Obamanation In South Carolina

[BenSavage 0]

This argument is a flat out lie. We have tons and tons and tons of links that are "transitional" life forms. In fact, look at a human skeleton. It's all transitional life forms.

Glad you brought up transitional fossils. Here's one of the coolest ones those crazy Satanist Evolutionists have found.His name is Tiktaalik.Here's Mr. T dead:An intermediate between fish and tetrapods (four-legged) creatures. A fish with legs, that did not use them to walk. So I guess God didn't care about ole Tiktaalik's legs, they were just use to prop him up mid current.Go meet him already! Mr. T the fishapod

[herokid7 0]

If you don't believe in evolution, how could god have used it?and sure, anything is possible, but it's way down at the bottom of the possibility list. And until someone shows me some hard evidence to support that, I'm going to go with no.

I don't know how God created the universe, I just don't think it was evolution. That I don't believe in evolution has no bearing on whether God used it or not. Just like how most people on here that don't believe in God have no bearing on whether He exists or not.

[jmkiser 0]

I'm reading bits and pieces...I'm just trying to show you guys that there are good(imo) arguments out there...and I did say I thought some of Kent's theories were interesting...even if I don't trust or like the man, personally.

And we're showing you that there aren't good arguments out there. We are debunking them in front of you in seconds.In ... seconds.I don't even need a college science class for this stuff. Most people actually know more about this crap then I do and could denounce every specific point and tell you exactly why.

[BenSavage 0]

I'm reading bits and pieces...I'm just trying to show you guys that there are good(imo) arguments out there...and I did say I thought some of Kent's theories were interesting...even if I don't trust or like the man, personally.

Yeah I'm sure other convicts like Charlie Manson and Ted Bundy had good theories as well."Helter Skelter" makes more sense than creationism.

[jmkiser 0]

I don't know how God created the universe, I just don't think it was evolution.

No one says evolution created the universe.No one.Not one person.You will never find ANYONE who claims that evolution started the universe.Actually, wait... I take that back.The only people who claim that are creationists. And the reason they claim it is so that they can debunk. Kind of like screaming in a forest when no one is around.

[herokid7 0]

Glad you brought up transitional fossils. Here's one of the coolest ones those crazy Satanist Evolutionists have found.His name is Tiktaalik.Here's Mr. T dead:An intermediate between fish and tetrapods (four-legged) creatures. A fish with legs, that did not use them to walk. So I guess God didn't care about ole Tiktaalik's legs, they were just use to prop him up mid current.Go meet him already! Mr. T the fishapod

I don't get how that proves anything. A T-Rex had arms that were worthless, too.

[herokid7 0]

No one says evolution created the universe.No one.Not one person.You will never find ANYONE who claims that evolution started the universe.Actually, wait... I take that back.The only people who claim that are creationists. And the reason they claim it is so that they can debunk. Kind of like screaming in a forest when no one is around.

Hm. Maybe we should be debating the Big Bang Theory then.

[BenSavage 0]

I don't get how that proves anything. A T-Rex had arms that were worthless, too.

Why would the great and powerful God create an organism (T-Rex, Mr. T) with worthless arms? I thought he was kinda perfect, and everything has meaning and heaven is around the corner, and Elvis didn't do no drugs?Could it be that those worthless arms are part of the evolutionary journey, of course not, right?

[Suited_Up 2]

Hm. Maybe we should be debating the Big Bang Theory then.

Or Creationism.

