I can't say anything else without violating the rules of the forum. All I can say is that everything you say makes me laugh. I ask myself, how could you know so much about Claude and what the Principle said to him in private, unless you were in fact Claude? Now it all makes sense, how you run into a thread and never offer anything intelligent. You simply insult the forum members and use sarcasm and disappear for a couple weeks. Well, have a good one Claude, sorry to hear about your rough childhood. But as for me, I was participating in a discussion that was started by someone else. I was making arguments based on facts, which I supplied. I never once mentioned by own religious beliefs and I never once used them to support anything I said. You should still get a repremand from the Mods, but you are safe, being that your profile says "Religous: Non-Religous".



See ya later Claude, I hope you have gotten enough attention for today.

I sincerely think you are not even conscious that you're missing the point entirely!!!

As for your question, I think I'll resort to the story of this little guy in my grade 3 class.

Claude was his name. I later understood that Claude must have had an attention disorder based on lack of attention/affection, probably.

Anyhow, he would always talk to classmates and disturb the whole class to the dismay of the teacher, whom we would always hear calling out: 'Claude, it's your last chance. If I catch you talking again, I'll send you to the 'principal office'.

Sure enough, Claude spoke again, and was sent to the principal's office.

Together with the teacher, and following a call to the parents, it would appear that the principal's visit had Claude realize that he could no longer talk dismissively in class. Were it to happen again, there would be much more serious consequences than a visit to the principal's office.

Well guess what, Claude did not talk dismissively again for the rest of the school year.

But that wasn't the end of it!!!

Not a minute would go by without a book falling from Claude's desk, the noise of his wooden desk-top dropping, or the ultimate, blowing his nose with such force, that one could have sworn a moose had just entered the room.

You've guessed it, Claude was back in the principal's office, but this time, he claimed with all the sincerity he could muster, that he had done nothing wrong, '... tell me teacher, WHEN DID I ONCE SPEAK DISMISSIVELY?!?!?...' he must have asked defiantly.

'... But Claude, would reply the principal, YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT!!! The point is, you keep disturbing the class in an intolerable manner'.

Of course, as long as Claude was inhabited by this 'attention/affection' deficit disorder, he would uncounsciously keep doing 'everything' to get attention. And that was never going to be conducive with running a 3rd grade classroom, nor was it ever going to bring Claude th affection he so longed for!!!

Much like you 'spider', feeling that your religion and faith are under attack all the time, and eventhough you don't use faith based arguments (as Claude stopped talking dismissively),
you still come from your faith based convictions, with apologetics artillery, TO DEFEND YOUR FAITH (equivalent to Claude uncontrollable attention/affection deficit disorder).

Just as you don't seem to get the message, Claude followed the 'letter' of the message from the pricipal, but never understood the spirit:
the incompatibility between 'attention/affection deficit' and running a classroom, just like science motivated discussions will never work inside of faith motivated purposes.

You have no positions. You have no arguments. You have no point. There is no basis for it.

There is no amount of insinsting on the part of apologetics that 'evolution' ATTACKS their faith, that will have the domains of science and faith connect. There is no connection. Ther ca be no attack. Science CANNOT reach faith. Neither can faith reach science.

You need to convince your apologetics friends that this delusional sense of permenantely being under attack from sceince or otherwise is 100% counterproductive.

It might have been true way back when Christians were burned at the stake for their beliefs. But let me assure you, that is no longer the case today. And metaphorical attacks, as fabricated and and perceived by apologetics don't count.

As for faith based arguments, incompatible intent, motives and practices are the very basis of one's argument, much more so then the words one may write or speak.

That is the point 'spider'. And on that basis, trying to 'prove' creationism on the sole basis of the amateurish and presuppositional 'disproval' of evolution, is absurd at best, and squarely dishonest at worst.

Nothing on this planet, much less science, is under the obligation of satisfying one's delusional mission to impose one's world view.
Whether this view comes from religion or faith matters none.

One's faith is not based on material/physical conditions. For one whom wishes to keep insisting that it is, shouldn't become the concern of anyone, on a dating site or otherwise.

Doesn't life work in mysterious ways. I didn't suspect the 'Claude story would get such a 'live' reaction from you. Dead-on as they say! regardless of your pathetic reply!

The thought of 'Claude' keeps popping up in my mind whenever you're around 'spider'.

It did leave its mark because it was my first encounter with 'obsessive-compulsive' disorder. Not that they spoke of the disorder itself, they kept referring to Claude having to deal with a special issue, but the principal and our teacher took great care in explaining why Claude was not going to spend the last month of school with us, and why he wouldn't return to our school the following September.

