Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D.


 Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus > Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D.

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 6 of 9

1
 

2
 

3
 

4
 

5
 

6
 

7
 

8
 

9
 
Topic: Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus
User: "Anno Domini"
Date: 21 Feb 2006 01:59:52 AM
Object: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D.
Scientific evidence proves that pre-historic man had some sort of
belief in supernatural deities:
"A growing number of anthropologists and archeo-mythologists argue
that the prevailing ideology of belief in prehistoric Europe and much
of the world was based on the worship of a single earth goddess, who
was assumed to be the fount of all life and who radiated harmony among
all living things." - Al Gore (Earth in the Balance; Ecology and the
Human Spirit)
"Much of the evidence for the existence of this primitive religion
comes from the many thousands of artifacts uncovered in ceremonial
sites. These sites are so widespread that they seem to confirm the
notion that a goddess religion was ubiquitous throughout much of the
world until the antecedents of today's religions - most of which still
have a distinctly masculine orientation - swept out of India and the
Near East, almost obliterating belief in the goddess. The last vestige
of organized goddess worship was eliminated by Christianity" - Al Gore
(Earth in the Balance; Ecology and the Human Spirit)
Yet around 600 B.C. (before the birth of Jesus) and in the name of
"science" men began to employ themselves idiotically in the futile
attempt to remove the notion of the existance of supernatural beings
from the fabric of their current culture...
"The early Greek, or Hellenic, culture marked a different approach to
science. The Ionian natural philosophers removed the gods from the
personal roles they had played in the cosmologies of Babylonia and
Egypt and sought to order the world according to philosophical
principles. Thales of Miletus (6th cent. B.C.) was one of the earliest
of these and contributed to astronomy, geometry, and cosmology. He was
followed by Anaximander, who extended Thales' ideas and proposed that
the universe is composed of four basic elements, i.e., earth, air,
fire, and water; this theory was also taught by Empedocles (5th cent.
B.C.) in Sicily."
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Science&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&linktext=science
Enter Charles Darwin whom many of you think fathered the theory of
evolution. In fact, Darwin pilfered his notions from other scientists,
some who had come before him (such as his grandfather for one):
"Charles Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was one of the leading
intellectuals of eighteenth century England, a man with a remarkable
array of interests and pursuits. Erasmus Darwin was a respected
physician, a well known poet, philosopher, botanist, and naturalist.
As a naturalist, he formulated one of the first formal theories on
evolution in Zoonomia, or, The Laws of Organic Life (1794-1796). He
also presented his evolutionary ideas in verse, in particular in the
posthumously published poem The Temple of Nature."
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/Edarwin.html
For your reading convenience, I dug up that poem. Here it is:
"Organic life beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in ocean's pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom,
New powers acquire and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin and feet and wing."
- Erasmus Darwin. (The Temple of Nature, 1802)
And here, Darwins grandfather clearly (and falsely, in true false
scientific fashion) suggests that all living things "evolved" from a
common ancestor. And I admit being startled myself upon discovering
this tidbit of history since I'd previously blamed Darwin (Charles)
for single handedly corrupting science and everything good about
Biology (which is my secular profession). Professors will not tell you
this stuff. Anyhow here it is. This quote from Charles Darwins
grandfather proves that Darwin himself does not deserve all the
credit (blame) for coming up with the theory (lie) of human evolution
a.k.a... the lie concerning the "common ancestor" theory:
"Would it be too bold to imagine that, in the great length of time
since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages before the
commencement of the history of mankind would it be too bold to imagine
that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament,
which the great First Cause endued with animality, with the power of
acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities, directed by
irritations, sensations, volitions and associations, and thus
possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent
activity, and of delivering down these improvements by generation to
its posterity, world without end!" Erasmus Darwin (Zoönomia, 1794)
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Erasmus+Darwin
Did you see what he said? Independent organisms which need no God
atall.
So from grandpaw to grandson was the torch to passed in order to
attempt to remove supernatural concepts and possibilities from the
minds of men... all under the disguise of "science":
The lie began to spread (as a tool of the devil) under the name of
"science":
"Ernst Haeckel, much like Herbert Spencer, was always quotable, even
when wrong. Although best known for the famous statement "ontogeny
recapitulates phylogeny", he also coined many words commonly used by
biologists today, such as phylum, phylogeny, and ecology."
"Although trained as a physician, Haeckel abandoned his practice in
1859 after reading Darwin's Origin of Species. Always suspicious of
teleological and mystical explanation, Haeckel used the Origin as
ammunition both to attack entrenched religious dogma and to build his
own unique world view."
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/haeckel.html
On my exact birthday 95 years ago Charles Darwins "Origin of the
Species" was actually published as "On the Origin of Species by Means
of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the
Struggle for Life". So here am I, 95 years later finding myself trying
to correct al these lies as if it were my divine duty.
"First published on 24 November 1859, The Origin of Species (full
title On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the
Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life) by British
naturalist Charles Darwin is one of the pivotal works in scientific
history, and arguably the pre-eminent work in biology. In it, Darwin
makes "one long argument" for his theory that "groups" of organisms,
(which we now call populations) rather than individual organisms,
gradually evolve through the process of natural selection—a mechanism
effectively introduced to the public at large by the book. The work
presents detailed scientific evidence he had accumulated both on the
Voyage of the Beagle in the 1830s and since his return, painstakingly
laying out his theory and refuting the doctrine of "Created kinds"
underlying the theories of Creation biology which were then widely
accepted."
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/The+Origin+of+Species
Of course. Darwin fell to (pseudo) "science" and became an
X-christian. Formerly, he was a Bible quoting Christian....
"During these two years I was led to think much about religion. Whilst
on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being
heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves
orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some
point of morality." - Charles Darwin (The Autobiography of Charles
Darwin)
However, the devil has finally conceded that man will never easily
relinquish his belief in the supernatural and will never surrender his
God given rights of "faith".
And thus "science", in this modern day and time reverts to mans
earlier primordial superstitions of goddess worship in a last ditch
effort to deceive him:
"In science, a Gaia theory is a class of scientific models of the
biosphere in which life fosters and maintains suitable conditions for
itself by affecting Earth's environment. The first such theory was
created by the English atmospheric scientist James Lovelock in 1969.
He hypothesized that the living matter of the planet functioned like a
single organism and named this self-regulating living system after the
Greek goddess Gaia."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_theory_%28science%29
Lovelock was no insignificant scientists seeing that he was employed
at NASA's Jet Propulslsion Lab:

