(August 18, 2013 at 7:32 pm)Drich Wrote: Not all are called to teach, and of those who are not all heed the call.

I think what you mean is that not all are megalomaniacal enough to think the voices in their head are god whispering, "You are one of the chosen ones."

(August 18, 2013 at 7:43 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You are a classic example of the adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" Drippy.

Why don't you read Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth" and then get back to us in 25 years when you finally understand it?

I have read and watched interviews/debates with he is guilty of the same falicious reasoning most of you are.

He creates a strawman version of Christianity based on what the R/C church believes and attacks this personal version of christianity. Rather than addresses What is actually said.

Not to mention when he hit a wall in his ablity to reason he appeals to personal attacks on whom ever he is debating and makes his oppositions position appear to be foolish because it is not what he nor his peer group believes. Again which I see here over and over again.

I also see that he like to select his opponets, and most of them come from one specific view of Christianity, one that He knows how to answer. I think he himself points out that there are 30,000 different brands of Christianity, so why does he only ever return to one of a few wells?

Sorry Minnie, your hero is just a practiced bully, who chooses very carfully who to bully. He would fold like a house of cards if and when he choose to speak with the right person.

Try again, Drich. The book Min. so graciously suggested is about evolution and isn't about attacking god or Christianity.

(August 18, 2013 at 11:09 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Try again, Drich. The book Min. so graciously suggested is about evolution and isn't about attacking god or Christianity.

So the reason the author wrote the book nor his views of God or Christianity is any part of this discussion?

If that is the case then Dawkins evolution fits nicly into my combined account of Creation/Evolution.

---

(August 18, 2013 at 9:45 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(August 18, 2013 at 7:41 pm)Drich Wrote: Again a less potent strain of the virus developing after a previously impervious had been established is not consistent with what you just said. Or if you prefer, a less 'adaptable' strain develops after a documented history of a pervious indestructible strain has been established is not consistent with the primary rule of evolution.

A polar bear needs thick insulation to survive in an arctic climate. If you transport a polar bear to a tropical climate, it will have to adapt many of its habits to survive, and if it reproduces (ostensibly with other, similarly-afflicted polar bears), attributes such as coloration and insulation will necessarily alter over generations to better suit the environment. This produces polar bears much less capable of surviving polar climates, not only because certain attributes making life possible in the arctic are a drawback in the tropics, but because the bears will have to come up with a different diet which is probably much lower in fat and, therefore, unable to sustain fatty insulation anyway. That's how evolution works. It can also be the result of a random mutation which leaves the organism more vulnerable in some way, but because they are lucky enough not to face the specific threat, they may pass on a lack of protection for several generations, adapting to its absence. Which may come back to hurt it later if the threat really isn't gone. Evolution does not necessarily produce improvements all the time, nor are all of its adaptations beneficial or guaranteed to work.

Evolution is far more complicated than you obviously think.

Do you not see how your analogy fails?

In your analogy the 'polar bear's environment' has changed thus requiring adaptation in order for the species to continue. In the case of the "elite controller" the enviorment does not change. yet the virus mutates into a weaker form allowing the body to recover from it. If this happens over and over, that strain will go the way of the dodo, or so says your prophet Darwin.

But, this strain seems to be doing just fine as cases of it have been so numerous 'science' could no longer ignore it, and had to not only document it but come up with some cock and bull story as to why thee cases keep coming up. (Other than answered prayer.)

This is for all of you who ask Why doesn't God do miricals any more?

The Answer: He does. We just will not concede to what they really are and document them.

(August 18, 2013 at 11:09 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Try again, Drich. The book Min. so graciously suggested is about evolution and isn't about attacking god or Christianity.

It's about evolution, idiot. Something you know NOTHING about.

BTW, regardless of what Dawkins writes....your god is still a pile of primitive shit. Grow up.


And he certainly should have thrown in a few shots at the creatards, FNM. But he stuck to the topic.

As far as I know, advising someone to stop taking a medical treatment, which would helpt that individual in his or her condition, as a non medical professional, is a punishable offence.



So this matter will certainly be settled in a criminal court.

Drich Wrote:In your analogy the 'polar bear's environment' has changed thus requiring adaptation in order for the species to continue. In the case of the "elite controller" the enviorment does not change. yet the virus mutates into a weaker form allowing the body to recover from it. If this happens over and over, that strain will go the way of the dodo, or so says your prophet Darwin.

But, this strain seems to be doing just fine as cases of it have been so numerous 'science' could no longer ignore it, and had to not only document it but come up with some cock and bull story as to why thee cases keep coming up. (Other than answered prayer.)

Congratulations, you've figured out how random mutation works, and why sometimes random mutations persist even though they are disadvantageous. Keep up the good work and one day, you can drop the bronze age nonsense and go from the 21st century BCE to the 21st century CE.

(August 19, 2013 at 12:40 am)Ryantology Wrote:

Drich Wrote:In your analogy the 'polar bear's environment' has changed thus requiring adaptation in order for the species to continue. In the case of the "elite controller" the enviorment does not change. yet the virus mutates into a weaker form allowing the body to recover from it. If this happens over and over, that strain will go the way of the dodo, or so says your prophet Darwin.

But, this strain seems to be doing just fine as cases of it have been so numerous 'science' could no longer ignore it, and had to not only document it but come up with some cock and bull story as to why thee cases keep coming up. (Other than answered prayer.)

Congratulations, you've figured out how random mutation works, and why sometimes random mutations persist even though they are disadvantageous. Keep up the good work and one day, you can drop the bronze age nonsense and go from the 21st century BCE to the 21st century CE.

which again only furthers my orginal point.

People 'healed' are considered fakers in this day and age or their 'afflictation' was somehow not as 'real' as those who have died of it.

So, someone quick ask me again why doesn't God heal people anymore? The answer: He does, it just those He heals are deemed to have never been 'truly sick' to begin with. to be 'truly sick' one must have been killed by the illness or go through many years of suffering and pain at the hands of doctors and their well established and documented practices. anyone who skirts death or tremendous suffering via God/Prayer is a 'faker' or has some.. what was the term? Ran-Dom Moo-tate-ion was it?

Hmm sounds like 'science' has a catch all term that describes the unknown. So rather than give God his due or even say "we don't know." There is a catch all term that covers all current unknowns..

Where have I heard this before??

Could it have been in the darkages, when the church ascribed everything to God blindly, and made it a blaspheme to question it? Or even now when a brother simply says God works in mysterious ways?

How does this differ from your catch all? Why is your catch all term permitted, and ours is deemed a social blaspheme?

I have an answer and it rhymes with Pip-o-crit.

Drich, i think your prayer most definitely did cure you of the HIV infections that you never had. F But it opened up all sorts of new lesions in your brain that would never, ever, please your nonexistent god to heal.

I think you lost big time.

(August 19, 2013 at 1:23 am)Chuck Wrote: Drich, i think your prayer most definitely did cure you of the HIV infections that you never had. But it opened up all sorts of new lesions in your brain that has never pleased your nonexistent god to heal. I think you lost.

When did that happen exactly? Earlier today when you all were convinced that it was not possible for anyone to be cured of aids at all, or maybe when I pointed to a growing number of people who had been cured and then pointed to the labeling that you all do trying to deny what God has done. Or did I loose it simply because you have nothing new to add and you just have blind 'faith' in the fact that you think you are right and I am wrong?

Please do tell.