[herokid7 0]

Ok. One more link guys, cause I know that you are getting tired of them but, please read this one, this one is the most interesting in my opinion.It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that). -- Oxford scientist and author Richard Dawkins Ever since Darwin published his theory of evolution, his defenders' favorite tactic against critics has been to attack their character and intelligence. Darwin himself used this tactic against some of the greatest scientists of his day accusing them of superstition and religious bias. Now that Darwinism rules the scientific roost, such charges are widespread. California's science education guidelines, for example, instruct teachers to respond to dissenting students by saying, "I understand that you may have personal reservations about accepting this scientific evidence, but it is scientific knowledge about which there is no reasonable doubt among scientists in this field." By today's rules, criticism of Darwinism is simply unscientific. Schools usually don't attempt to defend the theory against skeptics. A student who wishes to pursue such matters is simply told to "discuss the question further with his or her family and clergy." But is Darwinism so obviously true that no honest person could doubt it? Are all the alternatives so unscientific that no reasonable person could embrace them? The answer to both questions is a resounding no. Searching for Support The essence of Darwin's theory is that all living creatures descended from a single ancestor. All the plants, animals, and other organisms that exist today are products of random mutation and natural selection - or survival of the fittest. According to Darwin, nature acts like a breeder, overseeing biological change. As useful new traits appear, they are preserved and passed on to the next generation. Harmful traits are eliminated. Although each individual change is relatively small, these changes eventually accumulate until organisms develop new limbs, organs, or other parts. Given enough time, organisms may change so radically that they bear almost no resemblance to their original ancestor. Most important, this process happens without any purposeful input no Creator, no Intelligent Designer. In Darwin's view, chance and nature are all that are needed. This all may sound very elegant and plausible. The only problem is, it has never been established by any convincing data. For example, consider the fossil evidence. If Darwinism were true, the fossil evidence should reveal lots of gradual change, with one species slowly grading into the next. In fact, it should be hard to tell where one species ends and another begins. But that's not what we find. As Darwin himself pointed out in his book, The Origin of Species, "(T)he number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." Darwin attributed this problem to the imperfection of the fossil evidence, and to the youthful state of paleontology. As the discipline matured, and as scientists found more fossils, the gaps would slowly fill, he thought. Against the Evidence Time has not been kind to Darwinism, however. Paleontologists have certainly found more fossils, but these fossils have only deepened the problem. What paleontologists discovered was not gradual change, but stability and sudden appearance. It seems that most fossil species appear all at once, fully formed, and change very little throughout their existence. This poses quite a challenge for Darwinist paleontologists. One such paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, put it this way: "Either you stick to conventional theory despite the rather poor fit of the fossils, or you focus on the empirics and say that saltation (evolution through large leaps) looks like a reasonable model of the evolutionary process -- in which case you must embrace a set of rather dubious biological propositions." Large evolutionary jumps are anathema to good Darwinists because the changes look too much like miracles. Reptiles simply don't hatch birds. The fossil evidence appears particularly troublesome with the "Cambrian Explosion," which most paleontologists believe took place approximately 530 million years ago. In an instant of geological time, almost every animal phylum seemingly popped into existence from nowhere. A phylum is the broadest classification of animals. The phylum that contains human beings, for instance, also contains elephants, squirrels, canaries, lizards, guppies, and frogs. It includes every animal with a backbone - and then some. If the differences within a phylum are vast, the differences between phyla are far greater. As much as a chimpanzee may differ from a fish, it differs even more radically from a sea urchin. The two are built on entirely different architectural themes. That's why the Cambrian Explosion remains so troubling for Darwinists. What paleontologists find isn't just the sudden appearance of a few new species. They encounter species so utterly distinct that they have to be placed in different phyla. Even Oxford zoologist and prominent Darwinist Richard Dawkins has remarked, "It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." Worse yet, after the Cambrian Explosion, almost no new phyla appear in the fossil record - and many go extinct. By conventional dating, that's a 500 million-year dry spell. This is exactly the opposite of what Charles Darwin would have predicted. According to Darwinism, new phyla are produced by the gradual divergence of species. As species split off from each other over time, they eventually become so dissimilar as to constitute a whole new body plan. Therefore,we should see new species slowly appearing over time, followed by the much slower appearance of new phyla --what Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould calls "a cone of increasing diversity." Instead, the cone is upside down. Even by conventional timelines, the fossils look very non-Darwinian. Darwinists, of course. express confidence that future discoveries will clear up the mysteries. But so far, the research has only deepened them. A recent reassessment of the fossils added 15 to 20 new phyla to the Cambrian zoo. Moreover, discoveries in 1992 and 1993 have shrunk the explosion's estimated duration from 40 million years to about 5 million. Science or Philosophy? The fossil problem is only one of Darwinism's woes. Virtually every other area of research poses problems, too. But like the bunny in the Energizer battery commercials, Darwin's theory just keeps going. Why? Perhaps because Darwinism is more wishful thinking than fact. Professor Phillip Johnson is a professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley. While on sabbatical in England several years ago, he became fascinated with the serious problems in Darwin's theory. He was also struck by how Darwinists continually evaded the difficulties through tricky rhetoric and pulpit pounding. As he dug deeper into the scientific literature, Johnson eventually became convinced that Darwinism wasn't so much a scientific theory as a grand philosophy - a philosophy that attempts to explain the world in strictly naturalistic terms. "The whole point of Darwinism is to explain the world in a way that excludes any role for a Creator." Johnson says. "What is being sold in the name of science is a completely naturalistic understanding of reality." According to Johnson, the reason Darwinism won't die is that its basic premise is simply taken for granted: namely, that chance and the laws of nature can account for everything around us, even living things. Given that assumption, Darwinism has to be true because nothing else will work. Creation has been ruled out from the start, and the other naturalistic theories are worse than Darwin's. So any argument against Darwinism is usually ignored. Ruling out Design Today a new breed of young evangelical scholars is challenging those Darwinist assumptions. They argue that intelligent design is not only scientific, but is also the most reasonable explanation for the origin of living things. And they're gaining a hearing. One such scholar is Stephen Meyer, a graduate of Cambridge University in the philosophy of science and now a professor at Whitworth College in Spokane, Washington. Like Johnson, Meyer believes that the prohibition of design has essentially stacked the deck in favor of Darwinism. "There's been a kind of intellectual rigidity imposed on the origins discussion," Meyer says. "It's only possible to talk about origins in a naturalistic vein, because people believe that the rules of science prohibit talking about intelligent design." This prohibition rests on what philosophers call demarcation standards. These criteria allegedly set science apart from other disciplines, such as theology, history or literary criticism. For example, some might say that a scientific theory must explain everything in terms of observable objects and events, that it must make predictions, or that it must be capable of being proven wrong. Although scientists and philosophers have proposed many demarcation standards, says Meyer, none of them does what evolutionists want them to - which is to exclude intelligent design as a scientific theory. "When applied evenhandedly, demarcation standards either confirm that design is scientific, or they exclude evolution, too." For example, Darwinists like to argue that design is unscientific because it appeals to unobservable objects or events, such as a Creator. But Darwinism also appeals to unobservables. "In evolutionary science you have all kinds of unobservables," Meyer says."The transitional life forms that occupy the branching-points on Darwin's tree of life have never been observed in the rock record. They've been postulated only because they help Darwinists explain the variety of life forms we observe today." When scientists try to reconstruct past events, appealing to unobservables is entirely legitimate, Meyer says. What's illegitimate is to say that design theorists can't do the same thing. Design as Science William Dembski, another evangelical scholar, is director of the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies at Princeton University. He holds a Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Chicago and another in philosophy from the Chicago campus of the University of Illinois. He has also been a National Science Foundation doctoral and post-doctoral fellow. Dembski argues that intelligent design, far from being a strange and exotic notion, is something that science recognizes every day. The existence of entire industries depends on being able to distinguish accident from design: insurance fraud investigation, criminal justice, cryptography, patent and copyright protection, and many others. No one calls these industries "unscientific" simply because they look for evidence of design. Indeed, some scientific disciplines, such as anthropology and archaeology could not exist without the notion of intelligent design. "How could we ever distinguish a random piece of stone from an arrowhead except by appealing to the purposes of primitive artisans?" asks Dembski. According to Dembski, we recognize design in events or objects that are too improbable to happen by chance. Stones don't turn into arrowheads by natural erosion. Writing doesn't appear in sand by the action of waves. Ah unaltered coin doesn't come up heads a hundred times in a row. Such results point to some intelligent cause. There's more