"A lifelong inventor, some of his inventions were adopted by NASA in
their program of planetary exploration. It was while working for NASA
that Lovelock developed the Gaia Hypothesis."
"James Lovelock is the author of approximately 200 scientific papers,
distributed almost equally among topics in Medicine, Biology,
Instrument Science and Geophysiology. He has filed more than 50
patents, mostly for detectors for use in chemical analysis. One of
these, the electron capture detector, was important in the development
of environmental awareness."
"For me, the personal revelation of Gaia came quite suddenly - like a
flash of enlightenment. I was in a small room on the top floor of a
building at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. It
was the autumn of 1965 ... and I was talking with a colleague, Dian
Hitchcock, about a paper we were preparing ... It was at that moment
that I glimpsed Gaia."
http://www.gaianet.fsbusiness.co.uk/gaiatheory.html
However, this is no great surprise seeing that the Bible perfectly
explains that "evolution" is not the problem, but that "devolution" is
the culprit of the latter days of civilization as we know it. The
"devolution" of mankind is simply summarized as being a state of being
of men by which they have somehow (by democic influence) lost "faith".
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some
shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and
doctrines of devils" (1 Timothy 4:1)
comments welcome, as always
Jd A.D. 2006
Anno Domini" is Latin for "in the year of Our Lord", referring to Our
Lord Jesus Christ. That is, "AD 1996" literally means "in the 1996'th
year since the birth of the Christ." Now not all the world is
Christian, so it makes no sense for a Jew, a Moslem, a Hindu, a Witch,
a Druid, or an atheist to refer to the date as being in the year of
"their Lord" when they don't follow him. So "CE" is a more considerate
way of labeling dates in the Gregorian calendar without rubbing
non-Christian's noses in the fact that so much of the world is using a
calendar based on the alleged birth-year of the man we Christians
believe to be the Messiah.
http://www.radix.net/~dglenn/defs/ce.html

.

User: "James Powell"

Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. 12 Mar 2006 05:22:03 PM
"***** Dimwit" <ZionsFire@att.net> asked in message
news:a7h912huoo1nbr4638lt3fonc60csq9c5v@4ax.com...

James Powell wrote:

"Anno Domini" <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in message
news:3os812tv21375m6p5sj05jnk40rfl4a9a4@4ax.com...

Cardinal Chunder wrote:

Anno Domini wrote:

James Powell wrote:

"Anno Domini" <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in message
news:c0cq02lpipsgbnrllkdivr3nr5tl7i6rnl@4ax.com...

James Powell wrote:

"***** Dimwitti" <ZionsFire@att.net> mewled in message
news:bjan02h8f650da6ihulbu0q1ldhhlk2ikq@4ax.com...

James Powell wrote:

<snip>

Now. Even though THEY have LAWS in their Constitution that
guarantees
free speech.... one can easily see how THEY, being only 1 or 2%
of
the
population do not want the othe 98% of the population to say
anything
about the God of Israel.

No, we are just tired of hearing it. Give it a rest, others want
to
speak.

And they are much more intelligent than you.

Besides, you are not even talking about the God of Israel. You
keep
mewling
on about some figment that you have made up with no basis in
religious
thought.

James Powell

Well, you keep talking about nothing. Apparently you are such a
coward that you have no counter argument to counter my aruments.

You have yet to put forth an argument that requires a counter. Post
something of substance.

I only keep replying in hopes that I might someday save you from
that
monkey cult which has taken control of your mind.

Then you are wasting your time. I reply because it amuses me. I
think
I
will
last longer.

<YAWN>

Been there, done that, countered whatever argument you are trying
to
make
many times. Try something new.

James Powell

I did and it didn't work. I offered you the chance of not replying
to
my post's and me yours..... but you couldn't resist.

I see that you could not either. Nothing is stopping you from
disappearing
or not responding.

And so I keep reminding you of the TRUTH of the Lord Jesus who rose
from the dead.

Sorry, no TRUTH to be seen from you.

say uncle,

aunt

James Powell


So basically you're saying that it is perfectly logical to believe
(have faith in) the notion that man, through eons of mutations,
evolved from a chimpanzee like critter (which evolved from a rat like
critter which evolved from an amoeba which sprang from a mud puddle)
(which no one witnessed) ...


Well it's like this. Evolution can be tested against the evidence and it
is consistent. That's even though most of the evidence, be it fossilized
remains, DNA analysis etc. was discovered after Darwin put forward his
theory. Every bone dug out of the ground is a potential opportunity for
evolution to be falsified but in 150 years it hasn't happened.

Why is that? Instead, all of the evidence supports evolution.
Additionally, evolution can be observed in nature, in domestic animals,
pest control and in the lab. It's a fact as a well as a theory.

As for abiogenesis... no one has ever suggested that an amoeba (being a
complex single celled organism) sprang from nothing, so you're being
disingenuous....


You're not really a Cardinal.


And you're not really a prophet. So what.


Nor does it matter how life started for evolution to be a
fact and readily observable.


Since God started life, human evolution is in doubt.


Only for those who dare to constrain what God can and cannot do.

James Powell


Do you believe in God?

Jd

Not as defined by you.
James Powell
.
User: "Anno Domini"

Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. 15 Mar 2006 09:28:20 PM
James Powell wrote:
[snip]
I asked:
"Do you believe in God?"
You replied:
"Not as defined by you."
Fine. I'll keep telling my story but you won't tell yours. I fact, I
think that if you ever do decided to tell abiout your god someday,
that I'll just jump all over you.
Jd, Anno Domini 2006
.
User: "James Powell"

Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. 16 Mar 2006 05:45:20 PM
"Anno Domini" <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in message
news:7oph12112l787hm5iibajp0t4dhhvitov1@4ax.com...

