KaskadskyjKozak

Hey gotta compliment you on actually backing up a post with a pertinent link. It is much better than spewing your usual ill tempered rhetoric. go wash your ass, clownpuncher.

Wrong. Although macro-evolution might have problems and I can see how people don't want to accept it outright, the fact is that humans have been around more than 6000 years - it's more like 100,000 - in the modern form. This is provable via carbon-dating. And there are fossils of animals that existed here hundreds of millions of years ago. I'm glad the forum wasted hundred of posts arguing with you about macro-evolution when they could have cut to the chase a lot quicker (as I did). I conclude by citing Sexy Cocoa... d...a... Source and proof? You've gotta be kidding, right? linky

Wrong. Although macro-evolution might have problems and I can see how people don't want to accept it outright, the fact is that humans have been around more than 6000 years - it's more like 100,000 - in the modern form. This is provable via carbon-dating. And there are fossils of animals that existed here hundreds of millions of years ago. I'm glad the forum wasted hundred of posts arguing with you about macro-evolution when they could have cut to the chase a lot quicker (as I did). I conclude by citing Sexy Cocoa... d...a...

I looked outside this morning. Bike or not to bike. I wanted to bike - frost was everywhere. I donned my down coat and walked up and down the street testing the grippiness of the asphalt. Mostly good, but some slippery parts. Woah, a frozen puddle. Not good. It felt to be above freezing. Maybe it's OK to bike? I'm biking. No. Wait, I don't want to eat shit on the mercer slough, or the hill down Factoria. Screw it, I'm driving. I'm a planet killer.

Questions for you SH: 1) how old is planet Earth? 2) how long have men - in their current form - existed on planet Earth? 3) upon what do you base your answers to these questions? My curiosity seeks answers but I beleive these questions have nothing to do with spirituality except in as much as a person might mistake religion for spirituality. The two are not necessarily intertwined (sadly). I didn't ask you.

No surprise there. Empress Theodora of the 11th century had the Pope assasinated because he would not go along with her wishes. She then instated her own Pope. It was then that reincarnation was removed as an option for Christians. Many other bizzarre tidbits were changed. Her Pope must be in Hell. Unless she was God's servant in which case the previous Pope is in hell. But that would condone assasination so probably not. Maybe they are all in Hell for making Christianity BOOK based when the teachings of Jesus clearly speak out against basing your salvation on a "code". No Feck. Christians are not any closer to heaven than non-christians unless they continually admit their mistakes and guenuineley attempt to change/repent. It is not over until you are sizzling or basking. Bug, I don't know about those specific points of history. I use extreem caution about saying who will or will not, or who is or is not in Hell or Heaven. I find it more important to concentrate on what I am doing than on what others are doing or have done. The point is if I get all caught up in the question of who is going to heaven or hell, then I am makeing two mistakes; first final condemnation and salvation are issued from GOD and not me, and secondly I miss the oppertunity to help HERE and NOW becouse I am to caught up in theologic abstracts, and miss out completely. I think we agree; "No Feck. Christians are not any closer to heaven than non-christians unless they continually admit their mistakes and guenuineley attempt to change/repent. It is not over until you are sizzling or basking." Once again Feck repeats a message so often cited and attributed to Christians (with the broadest brush strokes), which really is relatively rarely actually voiced. Definitely I've never heard there fire and brimstone messages from any Church I have been in. Usually sin is addressed as something we all commit, and requires personal examination of conscience. But hey, keep on attacking all those Christians for their sins... wait, isn't that what you are saying that they do?

When my Laphroaig is gone (I've got the 15 year), I may try the Lagavulin 16 year. It's also a hard-core Islay, but has different qualities - like all good scotch. I'm learning that the Scotch world is like a whole world of whisky unto itself - so many varieties, flavors, and styles. And so little time and money. :-)

Questions for you SH: 1) how old is planet Earth? 2) how long have men - in their current form - existed on planet Earth? 3) upon what do you base your answers to these questions?

Wrong on all counts, buddy. Again you miss the point, and make a lot of ASSumptions. 1) i took an AP course in biology at a premier public school in the shadow of Stanford University. Many of our teachers had Ph.D.s, and many students were children of Stanford alumni. An AP course is a COLLEGE-level course, not high-school, BTW. And I scored a 5. 2) we are discussing MACRO-evolution. It *is* a side-show of sorts. Trust me, it is a small part of a biology course, where you learn about the taxonomy of living organisms, DNA/genetics, cell-structure and function, mammalian anatomy (like how TTK's titties manufacture milk), and so on. Darwin and his theory constitute a few chapters, and are covered very quickly. A lot of that material is very "fluffy" compared to the hard-core study of ribosomes, meiosis/mitosis, DNA transcription, etc. While I may believe it is probably true, I certainly see issues with it being perfect and provable. There's a lot of holes. And don't start about micro- proving macro-. And you can learn the former without buying into the later AND avoid a lot of this controversy. 3) I worked in biotech for 9 years, including projects directly related to DNA sequencing, genotyping, homology searching, model organisms and the like, so I don't need your stupid references to "learning material".

Thanks for the review! I'll have to pick some up when my Jameson 1780 is out. Have you seen the show "The Thirsty Traveller"? Recently I saw an episode where the host toured Scotland, and stopped on the island of Islay. He swung by the Laphroaig refinery and tried a pour. The dude visibly winced, said "Now that's a man's drink", and then excused himself to "enjoy" the drink in silence - "it grabs your attention and makes you want to enjoy the drink". I wonder if he dumped it out? Anyways, that's a hardcore scotch for true lovers of peaty smoky malt. :-) I've got Taliskers on my Christmas list... hope to get a bottle...

