Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

I presume Thomas was previously an intellectually satisfied nonbeliever for Neo-Darwinian evolution and modern cosmology to have made it easier. I wonder what made him an intellectually satisfied nonbeliever in the first place.

My best guess is a need to discredit Christian sexual morality. It can't have been scientific rigor because social evolution has proved the value of Christian sexual morality and has nothing to say about the belief itself.

If I am right then Thomas has placed the body above thought and that's the opposite of intellectual.

spendi has to input "sex" into his opinion; it must be the foundation for his life.

Spendi has his sex life entirely in hand.

That's works both figuratively and literally. LOL

We don't need fm's little jokes explaining to us ci.

Which religion other than Christianity prescribes rest every seventh day?

It's a wonderful Able to Know when-



gets thumbed up and my scholarly posts, which involved some effort, unlike fm's silly blurt, get thumbed down. Amazing.

Not amazing at all! You just don't understand when to quit.

It is a question of whether it is positively functional or not pom. It being ridiculous is neither here nor there unless it is bad for us.

And the same applies to the support or opposition to Christian morality.

A structural functionalist has no other way of looking at these things.

If unrestrained sex, divorce, abortion, flat-out eugenics, biological experimentation on animals and humans are all good for us then the Church is up a gum tree. If bad for us its opponents are. Sitting on the fence weaving self-serving sophistries is an admission of irrelevance.

The supernatural authority brought to bear on the condemnation of those things is merely a technique of enforcement which is likely cheaper and more dignified than other methods. As such It has no bearing on the argument.

You needn't worry about that ci. Sex is the ONLY matter under consideration. You not knowing that is a nothing thing.

It's sex from start to finish, top to bottom, left to right, inside to out and side to side. Diddums have it on Ignore? Aaaaaaaaahhhhh!!! How very sweet.

It's as bad, nay, worse, than curtains on the piano legs and banning the knickerless can-can.

It's for prissy, puritanical prigs. Science is not in the frame.

It's no wonder your world is so limiting!

Ad hom.

That's not an ad hom, spendi. It responds directly to your post which includes sex where it doesn't belong. Your sex reference doesn't add anything to your post that's relevant.

Latest figures show that 46% of UK births are to single mothers.

That's the result of your side's drivel.

Now defend it. Explain how it is the best way forward.

Your post is meaningless. It is not an argument.

It was an ad hom. Sex is the ONLY consideration in Christian theology. That's the reason you are so exercised about these matters.

Your assertions are ignorant and an insult to A2Kers who you also insult with your non stop and boring siggy line which means nothing as well.

There is ONLY one relevant subject--SEX.

You either want SEX controlling or you don't.

If you do, as I expect, please inform us of your favoured system for doing so.

If you don't there is nothing to discuss.

spendi, Sex is an animal instinct; nothing more, nothing less. Unless you're Hugh Hefner, sex does not take up most of our time on this planet. You need to get back to learning about the birds and the bees.

That's the reason why human "virgin birth" is so laughable. Adam and Eve sinned, and were chased out of the Garden of Eden.

Why did god have to breathe life into Adam?
And created from dust? Full of comic illusions.

Why did god have to breathe life into Adam, and not all the other living creatures? No consistency as to how life began.

It's from sex.

What has that got to do with "no proof for evolution?"

Mary Fist

I would say it might be the result of the guys not being able to step up to the plate or women knowing they only want one child.