Comment #18091

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on February 25, 2005 08:46 PM (e) (s)

It is not as good as mine.

“If God made man from dirt, why is there still dirt?”

I used that on a creationist in last fall and got the most confused look back.

Comment #18095

Posted by Russell on February 25, 2005 09:26 PM (e) (s)

“If God made man from dirt, why is there still dirt?”

Reed - that is a gem. I’m going to plagiarize it shamelessly. Hope you don’t mind.

Comment #18099

Posted by Henry J on February 25, 2005 11:21 PM (e) (s)

Hmmm.
If mammals came from reptiles, why are there still lizards?
If reptiles came from amphibians, why are there still frogs?
If amphibians came from fish, why are there still fish?
If birds came from dinosaurs, why are there still… oops, never mind that one.

Comment #18100

Posted by Les Lane on February 25, 2005 11:40 PM (e) (s)

This is convenient. I just finished a page on a (superficial) form of reasoning one step up from parroting aphorisms.

Comment #18102

Posted by Les Lane on February 26, 2005 12:01 AM (e) (s)

Uh oh, creationists just brought out the intellectual heavies

Comment #18103

Posted by ts on February 26, 2005 12:26 AM (e) (s)

It’s not a good idea to complain about someone else’s spelling and then misspell “Protestantism”.

Comment #18110

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 02:26 AM (e) (s)

It’s striking how weak your reasoning is.  I mean, atheists/evolutionists are always trumpeting their ability in critical thinking and logic. 

Protestants didn’t evolve from Roman Catholics.  Nor did Adam evolve from dust. 

Any ‘confused’ look you saw in Christians probably had to do with them reacting to your uni-brow and lack of a forehead…

Comment #18112

Posted by ts on February 26, 2005 02:59 AM (e) (s)

Protestants didn’t evolve from Roman Catholics.

So what do you suppose they were protesting against, moron?

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761555703/Protestantism.…

Protestantism, one of the three major divisions of Christianity, the others being Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Protestantism began as a movement to reform the Western Christian church in the 16th century, resulting in the Protestant Reformation, which severed the reformed churches from the Roman Catholic Church. The declared aim of the original reformers was to restore the Christian faith as it had been at its beginning, while keeping what they thought valuable from the Roman Catholic tradition that had developed during the intervening centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_luther…

Martin Luther (originally Martin Luder or Martinus Luther) (November 10, 1483 – February 18, 1546) was a German theologian of the Christian religion and an Augustinian monk whose teachings inspired the Protestant Reformation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinian…

The Augustinians, named after Saint Augustine of Hippo (died AD 430), are several Roman Catholic monastic orders

Comment #18118

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 06:17 AM (e) (s)

Protestants recovered apostolic Biblical doctrine (i.e. what existed prior to the Roman Catholic church).  It’s not evolution.  It’s like a modern day human ‘evolving’ into Adam.  Think next time.

Comment #18119

Posted by Jim Foley on February 26, 2005 06:20 AM (e) (s)

And there’s also my treatment of the argument, at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/faqs.html#apes…, from which the EvoWiki article is probably derived.

In response to ts: Steve is right on one point; Protestantism may have split off from Catholicism, but Protestants didn’t evolve from Catholics (they still interbreed very nicely, thank you)

In response to Steve: that Protestants didn’t evolve from Catholics is true but irrelevant. The point is that when an original population splits, and one part becomes something else (Protestants from Catholics, humans from apes) there’s no reason why the rest of the original population should likewise change.

Comment #18120

Posted by ts on February 26, 2005 06:33 AM (e) (s)

Jim Foley wrote:

In response to ts: Steve is right on one point; Protestantism may have split off from Catholicism, but Protestants didn’t evolve from Catholics (they still interbreed very nicely, thank you)

You’re as big a moron as he is, since a) there’s intraspecies evolution b) the word “evolve” is not limited to its biological sense.  At least you managed to grasp that this isn’t relevant to the analogy.

Steve wrote:

Protestants recovered apostolic Biblical doctrine (i.e. what existed prior to the Roman Catholic church).

As noted in the  citation, the Protestants kept “what they thought valuable from the Roman Catholic tradition that had developed during the intervening centuries”.  Not that this matters.

Think next time.

You’re a cretin.

Comment #18121

Posted by ts on February 26, 2005 06:44 AM (e) (s)

Protestantism may have split off from Catholicism, but Protestants didn’t evolve from Catholics (they still interbreed very nicely, thank you)

Just to make this crystal clear to the dunderheads:  The claim was that Protestanism (sic) evolved from Catholicism, not that Protestants evolved from Catholics.  And it did, regardless of whether it reclaimed earlier thought.  You could make the point that this weakens the analogy, but it’s a pathetically silly objection that misses the point, namely that the question “whay (sic) are there still monkeys around then?” is imbecilic.

Comment #18125

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 08:36 AM (e) (s)

OK then: Why are there no inbetween monkey and human beings around?  Come on, evolutionists!  Dip into your post-modern ‘language means what we want it to mean’ bag of conceits and dance for us an energetic little retreat…

Comment #18126

Posted by caerbannog on February 26, 2005 08:56 AM (e) (s)

ts wrote:

You’re as big a moron as he is…

Ummmm…. Jim Foley’s no moron. His Hominid Fossils article over at talkorigins.org has received accolades in magazines like Science and The American Biology Teacher.

So careful with that friendly fire! (And better yet, save the epithets like “moron” for more appropriate fora like the talk.origins newsgroup.)

Comment #18127

Posted by ts on February 26, 2005 09:02 AM (e) (s)

OK then: Why are there no inbetween monkey and human beings around?

Because, as was noted in the references sited in the article (perhaps you too stupid or lazy to read them, or afraid of what you might learn), humans and monkeys are descended from a common ancestor.  Your question is like asking someone who says you’re descended from your grandfather why no one in between you and your cousin is around.  Now imagine going back a lot more generations than your grandfather, and imagine that your cousin looks like a monkey ….

Comment #18130

Posted by Dan S. on February 26, 2005 09:06 AM (e) (s)

If you stop feeding the troll, it might get disgruntled and wander off …

-Dan S.