James Powell wrote:

[snip]

I asked:

"Do you believe in God?"

You replied:

"Not as defined by you."

Fine. I'll keep telling my story but you won't tell yours. I fact, I
think that if you ever do decided to tell abiout your god someday,
that I'll just jump all over you.

Jd, Anno Domini 2006

Your story is perverse and boring. You bring shame to the term 'Christian'.
James Powell
.



User: "Cardinal Chunder"

Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. 13 Mar 2006 10:34:06 AM
Anno Domini wrote:

Cardinal Chunder wrote:

Anno Domini wrote:

James Powell wrote:

"Anno Domini" <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in message
news:c0cq02lpipsgbnrllkdivr3nr5tl7i6rnl@4ax.com...

James Powell wrote:

"***** Dimwitti" <ZionsFire@att.net> mewled in message
news:bjan02h8f650da6ihulbu0q1ldhhlk2ikq@4ax.com...

James Powell wrote:

<snip>

Now. Even though THEY have LAWS in their Constitution that guarantees
free speech.... one can easily see how THEY, being only 1 or 2% of the
population do not want the othe 98% of the population to say anything
about the God of Israel.

No, we are just tired of hearing it. Give it a rest, others want to
speak.

And they are much more intelligent than you.

Besides, you are not even talking about the God of Israel. You keep
mewling
on about some figment that you have made up with no basis in religious
thought.

James Powell

Well, you keep talking about nothing. Apparently you are such a
coward that you have no counter argument to counter my aruments.

You have yet to put forth an argument that requires a counter. Post
something of substance.

I only keep replying in hopes that I might someday save you from that
monkey cult which has taken control of your mind.

Then you are wasting your time. I reply because it amuses me. I think I
will
last longer.

<YAWN>

Been there, done that, countered whatever argument you are trying to make
many times. Try something new.

James Powell

I did and it didn't work. I offered you the chance of not replying to
my post's and me yours..... but you couldn't resist.

I see that you could not either. Nothing is stopping you from disappearing
or not responding.

And so I keep reminding you of the TRUTH of the Lord Jesus who rose
from the dead.

Sorry, no TRUTH to be seen from you.

say uncle,

aunt

James Powell

So basically you're saying that it is perfectly logical to believe
(have faith in) the notion that man, through eons of mutations,
evolved from a chimpanzee like critter (which evolved from a rat like
critter which evolved from an amoeba which sprang from a mud puddle)
(which no one witnessed) ...

Well it's like this. Evolution can be tested against the evidence and it
is consistent. That's even though most of the evidence, be it fossilized
remains, DNA analysis etc. was discovered after Darwin put forward his
theory. Every bone dug out of the ground is a potential opportunity for
evolution to be falsified but in 150 years it hasn't happened.

Why is that? Instead, all of the evidence supports evolution.
Additionally, evolution can be observed in nature, in domestic animals,
pest control and in the lab. It's a fact as a well as a theory.

As for abiogenesis... no one has ever suggested that an amoeba (being a
complex single celled organism) sprang from nothing, so you're being
disingenuous....


You're not really a Cardinal.

Did I state anywhere what colour I was?

Nor does it matter how life started for evolution to be a
fact and readily observable.


Since God started life, human evolution is in doubt.

Your assertion is unfounded, and the rest is non sequitor.
.

User: "Anno Domini"

Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. 15 Mar 2006 09:28:22 PM
Cardinal Chunder wrote:

Anno Domini wrote:

Cardinal Chunder wrote:

Anno Domini wrote:

James Powell wrote:

"Anno Domini" <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in message
news:c0cq02lpipsgbnrllkdivr3nr5tl7i6rnl@4ax.com...

James Powell wrote:

"***** Dimwitti" <ZionsFire@att.net> mewled in message
news:bjan02h8f650da6ihulbu0q1ldhhlk2ikq@4ax.com...

James Powell wrote:

<snip>

Now. Even though THEY have LAWS in their Constitution that guarantees
free speech.... one can easily see how THEY, being only 1 or 2% of the
population do not want the othe 98% of the population to say anything
about the God of Israel.

No, we are just tired of hearing it. Give it a rest, others want to
speak.

And they are much more intelligent than you.

Besides, you are not even talking about the God of Israel. You keep
mewling
on about some figment that you have made up with no basis in religious
thought.

James Powell

Well, you keep talking about nothing. Apparently you are such a
coward that you have no counter argument to counter my aruments.

You have yet to put forth an argument that requires a counter. Post
something of substance.

I only keep replying in hopes that I might someday save you from that
monkey cult which has taken control of your mind.

Then you are wasting your time. I reply because it amuses me. I think I
will
last longer.

<YAWN>

Been there, done that, countered whatever argument you are trying to make
many times. Try something new.

James Powell

I did and it didn't work. I offered you the chance of not replying to
my post's and me yours..... but you couldn't resist.

I see that you could not either. Nothing is stopping you from disappearing
or not responding.

And so I keep reminding you of the TRUTH of the Lord Jesus who rose
from the dead.

Sorry, no TRUTH to be seen from you.

say uncle,

aunt

James Powell

So basically you're saying that it is perfectly logical to believe
(have faith in) the notion that man, through eons of mutations,
evolved from a chimpanzee like critter (which evolved from a rat like
critter which evolved from an amoeba which sprang from a mud puddle)
(which no one witnessed) ...

Well it's like this. Evolution can be tested against the evidence and it
is consistent. That's even though most of the evidence, be it fossilized
remains, DNA analysis etc. was discovered after Darwin put forward his
theory. Every bone dug out of the ground is a potential opportunity for
evolution to be falsified but in 150 years it hasn't happened.

Why is that? Instead, all of the evidence supports evolution.
Additionally, evolution can be observed in nature, in domestic animals,
pest control and in the lab. It's a fact as a well as a theory.

As for abiogenesis... no one has ever suggested that an amoeba (being a
complex single celled organism) sprang from nothing, so you're being
disingenuous....


You're not really a Cardinal.