We've observed blackholes...we have not observed an experiment where life was spontaneously created by a chemical reaction to my knowledge. If evolution is a fact it still doesn't disprove the existence of God. Neither does retroviral DNA insertions, the laws of gravity, quarks, people with vestigal tails, the dinosaurs, galaxies a hundred thousand light years away, string theory, or even TTK's hermaphroditic titties. An omnipotent Creator can of course have created the laws of nature that science observes, and science does not disprove the Creator. As for the question of why teach evolution in secondary school - Eric B is 100% correct. It's not that damn important. The fact is our public education system sucks ass as it is, and we would do well to focus on the basics anyway, and evolution is a small subject in a large ocean of knowledge that should be taught. Personally, I studied evolution in 10th grade as a part of AP Biology, and even then it was one very small part of a large curriculum. Moreover, to say we must teach it because it is science is nonsense, and a non sequitur. We can teach whatever the hell we want to teach and that should be decided at the local level. And, BTW, I'll add that if we want our kids to learn to think critically, they need to actually be faced with choices that they have to argue both sides of and come to their own conclusion - not be force-fed totalitarian-style propaganda like you evolution-science-worshipers are so bent on. It's a pattern I see all to frequently with your type - ranging from social issues , history, political policy, and on to science. I must only conclude that your inflexible, knee-jerk defensiveness is rooted in, umm, insecurity and weakness.

Perfect. You look exactly as I picture you from your posts: like a pathetic dufus.

Can't hate what you don't believe in, amigo. Sorry to dissappoint. You believe in Him, but deny it, and for some reason hate Him for creating you and the world as it is.

See, I was right, you HATE God. Deny it all you want. As for the last sentence - it describes YOU perfectly.

My understanding is that Christmas is celebrated at this date because a Christian emperor way back in Roman days wanted to tone down the out of control partying associated with the Winter Solstice. He fixed his "problem" by turning it into a religious holiday. Roman Emperor? These Holy Days/Feast days/Saints Days almost all are chosen to coincide with existing pagan celebrations to replace them and make a transition for the local people to Christianity easier. And Christmas was celebrated as a Mardi Gras-style bacchanialan party well into the middle ages and renaissance and beyond. Just saw a program on it tonight in fact. In England for example it was like this into the 1800's, and in the US as well. Made a lot of upper-class folks quite nervous as the partying often turned into riots. The way we celebrate Christmas now is inherited from the Victorian era...

Are we surprised that our ankle-biting, puerile, little snot-nosed teenager, "No. 13", delurked to respond to one of my posts? No we are not. You have nothing to say without me. Query your posting history and a majority of it is in direct response or indirect response to what I post. I lead; you follow. As it should be. Poor, jealous, little Beta. now go run along and study some more. eventually you will graduate from jr. high...maybe. Now go lick sack.

TTK....how is it that evolution is the most successfully tested theory in all of science? Where did you get that gem? HE LOOKS IN THE MIRROR. THE PROOF IS INCONTROVERTIBLE! MUST I ONCE AGAIN PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE???

that you're a hermaphroditic, bloviating besserwisser.

Cocoa is right; you are a dumbass.

They did already. Yosip Vissarionovich, for example, as stated above. He does you folks proud.

do the math- go to russia and see for yourself! plus kgb is not the shit- let's talk about gru GRU? How about НКВД!

Hitler was Time's Man of the Year - in 1938. Stalin made the grade twice.

Yeah, if you, TTK, and JH didn't tell me you were atheists, I'd think you were great people too. heck, I might even like you in person. Kind of like those who post disrepectful avatars with images of Christ smoking a cigarette, or the bastardized sistine-chapel image of the spagetthi monster touching the hand of man, or joking about how funny and cool "bong hits for Jesus" would be. right back at you hateful, vitriolic atheists who are so intolerant and disrespectful for those who choose faith and a meaningful existence over an accident of nature ending in death and cessation of consciousness forever. News flash! Every Christian knows there are lots of atheists and agnostics out there. In fact we are made painfully aware of this every year as the ACLU and loud-mouthed atheists try to restrict our rights to celebrate our religion in public and try to force us into a closet. Some of US find it offensive that YOU characterize our choice/faith as being a "security blanket", that YOU call us "weak-minded fools" who believe in fables, myths, and fantasy, and that you think we chose our faith lightly, with no thought whatsoever. I know you will find this hard to believe, but some of us Christians actually find vocal, hateful, organized atheists just as offensive as you find prosetylizing Christians.

:tup: I wouldn't be so sure about that. And you wonder where evangelicals get the idea that certain members of our society hate God, and are doing the Devil's work, and this is reinforced by certain, umm, political viewpoints and affiliations? You don't have to look far to support that thesis. Good work, JH, TTK, and others - thanks for showing us all again your black hearts spewing vitriol.

yeah, they did absolutely nothing that could be labeled "savage" after all. They were innocent angels. Warfare with neighboring tribes, enslavement of the women and children, brutal practices such as scalping, dismemberment (to avoid escape) and human sacrifice, raiding settlements, thievery - all fantasies that never occurred. Gotta love the bullshit history revisionist, white self-hate.