to design than just low probabilities, however. If someone tosses a coin 100 times, duplicating any series of results will be extremely improbable. But if someone claims that the coin came up heads 100 times, we would suspect that something more than chance was involved. "Our coin-flipping friend who claims to have flipped 100 heads in a row is in the same boat as a lottery manager whose relatives all win the jackpot or an election commissioner whose own political party repeatedly gets the first ballot line," Dembski says. "In each instance public opinion rightly draws a design inference and regards them guilty of fraud." If detectives can use this kind of thinking to spot election and lottery fraud, and if archaeologists can use it to spot arrowheads, then why can't biologists use it to look for design in the living world? Currently, Dembski, Meyer, and Paul Nelson, a biologist and Ph.D. candidate in philosophy at the University of Chicago, are writing a book that details precise scientific criteria for recognizing design, and that applies them to biological systems. Irreducible Complexity Even without precise definitions, it's not hard for most of us to recognize design in the living world. The exquisite complexity of living organisms virtually proclaims the existence of a Creator. Many Darwinists admit this -- except they say it's only an illusion, produced by strictly natural forces. For Michael Behe, a Catholic biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa., the complexity is too extreme for Darwinism to be plausible. He argues that many systems in living organisms are irreducibly complex. They consist of several parts, all of which must be present for the system to work. "It's like a mousetrap," Behe says. "A standard household mousetrap has five parts, all of which must be present for the trap to work. If you take away any of those five parts, you don't have a functioning mousetrap. You can add the parts one by one, but until you get to the full five parts, you have no function. It's an all-or-nothing kind of thing." This irreducible complexity exists even at the level of a single cell. Behe says. "It was originally thought in Darwin's day that cells were very, very simple things -- like little blobs of gel. But as science has progressed, it's shown that cells are extraordinarily complex, more complex than anybody thought." One example is the system that transports proteins within the cell from where they're made to where they're used. Enzymes are a class of proteins that help the cell digest other kinds of proteins. They are created in a compartment called the endoplasmic reticulum. But they do all their work in another compartment, the lysosome. To get from the one compartment to the other, enzymes are stuffed into a vesicle, a kind of bus. The "bus" then travels to the destination compartment and eventually merges with it, spilling its contents into the compartment. Achieving this task requires several very specific proteins. A cell needs certain proteins (along with certain fats) to form the little capsule that contains the enzyme. It needs others to help the capsule grab the right protein. Finally it needs proteins that help the "bus" attach itself to the destination compartment and merge with it. "Now if you think about irreducible complexity," Behe says, "virtually all of these proteins have to be there from the beginning, or you simply don't get any function." That makes it tough for Darwinists to argue that design is simply an illusion that has been produced by mutation and natural selection. "Darwin said one thing pretty strongly in The Origin of Species," Behe notes. "He said that if it could be shown that any system or organ could not be produced by many small steps, continuously improving the system at each step, then his system would absolutely fall apart. "Now the thing about irreducibly complex systems is that they cannot be produced by numerous small steps, because one does not acquire the function until close to the end, or at the end. Therefore, with irreducibly complex systems, they cannot be produced by Darwinian evolution." Gaining Ground Most scientists are still far from throwing in the towel on Darwinism and accepting intelligent design. Nevertheless, design advocates are finding it easier to gain a hearing. In March 1992, a landmark symposium took place at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. Phillip Johnson, Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, Michael Behe, and other Christian scholars squared off against several prominent Darwinists. The topic was "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?" (The symposium proceedings have since been published in a book by the same title. See accompanying "Design Resources" and book excerpts in this site.) The remarkable thing about the symposium was the collegial spirit that prevailed. Creationists and evolutionists met as equals to discuss serious intellectual questions. Not surprisingly, few issues were resolved. But in today's Darwinist climate, where dissent is frequently written off as religious bias, just getting the issues on the table was an accomplishment. What's more, several months later, one prominent Darwinist who participated in the Dallas symposium publicly conceded that one of the points Johnson made was correct: namely that Darwinism is based as much on philosophical assumptions as on scientific evidence. This admission took place at a national meeting of the country's largest science society the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It scandalized the Darwinist community which likes to portray evolution as indisputable fact. It was all the more scandalous because the speaker had specifically been invited to the meeting to denounce Johnson. Creationists are still far from winning, but they believe things are getting better. As Johnson points out, creationist arguments are growing more sophisticated, while most Darwinists are still responding with cliche's. Now it's the creationists who come across as asking the hard questions and demanding fair debate. But ultimately, Johnson says, it's not the debates or the arguments that will win the day. "It's reality that's doing it. It's just the way the world is. And sooner or later, scientists will have to acknowledge that fact." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------DESIGN RESOURCES For those interested in reading more about Darwinism and intelligent design, here are some helpful resources. None focuses on the age of the earth or the different views of creation, however. Darwin on Trial2nd editionby Phillip E. JohnsonInterVarasity Press, 1993 Berkeley professor Phillip Johnson takes a comprehensive look at the evidence, arguments, and assumptions underlying contemporary Darwinism. Pointing to the theory's failures, Johnson concludes that Darwinism is more a philosophical position that a legitimate scientific theory. Of Pandas and People2nd editionby Dean Kenyon and Percival DavisHaughton Publishing 1993 This supplementary high school text presents the case for intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of the living world. Pandas is suitable for use in public school classrooms. The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent DesignerJ.P. Moreland, ed.InterVarsity Press, 1994 In a very readable series of essays, Christian scholars present some of the latest thinking about intelligent design. This volume not only explains the philosophical concept of design but also offers recent scientific evidence for support. Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?Jon Buell and Virginia Hearn, eds.Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 1994 This book contains the published proceedings of a landmark debate between five Christians scholars and five leading Darwinists at Southern Methodist University. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------A WHALE OF A TALE Early in 1994 paleontologists reported finding the fossilized skeleton of a creature they claim is a "missing link" between land animals and modern whales. According to reports in Science magazine, the creature, Ambulocetus natans, had a snout like a dolphin and a big flipper like feet. The creature was roughly the size of a male sea lion, and moved about on land by bumping along on its chest and abdomen. Moreover, researches noted that its skull and teeth were nearly identical to those in fossil whales. Darwinists touted the find as evidence that modern whales evolved from animals that once lived on land. Non-evolutionists, however, insist that the discovery in no way proves that conclusion. Biologist and philosopher of science Paul Nelson is editor of Origins Research, a scholarly journal devoted to the creation/evolution controversy. According to Nelson, the find doesn't reveal anything that wasn't already assumed to be true. Advocates of intelligent design don't deny the close similarity of some life forms. But similarity is not enough to prove a transition from one form to another. "There's no biological mechanism we know of that can produce that kind of change," Nelson says. "So I don't see why there's any reason to think it ever happened." Given the vast number of organisms that have existed, creationists aren't surprised that a few species seem to be "intermediate" forms. Their existence merely suggests that the Creator used a limited number of body plans. The problem for Darwinists is why these species aren't more common. "If Darwinism were true, we ought to be drowning in transitional fossils," Nelson says. The fact that Darwinists get so excited by such finds tells us just how scarce they really are. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------DUST PANCAKES Last June, astronomers thrilled to the discovery of great pancake-shaped dust clouds around many young stars in a nearby region of space. The presence of such dust clouds seems to support the conventional theory that Earth was formed from a similar dust cloud billions of years ago. To some, the find also suggests that planets are common in the universe, which increases the possibility that life might exist beyond our planet. Astronomer Hugh Ross, founder of the Christian organization Reasons to Believe, has no problems with the idea that Earth was formed from a similar cloud of dust. But he argues that it is a mistake to conclude that planets are therefore common. "The deception here is thinking that because the probability is rather high now, it's always been very high," Ross says, "That's simply not true." Astronomers have concluded that the material in such dust clouds is created in the cores of giant stars and then spewed into space when those stars explode. According to Ross, it takes up to two generations of such stars to get the right materials for making planets and sustaining life. This kind of material is relatively plentiful now, but not near the beginning of the universe. "Conditions then weren't as good as they are now," Ross says. "So these dust clouds are evidence of what could happen in the future, not what has happened in the past. I would concede that there are probably other planets in our galaxy. But the notion that planets are as plentiful as stars I would see as grossly optimistic." Mark Hartwig is managing editor for the Foundation for Thought and Ethics in Richardson, Texas (214/669-3400). The foundation produces high school and college textbooks on intelligent design.