Comment #18131

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 09:12 AM (e) (s)

It just fun to get you evolutionists to spit your boilerplate…  And, um, right, by the way.  Maybe though just entertain the possibility that you have a Creator.  Your pile of tiddly-winks you have to build and attempt to balance on the head of a pin is such baggage for you to have to carry around all the time.  And such changes!  “Those damn scientists coming up with their new discoveries and making us evolutionists have to change our story constantly!!!  Damn them!  But, to carry on the fight against God (which we will win, at least it’s too scary to think otherwise at this point) we just have to soldier on with it (not that I am for anything to do with ‘soldiering’, mind you)…”

Comment #18132

Posted by ts on February 26, 2005 09:13 AM (e) (s)

Ummmm…. Jim Foley’s no moron.

Then he shouldn’t act like one.  The fact that Protestants and Catholics can interbreed obviously has no bearing on whether Protestantism evolved from Catholicism, any more than the fact that Americans, Europeans, and Indians can interbreed has any bearing on whether English evolved from Indo-European languages.  Nor does the fact that dogs and wolves can interbreed show that dogs didn’t evolve from wolves.  Nor does the fact that much of neo-con political philosophy evolved from Trotskyism mean that neo-cons and Trotskyites can’t interbreed.  etc.

Comment #18133

Posted by ts on February 26, 2005 09:18 AM (e) (s)

If you stop feeding the troll, it might get disgruntled and wander off …

“Steve is right on one point” was troll filet mignon; who could resist such a tasty morsel?

Comment #18134

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 26, 2005 09:20 AM (e) (s)

Les Lane pointed us to a website that cited the testimony of a seventh-grade student: 

Seventh-grader Spencer Genson argued at the meeting, “I believe my rights as a United States citizen are being violated by these teachings… I have a bible and when I read my bible it tells me that I’m a descendant from Adam and Eve, but when I read my curriculum in school it tells me that I come from a monkey.” Rather than becoming defensive, the school board lauded Spencer’s initiative and intellect in pursuing his convictions.

Genson, an honors student at Leverette Junior High, says the first amendment of the Constitution allows him the right to free speech — then noted references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance said before each board meeting. “If a lot of us believe in God then why isn’t Christianity taught in the public school system. We are reading in social studies about Hinduism and Buddhism, but I don’t hear a thing about Christianity,” said Genson.

1.  His curriculum doesn’t tell him he’s not a descendant of Adam and Eve.  It’s not the curriculum that has difficulties reasoning here.

2.  The kid would do better to read the Boy Scout Handbook — there is no curriculum in America, and certainly no textbook published in 80 years (if ever) that says humans came from monkeys.  The Boy Scout Handbook would instruct the kid in the importance of being honest, the importance of being helpful to others, and in the importance of reverence for the views of others.  The kid appears to have missed those lessons in whatever ethics and morals classes he’s taking in whatever venue.  Of course, it may be that he is unable to discern fact from fiction because he hasn’t fully absorbed the curriculum at his school.  That’s not a plea against evolution then — it’s an implicit plea to teach the facts first, teach the skills necessary to discern the facts, and quit clouding the kids’ minds with bizarre claims.

3.  The First Amendment allows the kid the right of free speech — he may publicly wonder why the school doesn’t teach Christianity as the one true religion.  Of course, the First Amendment is also part of a Constitutional structure which forbids the government from making such advocacy, the better to protect the kid’s right to the free exercise of his religion.  This is an issue for his social studies classes, especially history and government.  It appears that the kid has had his own intellectual well poisoned against what the schools offer, and he’s rejecting all of it.  That’s not Christianity, it’s nihilism.  Of course, he’ll never know that from his current knowledge base.  Is that a problem his Sunday school teachers worry about?  They should.

4.  If he’s missing the parts in his social studies books about Christianity, he’s deficient in reading skills and the use of a book’s table of contents and index.  Especially after the Texas schoolbook adoption processes, all U.S. social studies books emphasize Christianity’s role in history and culture.  The kid needs to read the book.

5.  What sort of a parent doesn’t lovingly correct these errors in a kid’s testimony before letting him make his plea in public?

6.  What sort of a school board doesn’t know the content of their own curricula, so that they could make acknowledgement of what is really taught in the courses they are legally responsible to supervise?  This is not a case against teaching evolution.  It’s a case against electing public officials who abdicate, shirk, or avoid their duties without thought.

Comment #18135

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 09:21 AM (e) (s)

>neo-con political philosophy evolved from Trotskyism

Been picking up Alice-in-Leftistland memes from the ‘fully retreated into unreality’ leftwing websites have you?  And you call others ‘moron’?

You’re currently living in darkness and illusion, ts.  Read the Word of God.  Just put your vanity and worldly pride on a leash for a portion of your day and make the effort to read the Word of God.  No, you won’t understand it at first.  No, you won’t ‘agree’ with what you read.  Yes, you will think it’s ‘stupid’.  Just do yourself a favor an download it.  Give your at least a chance to ascend out of the darkness you are currently held prisoner in.  Just give yourself a chance, ts…  Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.  Now it is high time to awake out of sleep…

Comment #18136

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 09:26 AM (e) (s)

It is Christians that have brought to the atheists and other anti-Christ parasites of the world technological and scientific advancement.

All atheists have is their ‘theory of evolution’ which never contributed anything but the dumbing down of society and a Satanic ‘permission’ to not treat their fellow humans as being the image of God. Contratulations, atheists, for your wonderful contribution.

Comment #18137

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 26, 2005 09:36 AM (e) (s)

One poster named Steve said: 

It just fun to get you evolutionists to spit your boilerplate…  And, um, right, by the way.  Maybe though just entertain the possibility that you have a Creator.  Your pile of tiddly-winks you have to build and attempt to balance on the head of a pin is such baggage for you to have to carry around all the time.  And such changes!  “Those damn scientists coming up with their new discoveries and making us evolutionists have to change our story constantly!!!  Damn them!  But, to carry on the fight against God (which we will win, at least it’s too scary to think otherwise at this point) we just have to soldier on with it (not that I am for anything to do with ‘soldiering’, mind you)…”

Ah, then the humorous rebuttal to creationist boilerplate misled you into thinking this was a discussion where tossing boilerplate is considered argument?

Maybe you should entertain the thought that what you regard as a creator asks you to be respectful of the views of others, the facts, and creation — and that maybe, just maybe, you’ve been infected with enough hubris that you don’t see that you’ve strayed from defending the idea that there is a supernatural creator to attacking knowledge and defending ignorance. 