Did I state anywhere what colour I was?

Nor does it matter how life started for evolution to be a
fact and readily observable.


Since God started life, human evolution is in doubt.


Your assertion is unfounded, and the rest is non sequitor.

So your color is yellow.
bore,
Jd, Anno Domini 2006
.
User: "Cardinal Chunder"

Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. 17 Mar 2006 07:36:00 AM
Anno Domini wrote:

Cardinal Chunder wrote:

You're not really a Cardinal.

Did I state anywhere what colour I was?

Nor does it matter how life started for evolution to be a
fact and readily observable.

Since God started life, human evolution is in doubt.

Your assertion is unfounded, and the rest is non sequitor.


So your color is yellow.

Uhuh. Yep, that's right cardinal is yellow. Obviously you are as stupid
as you are deluded.
Or perhaps that's your idea of a joke. After all, I must be a "yellow"
for confronting your silly assertions.

bore,

Jd, Anno Domini 2006

If having a firm grasp on reality is boring, then I'm glad to be that
way. Much better than being a stark raving kook.
.
User: "Anno Domini"

Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. 19 Mar 2006 08:54:39 PM
Cardinal Chunder wrote:

Anno Domini wrote:

Cardinal Chunder wrote:

You're not really a Cardinal.

Did I state anywhere what colour I was?

Nor does it matter how life started for evolution to be a
fact and readily observable.

Since God started life, human evolution is in doubt.

Your assertion is unfounded, and the rest is non sequitor.


So your color is yellow.


Uhuh. Yep, that's right cardinal is yellow. Obviously you are as stupid
as you are deluded.

Or perhaps that's your idea of a joke. After all, I must be a "yellow"
for confronting your silly assertions.

Yeah. It was only a joke. So forget it Buzzard Yonder.
Jd
.



User: "Wally Anglesea™"

Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. 10 Mar 2006 03:51:01 PM
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 02:46:47 GMT, Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net>
wrote:
<SNIP>


James Powell


So basically you're saying that it is perfectly logical to believe
(have faith in) the notion that man, through eons of mutations,
evolved from a chimpanzee like critter (which evolved from a rat like
critter which evolved from an amoeba which sprang from a mud puddle)
(which no one witnessed)

Unlilkely that it sprang from an amoeba. However, the evidence leads
to the conclusion that life evolved.

... but that it is totally futile to have
faith in the eyewitnessed event of a man rising from the dead?

Nope. But the Bible doesn't say anything about evolution. You are
talking about two entirely different things.
The Bible is a "moral compass". Not a Science text book. Most
Christians realise that.


You're welcome. I mean it took quite a bit of thought for me to
explain your religious views in one sentance for you and then compare
them to mine in the same sentence.

You can't compare apples to pork chops, except at the cellular level.
--
Maj. General, Fanatic Legions.
Commander of Southern Hemisphere Forces.
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
.
User: "Cary Kittrell"

Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. 10 Mar 2006 05:59:05 PM
In article <rqs312p584nak5agifrpmg6jgo5bbq5mvk@4ax.com> Wally Anglesea™ <<wanglese@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> writes:


On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 02:46:47 GMT, Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net>
wrote:
<SNIP>


James Powell


So basically you're saying that it is perfectly logical to believe
(have faith in) the notion that man, through eons of mutations,
evolved from a chimpanzee like critter (which evolved from a rat like
critter which evolved from an amoeba which sprang from a mud puddle)
(which no one witnessed)


Unlilkely that it sprang from an amoeba.

No no no -- have you not heard of the famed Mexican Jumping Amoeba?
-- cary
.

User: "Anno Domini"

Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. 10 Mar 2006 07:44:45 PM
Wally Anglesea™ <<wanglese@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 02:46:47 GMT, Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net>
wrote:
<SNIP>


James Powell


So basically you're saying that it is perfectly logical to believe
(have faith in) the notion that man, through eons of mutations,
evolved from a chimpanzee like critter (which evolved from a rat like
critter which evolved from an amoeba which sprang from a mud puddle)
(which no one witnessed)


Unlilkely that it sprang from an amoeba. However, the evidence leads
to the conclusion that life evolved.

OK. So was it a paramecium?

... but that it is totally futile to have
faith in the eyewitnessed event of a man rising from the dead?


Nope. But the Bible doesn't say anything about evolution. You are
talking about two entirely different things.

The Bible is a "moral compass". Not a Science text book. Most
Christians realise that.

Well ok. If you're saying science has no business dealing with human
morality you and I just might at some point in the future... become
friends.
Jd
.
User: "Wally Anglesea™"

Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. 11 Mar 2006 12:06:05 AM
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 01:44:45 GMT, Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net>
wrote:

Wally Anglesea™ <<wanglese@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 02:46:47 GMT, Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net>
wrote:
<SNIP>


James Powell


So basically you're saying that it is perfectly logical to believe
(have faith in) the notion that man, through eons of mutations,
evolved from a chimpanzee like critter (which evolved from a rat like
critter which evolved from an amoeba which sprang from a mud puddle)
(which no one witnessed)


Unlilkely that it sprang from an amoeba. However, the evidence leads
to the conclusion that life evolved.


OK. So was it a paramecium?

No one knows what the first life actually was. We can make guesses,
but we'd be playing guessing games.
You cannot go from "we don't know what the first life was" to
"evolution doesn't happen" Evolutionary theory is *not* about
pointing to the first life form (though that would be a great
achievement), nor is evolutionary theory about proving there is not
God. It's just about explaining how things evolved and related once
life got started. We don't even know if the chemicals came down on
comets (the water probably did), or whether or not there were actual
spores or DNA from space. Anyone who tells you otherwise is mistaken
or lying.
We don't even know if James Blish "Seedling Stars" is the answer. Neat
idea, but there's no evidence to support it. None. Nada. So evolution
doesn't go there. It cannot, because the only way to prove it would be
to find a plaque, or even find the makers name encoded into the DNA
like in Star trek or Bladerunner :-)


... but that it is totally futile to have
faith in the eyewitnessed event of a man rising from the dead?


