Bachmann

[tonymctones]

no i dont, its just that your claim that the founders who proposed natural selections personal beliefs have any merit to the theory is wacky. I dont care what they believe, its the evidence i care about. im not arguing about the stats again, its all there, i cant say it any other way, all i can conclude from the above post is you do not understand my position. I was in no way disagreeing with you, i was elaborating on the concept. you take that one term out of context with the rest on my arguments, it is too basic and fails to describe a true relationship, simple as that. Its stats 101, which again is to basic to have any real meaning in science.

I also, didnt say anything about having evolution without those processes, you are again putting words in my mouth and creating a strawman.

The bible should not be open to interpretation, thats a cop out. When lot raped his daughters, am i to interpret that as an act of love? when god speaks of slavery is that to be interpreted as just fucking around? What criteria are you using to determine what is factual and what is metaphor? where is this objective criteria so i can use it? otherwise its subjective non-sense and im not interested as anyone can interpret it anyway making it pointless and dilute.

you lie to get your point across, you make up my position over and over, you have ignored the original argument despite me bringing it up again. Tommy do you feel cognitive dissonance? any? pray to jesus.

LMFAO back peddle back peddle...thats fine bro, ill post your own words if you want me too...

youve said time and time again that correlation means causation...

natural selection is the main process by which evolution works...so yes natural selection is a part of evolution the main part as a matter of fact...

so the person who basically founded it believing in a creator does make your argument that ppl who believe in a creator cant believe in evolution idiotic...

as far as your refined argument(after you got put in your place about your broader one) that ppl who subscribe to a specific religion cant believe in evolution its based on some idiotic idea that you cant interpret the religious context differently...

why do you feel that way?

[OneMoreRep]

It's called paying the cost to be the boss. And, now that your own house in a shambles, you want to turtle and focus on domestic issues. Natural enough reaction. Many instances of isolationism over the years for you guys.

Look, if I truly wanted an educated response to my question, I would have simply PM'ed you.  I merely placed that post there as a point of contention by way of my rhetorical stance.

Last night, as I stroked my husband's cock while watching Bill O'Reilly's show, he started to hint at the fact that we might have to pick up and move to London soon if things get worse.

I just can't get myself used to the lack of humor and overall gloomy state of mind that folks over there have.  It's too serious and for some reason dental hygiene and preservation is not high up on their to-do list.

"1"

[Stavios]

who is that Bachman bitch

Listen, they let a negro try to run the country and he failed, now they want to let a hoe have a try too ?

you guys are smarter than that !!

[Necrosis]

LMFAO back peddle back peddle...thats fine bro, ill post your own words if you want me too...

youve said time and time again that correlation means causation...

natural selection is the main process by which evolution works...so yes natural selection is a part of evolution the main part as a matter of fact...

so the person who basically founded it believing in a creator does make your argument that ppl who believe in a creator cant believe in evolution idiotic...

as far as your refined argument(after you got put in your place about your broader one) that ppl who subscribe to a specific religion cant believe in evolution its based on some idiotic idea that you cant interpret the religious context differently...

why do you feel that way?

nice way of answering none of my questions. The religious text must have a way to interpret them that all can use, otherwise it's useless. How could you say anything meaningful about it when i could turn around and disregard what you said because its my interpretation?

evolution is much more the natural selection, darwin didn't know half of what we know, he had no idea of genetics for example. Also, his personal beliefs have no weight, for one what do you mean by creator? what did he mean? a god that guides evolution from afar? one that set life in motion and left it? one that created eve from adams rib? this argument is useless without you defining this odd sense of creator.

you are also mischaraterizing his beliefs anyway, who would of thought

he was an agnostic by lifes end and did not believe in anything resembling a intelligent designer. In his early writings he did, he however,like most rational humans refined and changed his thoughts.

"in 1879 he wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

[tonymctones]

nice way of answering none of my questions. The religious text must have a way to interpret them that all can use, otherwise it's useless. How could you say anything meaningful about it when i could turn around and disregard what you said because its my interpretation?

evolution is much more the natural selection, darwin didn't know half of what we know, he had no idea of genetics for example. Also, his personal beliefs have no weight, for one what do you mean by creator? what did he mean? a god that guides evolution from afar? one that set life in motion and left it? one that created eve from adams rib? this argument is useless without you defining this odd sense of creator.

you are also mischaraterizing his beliefs anyway, who would of thought

he was an agnostic by lifes end and did not believe in anything resembling a intelligent designer. In his early writings he did, he however,like most rational humans refined and changed his thoughts.

"in 1879 he wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

LOL just the way it is my man, what do you use in reasoning that you must have the same interpretation of any text?

b/c if not your views dont hold?

LOL I mentioned genetic migration, mutation etc...

wait you mean we might have different meanings as to what a creator means? hmm imagine that...

[Soul Crusher]

He is a wind bag.  Types a ton of meaningless pap meant to try to come across as an intelligent person.  Most of what he types is pure bs wo an ounce of substance or reality.

[Necrosis]

LOL just the way it is my man, what do you use in reasoning that you must have the same interpretation of any text?

b/c if not your views dont hold?

LOL I mentioned genetic migration, mutation etc...

wait you mean we might have different meanings as to what a creator means? hmm imagine that...

sure we can, but that doesnt change the fact that to have any meaningful conversation you have to define creator, so far you keep acting as if its so esoteric knowledge only you can access.

DARWIN WAS NOT A CREATIONIST, DARWIN DID NOT BELIEVE IN GOD LATER IN LIFE YOUR POINT IS INVALID.

you have to have interpretations of text as to what is literally and what is metaphor, otherwise no one can question anything about it making it pointless like i said.  If god says slavery is fine then we assume he likes slavery and that he sees it moral its not open to interpretation without evidence. You can come along and say he really means is that greenland is smaller then iceland.

