rkc

no offence faster, but I was hoping this question would have gone away. I know I said I'd answer it and I still can't believe I'm going to.... you got to be kidding when you say you saw and interpreted two dogs interacting. you concluded they were actually being polite and courteous to each other. Did one dog open a door for the other.... sorry I couldn't resist. Dogs have instinctual nature of pack mentality. they acquiesce to each other more offen than not because they're under the hierarchy of an alpha dog ie: their owner. animals are neutral to moral LAW they are neither innocent nor guilty to standards imposed by conscience or otherwise. thee most atheist country (irony) in the history of the world so far U.S.S.R. did a long study back in the 60's ( I think ) , with dissappointing results for them, and concluded animal actions to be attributed to instincts only. 2nd peter 2:12

:beer:

nice to see you back posting enForcer between you and the new guy master of faster I feel both you guys should be commended on your civility. I'm not sure if you may be coming off a time in your life that you don't understand someones energy on this subject. "if what your living for isn't worth dieing for then it isn't worth living for" I also don't want to insult you, but this is a place to come to (roo roo) with complete freedom. youre here because you want to be here....me too. we're guys (except brooke of course)and we like to be heard, wrestle whats right and win of course. you also have to look through all of the emotional ego to see the goal. we also fight boredom and tedium together, life is like that, this provides a connection we all long for to each other. I know it's a key board and monitor ,but thats the only superficial part of possible relationships. the real killer of any real relationship is lack of respect (I agree with you) and (maybe more important) lack of honesty. I think the internet is tough because you can kick the cat and the dog and not be held to any type of accountibility to each other. forgive me for getting semimental I just saw my granddaughter.

did you know that the theory of slow macro evolution is based on presuppositions ie:it must be true because we have never SEEN it take place. presuppositions take place on both sides, but this is one of yours. scale is another one because it's big it must take longer, but there's no evidence to support this idea. quantum leap theory was more popular a few years ago, than it is now. it was presented because of the lack of transitional fossils. animals must go through rapid changes because we have no fossils otherwise. micro evoultion can take place in a couple of weeks but still we see no evidence that it crosses the line to macro. don't be silly just because you hear macro evoulotion is now true on tv or PBS doesn't make it true. it's still theory based on many assumptions. I'll say it again there will never be conclusive material/scientific evidence proving or dissproving "OUR FATHERS" existence theres only probability. it takes faith, whether you have the stones to admit it or not.* the real question is who's faith is based on evidence. this question of 04le never gets answered, it's no stretch to figure out why believes are here, to be used by God to make disciples, why do unbelievers care so much about conversion, rocks don't? (my paraphrase) I gotta admit this has been more fun since the thread "destroyer" is absent! *brooke has admitted to this. which makes her agnostic ( sorry to use you so much, but youre my example of honest level headed thinking) and the rest of you are also but can't admit it because you hate Him so much < I said this because if any of you convert someday you'll remember someone told you the truth. most of my post are not trying to convert you to the bible God. I try to get you to admit the possibility of God. then we can seperate the gods

:beer:

news flash! tks, now I can rest easy.

very rhetorical

ok I know someone needs a hug. youre a nice guy too! so all established fossils are just found under dry earth and all the revealing fossils are waiting to be discovered where we can't get to them ok. just like those pesty aliens & big foot just out of our reach.... oh you just wait till the real proof gets here lol. it's been 2000 yrs just curious what physical evidence would Jesus of Nazareth have left and you might as well add Alexander the Great....other than writings you need to read more ,the king of DNA, "The Language of God" by Francis S. Collins

meat since Brooke says youre a nice guy....then I'm sure you are. but I too hate the way you pop in every now & then and display a condescending attitude. no offence but you gotta have something going on to be condesending. since you don't ask serious questions why should anybody waste their time answering them,back to your post... do you know that you're quoting Charles Darwin. he was very disappointed towards the end of his life because of the lack transitional fossils. he was confident there would be thousands found in the near future. do you have any idea how much earth has been turned over in the last 120 yrs? Blue Duece is right there should have been millions found. maybe the next generation will find them. infact (since you like facts) when you consider the classification of species and extinct some anthropolgist are/were expecting to find more than "stable" classes. and don't forget lots of Christians believe in evolution and find it satisfying. (I disagee with them, but if I find it proved true I won't miss a step) it's not a litmus test for the existence of God. I also believe in evolution, but delineate between micro & macro. does sharing DNA indicate common ancestry or common designer?