Nope. But the Bible doesn't say anything about evolution. You are
talking about two entirely different things.

The Bible is a "moral compass". Not a Science text book. Most
Christians realise that.


Well ok. If you're saying science has no business dealing with human
morality you and I just might at some point in the future... become
friends.

Absolutely. I don't believe science determines morals. Philosophers
can get into that all they want.
We *DO* need a moral compass so science doesn't, for instance, make
dumb choices. Take genetics for instance. We (TINW) don't want
geneticists to make chimeras (and I'd be horrified if some geneticist
ever decided to cross the DNA of a human with a crocodile for
instance, in order to make a baby that had scaly skin).
That's why there are ethical considerations, and ethics committees. We
can only hope that the "moral compass" that I believe pretty much
everyone has (atheist, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, whatever) has, is
sufficient to stop us making a thing which will wipe us all out.
Pardon me while I go off on a tangent about genetics, by the way, but
it explains a little about how I feel the ethics of all of this is
becoming complex.
Genetic engineering to cure diseases? I think it's a good idea, but
we (TINW) have to be careful that we don't extend this out to "well,
if you haven't been modified, we cannot insure you/employ you/ you are
an underclass.
One of the reasons I think we should clone a human, though is it will
give us a lot to argue about over the existence of a soul. If you
remember a few years back, Test Tube babies? I remember the first
girl being born. I know several people who you would otherwise
consider to be intelligent human beings, who insisted that the babies
were born without souls. To this day, they have their doubts. I
don't. if there *is* a soul, then babies have them, regardless of the
method of conception..
--
Maj. General, Fanatic Legions.
Commander of Southern Hemisphere Forces.
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
.



User: "robpar"

Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. 10 Mar 2006 11:37:44 AM
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 02:46:47 GMT, Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net>
wrote:

I did and it didn't work. I offered you the chance of not replying to
my post's and me yours..... but you couldn't resist.


I see that you could not either. Nothing is stopping you from disappearing
or not responding.

And so I keep reminding you of the TRUTH of the Lord Jesus who rose
from the dead.


Sorry, no TRUTH to be seen from you.

say uncle,


aunt

James Powell


So basically you're saying that it is perfectly logical to believe
(have faith in) the notion that man, through eons of mutations,
evolved from a chimpanzee like critter (which evolved from a rat like
critter which evolved from an amoeba which sprang from a mud puddle)
(which no one witnessed) ... but that it is totally futile to have
faith in the eyewitnessed event of a man rising from the dead?

There are no eye witness accounts to any of several man/gods that
arose from the dead. Only often repeated myths.

You're welcome. I mean it took quite a bit of thought for me to
explain your religious views in one sentance for you and then compare
them to mine in the same sentence.

Sentence? That is not even a good paragraph. Just nonsense strung
together, and poorly punctuated. Showing you are extremely ignorant,
and proud of your ignorance.
.
User: "Anno Domini"

Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. 10 Mar 2006 12:02:19 PM
robpar wrote:

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 02:46:47 GMT, Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net>
wrote:

I did and it didn't work. I offered you the chance of not replying to
my post's and me yours..... but you couldn't resist.


I see that you could not either. Nothing is stopping you from disappearing
or not responding.

And so I keep reminding you of the TRUTH of the Lord Jesus who rose
from the dead.


Sorry, no TRUTH to be seen from you.

say uncle,


aunt

James Powell


So basically you're saying that it is perfectly logical to believe
(have faith in) the notion that man, through eons of mutations,
evolved from a chimpanzee like critter (which evolved from a rat like
critter which evolved from an amoeba which sprang from a mud puddle)
(which no one witnessed) ... but that it is totally futile to have
faith in the eyewitnessed event of a man rising from the dead?

There are no eye witness accounts to any of several man/gods that
arose from the dead. Only often repeated myths.

Wrong. There are more than five hundred and twelve eyewitnesses that
Jesus rose from the dead.
1Corinthians 15:3-6 "For I delivered unto you first of all that
which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to
the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the
third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas,
then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred
brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present,
but some are fallen asleep."
Sadly enough, you will not believe unless you can get 1,000,000,000
hits from a google search.
Jd
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. 12 Mar 2006 06:50:34 AM
In talk.atheism Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:

Wrong. There are more than five hundred and twelve eyewitnesses that
Jesus rose from the dead.
1Corinthians 15:3-6 "For I delivered unto you first of all that
which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to
the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the
third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas,
then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred
brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present,
but some are fallen asleep."

Ever hear of the word "hearsay"? That's the term the law uses for
second-hand information and it's not allowed in most cases. If you walked
into court and told the judge, "Your honor, there were 512 people who saw
O.J. kill Nichole" the judge would say "there was? Then let THEM come
testify." Where's the actual testimony of these 512 people?

Sadly enough, you will not believe unless you can get 1,000,000,000
hits from a google search.

Sadly enough, you'll believe just about anything a preacher tells you.
--
Mike
-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004
.

User: "robpar"

Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. 10 Mar 2006 02:43:33 PM
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:02:19 GMT, Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net>
wrote:

robpar wrote:

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 02:46:47 GMT, Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net>
wrote:

I did and it didn't work. I offered you the chance of not replying to
my post's and me yours..... but you couldn't resist.


I see that you could not either. Nothing is stopping you from disappearing
or not responding.

And so I keep reminding you of the TRUTH of the Lord Jesus who rose
from the dead.


Sorry, no TRUTH to be seen from you.

say uncle,


aunt

James Powell


So basically you're saying that it is perfectly logical to believe
(have faith in) the notion that man, through eons of mutations,
evolved from a chimpanzee like critter (which evolved from a rat like
critter which evolved from an amoeba which sprang from a mud puddle)
(which no one witnessed) ... but that it is totally futile to have
faith in the eyewitnessed event of a man rising from the dead?

There are no eye witness accounts to any of several man/gods that
arose from the dead. Only often repeated myths.


Wrong. There are more than five hundred and twelve eyewitnesses that
Jesus rose from the dead.

1Corinthians 15:3-6 "For I delivered unto you first of all that
which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to
the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the
third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas,
then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred
brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present,
but some are fallen asleep."


