CANADIEN

Interesting, isn't it, that nobody else sees that? How about the Christian you accused, falsely, of not being a Christian. Your lack of memory is laughable. If what you have posted from your prophet Dr. Craig is the best he can produce, thank god that He (God) is able to defend Himself. As to the "resources" your prophet is providing, they are an embarassment to any Christain with even the most rudimentary knowledge of actual science.

Actually, this descriptions fits your style of ahem discussion like a glove. Comprared to you, I am an amateur. Actually, the term I use is fact. Like in a SCIENTIFC theory. Surely, unlike some of the chief proponents of the Intelligent Design movement, you know what a scientific theory is, don't you? How could I, or anyone, with fonts that are 3 miles high? And, unlike what you claim, I have address your arguments, by pointing that they are non-sense and why. The poin is that your inisistence on going anywhere the evidence leads except where it actually leads and your very inventiv 9and selective) reading of the Bible are highly entertaining.

On the contrary. St. Paul would be puzzled at how much you are missing the point... again. Clearly, he was alluding to a fundamental truth about God, which is part of the core beliefs of the vast majority of Christains. God created out of NOTHING.Your non-sense that the text you quote is a reference to atoms stems from ignorance of science and, most importantly, misreading and misunderstanding of the biblical text you quote.

Keep lying about me. It's so entartaining.

Still a voice from one of the few "scientists" who keep refusing to see what is evident. You are not contesting one of the key features of Darwin's theory and of evolution theory? Really, and I mean really, do you knw what you are talking about? You have a problem with me talking about a key component of the evolution theory? Could it be because you are not contesting it? You are laughable. What Dawkins thinks is not the issue here. it is the FACT that evolution is an evidenced scientific theory. doesn't science come from God? I usually try to avoid wuoing from wikipedia, but here's an article about the infamous "Scientific Dissent from neo-darwinism" link. A few highlights: And the claims that there is a controversy or that evolution is a theory in crisis are drowned by the voices of all those scientific organizations that have made it clear that evolution is a bona fide scientific theory.

Correction. You have convinced yourself that's the case. I am still waiting for examples of SCIENTIFIC research that debunks what you call neo-darwinist evolution. As opposed to your misreading of the Bible. Atheists also clings to the FACT that 1 = 1 = 2. Guess we need new maths, right? Quite frankly, I don't give a darn as to what atheists think of evolution. Whatever they think about it doesn't change the fact it is, until you or anyone can show evidence to the contrary (which is to say the least highly doubtful), evolutuion remains the best explanation as to how GOD DID IT.

You still do not get the FACT that St. Paul was NOT talking about atoms, do you? According to your (non-scientific theory), he might have been talking about Uranus and Neptune, wormholes, or even the secret of the Caramilk.

Who needs the Riverdale Farm? Soon, kids will have the waterfront ferris wheel and mall

His problem is that he mistakes anyone who thinks Ford and Co. are leading the city to disaster for a communist.

The one you have so eloquently demonstrated. Let's be perfectly clear here. You, and I mean you personally, are little better than an iman who screams on a megaphone that Jews are pigs. Now, I fully except you to claim that I am anti-Semite. So let's be perfectly clear two other things. Fist, person who, on the basis of anything I said, claims that I am an anti-Semite is either an imbecile or a liar, or a mixture of both. Second, I won't waste my time reading, or responding to your slime anymore.

Nobody told me, although most scientists, including Christian scientists, know it as well. It stems from the knowledge that God IS (not merely exists, but IS) outside of His Creation, that is outside of time, space, ernergy, the physical Universe (except of course through His Son, Jesus-Christ, the Word made flesh). The object of science is the studying of the physical Universe. Therefore, logically, it cannot prove or disprove who IS outside of the physical universe. Scientists can indeed find God as a result of their science world. What it takes though is faith (the word one really have to look hard to find in your postings). The existence of God, or to be more accurate His BEING, is not testable. Quite frankly, I find the notion it can quite reducing - reducing to the level of a component of His own Creation. That idea may be compatible with some other religions, but not with the Christian faith. I am not talking about the pronouncements of your Prophet Dr. Craig, or your constant misreading of the Bible. I am talking about information about ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC experimentation and testings. So... common ancestry... that's your definition of neon-Darwinism. Interesting that it has nothing to do with the definition given in the Encyclopedia Britannica (you can search it by yourself, don't you?). And that's a more learned source than you or me. BTW, the form of knowledge I have of common descent is not one gained through faith (that word you hesitate to use), but one gained by science (which comes from God when it suits you, and is to be rejected when it suits you). If I had to find a link to an online peer review article to even one percent of the scieitifc discoveries and tests that confirm the validity of the common descent theory, I'd spend the next 10 years doing just that. But let's give just 3 examples: - shared genetic code: in a 1997 experiment, a human gene was inserted into the cells of a yeast, and it worked link - speciation: ever heard of the London Underground Mosquito? link - computation and mathematical iterations: such as in studies conducted with the Aveda computer program link

