GarthP2000

Ya know, time was where I thought, actually thought, that believing one side over another had some actual meaning to reality. As tho' the goodness/morality/discernment abilities of people could really be determined by which side of the theological argument that individual was on. Very similar to judging people in relation to the trinitarian/unitarian conflict. ... Total waste of time.

Well, if the totality of the 'good' you and Oldies and all the other VPW apologists went thru is the best your All Powerful God can do? As compared with all the far worse *crap* that far more people went thru via VPW and TWI? ..... :unsure: ((scoffs)) Yeah! Right! As George Carlin would say "If this is the best that God can do, I am not impressed. This isn't the kind of thing you'd find on the resume of a Supreme Being. This is the s**t you'd get from an office temp with a bad attitude!" I think that totally fits here. <_<

Folks, Ok. Mea culpa in turning what was (supposedly) a joke-only (?) thread into a debate biased one, but basically peeves me to no end when I see Creationists endeavoring to do a rather dishonest and fear driven end run around a science that has been getting more and more evidence to support it, and that for no better reason than that it questions/challenges what they believe from scripture (and often under the mistaken premise that such challenges threaten their spiritual salvation, which is often why the Creationist movement use a lot of said fear motivation to drum up support for their cause). Not only that, but they also endeavor to pose their beliefs as an actual science in order to wedge it into the classroom, and finally root out evolution instruction. (No, I don't believe they'll just stop at having the both of them taught in the classroom if they have it their way. I believe I know better than that, my once being a fundamentalist myself.) So jokes like the one that started this thread I saw but subtle digs (and unfair ones at that) trying to portray the false dilemna of science vs. God (religion). I mean, look at the thread title, fer crying out loud. <_< Also, let's not mistake 'proof' for 'belief'. A good number of you here believe in young earth creationism (via literal interpretation of the Bible). Nobody here is challenging your right to hold that belief. But a belief in itself does not make it proof. Evolution isn't *just* based on blind faith (Ron's claim notwithstanding, and LG rightly shows why), but is based on a growing mountain of evidence. That the evidence is growing, and not shrinking, ought to tell you something. If you were in court, and the amount against the defendant is growing, and not disappating, ... you can pretty much see where the verdict is going to head, _unless_ that evidence is shown to be wrong. That's called 'preponderance of the evidence'. Also, the theory of evolution, while not total and complete in facts presented, is such that it can be (more and more) considered to be in the 'preponderance of the evidence' category. That's why that, even tho' its called a 'theory', the preponderance of the evidence puts it solidly on the side of fact, rather than on guesswork. Psalm 71 says "I still won't debate with the ones who don't believe 'In the beginnig God'. That would be fruitless." Yeah, and it would also be irrelevent, as evolution does nothing to determine whether or not God started things 'in the beginning' (as there are many religiously faithful Christians who believe that evolution was how 'God in the beginning' started things). Evolution only deals with the mechanics of the physical how, and only challenges the usage of biblical verses to suggest a 'young earth' theory as understood by biblical literalists. And apparently this challenge is taken by many of these literalists to be equal to 'Science vs. God'. Which inspires the often digs at science that I apparently mistook to interpret in the beginning of this thread. Hope that makes where I'm coming from more clear.

Sushi, Nope! That's called "He shoots. ... He scores!" Good article!

Ron, What LG said. When you can realize that, you'll have a better grasp as to what scientific hypothesis/theory _genuinely_ entails, rather than the near desperate attempt by certain creationists/fundamentalists to 'dumb down' those terms for their purposes. 'Blind faith', my assets.

Yet Another Fallacy -- that with associating the number of words = quality of the message, be it with little amount, or with a lot. I've seen this fallacy applied to both ends. WW is 'the real deal' here, not to the number of words used (or the lack of them), but to the points that he raised. In this case he apparently felt that he had to use this amount of information to sufficiently get his point across. Maybe it required less words. It depends. I dunno. But apparently he felt that he wanted to cover all the bases to show you why your argument fails. And as far as I'm concerned, he's done a pretty good job. Ie., thats why your claim that I'm a 'WW apologist' fails, as I don't need to 'defend' him. He makes his case quite sufficiently. You however, do to VPW's F ups and all, feel the need to defend the man so that PFALs reputation stays pat. ..... All a waste of time, as there are FAR more sources of biblical and spiritual information that helps FAR more people, than PFAL (or VPW for that matter) *ever* could. But hey, that's your world, and I hope it helps you out. ... ..... but, I seriously doubt it. Caio.

This from the Answers in Genesis site, which alone illustrates why creationism should NOT be treated as an 'alternative science': "Upholding the Authority of the Bible from the Very First Verse" When that kind of standard is set, and that no findings shall question/cross it, whatsoever, contrary or otherwise, all objectivity and honest scrutiny and analysis is lost. ... Flushed down the tubes, no matter what kind of trappings of professionalism and academics surrounds it. Nuff said! <_< P.S., Hhmmmm, (after looking through more of the site) Ken’s bachelor’s degree in applied science (with an emphasis on environmental biology) qualifies him as an expert in the bilogical/evolutionary field compared to those who have far more training/experience, as well as an increasing truckload of evidence backing up evolution? :unsure: Couple that with his undying loyalty to defend the book of Genesis as THE authoritive source in these fields? Just a few things to keep in mind as you folks peruse that site. I mean, we want to keep thinking for ourselves after learning our lesson as regards to TWI, don't we? P.P.S., I wonder if he knows Kevin Hovind personally?

