:57, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 09 2011,15:43)
Quote
At Cambrian?. The fossil record is the complete opposite of? what was predicted. Do you realize virtually every prediction evolution has made has been falsified?

Gould said the Cambrian explosion went from the "many phylum to the few" the OPPOSITE of what was predicted. when your falsified you? guys just quietly change the theories. how nice

 
Quote
HGT is just a reason to explain away?? the lack of evidence the original theory made. That we should see the few evolving into the many. and closely related species should have more similarities than distantly related species. FALSIFIED.

So HGT to the rescue. Just as P.E. did for sudden appearance and stasis


Quote
The atheist can never open that door of I.D. even when he practices the very thing he says IS NOT SCIENCE. it scares him

Shorter toobsucker:

Quote
ID is everything!  Evolution is wrong!  Atheists are dummydoodyheads!!!!

Date: 2011/02/09 19:48:58, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 09 2011,18:05)
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 09 2011,17:07)
Quote
DNA is not a coded language.

Yeah, that's just an analogy. It might or might not help somebody just learning the subject, but doesn't hold up too well when going into technical details.

I'd love see this moron conjugate an ERV.

Maybe he could describe where the punctuation is.

I'd like to see him use Intelligent Design to explain organisms like Opabinia, or Dicranurus or even the Panda.

Date: 2011/02/09 22:07:02, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 09 2011,21:17)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 09 2011,18:05)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 09 2011,17:07)
 
Quote
DNA is not a coded language.

Yeah, that's just an analogy. It might or might not help somebody just learning the subject, but doesn't hold up too well when going into technical details.

I'd love see this moron conjugate an ERV.

Maybe he could describe where the punctuation is.

I'm not sure that would be a good idea.  ERV is not a young woman to trifle with.

I remember how she verbally eviscerated Michael Behe.

That kind of damage can only be approximated with a weedwhacker.

Date: 2011/02/10 00:20:42, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 09 2011,23:06)
Quote (Stanton @ Feb. 09 2011,22:07)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 09 2011,21:17)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 09 2011,18:05)
     
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 09 2011,17:07)
     
Quote
DNA is not a coded language.

Yeah, that's just an analogy. It might or might not help somebody just learning the subject, but doesn't hold up too well when going into technical details.

I'd love see this moron conjugate an ERV.

Maybe he could describe where the punctuation is.

I'm not sure that would be a good idea.  ERV is not a young woman to trifle with.

I remember how she verbally eviscerated Michael Behe.

That kind of damage can only be approximated with a weedwhacker.

Or by a Richard Lenski.

Dr Lenski's flensing can only be approximated by Omega Beams.

Date: 2011/02/11 07:46:30, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Sol3a1 @ Feb. 11 2011,05:17)
After I called him out on Evolution is a religion, even the courts figured it is not but ID is, this was his retort"

"Wait one second!!! Is an evolutionist citing the rules of the? courts that enslaved the blackman, declaring him three fifth a person? Oh wait, darwin and his cronies did argue that the black man was closer to the apes!

Same courts that treated women as second class citizens? And convicted Mr Scopes of the scopes monkey trial himself?

You are citing the rulings of a court because according to you this is where scientific matters are decided and not in a school or lab? REally?"

This is going to be fun

Have you showed this moron Father of Modern Young Earth Creationism George McCready Price's little poem?
Quote
The poor little fellow who went to the south
 Got lost in the forests dank;
His skin grew black, as the fierce sun beat
And scorched his hair with its tropic heat,
 And his mind became a blank.



http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005.html

Date: 2011/02/12 09:23:40, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 12 2011,08:20)
Why are creationists so mean, leaving us talking to ourselves?

Because they use their faith in Jesus to act like lying assholes who arrogantly assume that they know more than actual scientists.

Date: 2011/02/12 09:57:58, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 12 2011,09:36)
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 12 2011,08:20)
Why are creationists so mean, leaving us talking to ourselves?