[BenSavage 0]

Ok. One more link guys, cause I know that you are getting tired of them but, please read this one, this one is the most interesting in my opinion.It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that). -- Oxford scientist and author Richard Dawkins blah blah blah

Explain it too us in your words. Answer our questions. Quit being such a propagandist. I tried to put evolution in my words, why don't you be a good Christian and do the same.How is Richard Dawkins wrong? Just because he calls you a poopy head does not make him wrong.

[herokid7 0]

Why would the great and powerful God create an organism (T-Rex, Mr. T) with worthless arms? I thought he was kinda perfect, and everything has meaning and heaven is around the corner, and Elvis didn't do no drugs?Could it be that those worthless arms are part of the evolutionary journey, of course not, right?

Not everything has meaning. Some stuff just happens that's not God's fault, Satan's fault, or our fault. It just happens. I'm actually preaching about that on Tuesday. Wish me luck. I don't know why God would create something with worthless arms. Maybe to give everything a weakness, so the thing could not think it was more powerful that God. Remember the first time he created something that was absolutely perfect (Satan) it became jealous of God and wanted His throne and rebelled.

[herokid7 0]

Explain it too us in your words. Answer our questions. Quit being such a propagandist. I tried to put evolution in my words, why don't you be a good Christian and do the same.How is Richard Dawkins wrong? Just because he calls you a poopy head does not make him wrong.

You want me to explain evolution in my own words, or what I believe in my own words? Either way, I'll get back to you on that, I gotta run. It's been fun, guys, I love ya.

[jmkiser 0]

Hm. Maybe we should be debating the Big Bang Theory then.

Well, first you have to actually get the Big Bang Theory right. The most common way of creationists to debate the Big Bang theory is to completely change what it is into some bastion of what it isn't. Then they'll debunk the fake Big Bang Theory.

[jmkiser 0]

lolGG on the Penn & Teller quoteElvis didn't do no drugs!

[bigkg 0]

DUST PANCAKES Last June, astronomers thrilled to the discovery of great pancake-shaped dust clouds around many young stars in a nearby region of space. The presence of such dust clouds seems to support the conventional theory that Earth was formed from a similar dust cloud billions of years ago. To some, the find also suggests that planets are common in the universe, which increases the possibility that life might exist beyond our planet. Astronomer Hugh Ross, founder of the Christian organization Reasons to Believe, has no problems with the idea that Earth was formed from a similar cloud of dust. But he argues that it is a mistake to conclude that planets are therefore common. "The deception here is thinking that because the probability is rather high now, it's always been very high," Ross says, "That's simply not true." Astronomers have concluded that the material in such dust clouds is created in the cores of giant stars and then spewed into space when those stars explode. According to Ross, it takes up to two generations of such stars to get the right materials for making planets and sustaining life. This kind of material is relatively plentiful now, but not near the beginning of the universe. "Conditions then weren't as good as they are now," Ross says. "So these dust clouds are evidence of what could happen in the future, not what has happened in the past. I would concede that there are probably other planets in our galaxy. But the notion that planets are as plentiful as stars I would see as grossly optimistic." Mark Hartwig is managing editor for the Foundation for Thought and Ethics in Richardson, Texas (214/669-3400). The foundation produces high school and college textbooks on intelligent design.

