lol.....

PostmodernProphet said:
/chuckle.....you still might not realize it, but that is the very question I'm asking you......
Click to expand...

/chuckle.....you still might not realize it but that is why it is not the similar to a use of the mammalian arm to form a whale's flipper or bat's wing.

You are trying to change the topic because you are getting embarrassed, chickenshit.

You don't offer anything but myths and magic to explain everything. As Peter Enns, explains it is just a shortcut to argue that your morals are better and make you better than the out group. You are not even really interested in finding truth on the origin of life.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...m-the-Bible-what-it%92s-not-set-up-to-deliver
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I agree.....that's the purpose of those who misuse science, such as yourself........
Click to expand...

Nope. I have never argued that one cannot believe in a God and evolution (real evolution not the bullshit you pretend to believe). It's the literal belief/interpretation of your creation myth that is the problem. You don't see a way to avoid the cognitive dissonance, but that is your dilemma and it is not create a real burden on evolutionary theory.
 
Professor Baxter said:
It's the literal belief/interpretation of your creation myth that is the problem. You don't see a way to avoid the cognitive dissonance, but that is your dilemma and it is not create a real burden on evolutionary theory.
Click to expand...

I literally believe in Genesis 1:1. I have no problem reconciling that with a belief in evolution as science has proven it.....

I do not believe that Genesis 1:2-2:1, which is Hebrew poetry was ever intended to be understood literally.....

personally, I prefer the description of creation God gives in the book of Job......
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
I literally believe in Genesis 1:1. I have no problem reconciling that with a belief in evolution as science has proven it.....

I do not believe that Genesis 1:2-2:1, which is Hebrew poetry was ever intended to be understood literally.....

personally, I prefer the description of creation God gives in the book of Job......
Click to expand...

You don't believe in evolution. You believe in some bullshit created by the whackjobs at Answers in Genesis or the Discovery Institute. You crazy cultists are actually attempting to make additions to the Bible with your nonsense.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
except, I believe in evolution.....
Click to expand...

Sure you do, chickenshit.... You believe in what your cult mislabels microevolution and claim that evolution can't occur above some level that no one else recognizes and your cult calls "kind." You don't believe in the ACTUAL theory of evolution and your support for the difference is not based on science but theology.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Sure you do, chickenshit.... You believe in what your cult mislabels microevolution and claim that evolution can't occur above some level that no one else recognizes and your cult calls "kind." You don't believe in the ACTUAL theory of evolution and your support for the difference is not based on science but theology.
Click to expand...

I believe in all evolution that science supports with evidence.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I believe in all evolution that science supports with evidence.....
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous. It has nothing to do with evidence. It has to do with what fits in with your theology.

You reject evolution.

What is the evidence that supports evolution within cat kind? How does it differ from the evidence of evolution in general?
 
Professor Baxter said:
That's ridiculous. It has nothing to do with evidence. It has to do with what fits in with your theology.

You reject evolution.

What is the evidence that supports evolution within cat kind? How does it differ from the evidence of evolution in general?
Click to expand...

???....it IS the evidence of evolution in general.....
 
Professor Baxter said:
You are pretty clearly trying to play semantics again, chickenshit.

So the evidence that shows common descent is sufficient to prove evolution within "kind" or as long as it does not disagree with your theology?
Click to expand...

the evidence for evolution proves evolution and is not in disagreement with my theology......
 
Professor Baxter said:
It's not the same thing. Where is another animal in its line that has repurposed this trait?

Larva usually has a low energy advantage over the adult. Adults can reproduce.

How do you explain it? Oh yeah, you have your shortcut, God did it, which makes for a life of ease, banoality and ignorance.
Click to expand...
Thats the real irrational aspect of ID. It's a science stopper. "No need to look further at the evidence. God did it."
 
Professor Baxter said:
/chuckle.....you still might not realize it but that is why it is not the similar to a use of the mammalian arm to form a whale's flipper or bat's wing.

You are trying to change the topic because you are getting embarrassed, chickenshit.

You don't offer anything but myths and magic to explain everything. As Peter Enns, explains it is just a shortcut to argue that your morals are better and make you better than the out group. You are not even really interested in finding truth on the origin of life.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...m-the-Bible-what-it%92s-not-set-up-to-deliver
Click to expand...
Which beggars the question "Why do we even bother discussing the topic with him since he is being dishonest in the first place?". Are we masochists?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top