[GeminiBrian]

[QUOTE]

Quote by: loser Goyboy: Evolution simply means change. Because life is DYNAMIC, it only exists in change.

I addressed your previous post yesterday, loser, with my usual unfailing wisdom, but very unwisely deleted the whole bloo*y thing as I was about to post it... so I'll move on to your subsequent post since I'm too lazy to go back over old ground.

However, evolutionists (that are atheists) want to include 'common descent' in the definition of evolution. For this reason, we argue needlessly here over mere semantics. Of course I believe in evolution..

You want it both ways, loser. I suggest that you can't possibly believe or understand evolutionary theory on such a partial basis: the whole paradigm of evolution rests on its essential notion of common descent - without that it becomes totally meaningless.

The fundamental premise of the whole theory is that life diversified from extremely simple biological organism millions of years ago, so if you can't accept this central fact, you can't claim to believe in evolution - period - ! What you are trying to do is to side-step in a cavalier and arbitrary manner, because you cannot deny that change in species is a demonstrable fact, and yet your biblical leanings prevent you from accepting the broader implications of Darwin's full insight.

I believe in life! However, I am a Creationist and, because God is intelligent, I believe in Intelligent Design. In my understanding, science and religion (Christianity) are in perfect harmony. There is no conflict, only gaps in knowledge. One of the smartest things that I ever say is, "I don't know".

Nonsense... Science and theism are two diametrically opposed ways of interpreting the natural world, and you will never reconcile them, or hope to bridge the chasm between them.

On the one hand you have Science, which doesn't require you to believe in anything -- all it asks is that the observable evidence of the Natural world is studied with great care, and belief doesn't come into the equation. Any conclusions are open to modification as knowledge progresses, and are therefore not immutable.

Religious belief, on the other hand, DOES demand a suspension of the investigative process, and DOES present you with a fully-formed set of beliefs which you are not supposed to question too deeply, if at all... That is the camp you choose to belong to - fair enough - but you can't go switching camps as it suits you whilst claiming there is no real divide.

There is -- there is a HUGE divide.

You've never seen my library! While I probably have 15 Bibles or so, my science collection is literally in the hundreds. Still, that ONE book (in terms of wisdom) reigns SUPREME! ...I still prefer my chemistry books, though...and psychology...and nature.

Oh! loser... hopefully you will one day make your mind up and go with your healthy, rational leanings, and see religion for what it is - a serious obstacle to the free functioning of the brain.

Now, you're being funny, aren't you?

Call it my dry humour.

Otherwise, it rather scares me to see your unhealthy obsession with 'Dick'.

Me being gay has no bearing, I don't think.

The same goes for Chucky

Who Chucky??

If your intelligence quotient was as high as you imply, you would notice that you are comparing vomit and ice cream. Academic credentials is vomit; I.Q. is ice cream...yummy.

IMPLY? - my brilliance speaks for itself, loser.

In academia (the Hallowed Halls of Hokum), indoctrination and conformity are the norm. Rebels tend to be ostracized. IOW, mindless sheep is the product of our universities.

Don't knock education until you've tried it...

Shock me and tell me that you were other than a Catholic...

No virgin birth for me, alas!

Well, good for you. I'm a devout (devoured, too) Christian and my life is pretty bleak. Every day, I get one step closer to death...and science still hasn't come up with a cure for what ails me. If I wasn't so stupid, I'd probably take drugs.

I'm truly sorry to hear that. Maybe you should allow yourself to be persuaded to take up whatever treatment there is on offer - I think you should.

So, is it Christianity's morals that is exacerbating the AIDS epidemic or is the lack thereof? If sexual promiscuity and immorality was curtailed by invoking Christian mores, would AIDS begin to decline?

You have to be realistic. You can't hope to change traditional sexual behaviour in the short time available to avert total catastrophe - and that's where the situation is rapidly moving. To rely on your Christian morals to save the day is a pipe dream, especially as things stand.

God intervenes every second of every day as some person full of God's love and spirit helps another human being in their time of need. Compassion and love is how God works and He shows it through His individual servants...human beings just like us...if we would be so inclined.

You know, loser, you have made it extremely difficult for me to offer a contradiction to this, since you clearly have so much invested in seeing the world in this holy, benign light, given your predicament... All I can think to say is that us human beings shouldn't be regarded as incapable of tremendous love and support in times of need, although, of course, I see no part for god in all this.