Additional facts don’t plague the scientist, not even those who study and understand Darwinian idea.  New discoveries make it more difficult, day-by-day and year-by-year, to defend attacks on the science that heals the sick and feeds everybody. 

In short, the justification you cite for attacking evolution is theologically unsound, Steve.

Comment #18138

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 26, 2005 09:40 AM (e) (s)

Um, Steve, don’t look now, but your history fly is down.

It was Christians who brought us the theory of evolution, too.

Let the facts get in the way of your rant, just this once.  Go get another cup of coffee, think about the fact that at least 40% of scientists in America are believers (my experience is it’s much higher in biology).  Consider that Charles Darwin is interred in Westminster Abbey and that maybe, just maybe, there is more to science and theology than tossing “boilerplate.”

Comment #18139

Posted by Steve M. on February 26, 2005 09:41 AM (e) (s)

PBS coverage of the Kansas debate

DOUGLAS PHENIX (Chemist and Presbyterian Minister): Imagine that there was a high school with a very good baseball team, which had played for many years and over time had developed lots of winning strategies until one day, the tennis coach started accusing the baseball coach of unfairly discriminating against the tennis team by refusing to allow the baseball players to play by the rules of tennis.

DE SAM LAZARO: Science calls for natural, empirical explanations, he said, not supernatural ones. And science class cannot be a democracy.

SAM WINE (Astronomy Teacher): What comes next? What other groups will demand and expect equal time in the science standards?

DE SAM LAZARO: As if on cue, there was a tongue-in-cheek response.

Photo of ANDREW STANGL Mr. STANGL: When the schools undertake to teach alternative creation theories, I want mine included. It is my belief that flying saucers with aliens from the planet Druesbud, another universe, landed on Earth 4,400 years ago.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week826/cover.html…

Comment #18140

Posted by David Heddle on February 26, 2005 09:49 AM (e) (s)

think about the fact that at least 40% of scientists in America are believers (my experience is it’s much higher in biology)

My experience is that is is much higher in physics thatn biology. No matter, the truth is, to find hard core athiests you’ll have better luck in the humanities (and even “religious studies”) than in the physics department.

Comment #18142

Posted by Joe Shelby on February 26, 2005 10:06 AM (e) (s)

Just the fact that the kid was a 7th grader already led me to believe he hadn’t read or heard a thing about Evolution as its properly taught.  My 7th grade (GT) bio class barely touched the subject (but certainly didn’t say “descended from monkeys”, just something to the effect of “related to like cousins”).  The intro-to-evolution stuff (which is the curriculum being debated) is all at the high school level.

So really, the kid had no pretense for speaking up there just from that contextual value.  Having a high school 11th grader who had already been through the evolution instruction in the biology class speak would have been far more relevant and applicable.

in the end, using this 7th grader was strictly a public-opinion play, trying to get the “out of the mouths of babes” innocent truth that had no relevance (or truth) to the debate at hand.  and by doing so, the parents and school system have cost this kid his innocense.  this kid was used as a puppet by others with an agenda, and he may never know it happened or why.

Comment #18146

Posted by Russell on February 26, 2005 10:16 AM (e) (s)

It really surprises me, the humorlessness a few commenters have exhibited here. Lighten up, folks!

Comment #18147

Posted by ts on February 26, 2005 10:19 AM (e) (s)

I suspect that there are Creationist biology teachers out there who are telling their students “according to the theory of evolution, we came from monkeys (if you can believe that, heh heh)”.

Comment #18148

Posted by ts on February 26, 2005 10:21 AM (e) (s)

It really surprises me, the humorlessness a few commenters have exhibited here. Lighten up, folks!

That you find it worth commenting on suggests that you’re taking it too seriously.

Comment #18152

Posted by GCT on February 26, 2005 10:41 AM (e) (s)

Ed Darrell wrote:

2.  The kid would do better to read the Boy Scout Handbook — there is no curriculum in America, and certainly no textbook published in 80 years (if ever) that says humans came from monkeys.  The Boy Scout Handbook would instruct the kid in the importance of being honest, the importance of being helpful to others, and in the importance of reverence for the views of others.

Hmmm, that’s not entirely true.  The Boy Scouts teach tolerance, so long as it isn’t tolerance for gays or atheists.

5.  What sort of a parent doesn’t lovingly correct these errors in a kid’s testimony before letting him make his plea in public?

The sad thing is that his parents probably put him up to it.

Comment #18153

Posted by GCT on February 26, 2005 10:46 AM (e) (s)

Steve wrote:

You’re currently living in darkness and illusion, ts.  Read the Word of God.  Just put your vanity and worldly pride on a leash for a portion of your day and make the effort to read the Word of God.  No, you won’t understand it at first.  No, you won’t ‘agree’ with what you read.  Yes, you will think it’s ‘stupid’.  Just do yourself a favor an download it.  Give your at least a chance to ascend out of the darkness you are currently held prisoner in.  Just give yourself a chance, ts…  Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.  Now it is high time to awake out of sleep…

Let me get this straight.  You came onto a science blog about evolution to proselytize to the atheistic evolutionists?  That is pure comedic gold.  Your post had me rolling.

Comment #18156

Posted by Bill Ware on February 26, 2005 10:54 AM (e) (s)

From Steve:

“All atheists have is their ‘theory of evolution’ which never contributed anything but the dumbing down of society and a Satanic ‘permission’ to not treat their fellow humans as being the image of God. Contratulations, atheists, for your wonderful contribution.”

From Your Worst Nightmare (comment #189) at Pharyngula

“All atheists have is their ‘theory of evolution’ which never contributed anything but the dumbing down of society and a Satanic ‘permission’ to not treat their fellow humans as being the image of God. Again, contratulations, atheists, for your wonderful contribution.”

Steve says: “It [sic] just fun to get you evolutionists to spit your boilerplate…”

Whose boilerplate is that again, Steve?

Comment #18157

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 10:56 AM (e) (s)

Actually I came here after someone familiar with this site kept linking it at another site where this debate was going on. 

Man, not animals, was made in the image of God.  Man was created by God in the image of God.  The ‘theory of evolution’ exists solely to deny this and to push atheist, anti-Christ dogma.  The fact that evolutionists can’t prove their theory without using all the conceits of post-modernist deceit (“Is it time to move the goal posts again, comrades?”), not to mention all the forgeries and frauds, yet still stand by their atheist, anti-Christ dogma is all the proof you need to see what the ‘theory of evolution’ is and exists for.