It was a pivate school you see, and the nuns went to great lenghts to make sure that they acted fairly, and were perceived to act fairly. Explaining the process, the fairness with which they had treated Claude, and also the responsibility they had towards the integrity of the classroom.

Sorry that the comparison between Claude and yourself hits home so harshly, that you so strongly feel the need to deny it outright and resort to throwing it back at the messenger.

Convenient I guess.

But I trust that in a moment of silence, all on you own, with no one to distract you, you will meditate on this one, and may come through with a usefull 'nugget'.

So my defenses of the incestuous creationism being less believable than the evolution is a mute point. As one is a belief and the other is science. The two shan't meet.

I have learned something for myself today. Thank you voile

Untamed, there are certain terms you are using which are incorrect in regards to what evolution is, and we need to clear them up before we can begin to discuss your larger arguments.

"no experience = no call to evolve into a superior species right?"

Using the word superior here is not proper, the function of evolution allows organism to become a better functioning organism in its particular ecosystem. To say that any organism is "superior" to another is inaccurate. Also, "experience" is not the driving force behind evolution as you describe it. In a sense, it is randomness paired with situations that favor particular arrangements of randomness. There is one more important point to remember in regards to evolution, it acts on populations, not individuals.

Complexity is a byproduct and by no means necessary or required. No organism "evolves" to become more complex simply for complexity's sake.

Evolution can be as "simple" as antibiotic resistance.

I agree with this statement, if it were true. Here you are assuming that the lens was developed prior to light sensitive cells, and if you look at various "simpler" organisms (flip through an intro zoology text) you will find various organisms that possess structures (albeit rudimentary) similar to our own eye. Development of a lens to focus light onto these specialized photo-sensitive cells is not as farfetched as you make it sound.

This is mostly true, although the clotting cascade that is the dominant source of repair to our circulatory system, it is by no means the only part of it. Also, there are various other organisms that do not really have any means of hemostasis, however, they still thrive. Again, a population need not "experience" blood loss to develop blood clotting. During the evolution of particular species, there are individuals with preexisting genetic variation that is "beneficial" or provides a phenotypic advantage among the various selective pressures applied to the population.

It is really only flawed if the person conducting the test does not know what they are doing. What you are saying is tantamount to bashing heart surgery if you let your dog perform the operation.

Heres an easy blood clot solution for you and remember I am no scientist.

Long ago before blood coagulated. There were 1 million mice. As you will even agree these 1 million mice are not all exactly the same. (That would be ridiculous.) Now all 1 million mice get cut all at once by some bizarre angry mice cutting beast. The 10 or 12 mice that just happen to bleed a little slower have a much better chance at staying alive and passing on that gene. The ones that bleed like a fountain die in seconds and do not pass on their genes. Now let that happen over a few million generations and Ta-da Coagulation.

There you go easy as that I proved that wrong in 15 seconds of thinking.

This is clearly not true. Evolution isn’t a religion. That’s your fallacy. Evolution doesn’t say any thing at all about the spiritual nature of the universe. It merely shows how it unfolded.

Also, what if there is no consequences for our actions? So what? I know many atheists who don’t believe in a God or any kind of afterlife yet they are extremely upstanding moral people.

Is the idea of a God who will spank you the only thing that keeps you in line? If that’s the case then praise the Lord and pass the biscuits!

I think it’s truly sad if that is indeed the case for you. I would hate to think that your true ambition is to run around doing immoral things and the only reason you don’t do them is because you think you’ll have to answer for it. That’s genuinely a pathetic situation.

Moreover I’m not sure I’d want to share a heaven with a bunch of people who have a sincere desire to do immoral things but are only restraining themselves out of fear of punishment or the desire to earn a reward. How grossly self-centered would that be?

... I would automatically be eligible for the biblical heaven just by being who I naturally am even if I never heard of the Bible.

In fact, according to Jesus we will be judged by the same measure we judge others. If Jesus spoke the truth, then there won’t be any judgment for me at all. The gates of heaven would just automatically open as I approached with no questions asked because I don’t judge others. Therefore if Jesus can be taken at his word then no judgment will be passed on me at all. And I’m not even trying to get into heaven. I’m just being my natural self.

So your idea that evolution is attractive because it represents no consequences for my actions only suggests to me that you are one sick puppy.

I don’t want to change your personal beliefs. That was never my intent to begin with.

God is the ultimate and fair judge; that is why he says "Vengeance is MINE",

Heres an easy blood clot solution for you and remember I am no scientist.

Long ago before blood coagulated. There were 1 million mice. As you will even agree these 1 million mice are not all exactly the same. (That would be ridiculous.) Now all 1 million mice get cut all at once by some bizarre angry mice cutting beast. The 10 or 12 mice that just happen to bleed a little slower have a much better chance at staying alive and passing on that gene. The ones that bleed like a fountain die in seconds and do not pass on their genes. Now let that happen over a few million generations and Ta-da Coagulation.

