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

True . The contradictions are because we haven't always worshiped science withe anal retentive nature some have today . They included all stories because they weren't sure which ones to leave out .

Spoken with the dismissive convictions of someone who flunked his math and science majors.
ANUS doesnt believe that the teaching of Creationism and ID in science classes is a big issue. He doesnt know that at lest half of the GOP presidential candidates have no backbones ossified enough to stand up for what real science "preaches". They only pander to mass ignorance and then claim how they want only the best educational experiences for our children.

The last seven posts, up to and inc. Setanta's, are tin pot theology, kindergarten literature and nursery history. They fly in the face of the Christian tradition and make mock of Biblical scholarship and the university research departments which specialise in the matter. They are a genteel form of book burning. It is a serious criminal offence in North Korea to read the Bible.

Read Human Sacrifice by Nigel Davies and see what atavistic urges were inhibited by the Bible and which still exist despite it. Being shocked by killings and stonings and the welter of other horrors which were commonplace before the revolutionary prophets and the New Testament is merely a twee suburban affectation indulged in by ignoramouses who seek promiscuous lifestyle justification and to pose as caring, compassionate persons on a $14.7 trillion debt burden.

There's only one objective in play in those seven posts and it is to eliminate Christian teaching on morality for personal reasons and thus leave the way open to the state control of it by bureaucratic procedures or no control of it.

The idea that religion has no function can only be entertained by extremely unintelligent persons and fragile psychological states.

Actually Io, blood letting is perfectly scientific. Some doctors are using it today. If there are 10 pints in the body of bad blood, i.e. too much cholesterol or other pathogens, then hemodilution can be used to remove some and the replacement blood the body makes is free of those things. It's based on Oswald's dilution laws.

Obviously the leech users didn't know the science as we do but they knew it worked in a crude way from observations and trial and error.

A pal of mine who drank 4 or 5 pints every night woke up from a by-pass op. extremely depressed. The surgeon told him that the 5 pints of blood he had been given during the op. were alcohol free and that he would get back to his normal, cheerful self once he had restored the alcohol level in his blood.

Which is why water drinkers are so boring and morose.

I'm not surprised seeing as how personally embarrassing it is to stand up for science in the political sphere. And not only for the speaker.

But fm only does the non-controversial aspects of science which he allows himself to think is "real science". He ends up using the fact that Co2 turns lime water milky to dismiss all psychosmatic manifestations such as those caused by lingerie, music, colour and religious ceremonial just as Spock viewed matters in Star Trek. He has no explanation of how such an attitude could get us down from swinging in the trees.

He has obviously never read Wilhelm Reich, Freud, Jung or Neumann. His general position would geld everybody over 25.

I wonder what evidence fm has for such a base contention.

Io is miles more scientific than fm and the other anti-IDers on this thread. Which isn't saying much I know.

Again, spendi shows he has no logic, and tries tangents that has no relationship to what is the topic of discussion.

fm invented a gratuitous comment about Io's purported failure in maths and science. I commented on that. You have now made a comment on my comment.

And any criticism of my comment for the reasons you give apply equally to fm's remark and to your's.

You display, and not just on this occasion, a quite remarkably stupidity. It is very relevant to the topic that two people who wish science to replace religion, rather than them being officially synergistic, should be seen regularly posting complete unscientific and illogical, prejudiced gibberish written in a careless, blurting style of the playpen genre.

It ought to serve as a warning to those tempted by their lusts to follow your examples.

I even gave a proper definition of a straw man and fm trots out a most crass and obvious one shortly thereafter. Your post was an idiocy.

No, spendi, all my responses to your posts directly addresses what you write.
Your posts go into tangents that have no relationship to any post. You are a "creative" writer who doesn't know how to stay on topic. Mine does; it address what you post.

No wonder there are no serious anti-IDers on these threads. No self-respecting person of that persuasion would dream of becoming associated with your positions which are, of course, ridiculous. And profoundly misogynistic. Woman as convenient receptacle is what you are in to bat for. And the spending on health, pharmaceuticals and counselling is there as proof of the effects of your ministrations which you will be pleased to know are well advanced.

I am well aware that I am fighting a rearguard action. Most of what you seek you have got and you are using this topic of evolution to push it to the limit.

What a bloody silly daisy you are ci. I addressed fm's post just as you did mine.