Comment #18158

Posted by Les Lane on February 26, 2005 10:59 AM (e) (s)

Troll commentary:

The only smart moron is an oxymoron

Comment #18159

Posted by Steve Reuland on February 26, 2005 11:00 AM (e) (s)

Steve wrote:

OK then: Why are there no inbetween monkey and human beings around?

What do you call apes?

Comment #18160

Posted by Steve Reuland on February 26, 2005 11:04 AM (e) (s)

Steve wrote:

The ‘theory of evolution’ exists solely to deny this and to push atheist, anti-Christ dogma.

That part’s cool and all, but I really got into it for the babes.

Comment #18161

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 11:08 AM (e) (s)

Apes I call…apes.  Didn’t you evolutionists used to pose black people as some kind of inbetween being?  What happened to that part of your evolutionist dogma, atheists?  Have the courage of your convictions, boys and girls!  Oh, but you say the ‘theory of evolution’ is not really science but a false religion used to fight God and God’s influence in the world?  Well, that’s what I’ve been telling you all along…

Comment #18165

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 26, 2005 11:18 AM (e) (s)

The Boy Scouts teach tolerance, so long as it isn’t tolerance for gays or atheists.

Don’t confuse the legal position of the current national board with what Scouting actually teaches.  Check the Handbook, if in doubt.

Comment #18168

Posted by Keanus on February 26, 2005 11:24 AM (e) (s)

The putative “Steve” on this thread writes from the email address “”. “YWN” over on Pharyngula writes from the similar, and probably related (genetically), “”. I would conjecture that the two are one and the same prattler putting forth an image from which most Christians cringe, at least all those I know. From his posturing, whether from here or somewhere, he/she/it seems to have little need for mental nourishment . Such organisms are best left unfed, since they usually reject any attempt to supply them with an intelligent diet.

Comment #18169

Posted by Mike P on February 26, 2005 11:25 AM (e) (s)

Hey Stevey, let’s be careful with the post-modernism references you’ve been peppering your idiocy with.  What do you think is more post-modern?: 1.) The evolutionist perspective that through using our reason, we can come to, at least partially, some degree of truth about ourselves and the universe.  or, 2.) the Creationist perspective that largely ignores science and says that we can never come to know “true” reality here on this earth, and that places the autonomy of reason within the individual, so that whatever irrational idea pops in your head, you can justify it because it seems like it’s true.

If you suspect example 1 doesn’t mesh very well with post-modernism, you’d be right.  Evolutionism is nowhere near a post-modern doctrine.

Oh, but you’re right about us atheists.  Every night I go home and eat babies and worship the devil I don’t believe in.  But, shhh, it’s a secret.

Comment #18170

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 26, 2005 11:27 AM (e) (s)

Apes I call…apes.  Didn’t you evolutionists used to pose black people as some kind of inbetween being?

Um, no, that was racists who were trying to justify slavery.  Darwin was opposed to slavery — surely you know the famous, true story about his big fight with Capt. FitzRoy aboard the H.M.S. Beagle.  FitzRoy defended slavery as Biblical, Darwin said it was wrong.  Creationists were still using that argument, that African humans were a different species, as late as 1900.

What happened to that part of your evolutionist dogma, atheists?  Have the courage of your convictions, boys and girls!

My Christian beliefs require me to call bias and untruthfulness for what it is.  Steve, you’re way out of line. You can repent gently and get an education, or continue in ignorance.  Scientists, especially those on this board, are willing to provide you with all the information you need or can stand.  You have to make the choice, however.

Oh, but you say the ‘theory of evolution’ is not really science but a false religion used to fight God and God’s influence in the world?  Well, that’s what I’ve been telling you all along…

The question is, where is one to grant credence?  Either the creation God gave us reveals itself honestly, or Darby was right.

Evolution gives us diagnoses and treatments for diabetes.  Evolution gives us treatments and cures for cancer, and better antibiotics to defeat rapidly evolving pathogens.  Evolution gives us the hope of another green revolutino to vanquish hunger. 

Before you get too far astray, consider what the signs were of Jesus’ divinity, as related in the New Testament.  Odd, isn’t it?  Those are the areas where applied evolution theory produces the greatest benefits to humans. 

As I suggested before, relax, get a cup of coffee, and see if you can figure out what really is going on.  The cock of evolution crows three times before it dawns on the hardcore creationist, often.  But why wait?

Comment #18171

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 11:27 AM (e) (s)

Keanus, what are your favorite books?  Put another way, what books have most influenced you?  Also, what activities do you consider to have been most central in your development and general education?

Comment #18172

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 11:34 AM (e) (s)

While Keanus sits in the corner and scratches his monkey forehead, suspecting a trap, but not quite able to discern what kind of trap it is…

Your claims of your ‘theory of evolution’ “curing cancer” are touching.  Medical science (and every other real science) throwing you evolutionists a bone (in the spirit of an enemy of my enemy…) here and there doesn’t put you on centerstage of any discovery…  You are humored by real science.

Comment #18173

Posted by caerbannog on February 26, 2005 11:37 AM (e) (s)

Hey Steve…

If you came to my house to spout the nonsense that you’ve been spouting here, I’d turn the hose on you.  And my garden hose comes equipped with a SuperBlast™ power nozzle.

Just thought I’d let you know…

Comment #18174

Posted by Jim Harrison on February 26, 2005 11:42 AM (e) (s)

The scientists who developed evolutionary biology were mostly Christians, and very few of them were actively anticlerical. While evolution has obviously become a symbol of atheism for some traditionalists like Steve here, most of the sociologists of religion I’ve read doubt that scientific discoveries have much to do with the rise of modern secularism. Other factors—mass culture, urbanization, increasing standards of living—were at work. If people were generally rational, Darwinism may be a good reason not to believe, but it isn’t a major reason that people don’t believe.

Comment #18175

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 11:42 AM (e) (s)

caerbannog: Careful talking about assaulting real Christians.  We have a bodyguard of angels to deal with giddy-violent atheists like you…  It’s the same reason your murderous fascism and communism couldn’t harm America…

Comment #18176

Posted by Mike P on February 26, 2005 11:46 AM (e) (s)

Now, honestly Steve, what is so special about America for Christians?  Why not Germany, birth of protestantism?  Why not Italy?  Why not Isreal?  All of those places have something to do with Christianity.  America isn’t mentioned in the Bible.  Not even once!  Go look!  I suspect it has something to do with NASCAR and Pat Robertson, but if both those things relocated to, say, Sri Lanka, would bodyguard angels protect you there?  The whole thing is bewildering to me.