One word: Cowards

That brings up another question: If their faith in Jesus grants them intellectual superiority, intellectual invulnerability, and the ability to command Jesus to damn anyone and everyone they don't like to Hell,  why would they need to be cowards?

Date: 2011/02/15 22:03:52, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 11 2011,08:42)
Quote (Robin @ Feb. 11 2011,07:45)
I submit that many organisms engage in coded language, however I would argue that DNA isn't a *deliberate* coded language or even really a language per se. It is a code to be sure, but saying it is a language is  really no different than saying that electrons in a piece of copper are a language.

My response to the "DNA is a language" issue is to ask whoever is making the claim to translate some DNA into English. After all, one of the features of a true language is that it can be translated from one language to another.

If they cannot do that then the next step is to point out that then perhaps "Language" is not the right word....

Of course DNA is a language: Creationists said that God said so, so there [/snark]

Date: 2011/03/02 17:29:46, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 02 2011,16:45)
Quote
IBIG:
But is a dead dog an open system in respect to its own brain and muscle cells?

What good is energy without a way to exchange and use it? I have electricity in my home, but if I don’t plug in my television into a working outlet, then it doesn’t matter if the energy is there, my television still won’t work unless I actually plug it in.


What the hell does that even mean?
You're even more obtuse than usual, Biggy.

He just wants to prove how stupid and evil we are, because we don't worship his interpretation of the Bible, and he wants to prove how much smarter he is than all of the evil, devil-worshiping, God-hating scientists in the world.

As usual.

Date: 2011/03/02 20:51:17, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (mrg @ Mar. 02 2011,20:37)
Quote (dmviolator @ Mar. 02 2011,20:28)
Don't make me mad...

"Too late!"

We didn't do anything: he was already mad mentally ill to begin with.

Date: 2011/03/02 22:43:45, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 02 2011,22:32)
Yawn. IBIG is channeling Gish in his latest on Joe's 2LoT thread at PT. It didn't impress me coming from a Berkeley grad twenty years ago, IBIG... what makes you think that it sounds any better, or any less utterly rebutted, when you say it?

Because he has FAITH (sic) when he says it?

Date: 2011/03/04 07:44:51, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,07:09)
Quote (phhht @ Mar. 03 2011,20:05)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 03 2011,17:08)
   
Quote (phhht @ Mar. 03 2011,15:10)
At the bathroom wall, Poofster asks:

"Does DNA contain information that determines the morphology of an organism?"

Well, yes and no.  DNA can be said to "contain" information.  By that I mean that given a strand of DNA (and the right equipment),  we can
find out the sequence of codons in the strand.  We can even say that certain sequences of codons "code for" certain morphologies in organisms.  Do those sequences "determine the morphology" of an organism?  Depends on what you mean by "determine".

Since they are mindless, DNA and its various processors have no notion of information content or encoding.  They cannot "contain information"
or "decode" in the way that a mind does. But evolution doesn't require that; DNA works its influence on morphology without those abstract descriptive concepts.   It is only we who use them.

"Do crystals contain a type of DNA that contains information that determines the morphology of crystals?"

Exactly to the extent that DNA contains information that determines the morphology of the DNA.

That is, the morphology of a crystal, like the morphology of DNA itself,
is determined by chemistry.   What that has to do with the relation between DNA and the morphology of an organism escapes me entirely.

I know this is a gotcha setup, Poofster, and I'm eager to see how you
get me.  I love those little pieces of passive-aggressive pseudo-reason of yours.

[I]iB doesn't seem to work for me right now; sorry.[\I]

You'll probably tell me next that crystals also have something comparable to a gene switch:)

Computer programs are nothing more then a string of bits, we can find sequences of bits that "code for" certain functions. Since they are mindless bits they have no notion of information content or encoding.

DNA does contain information about our morphology, and just about everything about us, just as those bits in a computer program contain information that enable a function/functions of a particular software. The individual bits in the software may seem insignificant but when they are strung together in the proper sequences you end up with wonderful software, which allowed me to type and post this very post.