I was referring to your use of the term evolution when, allegedly, all you mean is neo-darwinism You claim that I have not stated clearly, times and times again, that I am a Christian is a lie. The claim that I am discrediting the Bible. Another lie. This is not a defense or an excuse of anyone, but a clarification following one of your usual distortion of facts. Claiming otherwise is another lie. The claim that me views on the Bible and science are not clear is another lie. This has been evident fora long time now. This claim is another lie. This claim is another lie. You KNOW from my past statements that I believe in what the Creed of the Apostles says. Any claim that you don't already know that I believe in the Virgin birth and the death and Resurection of Christis another lie. In the same post, you attack me because I know science cannot prove the existence or non-existence of God, then ask me if I need science to prove or disprouve what is in the Creed of the Apostle. The claim that you do not already know is a lie.

Why don't you spare us the attemps to mask your own personal bigotry and get to what your solution is. A Greater Israël where Palestinians would have equal rights (as long that they recognize that they are not fully equals, and of course there is no saying what will happen when they become too many though...). Or perhaps a Greater Israël without Palestinians? Interesting that you point out that most Jordanians consider themselves Palestinians. Here we have a solution... include Gaza and the West Bank into Jordan.;-) Still doesn't make a Palestinian into an Algerian, or a Moroccan into an Iraqi. PS: Thank for the part about blaming THEM for refusing what you don't want them to have anyway. I needed the laugh.

Why shouldn't they have their own country? The argument that they cannot be distinguished from other Arabs doesn't fly. A Palestinian is as different from an Algerian as a Briton is from Australian. Of course, If they all are Arabs, a solution could be a one pan-arabic country, from Rabat to Baghdad, including Gaza and the West Bank... Not that I am advocating it.

I would be curoious to know how often I have used the term neo-darwinism. I would also be curious to know what your definition of neo-darwinism is. Here the definition from the Encyclopedia Britannica: I suspect that you're confusing neo-Darwinism with the notion entertained by some scientists, who really should stick to science, that evolution disproves the existence of God. Natural selection has been demonstrated by science. To me, knowing through my FAITH (you know, the word you hesitate to use) that it is part of God's creation gives me even more reason to believe in Him an worship Him.. If we are talking about theose nice fellows at the Centre for Science and Culture or the Discovery Institute and their feloow members of the Intelligent Design/Creationist movement, their actions, their actions say a lot indeed. Fudging academic credentials, fabricating a so-called scientific controversy, repeating at nauseum that evolution is "just a theory" (as learned scieintists, they don't know what the word theory means in science?). MOST nay-sayers? I see only one.

If neo-darwinism is the particular aspect of evolution you do not agree with, then why don't you simply use the word neo-darwinism? But here, I will make it easy for you: Science has demonstrated that life on thi planet has changed overtime through evolution, including macro-evolution (which, unlike what you would have us believe, is not synonymous with . Do you acknowledge that, yes or no? What part of the fact that, as a CHRISTIAN, I do not buy the deception of the Creationist movement is difficult to understand? (notice, by the way, that after putting myself in a position where what I was targetting was unclear, I am now using the term "Creationist movement" so nobody, except you apparently, can claim that I reject the existence of the Creating god). And Christians who understand science except evolution. Period. Up to the point when some claims that it proves the non-existence fo god, which is not even a scientific proposition to start with. And that includes evolution, including micro-evolution.(and since science is considered as a tool by and a gift from God the following is therefore logical) Unless it leads to macro-evolution. Which it does. As a Christian, mine can and does too. For example, I once thought that indeed, Man (as in human beings) was created separetly from vegetal and animal lifes, based on Genesis. Until it became evident that evolution, micro AND macro is the way God created. So why don't you post scientifc evidence that disproves macro-evolution. Not the pathetic and laughable circus of so called "facts" that allegedly show that science proves the Bible when the Bible doesn't actually talks about what you claim it does. I mean I want evidence that the notion all life forms were created essentially as they are today is a valid scientifc theory, though actual experiments conducted by scientists, fossil evidence, whatever... SCIENTIFC evidence. So says the person who has called me an atheist. Twisted my words in an attempt to have people believe that I do not believe that God created the Universe. The person who keeps insisting on misreading the actual words of the Bible. The person who has actually lied by claiming I was not stating what my faith is.