Comment #18178

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 11:58 AM (e) (s)

Neither is Germany or Geneva mentioned in the Bible.  If you want to read deeper that’s another matter, but it doesn’t matter.  America was founded by Christians.  The very name America means Kingdom of God (I know, your school textbooks tell you a different story, but that story was always a little shady, though, wasn’t it?)… 

England and America are the center-of-gravity of the Chrstian nations and peoples.  America today obviously is less taken over by the apostacy, but notice England, even in deep apostacy, still has the instincts to do the right thing such as be America’s steadfast ally in the war on Satan’s Awakening Kingdom. 

Yes, America is God’s country, Mike P.  The light and defender of freedom and the nation that brings the Word of God to the entire planet.

Comment #18179

Posted by caerbannog on February 26, 2005 11:58 AM (e) (s)

steve wrote:

caerbannog: Careful talking about assaulting real Christians.  We have a bodyguard of angels to deal with giddy-violent atheists like you…  It’s the same reason your murderous fascism and communism couldn’t harm America…

Hah! Your bodyguard of angels will be quaking in fear at the sight of my SuperBlast™ power nozzle.  So bring ‘em on, Steve!

Comment #18180

Posted by Glenn Branch on February 26, 2005 12:01 PM (e) (s)

Steve Reuland wrote:

That part’s cool and all, but I really got into it for the babes.

You’re in good company.

Kenneth R. Miller, in Finding Darwin's God, wrote:

…a young lady at the swim club. Early in our mutual flirtation, she made it clear to me that she regarded reading serious books as a mark of “depth.” From that moment on, in the parlance of the time, I wanted to be as “deep” as possible—at least while she was looking. My reading list that year included not just Darwin, but Augustine, Eliot, Marx, Durant, Shirer, Milton, and Dante.

Comment #18182

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 12:02 PM (e) (s)

Angels are very powerful, caerbannog; but they don’t have to hurt you to neutralise you.

Comment #18183

Posted by Steve Reuland on February 26, 2005 12:03 PM (e) (s)

Steve wrote:

Apes I call…apes.

But your quesiton was about monkeys, not apes.  You specifically asked what would be inbetween (sic) monkeys and humans.  That would be apes.

Now I suppose you’ll just shift the goal posts and ask for something inbetween (sic) apes and humans.  And when someone brings up H. erectus or Australopithecus, you’ll just demand an infinte series of intermediates.  Or you’ll just claim that everything which is not a human is automatically of the “ape kind” and therefore declare victory via tautology.  I’ve seen it all before.

BTW people, don’t be so hard on “Steve”.  Aside from the cool name, he does more to make creationists look bad than we ever could.

Comment #18184

Posted by Joe Shelby on February 26, 2005 12:07 PM (e) (s)

The very name America means Kingdom of God (I know, your school textbooks tell you a different story, but that story was always a little shady, though, wasn’t it?)…

where the hell did you get this?

America is from Amerigo, which is an early Italian form of Henrico, or “Henry”.  Henry is

From the Germanic name Heimerich which meant “home ruler”, composed of the elements heim “home” and ric “power, ruler”.  —Source: Behind the Name

Comment #18186

Posted by caerbannog on February 26, 2005 12:08 PM (e) (s)

steve wrote:

Angels are very powerful, caerbannog; but they don’t have to hurt you to neutralise you.

Ahhh… But my SuperBlast™ power nozzle has one big advantage over your angels. It actually exists!  Now excuse me while I go in my garage to set the pressure regulator to the maximum recommended 60PSI in eager anticipation of you and your imaginary angels.

Comment #18188

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 12:28 PM (e) (s)

>>>Schools like to teach that the continent was named for Amerigo
Vespucci, but they do not teach the meaning of his name. And
clergymen who have been to a Bible College or seminary and who have
studied Hebrew should know better. They should know that the Hebrew
word for kingdom sounds very much like ‘merica’. Merica = melookaw

The Latin masculine singular for “Amerigo” is “Amcricus” and
feminine singular is “America” (Israel is likewise feminine singular.)

The Gothic Language

The Old Gothic form for the word “America” was “Amel Ric”. “Amel”
means “Heaven”, and “Ric” means “Kingdom”—Kingdom of Heaven. Amel
Ric is still found in the German language as “Emerich”,
or “Himmelreich”.

And as you saw above, Strong’s Concordance gives the Hebrew
word “Meluwkah’ for kingdom.

The letter “l” and “r” under certain circumstances are
interchangeable. Thus the Hebrew word “Meluwkah” (pronounced “mel-oo-
kah”) became “Merukah”, this became “Amerucah” which in the Latin
form is “America”.

Thus “Amel
Ric”, “Emerich’, “himmelreich”, “Amerlukah”, “Amerukah”,
and “America”, became words for “The Kingdom of Heaven”.

America means Kingdom of Heaven<<<

Comment #18189

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on February 26, 2005 12:33 PM (e) (s)

I like to answer with “If people are descended from their grandmothers, why do grandmothers still exist?”

Comment #18190

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 12:34 PM (e) (s)

Angels exist.  You want proof?  Have faith, and see them in action.

Comment #18192

Posted by buridan on February 26, 2005 12:39 PM (e) (s)

Hey folks, let’s take the earlier advice of Dan S. and simply ignore steve. I know, it’s a simple pleasure to respond to an idiot but he’s getting his rocks off as well and I the last thing I’d want is to be the source of pleasure for a creationist. That’s the only stroke you’ll get from me steve.

Comment #18193

Posted by Joe Shelby on February 26, 2005 12:39 PM (e) (s)

obviously a cut-n-paste job, but you didn’t answer my question: *where* did you get that.

I at least can name my sources.

Comment #18194

Posted by Dave Thomas on February 26, 2005 12:43 PM (e) (s)

Oh… My… Gawd!!

I’ll fix my spelling error soon’s I can (which may not be till Monday depending on time & tech).

-‘Perhaps needing new glasses’ Dave

Comment #18197

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 12:49 PM (e) (s)

>I at least can name my sources.

