Posted on 08/09/2009 8:10:48 PM PDT by Gordon Greene
“I think it is wishful thinking. One of the posters reacted to a common phrase with thoughts of viewing private parts.”
What was that thing you said about ‘evil’? You are such a juvenile... explains a lot.
That was not the question. The question was whether your 'Christian' movement defined Catholics as non-Christians.
Actually, my claims are accurate and illuminating.
I never said that almost every Christian believes in evolution (terms like “almost every, “almost all”, etc. have a precise meaning in mathematical analysis and that matters to a mathematician like me). I said that most Christians do.
And “asinine” has one “s”. Practice conservation of s’s, and spell it “ainine” next time.
Sort of like eating the apple and seeing evil where none exists.
“When you try to nail him down on any specific quotes and how he comes to his conclusion from that post, he jumps the shark.”
Hop.
Hop.
You guys are bigger dodge-monkeys than I am. So there...
Are you gonna cry now because you think someone didn’t answer your question the way you wanted? I’m sorry about that! I’ll try to give you what you ask for next time.
“Buck has never asked you to condemn others. I would have to infer from the above that to answer the question would require you to either lie or to condemn Catholics.”
Infer... infer. You’re such a stinking broken record.
Infer what you wish or you might take the time to actually let an original concept enter your brain. I won’t take the time to re-re-explain what I’ve already re-explained.
Careful. I think he has another meaning of 'toying'. Your phrase 'pants off' excited them pretty good!
It goes sort of like this. Just an example with no relation to any living posters.
To GG: Do you love your mother?
GG: Why do you ask me to condemn my mother?
As opposed to "toying with" them?
“To GG: Do you love your mother?
GG: Why do you ask me to condemn my mother?”
Do you really like posting completely bizarre unrelated comments?
You got my answer. Next question... the current one has become boring.
It would be just as fair for me to observe that no response is accepted except abject submission.
You posted several quotes from Darwin. NOWHERE in your posts have you dealt with any of those quotes. I asked you about one of them and you ducked the question.
Thanks for the admission that it went right over your head.
Have you tried anything except that?
Thanks Mr. Spellcheck. I’ll take a note to spell your name with one “s” from here forward. I must be making substantial headway if you’re becoming concerned with spelling innacuracies.
And as for your illuminating comments, you never “illuminated” us on the intelligence of this question, “Do you believe that the actions that are specified in the passages from Romans that you quoted number among the requirements of the Catholic faith?”
Do you stand by the wording of that question? Yes or no.
Also, I’ll re-ask the question I posed to CW earlier and I expect an answer;
In light of the teachings of Darwin and your confessions that you believe them to be accurate, do you support Obama’s and Ezekial Emanuel’s ideas concerning healthcare.
Let’s review:
“Vaccination has preserved thousands who from a weak constitution would formerly have suc-cumbed to smallpox. Thus, the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man....”
“Excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”
“We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind...”
Yes or no? (I totally believe you’re both too scared to answer. Please invite all of your evo friends to answer the question... this is a political site, you know)
“I asked you about one of them and you ducked the question.”
I believe I answered it, but I’ll answer yours if you answer mine (see my last post)... quack, quack.
‘Crickets’
1. I asked you to support how any of the quotes supported your conclusion. You ducked the question.
2. Next, I picked the first one and asked you to comment how your arrived at your conclusion. You ducked the question and claimed that I was 'excerpting' your post!.
3. You excerpt your post and ask another a leading question with ever stating how that quote had any relevance to your question.
You didn't. See my last post. Now you claim you will answer mine only if I answer yours first. My question was first. You answer mine and I will answer yours.
No, I don't say it's merely a coincidence. What I say is that evolutionary theory is an observation of a principle being enacted all around us, whether we want to acknowledge it or not. It's just there, and it couldn't be simpler: those that survive, reproduce, those that die, don't, and with every birth genetic changes occur. Therefore the changes that survive, do so because they help survival, because they did not die before reproduction.
Eugenics, however, is the concept of taking this observation and using it to justify mass murder. It doesn't matter if Darwin himself (let alone scientists or his family) want to do this (and Darwin didn't), it's still eugenics and not evolutionary theory.
As I pointed out, fire fighters study the process of fires. They understand in incredible detail how and why fires act. That knowledge does not make them arsonists, even if arsonists study the exact same information to commit arson.
Critical thinking - get some today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.