Paul (pôl), Saint
A.D. 5?-67?
Apostle to the Gentiles whose life and teachings are set forth in his
epistles and the Acts of the Apostles.
- Paul´ine (-ìn, -ên) adjective
No way did Paul ever talk to any one living in Jerusalem, during the
time Jesus is supposed to exist. Saint Paul has been shown to have
lied many times.
Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further
reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of
the United States. All rights reserved.
.
User: "Anno Domini"

Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. 10 Mar 2006 07:44:44 PM
robpar wrote:

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:02:19 GMT, Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net>
wrote:

robpar wrote:

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 02:46:47 GMT, Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net>
wrote:

I did and it didn't work. I offered you the chance of not replying to
my post's and me yours..... but you couldn't resist.


I see that you could not either. Nothing is stopping you from disappearing
or not responding.

And so I keep reminding you of the TRUTH of the Lord Jesus who rose
from the dead.


Sorry, no TRUTH to be seen from you.

say uncle,


aunt

James Powell


So basically you're saying that it is perfectly logical to believe
(have faith in) the notion that man, through eons of mutations,
evolved from a chimpanzee like critter (which evolved from a rat like
critter which evolved from an amoeba which sprang from a mud puddle)
(which no one witnessed) ... but that it is totally futile to have
faith in the eyewitnessed event of a man rising from the dead?

There are no eye witness accounts to any of several man/gods that
arose from the dead. Only often repeated myths.


Wrong. There are more than five hundred and twelve eyewitnesses that
Jesus rose from the dead.

1Corinthians 15:3-6 "For I delivered unto you first of all that
which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to
the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the
third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas,
then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred
brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present,
but some are fallen asleep."


Paul (pôl), Saint
A.D. 5?-67?

A.D.???? glad you brought that up.
"Anno Domini Nostri Iesu Christi ("In the Year of Our Lord Jesus
Christ"), commonly shortened to Anno Domini ("In the Year of the
Lord"), abbreviated as AD or A.D., is the designation used to number
years in the Christian Era, conventionally used with the Julian and
Gregorian calendars. It defines an epoch based on the
traditionally-reckoned year of the birth of Jesus. BC (Before Christ)
is now usually used to denote years before Anno Domini years in
English."
"This Christian era is currently dominant all around the world in both
commercial and scientific use. Presently, it is the common,
international standard, recognised by international institutions such
as the United Nations and the Universal Postal Union."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini
Jd
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. 12 Mar 2006 06:54:11 AM
In talk.atheism Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:

A.D.???? glad you brought that up.
"Anno Domini Nostri Iesu Christi ("In the Year of Our Lord Jesus
Christ"), commonly shortened to Anno Domini ("In the Year of the
Lord"), abbreviated as AD or A.D., is the designation used to number
years in the Christian Era, conventionally used with the Julian and
Gregorian calendars. It defines an epoch based on the
traditionally-reckoned year of the birth of Jesus. BC (Before Christ)
is now usually used to denote years before Anno Domini years in
English."
"This Christian era is currently dominant all around the world in both
commercial and scientific use. Presently, it is the common,
international standard, recognised by international institutions such
as the United Nations and the Universal Postal Union."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini

So? We had to have SOMTHING to date things by and that just happened to
stick. That doesn't prove that Jesus even lived, much less that he was "the
son of god."
--
Mike
-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004
.
User: "Christopher A. Lee"

Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. 12 Mar 2006 07:40:34 AM
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 12:54:11 +0000 (UTC),

wrote:

In talk.atheism Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:

A.D.???? glad you brought that up.
"This Christian era is currently dominant all around the world in both
commercial and scientific use. Presently, it is the common,
international standard, recognised by international institutions such
as the United Nations and the Universal Postal Union."

Which is why its international name is CE (common era).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini


So? We had to have SOMTHING to date things by and that just happened to
stick. That doesn't prove that Jesus even lived, much less that he was "the
son of god."

Even if he did, the chronology given by the NT is off by several years
when it describes other people.
But in any case, all it shows is the dominance of Christianity during
the time the calendar was developed.
.






User: "Art Deco"

Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. 01 Mar 2006 10:55:42 PM
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:

Honest John wrote:


"Anno Domini" <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote in message
news:u4vc02prg12eh11m2aiq99rk361vc1i6bp@4ax.com...

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:

Scientific evidence proves that pre-historic man had some sort of
belief in supernatural deities:

"A growing number of anthropologists and archeo-mythologists argue
that the prevailing ideology of belief in prehistoric Europe and much
of the world was based on the worship of a single earth goddess, who
was assumed to be the fount of all life and who radiated harmony among
all living things." - Al Gore (Earth in the Balance; Ecology and the
Human Spirit)


Actually, it seems patently obvious that a "nature goddess" is by
definition NOT "supernatural", but in fact quite "natural".


"Seems"? If you're not sure or have no compelling evidence from the
Holy Bible then your opinion ranks down there with Skinner, his
pidgeon boxes; Freud the fraud, and Charles Darwin who turned his back
on his Creator.

On your death bed, will ye die in fear or will you have a smile on
your face as you await your meeting with Jesus?

Jd



That's right, tell it!

HJ


I do. But they hate it. However, you and I simply cannot secumb to
lukewarmedness. Fence sitting is not in our nature being born of the
Spirit.

Now. Even though THEY have LAWS in their Constitution that guarantees
free speech.... one can easily see how THEY, being only 1 or 2% of the
population do not want the othe 98% of the population to say anything
about the God of Israel.

So. It is equally problematic in my mind as to why a Christian nation
such as this is supposed to be.... has fallen into the abomination of
lukewarmedness as it has.

My only hope is that the TRUTH of the God of Israel will awaken those
who need awakening when they need to be awakened, in order that our
nation does not go down the toilet.

Jd

Translation: "I long for the good old days of slavery and the KKK."
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"

Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. 02 Mar 2006 11:18:26 AM
In article <gc3d02d7kvt9nmgjk0egmp5vrujdmvbui2@4ax.com> Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> writes:


I do. But they hate it. However, you and I simply cannot secumb to
lukewarmedness. Fence sitting is not in our nature being born of the
Spirit.