There you go easy as that I proved that wrong in 15 seconds of thinking.

]

Very true, my mistake!!!
[
However, I think you should have kept it hush!!!

Lubenow's version of 'Bones of Contention's was at least coined the 'best of the bad'. You should have kept it there!

With Sylvia Baker, we're truly going down to fanatical, anything goes, fundamentalist hell!!!

Here is a statement she made on the Trinity Christian School 'website', where she was head teacher, in April 2007,

"The world and everything in it was created by God and did not arise by chance and through evolution." Moreover, "The Bible is, throughout, the Word of God. It is therefore to be believed as true and obeyed unquestioningly."

You truly think this kind of pervasive and categorical mindset leaves room for the minimum level of essential 'objectivity' science is founded upon???

Unscrupulous people will misuse science to support their religious agendi. But it is utter stupidity to then turn around and claim that this misused and difformed science, is credible, much less 'fact'!!!

So much for Ms Baker's motives!!!

As for her practices, not unlike most fundamentalists, they are deceiptful to say the least, as you can read below::

It is reported that Ms Baker was a co-signer and full participant of the 'Estelle Morris letter'.

"... The 2002 Estelle Morris letter, from 27 creationists to the then Secretary of State for Education, was clearly an attempy to push for the teaching of creationism in science lessons.

None of the 27 signatories declared that they were creationists and none disclosed that they were activist members of creationist organisations (most of them were).

THE BSCE REGARDS IT AS A MAJOR ACT OF ORGANISED DECEIPT BY THE THE CREATIONIST MOVEMENT.

It appears that the letter followed another from a much larger and more distinguished group of academics and scientists arguing the opposite case. This letter, which was addressed to the Prime Minister, appears to have been entirely ignored..."

On Sylvia Baker:
http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/SylviaBaker

On the BHA letter :
http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/BHALetter

On the Estelle Morris letter:
http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/SylviaBaker


A PIG dressed-up in a 'tuxedo', IS STILL A PIG!!!

Religious dogma, dressed-up with scientific tid-bits which conveniently 'fit' pre-suppositionist arguments, will never be anything other than MORALLY AND ETHICALLY 'DECEIPTFUL', ... NOT SCIENTIFIC, NOT FACTUAL, NOT REAL!!

So in your concept you're assuming that the mice were able to evolve to rondent form without being attacked ever and only when they were WARM BLOODED ANIMALS did the mutation of blood clotting form?

Im no scientist either but I think I beat your personal-best of 15 seconds there.

and about the Jesus thing;

You had a post which stated :"Im waiting for my apology"
in which my reply included debunking your half-assed attempt at debunking Jesus.

THEN, after you saw this, you wen back and edited you post to a


and proceeded to hide from the fact that your claim was obliterated.

You're right, I just might go over and re-open that thread so that everyone can see.

I have to take issue with that, scripture says God created but not how he created;^]

So let's see...I've destroyed all of your strawmen, shown time and again that science and logic support my position and now you guys are forced to do childish name calling. Yep, you guys win again.

Dr. SpiderCMB! You guys really showed me! No evidence + childish name calling = your MO. Great job guys, you have finally put me in my place.

What are the mods doing? Isn't this attacking the messenger and not the message? Oh yeah, there's a moderator defending your postion. This place has turned into a complete zoo.

You didn't ask me to explain how all things evolved to that point you gave a very specific task of Blood not being able to coagulate. I started with an animal full of blood and showed you how it comes to coagulate. Simple problem simple solution, to late to change the parameters now.

Man said that... 'God' doesn't talk...

Wow... what is your purpose Untamed?

You concept is insane!
do you not see the flaws in it?
its alll goood if you make assumptions like THAT but you have to be REALISTIC - which you are not.

Now, if you have NO blood clotting system and you cut yourself; you bleed to death.
So if we "evolved" to get more and more complex; tell me how did the lifeforms evolve to create the ability of blood clotting?
if in order to DO this, you need to experience it right?
no experience = no call to evolve into a superior species right?

but if you dont have a blood clot system and you get cut, you bleed to death.
Remind me, can your species evolve into a stronger, fitter life form if you (the one that experienced and therefore the catalyst for evolution along your offspring) are dead?

C'mon. Why should God even bother with evolution when he could quite easily use an incredibly powerful shrink ray gun on the two (or was it seven?) Seismosaurs, T-rexes, Argentinasaurs, Mastodons, Apatosaurs, Titanosaurs, etc. to shrink 'em down so they could all fit on a 450 ft boat? Any other explanation would require MASSIVE FAITH.