Speaking of yourself, of course, and believe me FRiend, I understand your need to unburden your own soul of its flaws, by projecting them onto others... ;-)
YHAOS: "Strangely enough, when many of the same of what you now call the “allegedly” mocking of Christians, was introduced to you, by yours truly, in 2009 on FR (see February of 2009, How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism?), you had no objection, just excuses for the misbehavior of Atheists attempting to use Science as a shield."
So let's see if I understand this -- to prove your claim that "Darwinists" mock Christians, you researched back in time FOUR YEARS to recover your own previous list of one-sided quotes, which by themselves prove nothing except a lively debate at that time?
And in the FOUR YEARS since, you can produce no new quotes?
And you have no quotes from this thread?
So let me suggest, FRiend, if it's mocking and insults which fill your soul, then why not check out some FR Civil War threads -- just be ready to duck when the bullets come flying out of your computer! ;-)
Might I suggest also, that in 2009 FR evolution debates were sometimes ill-informed, confused and tending to degenerate into name-calling.
So I'll let anyone judge if things have improved today.
Indeed, I'd challenge you to prove they have not.
YHAOS: "Dawkins, and his many acolytes (fans), have been found guilty of violating the very canons of the science they pretend to praise as superior to any possible religion or other code of ethics.
Your denial efforts notwithstanding.
"Found guilty"? You mean "accused of", of course.
I've never read anything by Dawkins, know of him only through these threads, but suspect he and others are very likely guilty as charged.
My only denial is: you won't find many of those people posting on Free Republic.
Clearly, you do not. Or, perhaps more accurately, you choose not to.
“And in the FOUR YEARS since, you can produce no new quotes?”
In the above, you allege no new quotes, and you set the standard to be less than “FOUR YEARS.” Prove what you allege.
In the meantime, typical of the propagandist, you evade the serious remarks of Miz boop’s (in her post #175, this thread) to focus on the trivial. Let us see if you can address yourself to the remarks of Miz boop’s that you’ve left unanswered:
* Do you object to the “Universe” being portrayed as “the Creation,” and being characterized as a process that unfolds in space and time, from a beginning, progressively developing its potentialities as it “evolves.” Why?
* The Theory of Evolution is a biological theory. Do you object to the word “evolve” (in any of its derivations) being used in some other context? Why?
* Do you disagree with the proposition that randomness cannot serve as an organizational principle governing the evolutionary process?
* Do you disagree with the proposition that randomness cannot cease to be “random,” and actually evolve into “something”?
* Can you state, without equivocation, that the purpose of “Evolution” is to achieve “reproductive fitness”?
* Can you state, without equivocation, that Man is a “vicious predatory animal”? Why?
* It is at this point that Miz boop observes that “dogmatic, bitter-ender, materialist” Darwinists and “thoughtful” Christians cannot see “eye-to-eye” because they do not even stand on the same “ground of Being.” Do you agree or disagree?
* Miz boop goes on to observe that Christians (and I would add Judeo-Christians) do not believe the universe is a random development. Do you agree? Disagree?
* She states further that, “What I find truly fascinating is that recent findings in scientific physical cosmology seem to corroborate God's statements in Genesis 1.” Agree or disagree? Why?
Other than that, you’re doing great!