HA! "cannot secumb to lukewarmedness. Fence sitting is not in our
nature being born of the Spirit" thunders JDay ... right before
he scuttles off to set the X-No-Archive flag, to make sure
no one will hold him to his words. Any of his words.
There ought to be a special word for that kind of irony.
-- cary
.
User: "Anno Domini"

Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. 05 Mar 2006 07:24:07 PM
Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <gc3d02d7kvt9nmgjk0egmp5vrujdmvbui2@4ax.com> Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> writes:


I do. But they hate it. However, you and I simply cannot secumb to
lukewarmedness. Fence sitting is not in our nature being born of the
Spirit.


HA! "cannot secumb to lukewarmedness. Fence sitting is not in our
nature being born of the Spirit" thunders JDay ... right before
he scuttles off to set the X-No-Archive flag, to make sure
no one will hold him to his words. Any of his words.

There ought to be a special word for that kind of irony.


-- cary

Lukewarmedness has nothing to do with fence sitting, Judas Iscariot.
You're sins, like Darwin's are open and manifest to all whether I have
X-archive or not.
Darwin turned away from Jesus. What folks don't know is that the real
title of his work known as "Origin of the Species" (by those of the
monkey cult) is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life" - Charles Darwin (November 24 1859)
You racist traitor you.
Jd
.
User: "James Powell"

Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. 06 Mar 2006 06:20:13 PM
"***** Dimwitti" <ZionsFire@att.net> scibbled in message
news:04an02lkq9cdjn5t3ob14s6p786an758jt@4ax.com...

Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <gc3d02d7kvt9nmgjk0egmp5vrujdmvbui2@4ax.com> Anno Domini
<ZionsFire@att.net> writes:


I do. But they hate it. However, you and I simply cannot secumb to
lukewarmedness. Fence sitting is not in our nature being born of the
Spirit.


HA! "cannot secumb to lukewarmedness. Fence sitting is not in our
nature being born of the Spirit" thunders JDay ... right before
he scuttles off to set the X-No-Archive flag, to make sure
no one will hold him to his words. Any of his words.

There ought to be a special word for that kind of irony.


-- cary


Lukewarmedness has nothing to do with fence sitting, Judas Iscariot.

Yeah, really showing the strength of your convictions there. You are so sure
that 'freedom of speech' allows you to say what you want that you try to
make sure your words can't be used against you!

You're sins, like Darwin's are open and manifest to all whether I have
X-archive or not.

I dunno. Don't think Cary buys in to all that 'sin' jive.

Darwin turned away from Jesus. What folks don't know is that the real
title of his work known as "Origin of the Species" (by those of the
monkey cult) is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life" - Charles Darwin (November 24 1859)

No. Only morons like you have no clue as to the full title of Charles
Darwin's great work.

You racist traitor you.

How does one betray what one does not believe?
James Powell
.

User: "Art Deco"

Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. 05 Mar 2006 07:54:40 PM
Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:

Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <gc3d02d7kvt9nmgjk0egmp5vrujdmvbui2@4ax.com> Anno Domini
<ZionsFire@att.net> writes:


I do. But they hate it. However, you and I simply cannot secumb to
lukewarmedness. Fence sitting is not in our nature being born of the
Spirit.


HA! "cannot secumb to lukewarmedness. Fence sitting is not in our
nature being born of the Spirit" thunders JDay ... right before
he scuttles off to set the X-No-Archive flag, to make sure
no one will hold him to his words. Any of his words.

There ought to be a special word for that kind of irony.


-- cary


Lukewarmedness has nothing to do with fence sitting, Judas Iscariot.

You're sins, like Darwin's are open and manifest to all whether I have
X-archive or not.

Darwin turned away from Jesus. What folks don't know is that the real
title of his work known as "Origin of the Species" (by those of the
monkey cult) is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life" - Charles Darwin (November 24 1859)

You racist traitor you.

PKB alert.
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official Agent of Deception
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief
.
User: "Kali"

Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. 05 Mar 2006 09:07:43 PM
In article <050320061854401512%art_deco@127.0.0.1>, posted Sun,
05 Mar 2006 18:54:40 -0700, Art Deco art_deco@127.0.0.1 says...

Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:

Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <gc3d02d7kvt9nmgjk0egmp5vrujdmvbui2@4ax.com> Anno Domini
<ZionsFire@att.net> writes:


I do. But they hate it. However, you and I simply cannot secumb to
lukewarmedness. Fence sitting is not in our nature being born of the
Spirit.


HA! "cannot secumb to lukewarmedness. Fence sitting is not in our
nature being born of the Spirit" thunders JDay ... right before
he scuttles off to set the X-No-Archive flag, to make sure
no one will hold him to his words. Any of his words.

There ought to be a special word for that kind of irony.


-- cary


Lukewarmedness has nothing to do with fence sitting, Judas Iscariot.

You're sins, like Darwin's are open and manifest to all whether I have
X-archive or not.

Darwin turned away from Jesus. What folks don't know is that the real
title of his work known as "Origin of the Species" (by those of the
monkey cult) is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life" - Charles Darwin (November 24 1859)

You racist traitor you.


PKB alert.

Where do they all come from?
Kali
--
Reason can answer questions, but imagination has to ask them.
- Ralph Gerard
.
User: "Art Deco"

Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. 05 Mar 2006 10:18:09 PM
Kali <kali@lart.com> wrote:

In article <050320061854401512%art_deco@127.0.0.1>, posted Sun,
05 Mar 2006 18:54:40 -0700, Art Deco art_deco@127.0.0.1 says...

Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> wrote:

Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <gc3d02d7kvt9nmgjk0egmp5vrujdmvbui2@4ax.com> Anno Domini
<ZionsFire@att.net> writes:


I do. But they hate it. However, you and I simply cannot secumb to
lukewarmedness. Fence sitting is not in our nature being born of the
Spirit.


HA! "cannot secumb to lukewarmedness. Fence sitting is not in our
nature being born of the Spirit" thunders JDay ... right before
he scuttles off to set the X-No-Archive flag, to make sure
no one will hold him to his words. Any of his words.