Well there are 8 planets in our solar system alone, and our system makes up an infinitely small portion of the universe. I think that's a pretty good reason to assume they are plentiful.

[jmkiser 0]

[BenSavage 0]

Not everything has meaning. Some stuff just happens that's not God's fault, Satan's fault, or our fault. It just happens. I'm actually preaching about that on Tuesday. Wish me luck. I don't know why God would create something with worthless arms. Maybe to give everything a weakness, so the thing could not think it was more powerful that God. Remember the first time he created something that was absolutely perfect (Satan) it became jealous of God and wanted His throne and rebelled.

Are you saying there is such a thing as luck? Blaphemy, burn the witch, burn the witch!!!Everything happens for a reason, for the Bible told me so.A kid just got run over by a drunk driver, she was only 11, but don't worry sad parents. She went to Heaven! Everything happens for a reason! It will all turn out alright in the end.If my kid was just killed and some Christian told me it "would all be alright". I would punch that Jesus Freak in the face. But you always see that happening with some of them, do they think it is comforting.The truth is that the kid was killed because some worthless dude decided to be worthless. He wasn't "evil", it will not "work out". The child is gone, and the man responsible should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.I don't care if he goes to prison and confesses to Jesus and such, he is still worthless in this world. Ask Son of Sam. That's one reason I hate Christians in prison, it's a easy out for criminals. How about they actually be re habituated if possible, not pumped full of Jesus's love.If you kill 52 people, and then repent and take Jesus into your heart. You will go to Heaven.If Ted Bundy could've did that, I do not want to be a part of Heaven. Rather burn in hell with Jimi Hendrix, Gandhi, and Richard Dawkins.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Paging LLY to the Obamanation thread, LLY to the Obamanation thread

How does this always work?The evolution of complex structures from simple beginnings is fully consistent with the laws of physics. Think about our universe. In the beginning, everything was an almost uniform collection of hydrogen (eventually). Though gravity, this evolved into stars and galaxies. Though electroweak forces, these evolved into larger and larger elements, which made planets and solar systems. These planets made mountains, volcanoes, oceans, valleys, and all of the complex structure that we see today (even if we ignore any sort of life).The formation of intricate structures from simple laws is extremely fascinating and we see the results of this process every day. I suggest that anyone interested do some reading on chaos theory (yes, like that guy from Jurassic Park). Anyone who claims that Thermodynamics somehow prevents the natural formation of complex structures obviously doesn't understand the law.Oh, and if anyone of any intelligence is reading this thread, I highly recommend that you simply stop right here. Go into the thread about Rod Reynolds. There is quoted one of the most beautiful passages in all of literature. Why don't you go study it and go one step closer to enlightenment instead of playing games with a fucking moron.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Vote for None of the Above.

[freak2304 0]

Good god, what happened to this thread?!?!? This is even more proof that invoking religion into politics is dangerous and stupid.

[El Guapo 8]

Is anyone even reading these 5000 word posts?