I can't understand your point (and I'm a computer programmer).  Could you clarify?

Read the quote that I responded to and see the similar part inserted in my post:)

You mean how all this proves that your FAITH (sic) magically trumps all of science and those evil, stupid, devil-worshiping, God-hating scientists?

Date: 2011/03/04 17:48:46, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:09)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 03 2011,18:34)
Evolutionary increases in information

Just, you know, so IBIG can pretend not to have seen it in two places instead of one.

Wesley...if you wouldn't mind could you explain what is the most likely result with tetraploidy in humans?

Better yet, IBelieve, why can't you explain how the fact that humans and other animals can not survive polyploidy well, if at all, while plants can is supposed to demonstrate how your FAITH (sic) magically trumps all of science?

Date: 2011/03/04 18:51:05, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:55)
Quote (Stanton @ Mar. 04 2011,17:48)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:09)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 03 2011,18:34)
Evolutionary increases in information

Just, you know, so IBIG can pretend not to have seen it in two places instead of one.

Wesley...if you wouldn't mind could you explain what is the most likely result with tetraploidy in humans?

Better yet, IBelieve, why can't you explain how the fact that humans and other animals can not survive polyploidy well, if at all, while plants can is supposed to demonstrate how your FAITH (sic) magically trumps all of science?

The post was about increase in information, and the only example of information increase was tetraploidy in orchids. So, the logical question is what would happen if tetraploidy occurred in humans?

Actually, there have been thousands of documented examples of both naturally occurring and artificially induced polyploid mutations in plants, IBelieve.

Furthermore, you have deliberately ignored the fact that I and others have already stated that humans and animals fail to develop if tetraploid.

And you continue to evade my question of the logic behind your latest gotcha game.

Why is humans not being able to survive tetraploid mutation supposed to demonstrate your FAITH (sic) magically trumping all of science, while also magically proving that GODDIDIT?

Do not be stupidly arrogant enough to presume that we are too stupid to catch on to your inane games, IBelieve.

Date: 2011/03/05 14:55:43, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 05 2011,14:17)
I'm still trying to figure out why an increase of "information" has any relevance to the validity of the evolutionary theory.  ???

Creationists try to redefine evolution as being an "increase of information," while deliberately obfuscating the definition of "information."

That way, they want to automatically, arbitrarily dismiss handwave away all examples of evolution as not counting because the examples do not match up with the Creationists' vague, mysterious definition of "information" 110%.

Like, what Michael Behe tried to do with his latest, laughable paper.

Date: 2011/03/06 16:09:34, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 06 2011,15:30)
I am thinking of Lenny right now.

NOT LENNY!!!

Date: 2011/03/08 16:50:50, Link
Author: Stanton
Quote (mrg @ Mar. 08 2011,16:41)
Biggie's back to trolling on Panda's Thumb again.  Sigh, is it something we said?

Yes, it's the implication that it is actually somehow unfair to teach children to cast unreasonable, unnecessary and downright illogical doubt on Biological Evolution.

Because if you can not force children to believe your Lies for Jesus tm under pain of eternal damnation and social ostracism, the Devil wins.

Date: 2011/03/08 17:33:35, Link
Author: Stanton
So now IBelieve is claiming that, because we don't want a pro-Creationism/anti-Science/anti-education bill passed, we are somehow afraid of teaching critical analysis of Evolution(ary Biology), thus, magically disqualifying Evolution(ary Biology) as a science.

Nevermind that IBelieve has repeatedly tied himself in an angry knot every time any of us point out the obvious weaknesses of Creationism.

Like how "God spoke the laws into existence" is not distinct from "God poofed the universe into existence using magic" or "GODDIDIT"

Or that saying "GODDIDIT" does not explain anything at all (nor does saying "God spoke the laws into existence")

 

 

 

=====