YOU SUCH A PLAYER!! (to be read aloud with asian accent)

before I respond I just need a little more clarity on what you believe. do you believe in moral absolutes/universal truth's (what's morally wrong for you is morally wrong for me) or do you believe the majority/group opinions should set the standards (relativism) sorry I didn't answer the dog question, I didn't think you were serious.

nice distinction ptt

you misunderstood what I said I'll try to clear it up. I was responding to your comment that you believe in morality without religion, but you have yet to respond to my comments about relativism. so I put words in your mouth, you believe in right and wrong "just because" which is blind faith. what happened to your civility. and no I'm not mixed up.

this is where your faith lies "just because" the reason you can't answer me with any reason is that none exist with out authority ie: reason. the end result is you have more faith than me," all the evidence in the world can't convince the unwilling"

it's kinda of funny that you would bring this topic up. Francis S. Collins who heads the human genome project has mapped the entire human DNA. protein mapping is next but much more complicated. Mr Collins is a very bright man who has his faith in Jesus of the bible.

I'm just asking you to be consistent there's no harmoney in being a fence walker. I never said an atheist could not be morel they are because truth is truth for all of us. what I am saying is being a intellectually honest atheist is incompatable with morality (please read my above post about relativism) an atheist can borrow morality from religion but in reality it's just a myth to a rock, thats all you'll ever be. I know you want God to change the rules just for you,but he won't there is never enough proof for the unWILLING he even says that in the scriptures. it's about probability.

faster, the reason i believe the bible is that it does follow the rules and is consistent with logic. it really does have continuity you: believe personality/intelligence came from non personality ( inorganic material) I : believe personality/intelligence came from personality, person begat person deep down you do believe in your significance, purpose (you just might have exposed it here) love, meaning right & wrong. none of these could be real if you're just evolved rock. there is no good or bad in a chemical only world because it's all relative. wrong for one might be right for another atheist do what they want, period.

you started out consistent :shrug: but you trailed off, let me finish for you. it's ficticious BS that there is a "best" or "good" since there are no morel standards for chemicals. sorry you can't have your cake and eat it too!

if you had half a brain meat you could quote the precedence scripture of name calling that I already posted. go back and slap your dad for me and be thankful you have one! see you in a week or two. for pete's sake youre an atheist, act like one and quit your blubbering. there's no such thing as nasty

you do realize you've caught yourself in an age old quandary. you have abandoned science to adopt non science faith/speculation. It has it's bases in the hindu religion, that the universe is eternal. science is pointing to a beginning not to a reorganization of matter. I believe (faith) the next hurdle is not more material discovery, but in physics/math to formulate zero. just because you can imagine something does not mean it is true or will become true. the type of criterion you're attributing to the discovery of god works fine if it is the one you have formulated in your mind (or others, even mine if I hadn't discovered the God of Bible). would the god of your making have to meet your set of limited rules to exist? einstein said he thought he understood 1 percent of all knowledge. in the other 99 percent of knowledge that you don't know (assuming equality with albert) is there a possibilty that God exists? remember it's only obvious to your version of god (limited) the God of the bible has a different set of criterion that He sets not me (I would agree with you too before... when I made the rules) He exists outside the time space continuum. He says of himself that he is Spirit, non physical.He made science and existed before science, time/space, therefore he is not subjected to time, space, physicis for proof of his existance, necessarily. have you ever heard of the so called trick question; can God make a rock so big that he can't move it? no. He is not circumvented by his creation. He does have limits (logic his rules) I don't know how he made everything. He didn't break the 1st law of phyisics because there was no physics to break. He is 1st cause of cause and effect , no contradiction. since he exists outside of time I can apprehend eternal/ eternity but I can't comprehend it because I'm finite.

if I happened upon his dad I'd slap him for raising a coward

ya gotta love irony....smelly dafish :beer:

breakin out the family photo album and getting sentimental over the holiday (ie:halloween) you and sis gettin frisky again playing linda blair incest. or is that ma after an unexpected visit from druckin white trash daddy. :yelrotflmao:

you're alone today, you're alone tommorrow, you're old and there's no hope for any change. there you have it!