The ‘where’ of “where did you get that” can be answered by the etymology, no?  Of course it can.

As for the source of it, I googled the text and couldn’t come up with anything.  Maybe you could try yourself?  The website may be defunct.  I had copied that (with the >>> and <<< to signal to the evolutionist that it was not my writing, and you sort of caught on, didn’t you!), as I was saying I had copied it to a forum a long while back and went back and retrieved it… 

Maybe you can find the source and mock it based on that!

Comment #18198

Posted by Joe Shelby on February 26, 2005 12:52 PM (e) (s)

what part of “i copied this from another website a while ago but i can’t seem to find the reference right now” was so hard to say?

Comment #18200

Posted by DaveScot on February 26, 2005 12:57 PM (e) (s)

Don’t get your anal retentive panties in a bunch, evolutionists.  “Monkey” is simply being used as an aphorism for the hominid ancestor men and apes have in common.

Comment #18201

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 12:57 PM (e) (s)

Dude! Do you know you can google text?  I googled sentences from the first paragraph of what I posted above and got no hits.  I just googled the second paragraph and found the site!  It’s fun!  You should try it too!

http://www.moseshand.com/studies/Name.htm…

And what is difficult to understand about a person posting something to a forum?  You accuse like the devil!

Comment #18202

Posted by DonkeyKong on February 26, 2005 12:58 PM (e) (s)

The real weakness of evolution is this….

If we evolved from the first ancestor then where is the first ancestor?  How did it come into existance?

Certainly if an all powerful God created the first ancestor then a whole mountain of evidence showing evolution is less likely than intelligent design or full blown creationism 7 day.  Most evolutionists will concede this but anti-Creationists will not.

So the whole theory of evolution rests on the first ancestor.  The faith in this first ancestor is similiar to faith in God as there is no direct proof of this first ancestor.

An extream simplification of evolution is like this.

Child: I know all about reproduction because I was born from my mommie.

Mom: but where did I come from?

Child:  That is unrelated to reproduction theory mommie.

Inability to explain where life comes from fails to explain where diversity of life comes from.

Comment #18203

Posted by John S on February 26, 2005 01:00 PM (e) (s)

I posted this over at Pharyngula but “Steve” needs to read it again.

Christian clergy are starting to speak out in support of science while at the same time affirming their faith.  So far 1362 clergy have signed an open letter with strong support of the teaching of evolution.  A dozen of them are “Steves”. I don’t imagine that YWN or “Steve” will be impressed, but others of us who are Christian are grateful for the strong support of these clergy.

http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collabor…

A few quotes from the statement are as follows.

“While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook.
“We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge.”

Comment #18205

Posted by Joe Shelby on February 26, 2005 01:07 PM (e) (s)

DK: there is plenty of research into abiogenesis (the creation of replicating molecules that become self-replicating that eventually increase in complexity to the point where one may or may not call them “life”, but at least the decision point can be reached).  yes, its out of scope of the specific realm of research and theory called “Evolution”, but it is an important part of biochemistry and cosmology.  And even within that research, there are signs that “selection” and “evolution” played a role in the development of those molecules to the point of RNA.

Evolution is not flawed because it has (wisely) chosen to limit its scope to that which the available evidence could support.  No, evolution doesn’t discuss “the first species”, because such an ancestor doesn’t, in itself, really do much to explain the diversity.  its not as relevant to the theory (or its application to science) as the process of selection.

Comment #18206

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 01:10 PM (e) (s)

Those are Christians that belong to the umbrella church organisation called ‘Whatever the Devil Says’.  Those kind of Christians have been around forever.  You see, in the visible church there are wheat and tares.  The tares self-identify as Christians.  In the invisible church of which Christ is the head and that is made up of his elect from all time there are no tares, and this statment was not signed by any of the Christians in that church.

Comment #18207

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 01:13 PM (e) (s)

Comment #18205…  No post-modern tactics going on there…

Comment #18208

Posted by Joe Shelby on February 26, 2005 01:17 PM (e) (s)

nothing “post-modern / changing the language” tactics at all in that.  Darwin’s evolutionary theory specifically avoids the discussion of “the first species”, and that aspect of the theory of evolution is unchanged.  that patterns similar to evolution of species happen at the biochemical level means that the forces involved may be related, but our knowledge at this time changes neither the definitions of evolution nor abiogenesis from the norm.

Comment #18209

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 01:21 PM (e) (s)

Translation: We determine the ‘context’ of what we’re talking about.  The ‘metanarrative’ is not owned by your foundationalism.  Yes, we will attack God and we will determine how we are to have to defend ourselves.  We control the language of what we are doing here.  We are post-modernists…

Comment #18211

Posted by Russell on February 26, 2005 01:26 PM (e) (s)

DaveIQ153Scot wrote:

“Monkey” is simply being used as an aphorism for the hominid ancestor men and apes have in common.

Did you score in the 99.997th percentile on the “verbal skills” component of the SAT?

Comment #18215

Posted by Mike Walker on February 26, 2005 01:35 PM (e) (s)

America means Kingdom of Heaven

Ah - so you subscribe to the D. James Kennedy school of history, the one that teaches the zodiac is the “Gospel in the Stars” and other weird and wonderful “historical facts”.

This is a very interesting piece on the real story behind the naming of America:

http://www.uhmc.sunysb.edu/surgery/america.html

It does cast doubt on the Amerigo Vespucci naming story, but it discusses evidence for other equally plausible reasons for the name - the Mayans and Caribs, peoples who were encountered early on in the re-discovery of the New World, both hame words similar to America that could have been tranmitted via oral tradition.

Reverse etymological engineering of the word America via languages that were no longer in use is as highly dubious as saying the UK going to war in Iraq because of some divine cause (Satan’s awakening kingdom????)

In any case, it was at least another 150+ years (probably much longer) before the term America came to be talked of as the meaning the part of the American continent where the USA just happens to be. If you look at those early maps, America is deemed to be in places like Brazil and Nicaragua.

Steve, I’m not sure why you are bothering to spout your outlandish theories and beliefs on this board. The only possible outcome would be the reverse of what you claim to be looking try to do—save of our souls. Perhaps if you take pause and look a little more honestly at your actions and posts you will consider that this is all one big ego trip for you - to prove to yourself (and nobody else) that your beliefs and knowledge are far superior than ours.