Correction. She has her misunderstanding of the Book. I have the Book, and there is nothing i have found in there that causes me to reject evolution as the way HE has created. Correction: the box is not the Bible; it' s the incapacity to understand it, to understand science, and to accept science that is too inconvénient.

Here goes the empress insisting that her fully-clothed opponent puts clothes on, while ignoring that she is the one who has no clothes on. PS: Not visible with the naked eyes is not the same as invisible.

And here we go... The merger of betsy's "logic" and the tenets of the Creationism/Intelligent Deisgn movement in all its glorious intellectual dishonesty. Equating, on purpose, evolution science with neo-Darwinism. Hiting that since atheists reject their pseudo-science, any Christian which recognizes evolution is in not really a Christian at all - while stragically backtracking from the purposeful equation of evolution science with neo-Darwinism. But my favorite part is the claim that there is no rejection of evolution outright. No, no rejection - only the constant claims that evolution has been proved to be false, the claims that evolution is just a theory (showing a misunderstanding of what is a scientific theory), the claim of a (non-existing) crisis in the scientifc community. Words speak louder than words in this case. PS: You may want to Google theistic evolution

betsy wants numbers showing than less and less Christians ginore facts in God's creation and reject the theory of evolution. Well... polls would be an unreable source, considering that results may vary widely depending who asks the question, how it's asked, and why it's asked. I find the growing number of religious organizations issuing statements in favour of evolution to be more revelaing. The National Centre for Science Education maintains a list of statements by religious organizations, including: The General Convention of the Episcopal Church (USA) The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) The Lutheran World Federation The Roman Catholic Church The Untarian Universalist Association The United Presbyterian Church in the USA link

The so-called controversy about evolution... According to proeminent organizations in the Intelligent Design movement, a huge controversy exists among scientists as to the validity of evolution as a scientific theory. One prime example is the famous "Scientif Dissent from Darwinism" statement, trumpeted by the Discovery Institute as proof of a huge controversy. After all, more than 700 scientists have signed it since 2001. Impressive number... or perhaps not. About a quarters of the signataries are biologists (biology is the science that studies ife and living organism). In other words, more than half of the signatories are not experts in the relevant field. There is probably about half a million scientists in the United States alone working in relevant earth and life science fields. Controversy indeed...

Interesting biblical verse. But not nearly as interesting as the way betsy manages to mishandle it. Allegedly, Paul was talking about invisible things, such as the atoms (which ARE visible, but that's not my point here). So, in a twisted logics, science proves the Bible, or more exactly this verse ( astatement that is absolutely incomprehensible, but once again this is not my point). My point is that the claim that the verse talks about invisible things, atoms or otherwise, flies in the face of a fundamental tenet shared by the vast majority of Christian denominations (the Mormons being one of the exceptions). To conclude that the verse talks about invisalbe things, one necessarily has to take "what is seen was not made out of what is visible" as meaning that it was made out of what was invisible. Of SOMETHING that was not visible. There is another possible interpretation, thought, which is that what the text means is that God created of NOTHING. The idea that God created oout of nothing, also known by its latin name, "ex nihilo", is part of the doctrine of the vast majority of Christian denomination. So, what was presented as a, ahem, fact is actually a supposition that flies in the face of not only a well established fact (atoms ARE visible), but also the doctrine of most Christian denominations. Well done betsy.

Unfortunately, multi-quote doesn't seem to work for me, but oh well... That the methods and conlusions of the Intelligent Design are not scientifically sound should be self-evident to anybody who read or listen to them and who posess a basic understanding of science. So let's see what scientific organizations have to say about it (notte: quotes are taken from a wikipedia article, but all of them are referenced. Amreican Association for the Advencement of Science: .American Astronomical Society: Botanical Society of America From a statement by the Internationsal Society for Science and Religion: link The last quote refers to one of the "examples" used by the Intelligent Design movements. Then, there's Dr. Francis collins, formerly head of the Human Genome Project, current head of the National Institute of Health (confirmed unamymously by the U.S. Senate, no less), evolutionist... and an evangelical Christian, once again on the Intelligent Design movement and the eye: link And the story of the flagellum is sufficiently known that I won't come back to that one.

dup

Darn, that was MY line... Copyright infringement, copyright infringement...