[herokid7 0]

Are you saying there is such a thing as luck? Blaphemy, burn the witch, burn the witch!!!Everything happens for a reason, for the Bible told me so.A kid just got run over by a drunk driver, she was only 11, but don't worry sad parents. She went to Heaven! Everything happens for a reason! It will all turn out alright in the end.If my kid was just killed and some Christian told me it "would all be alright". I would punch that Jesus Freak in the face. But you always see that happening with some of them, do they think it is comforting.The truth is that the kid was killed because some worthless dude decided to be worthless. He wasn't "evil", it will not "work out". The child is gone, and the man responsible should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.I don't care if he goes to prison and confesses to Jesus and such, he is still worthless in this world. Ask Son of Sam. That's one reason I hate Christians in prison, it's a easy out for criminals. How about they actually be re habituated if possible, not pumped full of Jesus's love.If you kill 52 people, and then repent and take Jesus into your heart. You will go to Heaven.If Ted Bundy could've did that, I do not want to be a part of Heaven. Rather burn in hell with Jimi Hendrix, Gandhi, and Richard Dawkins.

Of course there is such a thing as luck, anyone who has ever played poker knows that. The Bible doesn't say everything happens for a reason...that is purely a man-made philiosophy, mostly from taking certain verses from the Bible out of context.I would totally expect you to punch someone in the face if they told you everything was going to be alright if your kid had just died. I, unfortunately, have seen many parents' children taken from them at a far too young age. But, for those who are believers, there is a silver underlining, because the believers will get to see their children once again, that can be very comforting to someone. And I agree with you the drunk driver is not evil, but he should be punished by the law. But, I don't understand your next points. You say the man is not evil, but he is worthless in this world. Really? A man who drove drunk, which countless people do everyday, and some that do it only once in awhile, are all worthless? Or are they just worthless if they drive drunk and kill someone? No, they made a mistake, broke the law, cost a young child their life, and added a lifetime of grief to the parents. Does that make them worthless, or just guilty of making a poor decision and suffering the consequences? Are you saying that that person could never be a contributing member of society because of one costly mistake?Now, it sounds to me like in your next statement, that you wouldn't mind some getting better, getting out of prison, and contributing to society, as long as Jesus wasn't the cause of their rehabilitation...why? Because, if Jesus is the cause of their rehabilitation, they will go to Heaven, and you don't think they deserve that? It would be ok for someone to get out, contribute to society, and then go to hell? Is that what justice is to you?Why wouldn't you want to be apart of Heaven if a man like Ted Bundy can confess and get in? To me, that's a sign of an amazing God with amazing love, forgiveness, and grace, to let a man like that in Heaven. No matter what we do, God will take us in, and all we have to do his accept his son? That's it. You don't want to be apart of that. You don't want someone to love you like that? Wow.The thing you have to realize is the reality of Jesus' sacrifice. When Jesus died he LITERALLY took on every sin that everyone who has, is, and will ever live into his form. Jesus took our place. God could not even look at him, because the sin disgusted him. Our sin disgusted God. Our sin that was now that Jesus was now the embodiment of. He paid the price we were supposed to pay. He took Ted Bundy's sins. When Ted accepted Jesus, that became a reality. No longer did Ted commit all those murders, but Jesus did. Jesus was the one that commited all those murders. And that's why Jesus had to die, and that's why Ted, and the rest of us who have sinned, can be with God in Heaven. That's the beauty that so many of us miss.But, you would rather burn with those people in Hell. Well, by all means that's your right and your choice. The sad part is, the Bible is true, you will be all alone in Hell....everyone has there own separate hell, you don't get to see your buddies down there while you all burn together. You are completely alone, and the worst part is not the fire, the worst part is the separation from God. The separation from God, that you didn't have to endure, if you had just allowed God's son to take your place...but, like I said, that's your right and your choice.

[GeneralGeeWhiz 0]

I like how Balloon guy posted how thank god Gore didn't get elected? How much worse can our country get right now, with your boy Bush in office???

[chrozzo 19]

Well there are 8 planets in our solar system alone, and our system makes up an infinitely small portion of the universe. I think that's a pretty good reason to assume they are plentiful.

gg Plutoyou were always my favorite