I’ve been guilty of the same thing when I posted on some pseudoscience boards in the past, and I can recognise the signs - not very Christian to say the least.

Comment #18216

Posted by Mike P on February 26, 2005 01:41 PM (e) (s)

Steve, your bastardization of post-modernism is revolting.  It’s like watching a Philosophy 101 student who slept through class every day butchering through a term paper.  You have this delusion that we are out to destroy your precious God, and so you make your weak definition of an abstract philosophical concept fit around it.  And then you use that as a rationality for your own delusion.  You’re living in a cycle of fantasy and paranoia, man.  Snap out of it.

Comment #18217

Posted by Firsttimeblogger on February 26, 2005 01:42 PM (e) (s)

“The Latin masculine singular for “Amerigo” is “Amcricus” and
feminine singular is “America” (Israel is likewise feminine singular.)”

Wrong. Amerigo is masculine.
It is an Early medieval Italian form of HENRY which comes from Heimerich. And It is Americus which is the Latin form of Amerigo. Israel is masculine every frigging Jew and Bible schloar will tell you so. It comes From the Hebrew name Yisra’el meaning “God contended”.

“The Gothic Language

The Old Gothic form for the word “America” was “Amel Ric”. “Amel”
means “Heaven”, and “Ric” means “Kingdom”—Kingdom of Heaven. Amel
Ric is still found in the German language as “Emerich”,
or “Himmelreich”.”

Dead wrong in so many ways. Ric which comes from German does not mean Kingdom.

Strong’s version of Biblical definations is known to be outdated and known to contain errors.

Comment #18218

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 01:43 PM (e) (s)

OK, I’ll strike Mike Walker off the list of those who can potentially be saved. 

Only one nation, by the way, calls itself America.  The world knows which nation is America.  Just as the world knows which religion is the truth.  People have something called conscience.  It is buried, to a lesser or greater degree, in everybody, yet it is there and it knows the truth.  There is no excuse.  You are convicted by general revelation and certainly by special revelation (the Word of God), but it is the Word of God that can save.  But you, Mike Walker, are stricken off the list.  Pay no mind to the Word of God…

Comment #18220

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 01:46 PM (e) (s)

The authoritative Firsttimeblogger says “Wrong!”.  He gets the first sentence all tangled and confused, then he goes on to state what a Gothic word means by citing German!  Herr Firsttimeblogger strikes again!

Comment #18221

Posted by Mike Walker on February 26, 2005 01:51 PM (e) (s)

“Monkey” is simply being used as an aphorism for the hominid ancestor men and apes have in common.

Come on now, be honest. “Monkey” in this context is being used as a term of ridicule by conjuring up the absurd and deliberately misleading image in people’s minds that evolutionists claim that their “granddaddy was a monkey”.

I don’t doubt that it is a highly effective tactic to use with the “great unwashed” but this soundbite is dishonest since it greatly distorts the true position of evolutionists.

Comment #18223

Posted by Les Lane on February 26, 2005 01:56 PM (e) (s)

Alas! I hadn’t realized that sophomoric reasoning was a towering achievement lying in an alien dimension.  At least I can save airfare to New Guinea for my amateur anthro.

Comment #18224

Posted by FredMcX on February 26, 2005 01:59 PM (e) (s)

So what if America means Kingdom of Heaven or not? I can change my name to St Christopher and it doesn’t make a blind bit of difference to who or what I am. Further, since the Devil is well known for his ability to transform himself into an Angel of Light, resorting to such arguments is clearly to fall prey to the Devil who feeds on the superficial.

The sad thing is that this board is being overun by religious fruitcakes such as Steve; if America is the Kingdom of Heaven and Bush & Co are God’s right hand men then goodness me, whatever happened to Jesus’ message about love your neighbour and “he who lives by the sword will die by it” etc.? Is it any wonder that these nutjobs are clueless about evolution when they can’t even understand the book they claim to live by?

In reality Jesus’ words to the Pharisees apply here - they bind up the people with heavy loads while they themselves are not willing to lift even a finger. Steve et al. are staring into the bowels of Gehenna and, most likely, will find their way there with a heavy millstone wrapped around their necks unless they mend their ways and accept that lying in the name of God is a capital offence - don’t believe me, well, have a look at the book of Job.

Comment #18225

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 01:59 PM (e) (s)

>Steve, your bastardization of post-modernism is revolting. 

Revolting even!

>It’s like watching a Philosophy 101 student who slept through class every day butchering through a term paper.

Or, like a theologian who deals with post-modern nonsense from liberal and neo-orthodox theologians and man-centered academic philosopher/theologians…

>You have this delusion that we are out to destroy your precious God,

Your ‘theory of evolution’ has no other reason for being.  You defend this fallen horse that is now a corpse with 687,495 and accumulating arrows in it, prop it up a thousand different ways, pretend to still ride it, for one reason alone: it is the best and most successful vehicle for atheist dogma the dupes of anti-Christ have ever had, and you’re not giving it up now…

>and

Yes, spit it out…

>and so you make your weak definition-

Your shivering with anger.  Just relax.  Say what you have on your mind…

>you make your weak definition of an abstract philosophical concept fit around it. 

Yes…

>And then you use that as a rationality for your own delusion.  You’re living in a cycle of fantasy and paranoia, man.  Snap out of it.

Or! I recognize post-modern rhetorical devices and tactics when they appear.  And they usually always appear in defense of something that is attempting to defile Truth (and truth with a ‘T’ means God’s Truth)…  OK, they also appear in attempt to defile culture in general, or, western culture in particular, but that can be traced to anti-Christian sentiment as well!

Comment #18226

Posted by Firsttimeblogger on February 26, 2005 02:00 PM (e) (s)

Gothic doesn’t mean German.

It refers to the 12th through the 15th century of Western Europe.

The only language that is Gothic was spoken by the Goth tribes of Eastern Germany which were exterminated. It is a dead language along with the other East German languages of Burgundian and Vandalic.

In no shape or form did Amerigo come from the Visigoths or
Ostrogoths.

Comment #18227

Posted by Mike Walker on February 26, 2005 02:00 PM (e) (s)

But you, Mike Walker, are stricken off the list.  Pay no mind to the Word of God

Is that supposed to scare me? Touch a nerve did I? Good - perhaps you might learn some humility one of these days.

But my oh my, your ego’s even bigger than I suspected - are you sure that God is happy to see you meddling with his lists?