You are avoiding the original argument still and now staying on with an argument (darwin believed in creation) that has been refutted yet you are still using it. Even if what you said was true, its patently false ftr, it still doesn't change the fact of the matter.

tommy you are being beaten down like an ugly step child, struggling to form cogent responses, unable to decipher my text and generally failing.

[Necrosis]

He is a wind bag.  Types a ton of meaningless pap meant to try to come across as an intelligent person.  Most of what he types is pure bs wo an ounce of substance or reality.

ok guy who posts false global warming papers with obvious fraudulent data and cannot comment on it when called out. I posted the original document and quoted it, if you deny it you deny reality, although that isn't uncommon now is it.

[tonymctones]

sure we can, but that doesnt change the fact that to have any meaningful conversation you have to define creator, so far you keep acting as if its so esoteric knowledge only you can access.

DARWIN WAS NOT A CREATIONIST, DARWIN DID NOT BELIEVE IN GOD LATER IN LIFE YOUR POINT IS INVALID.

you have to have interpretations of text as to what is literally and what is metaphor, otherwise no one can question anything about it making it pointless like i said.  If god says slavery is fine then we assume he likes slavery and that he sees it moral its not open to interpretation without evidence. You can come along and say he really means is that greenland is smaller then iceland.

You are avoiding the original argument still and now staying on with an argument (darwin believed in creation) that has been refutted yet you are still using it. Even if what you said was true, its patently false ftr, it still doesn't change the fact of the matter.

tommy you are being beaten down like an ugly step child, struggling to form cogent responses, unable to decipher my text and generally failing.

LOL "He considered it "absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist"

actually he was a agnostic as you pointed out never an atheist...

lol my friend simply b/c you believe in one religion doesnt mean you must believe exactly what that text says word for word...did they not know of metaphors and other literary tools back then? hmmm I wonder...

your idea that everyone must read a certain sentence and get the exact same thing from it is absurd and the only reason you think that way is b/c if you didnt your argument would hold no water...

lol bro you still think that correlation is causation...ill take my cues from someone a little more intelligent than yourself thanks

[Necrosis]

LOL "He considered it "absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist"

actually he was a agnostic as you pointed out never an atheist...

lol my friend simply b/c you believe in one religion doesnt mean you must believe exactly what that text says word for word...did they not know of metaphors and other literary tools back then? hmmm I wonder...

your idea that everyone must read a certain sentence and get the exact same thing from it is absurd and the only reason you think that way is b/c if you didnt your argument would hold no water...

lol bro you still think that correlation is causation...ill take my cues from someone a little more intelligent than yourself thanks

he was agnostic, yes so what you said isnt valid. He does not believe in a god or claims not to know, thus holds no positive belief as there is evidence lacking.

I am saying that facts have only one interpretation, like if god enjoyed slavery, if there were ten commandments etc... the metaphor have to be seperated from these facts somehow and their interpretation is up for debate, however a consensus must be reached.

If what you were saying was true then why do the majority of christians believe jesus was the son of god? or god incarnate? its because parts of the bible arent open for debate, or shouldn't be. Its not some list of random words you can take to mean anything.

ifyour a chrisitian i instantly know numerous things about you, how is that?

either way you have conceded ever point, you even used an older darwin quote to somehow argue that my quote from a later date was invalid. Its either you dont understand logic or are purposely lying. Darwin could of said i love satan in 2010 and then said im an atheist in 2011. One comment invalidates the other, ill let you decide.

[tonymctones]

he was agnostic, yes so what you said isnt valid. He does not believe in a god or claims not to know, thus holds no positive belief as there is evidence lacking.

I am saying that facts have only one interpretation, like if god enjoyed slavery, if there were ten commandments etc... the metaphor have to be seperated from these facts somehow and their interpretation is up for debate, however a consensus must be reached.

If what you were saying was true then why do the majority of christians believe jesus was the son of god? or god incarnate? its because parts of the bible arent open for debate, or shouldn't be. Its not some list of random words you can take to mean anything.

ifyour a chrisitian i instantly know numerous things about you, how is that?

either way you have conceded ever point, you even used an older darwin quote to somehow argue that my quote from a later date was invalid. Its either you dont understand logic or are purposely lying. Darwin could of said i love satan in 2010 and then said im an atheist in 2011. One comment invalidates the other, ill let you decide.

actually being an agnostic does mean you believe in a "god/gods" just not a specific god/gods. Everything I said holds...

No it doesnt b/c i know ppl that are feel they are christian that dont consider me christian b/c of some of my beliefs...

LOL goodness gracious your a moron...

[Necrosis]

actually being an agnostic does mean you believe in a "god/gods" just not a specific god/gods. Everything I said holds...

No it doesnt b/c i know ppl that are feel they are christian that dont consider me christian b/c of some of my beliefs...

LOL goodness gracious your a moron...

no it doesnt

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable

seriously do you even read what you write how can one be an agnostic and yet believe in the existence of a creator? you can't, your claims dont hold shit.

I know alot about you based on the fact that you are a christian, i didnt claim i would know everything. Nice ignoring the failure of your quote above as well, way to use previous quotes to prove your point when later evidence disputes it.

what we will do since you cant keep up is allow you to make one lie or false statement per post, k. you can either put words in my mouth or make false broad sweeping claims. You can even flat out ignore my points and keep trying to find something else to argue about in hopes i had forgotten about it.

you are a christian:

you believe in a god
this god is jesus
there is a heaven where god lives
god created the heavens and the earth
god created the universe
he is a personal god who cares about you.
he is omnipotent and omniscient
jesus died for your sins on a cross
you reject other religions

am i getting hot?