Speaking of being full of themselves, how 'bout them religious leaders/organizations who resist scientific findings and theories & endeavor to browbeat (and persecute, if possible; remember the time over 200+ years ago, or even as recent as the 1925 Scopes Monkey trial. Who was full of themselves then?) those scientists, for nothing more than that those findings and theories dare contradict scriptures and orthodox doctrines, hmmm?Besides, I'd like to see (y'know, as in proof?) where the scientific community, as a whole, are saying that they "don't need god anymore" because of said findings and theories. ... Or perhaps it's Yet Another Straw Man Argument used to oversimplify, to the extent of flawed reasoning, and dismiss that science that dares to come up with conclusions that differs from the Holy Writ. Like I said, proof please, cuz I'm not one who will take it by faith. ;) P.S., notice that never has Einstein referred to a god or gods in his statement about 'sensation of the mystical'. Here is another statement he made to clear up any supposed belief in god(s) that many people tried to attribute to him: Oops! ;)

<_< Looks like some creationists are still smarting from that Pennsylvania ruling that threw out creationism being taught as science in their public school system --- a ruling by a Christian judge who was appointed by Bush, by the way. "Get your own science." Yeah! ... I really do love it!

VPWiam--- err Johniam, Wordwolf DID show us all, and in very logical detail, where the double-standard lays ....... with you. <_<

You'll most likely need an MP3 player to add the info to the file, and that manually. Like Microsoft's Media Player or Winamp.

Ya know, this kind of story just **begs** for a caption.

Prolly something that Jonny missed during CF&S class.

Cuz that's when they expect you to drive a-l-l the way to Headquarters for their Sunday Night Service. Can't do that on a near empty tank o' gas, donchaknow.

Belle, You forgot a question. Do you have to apply for a 2nd (or 3rd) mortgage to fill up that gas tank? ... Particularly if its one of those Buick full size honkers?

How about 'Ear Picker', cuz that's what your avatar shows you doing.

Ethel. Wasn't she Fred's wife from I Love Lucy? "Ayy-Yayy-Yayy! Luc-eee! 'Splain yourself!"

"Damn! No safe!"

In his case, that's like an owner of a Yugo saying that he doesn't own a well designed, solid automobile and that he doesn't care. Yuppers, that sounds about like Craig. ... Classic example of what a REAL bible teacher should be, ehhhh? NOT! <_<

GreasyTech, Well technically, one could say that all of our gods/deities/spiritual beings have evolved (in one form or another) from the earliest sun gods or unseen sprites in the woods or supposed ghosts, all whom the earliest bronze age voodoo doctors/shammans tried to appease/cajole/pray for better crops/etc. They just evolved/morphed into more sophisticated forms, to now we have gods that are appeased/preached about from televangelists. <_< What's more sophisticated about the current day, you may ask? Televangelists wear MUCH nicer suits than the bronze age priest/voodoo doctor did.

10 will get your one, that pinheadZ won't respond to this, which shows the type of twit he that he is. Abi, I agree, you are indeed a **jewel** here. NOTHING can change that. :)

A bit of advice: Next time when you're in that situation, stop the pump before you head to the salelady. A question: Was someone there to pump the gas for you? If its full service, someone should have been there to pump it for you. If nobody there at the station offered to pump it for you (or to check your oil, do your windows, anything to convey that they are offering full service), I think you have a valid compaint to put before the organizations that can make bad publicity on the businesses that do this sort of thing: BBB, local news stations that has news people cover customer issues, etc. As a matter of fact, why not go back there and relate this possible course of action, and what it can easily result in, to the salelady. If she's the manager, or in any way responsible for maintaining the sales for that store (and if she has half a brain) she would realize that said results of said deceptive practices would be angry customers, LOTS of angry customers, which would then result in reduced sales. Ie., $$money$$ still talks!

Naaaaahhhhh! <_<

First off, DJS, I stand corrected then as concerning your approach. I initially thought that you were Yet Another VPW apologist deriding those who have been abused by VPW and his goosesteppers in TWI, and who have been speaking out against what VPW was and what he did, ranging from using appeals for 'forgiveness' to "Hey, the man's dead. Let's move on!" to other tactics, ... all in order to whitewash that kraut's reputation. I see now that you aren't doing that. My apologies then. MarkO, Setting aside the stupidity of VPW's claim of his 'receiving the Word like it hasn't been known since the first century church' yadayada, I got a question for you. How is it having 'the gates of hell prevailing against the Church' synonamous with the church (either as a group or with significant individuals) getting some or other parts (major or minor) of 'the Truth' wrong? If interpreted that way, ie., the gates of hell not prevailing = the church having the doctrine (or the practice thereof) right with no major variation thereof formula, then I can think of many instances in history that would, at least, put a _major_ question of doubt over that equation. True, VPW's claim to be the resetting of the church back on course perse has been proven seriously f***ed up, ... but given human nature to screw things up, as well as cover up their mistakes do to pride and arrogance (and this would necessarily include the humans that wear the expensive robes and trappings that indicate their leadership in said church), how can you be so sure that the church has gotten it faithfully right over the past 2000 years? ... And simply because of some verses that you mention and the interpretation thereof? I know that I'm not a believer anymore, and appeals to spiritual/biblical/ecclesiastical authority now means nothing to me, but I pose this question to see your logic regarding it. Plus, I think that questions like this can provide a good test to see how true biblical scholars handle them.

You might want to try out this form of salutation on TWI ministers: "Greetings, your worthlessness!" followed by turning around and mooning them. Consider it an appropriate kind of salute.