I think we have seen enough from this guy to know that rational arguments are futile - I apologise to everyone for making the effort.

Comment #18229

Posted by Firsttimeblogger on February 26, 2005 02:03 PM (e) (s)

Gothic doesn’t mean German.

It refers to the 12th through the 15th century of Western Europe.

The only language that is Gothic was spoken by the Goth tribes of Eastern Germany which were exterminated. It is a dead language along with the other East German languages of Burgundian and Vandalic.

In no shape or form did Amerigo come from the Visigoths or
Ostrogoths.

Comment #18230

Posted by firsttimeblogger on February 26, 2005 02:07 PM (e) (s)

Whoops! Error occured with the posting system. Sorry for the double post.

Comment #18231

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 02:07 PM (e) (s)

>So what if America means Kingdom of Heaven or not?

Your right.  It is much more relevant that America was founded by Christians, is a Christian nation today, and remains the light and defense of freedom in the world.  America walks the walk. As much as the atheists and ‘liberals’ have tried to defile and obstruct every step of the way Americans have just gotten the job done.  God’s people in God’s country doing God’s work, for going on 300 years now…

Comment #18232

Posted by firsttimeblogger on February 26, 2005 02:11 PM (e) (s)

Whoops! Error occured with the posting system. Sorry for the double post.

Comment #18233

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 02:11 PM (e) (s)

Comment #18229: and no such claim was being asserted in that post.  You are now triply confused.

Comment #18234

Posted by steve on February 26, 2005 02:13 PM (e) (s)

Comment #18110

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 02:26 AM

It’s striking how weak your reasoning is.  I mean, atheists/evolutionists are always trumpeting their ability in critical thinking and logic.

Protestants didn’t evolve from Roman Catholics.  Nor did Adam evolve from dust.

Any ‘confused’ look you saw in Christians probably had to do with them reacting to your uni-brow and lack of a forehead…

I’m going to have to change the name under which I post. Though I’ve been posting under the single name Steve since PT began, every month new people show up and post under Steve. It wouldn’t bother me, we steves are an agreeable bunch, but occasionally the odd IDiot is named, or claims to be named, steve. Creationist Timmy had to update his name to Intelligent Design Theorist Timmy, to get with the times, maybe I will too.

Comment #18235

Posted by Ben on February 26, 2005 02:14 PM (e) (s)

“You are the Devil,” William said then.
Jorge seemed not to understand. If he had been able to see, I would say that he stared at his interlocutor with a dazed look. “I?” he said.
“Yes. They lied to you. The Devil is not the Prince of Matter; the Devil is the arrogance of the spirit, faith without smile, truth that is never seized by doubt.”

In case you’re wondering why I posted the above quote (from The Name of the Rose), I’ve been reading this blog for a while now, and the beliefs of Jorge, the monk who killed whoever sought a book that he believed ‘destroyed a part of the learning that Christianity had accumulated over the centuries” because he believed that he was acting for God, as summed up by William of Baskerville, remind me all too much of the creationists who have a similar conviction that they must defend God (or at least their version of Christianity) and that scientific ignorance is of no consequence as long as they achieve this.

Comment #18236

Posted by FredMcX on February 26, 2005 02:18 PM (e) (s)

Steve wrote

;As much as the atheists and ‘liberals’ have tried to defile and obstruct
;every step of the way Americans have just gotten the job done.  God’s ;people in God’s country doing God’s work, for going on 300 years now…

My kingdom is no part of the world ….. Jesus

He who lives by the sword will die by the sword …. Jesus

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name, and in thy name cast out Devils, and in thy name done wonderful works? And then I will profess to them, I never knew you depart from me….Jesus

As they say, if the shoe fits, wear it.

Comment #18237

Posted by Les Lane on February 26, 2005 02:18 PM (e) (s)

Perhaps I’ve confused some.  My intention was that sophomoric reasoning be a lower, not an upper, bound on reasoning used in comments on this blog.

Comment #18239

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on February 26, 2005 02:20 PM (e) (s)

“Your right.  It is much more relevant that America was founded by Christians, is a Christian nation today, and remains the light and defense of freedom in the world.  America walks the walk. As much as the atheists and ‘liberals’ have tried to defile and obstruct every step of the way Americans have just gotten the job done.  God’s people in God’s country doing God’s work, for going on 300 years now…”

I’m curious —- was that whole “slavery” and “segregation” thingie part of “God’s Work” … . ?

You DO know that the US was founded by slave-owners, right?

Comment #18240

Posted by Steve on February 26, 2005 02:23 PM (e) (s)

I’ve been put on some type of moderation (an unamed time limit or something).  Probably a good thing for myself as well as evolutionists here.  Since I’m effectively being shown the door I’ll leave (though that ‘Name of the Rose’ sword thrust I’ll have to admit was an absolute death blow ~:/ …….)  Ouch.  When Umberto Eco appears in the room God’s elect scatter to the tall grass!

Steve has his name back! 

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.  Jesus saves!  Don’t die a *fool, folks…

*God’s word for atheists (and evolutionists whatever they call themselves)…

Comment #18241

Posted by Russell on February 26, 2005 02:24 PM (e) (s)

Just for the record, I believe the “new” Steve is parodizing fundamentalist American christians. And a pretty savage parody it is.

Comment #18242

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on February 26, 2005 02:28 PM (e) (s)

“Read the Word of God.  Just put your vanity and worldly pride on a leash for a portion of your day and make the effort to read the Word of God.  No, you won’t understand it at first.  No, you won’t ‘agree’ with what you read.  Yes, you will think it’s ‘stupid’.  Just do yourself a favor an download it.  Give your at least a chance to ascend out of the darkness you are currently held prisoner in.  Just give yourself a chance, ts…  Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.  Now it is high time to awake out of sleep…”

I’m a little curious, and have a simple question for you, since you seem to have appointed yourself as God’s Spokesman<tm>(c) or something …

My question is this:

What exactly is the source of your religious authority. What exactly
makes your (or ANY person’s) religious opinions any more (or less) valid than anyone else’s. Why should anyone pay any more attention to your religious opinions than we should pay to the religious opinions
of my next door neighbor or my gardener or the kid who delivered my
pizza last night. It seems to me that no one alive would or could know any more about God than anyone else alive does, since there doesn’t seem to be any potential source of such knowl