And I'm not interested in staying on topic all the time. I'm used to tangents, diversions and freewheeling distractions. I've not yet seen a thread of any substance which stays on topic all the time.

fm was on the "What Made You Smile Today" thread posting about not smiling. He used it as an excuse to tell us all once again what a big cheese he is as if there are not untold thousands drilling the earth for its treasures to maintain our cultural ego orgasm and the vast majority going much deeper than a measly 400 feet down.

There's nothing like a bloke telling everybody about his intrepid activities when none of them were witnesses. It's called bullshitting. In this case "counter topic".

But he got the girlies expressing faked concern for his predicament. How nice eh? So eager are they to empathise that they forget all about the skiddies in his underpants and his baseline misogyny. So they used him back.

You are one stubborn Brit; there is no such thing as an "anti-IDer." It doesn't exist in any language. There is no "anti-" of something that doesn't exist.

Wow. I've been just following this polite little conversation, and he sounds pissed...

Not really hammie. Astounded maybe. He reminds me of Alf Garnett and Sergeant Snudge.

He makes his sister cry you know. It can't be because of his attitude to her religious beliefs, as he fondly imagines. She must have come across that before. I think it is his manner of disputation which must be excruciatingly frustrating full in the face.

From this distance it is quite funny and, as I said, quite useful to those with the brains to see where they might end up by following his groundbreaking discoveries in the field of logic.

These guys are all non sequiturians. They think that if a priest is seen being carried out of a brothel in a dead faint it is due to a session of debauchery and, as such, is sufficient proof that artificial birth control, adultery, divorce, abortion, homosexuality and eugenics are perfectly respectable and will lead us into the Sunny Uplands when Congress, after the usual cliff-hanger in order to have TV appearances, will pass the bill to raise the debt ceiling above it's present limit of $14.7 trillion. ($49 grand each, man, woman and child). Whereas actually it was hearing the ladies' confessions that laid the priest out.

A sort of walking, talking, sleeping, walking non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow the premiss you see. It's the same with the Flood. And Darwinianism. They are in it for the justification of previous actions they have been involved in which they must feel a terrible guilt about to go to the legths they do to discredit Christian sexual morality. Media and the Leagles are in it for the money. So also the pseud-scientists who are busy trying to climb some greasy pole or other rather that messing about in labs doing boring research. And it is boring is research these days. How would you like to breed thousands of generations of fruit flies and after twenty years end up where you started. Perfecting genetically modified corn must be excruciating if you haven't got two pretty assistants to while away the time while the plants do their stuff.

One might think that modifying alcoholic beverages so that the headache **** is taken out would be top priority.

I think of ci. as a diving board.

spendi, That I remind you of other people just proves you have a great imagination - and nothing much else.

I didn't make my sister cry; she cried on her own. I did not treat her badly; I only declared I am an atheist.

I can't control how people react to who I am. They can laugh, cry, cuss, or not react at all. It's their choice, not mine.

You just show what an idiot you are; no common sense, no logic, and no ability to understand honesty about family and friend relationships.

BTW, I didn't bother reading your post after the second paragraph. It would only waste my time.

What story would they actually leave in? I can't seem to think of a single story in the bible worth keeping if you are trying to say that it is known the science in them is bad? Pretty much all of them have errors and I can't seem to think of any one that would be worth keeping.

Well, we can always start with the seven days of creation - of the heavens and of the earth.

Well that one has probably the most problems of all of them. Here is one for example just so it doesn't seem like I'm making it up. If the earth was created 6000 years ago and the stars were created on the forth day created the stars then the light from stars that are further than 6000 light years would not be seen by us. It would be the one piece of evidence that genesis were correct yet we know that there are stars that are further away than 6000 light years and we can see them. This proves that the earth was not created 6000 years ago.

one of the Creationist arguments has been that (c) has not been constant through time.

In that little allegory what is discovered is contemplation. On the seventh day God rested and saw that it was good. That we should act and then provide a period of time, 1/7th being thought okay, to contemplate what we had done. I don't think the process of contemplation was an evolved characteristic. And if our God does it then we ought to. And many of us do. Try contemplating artificial birth control sometime. That's an easy starter to practice on.

An idea imported from the east but too overdone there for any progress to result. Which is why when our ships got there we just took all the stuff off them and brought it home to have a good time with. Too good a time in my opinion. We've overdone impulsiveness. Absence of contemplation. The gushing dizzy blonde stuff.

It is a grave mistake to think that one's reading of a text, especially a cursory second or tenth hand one, provides us with a definitive explanation of its meaning. When one gets married to one's first juvenile explanation for life is when you've got bigotry.