Evolution Disclaimer Supported

The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^ | 12/11/02 | WILL SENTELL

[BMCDA]

To the nurse of f.Christian: Please increase the dosage! Please!

[Condorman]

Our boy has a very limited argumenitive style. He ignores points that he has trouble refuting, and outright denies those he cannot with 'arguments from authority', either with himself or God as the authority.

I think it's more than just that. See my post 4201. He asserts his position, has it soundly refuted, and claims victory over a point not even present in his original statement.

[f.Christian]

100 % liberals say . . . relative - - - existentialism // evolution ! ! !


Main Entry: ex·is·ten·tial·ism
Pronunciation: -'ten(t)-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1941
: a chiefly 20th century philosophical movement embracing diverse doctrines but centering on analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for his acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad

[Sentis]

Hey dumb#ss Im not Vade. Actually I alreasdy refuted every claim you ever posted. In fact I did it about eight times already. In fact anyone who cares to go back can read it you however won't even answer one simple question.


How old do you think the Earth is?

Don't start spouting out at the mouth if you won't even answer a simple question.


Fear the simplicity.... How old is the Earth?

[Sentis]

gore3000 wrote"Clearly my statement is true and you cannot refute it."

Nope I not Vade, although I bet he has also, have refuted any and every silly post you have made. After the eighth time I quit refuting because you cut and paste the same argument over and over and when you are proved wrong you claim victory.


I remember two other people who used the same tactic I think their names were Adolf Hitler and Stalin. This idea was the one part of the communist manifesto that Adolf really took to heart.

[f.Christian]

Bunch of blathering liberals . . . intellectual // false science fascists - - - totalitarians ! ! !

[tpaine]

Either we are going to have a rule of law -- i.e., follow what the Constitution says -- or we are going to have a rule of men. The federal Constitution says nothing about having Bible classes -- or Gaia worship -- in the public schools. The public schools are supposed to be under local governance; therefore state constitutions would apply to these questions. -BB-

Betty, at some point you are going to have to face up to the fact that our 'federal' constitution has a supremacy clause that says that states are bound to follow the basic principles/laws of the United States Constitution.
One of these basic principles, as you admit, -- is keeping government out of religion, and vice/versa.
Thus, fed/state/local public funded schools cannot favor any of 'the establishments of religion'.

Such a simple concept, - why is it so difficult for some to understand?

[balrog666]

It's tough to argue with God.

The problem is all those people who think they speak for God.

[f.Christian]

You have no problem with the govt establishing full blown Atheistic liberalism // evolution do you ? ? ?

I understand - - - perfectly ! ! !

[balrog666]

Can't you even make sense in a tag line?

[Heartlander]

When did this happen? Today or 300 years ago?

And if this is true it is bad why?

And this is bad why? And how can you tell the difference?

Why should chemicals react with each other?

Oh but it seems to work quite well in this reality. And without some compelling evidence why should we believe that this is not the ultimate reality?

And if his mental processes are not only determined by the motions of atoms and electrons what reason has he to believe that his beliefs are true in this case?

OK…
I don’t think my ‘opinion’ will change your ‘mind’ so please answer these questions yourself and for your own sake (if you are truly interested).

[f.Christian]

Is sense // reality . . . relevant // welcome to an evolutionist // liberal - - - NO // NEVER ! ! !


Main Entry: rel·e·vant
Pronunciation: 're-l&-v&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin relevant-, relevans, from Latin, present participle of relevare to raise up -- more at RELIEVE
Date: 1560
1 a : having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand b : affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matter at issue or under discussion < relevant testimony > c : having social relevance
2 : PROPORTIONAL, RELATIVE
- rel·e·vant·ly adverb
synonyms RELEVANT, GERMANE, MATERIAL, PERTINENT, APPOSITE, APPLICABLE, APROPOS mean relating to or bearing upon the matter in hand. RELEVANT implies a traceable, significant, logical connection < found material relevant to her case >. GERMANE may additionally imply a fitness for or appropriateness to the situation or occasion < a point not germane to the discussion >. MATERIAL implies so close a relationship that it cannot be dispensed with without serious alteration of the case < facts material to the investigation >. PERTINENT stresses a clear and decisive relevance < a pertinent observation >. APPOSITE suggests a felicitous relevance < add an apposite quotation to the definition >. APPLICABLE suggests the fitness of bringing a general rule or principle to bear upon a particular case < the rule is not applicable in this case >. APROPOS suggests being both relevant and opportune < the quip was apropos >.

[Condorman]

Apparently his local the hardware store ran out of dashes. But man oh man, did he get a deal on the 75-pound bag of slashes.

[tpaine]

"I think it's more than just that. See my post 4201. He asserts his position, has it soundly refuted, and claims victory over a point not even present in his original statement."

#4201:
No one attempted to discredit Christianity. These were posted in support of the idea that the Golden Rule is not strictly Christian. Are you having problems remembering your positions from post to post?
4201 -Condorman-


I'll cede some points. In this case, the point made is a quibble, so I couldn't care less.
4202 -exmarine-

Good grief! Our 'God fearing' exmarine just stated that the point on the origin of human rights is a "QUIBBLE".
-- As you infered, he'll say anything to save face.

[tpaine]

The problem is all those people who think they speak for God.
4268 -B666-

Forgive them, they know not what they do.
[Its a catch 22 type thing. - The more zealous they are, the less rationality evidenced]

[tpaine]

Please, do not feed the fletcher.

[f.Christian]

If you // anyone . . .

believes evolution . . . you // they - - - have NO // zero - - - sense // science // reality . . .

bilge // head . . . fluids // matter ! ! !

[viaveritasvita]

"Do you understand yet?"

It's quite possible because you have an infant (unless you're a middle-aged or old man who married a younger woman) that I understood your premise before you were born. I DISAGREE with your premises; our premises are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED in this regard.

Your theory has been HIJACKED; you are in MASSIVE SELF-DENIAL about your beliefs and the agenda of evo.

Your arrogance is ASTONISHINGLY boring.

[f.Christian]

How about...

Your arrogance // immaturity is . . .ASTONISHINGLY - - - boring // lazy.

---better ? ? ?

[SunnyUsa]

"Can't you even make sense in a tag line?"

LOL!!!