There ought to be a special word for that kind of irony.


-- cary


Lukewarmedness has nothing to do with fence sitting, Judas Iscariot.

You're sins, like Darwin's are open and manifest to all whether I have
X-archive or not.

Darwin turned away from Jesus. What folks don't know is that the real
title of his work known as "Origin of the Species" (by those of the
monkey cult) is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life" - Charles Darwin (November 24 1859)

You racist traitor you.


PKB alert.


Where do they all come from?

There must be an off-shore factory someplace. This one is especially
dense and doesn't seem to respond to pokes.
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official Agent of Deception
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief
.



User: "Cary Kittrell"

Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. 06 Mar 2006 10:27:44 AM
In article <04an02lkq9cdjn5t3ob14s6p786an758jt@4ax.com> Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> writes:

Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <gc3d02d7kvt9nmgjk0egmp5vrujdmvbui2@4ax.com> Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> writes:


I do. But they hate it. However, you and I simply cannot secumb to
lukewarmedness. Fence sitting is not in our nature being born of the
Spirit.


HA! "cannot secumb to lukewarmedness. Fence sitting is not in our
nature being born of the Spirit" thunders JDay ... right before
he scuttles off to set the X-No-Archive flag, to make sure
no one will hold him to his words. Any of his words.

There ought to be a special word for that kind of irony.


-- cary


Lukewarmedness has nothing to do with fence sitting, Judas Iscariot.

And hastening to hide your words, like a cat obsessively covering
over his *****, has nothing to do with being a voice for God.
-- cary
.
User: "Anno Domini"

Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. 06 Mar 2006 11:06:41 PM
Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <04an02lkq9cdjn5t3ob14s6p786an758jt@4ax.com> Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> writes:

Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <gc3d02d7kvt9nmgjk0egmp5vrujdmvbui2@4ax.com> Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> writes:


I do. But they hate it. However, you and I simply cannot secumb to
lukewarmedness. Fence sitting is not in our nature being born of the
Spirit.


HA! "cannot secumb to lukewarmedness. Fence sitting is not in our
nature being born of the Spirit" thunders JDay ... right before
he scuttles off to set the X-No-Archive flag, to make sure
no one will hold him to his words. Any of his words.

There ought to be a special word for that kind of irony.


-- cary


Lukewarmedness has nothing to do with fence sitting, Judas Iscariot.



And hastening to hide your words, like a cat obsessively covering
over his *****, has nothing to do with being a voice for God.


-- cary

I can tell I've got you worried over this. Otherwise you'd pay me no
mind.
And that's good. It show's that there might still be some small chance
that you might repent of your sins.
Romans 14:11 For it is written, "As I live, saith the Lord, every
knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."
Romans 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself
to God.
Of course that goes for the entire 3% or so of the population who like
you, deny God.
Jd
"Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that
breaketh the rock in pieces?" (Jeremiah 23:29)

.


User: "Wally Anglesea™"

Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. 05 Mar 2006 07:35:44 PM
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 01:24:07 GMT, Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net>
wrote:

Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <gc3d02d7kvt9nmgjk0egmp5vrujdmvbui2@4ax.com> Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> writes:


I do. But they hate it. However, you and I simply cannot secumb to
lukewarmedness. Fence sitting is not in our nature being born of the
Spirit.


HA! "cannot secumb to lukewarmedness. Fence sitting is not in our
nature being born of the Spirit" thunders JDay ... right before
he scuttles off to set the X-No-Archive flag, to make sure
no one will hold him to his words. Any of his words.

There ought to be a special word for that kind of irony.


-- cary


Lukewarmedness has nothing to do with fence sitting, Judas Iscariot.

You're sins, like Darwin's are open and manifest to all whether I have
X-archive or not.

Darwin turned away from Jesus. What folks don't know is that the real
title of his work known as "Origin of the Species" (by those of the
monkey cult) is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life" - Charles Darwin (November 24 1859)

You racist traitor you.

And please show where Darwin meant race as you mean it, and where
Darwin was a racist.
Typical Cretinist lies.
--
Maj. General, Fanatic Legions.
Commander of Southern Hemisphere Forces.
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
.
User: "Anno Domini"

Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. 06 Mar 2006 11:06:39 PM
Wally Anglesea™ <<wanglese@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> wrote:

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 01:24:07 GMT, Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net>
wrote:

Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <gc3d02d7kvt9nmgjk0egmp5vrujdmvbui2@4ax.com> Anno Domini <ZionsFire@att.net> writes:


I do. But they hate it. However, you and I simply cannot secumb to
lukewarmedness. Fence sitting is not in our nature being born of the
Spirit.


HA! "cannot secumb to lukewarmedness. Fence sitting is not in our
nature being born of the Spirit" thunders JDay ... right before
he scuttles off to set the X-No-Archive flag, to make sure
no one will hold him to his words. Any of his words.

There ought to be a special word for that kind of irony.


-- cary


Lukewarmedness has nothing to do with fence sitting, Judas Iscariot.

You're sins, like Darwin's are open and manifest to all whether I have
X-archive or not.

Darwin turned away from Jesus. What folks don't know is that the real
title of his work known as "Origin of the Species" (by those of the
monkey cult) is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life" - Charles Darwin (November 24 1859)

You racist traitor you.


And please show where Darwin meant race as you mean it, and where
Darwin was a racist.

"Of all the differences between the races of man, the colour of the
skin is the most conspicuous and one of the best marked." Charles
Darwin (Descent of Man Chapter VII - On the Races of Man)
Idjut.
Jd
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Standard Deviation of Evolution: 2006 A.D. 10 Mar 2006 05:25:02 PM
Anno Domini wrote:

"Of all the differences between the races of man, the colour of the
skin is the most conspicuous and one of the best marked." Charles
Darwin (Descent of Man Chapter VII - On the Races of Man)

Conspicuous meaning visible.
Idjut.
.






  Page 6 of 9

1
 

2
 

3
 

4
 

5
 

6
 

7
 

8
 

9
 


Related Articles