Anti-Semitism In France!

[anonemouse 1]

Sounds like we finally may get some school teachers that didn't graduate from Secular-Humanist U! Sounds like they knew what they were talking about!

Actually, they were what I like to refer to as "gullible idiots". Instead of investigating the theory they were protesting, they took the word of some guy who knew absolutely nothing about what he was writing about. If they had done their homework before making up their minds, they would have known that all their so-called "proof" had been disproven with actual evidence. The horror! Someone actually expects them to be able to back up their claims! It's absurd!

[Ron Cusano 0]

Tommy,

When you refer to abstract thought, I am not exactly sure what you mean by that. I am able to intrepet the Bible just fine. Most Conservative theologians agree that the Bible is to be taken literally except where it's context makes it clear that it's meaning is not literal. I have given examples of this way back.

My understanding and comprehension of life is based upon the foundation of scripture. I therefore cannot condoning or embracing ideals, ethics, thinking and principals that are at odds with the Bible. Perhaps that is what you mean when you say I am not an abstract thinker. If so, I don't see that as a bad thing.

I know there are some very booksmart people her, highly educated and the like, but in my humble opinion, they are totally blind and ignorant to the only thing that really matters in life. I, on the other hand, am not highly educated and do not claim to be a mental giant. But what I do know is that I am wise in the things that matter most. Things that don't end when they close the lid on the coffin. Sometimes all that intelligence manes you blind to the truth. For what it's worth, you sound like a decent guy!

Ron, I disagree with Laurend you seem to have a very strong knowleged of the bible. As matter of fact you seem to have most of it memorized or in the very least you know it well enough to find the verse that backs up your position. If you only had some capacity for abstract thought you could then take that knowlegde and use it to come to some thought provoking ideas. Ron you are not an idea man, you are capable of reading the bible but unable to intepret it's words, it seems that you are able to understand the words literally.

Abstract thinking is not your strong suit, that has been verified on this thread over and over again. You may want to stick to threads that are not in the Rant and Rave section. Many of the the folks who post in here love the debate and are very good abstract thinkers. They are also very well read and highly intelligent (believe me I do not put myself in that category, but I enjoy reading the posts) someone with your literal style and limited capacity for abstract thought can become painfully exposed here.

I also try to add a little humour now and then

[Ron Cusano 0]

Maybe the did investigate other sources; sources that you discounted, and came to a different conclusion than you!

Actually, they were what I like to refer to as "gullible idiots". Instead of investigating the theory they were protesting, they took the word of some guy who knew absolutely nothing about what he was writing about. If they had done their homework before making up their minds, they would have known that all their so-called "proof" had been disproven with actual evidence. The horror! Someone actually expects them to be able to back up their claims! It's absurd!

[anonemouse 1]

Maybe the did investigate other sources; sources that you discounted, and came to a different conclusion than you!

See, the only sources that count are the ones that can be supported. If it isn't a scientific source, it has no business being used to support or discredit a scientific theory.

If they actually did investigate their sources, they would have known that their "evidence" had been disproven.

[Ron Cusano 0]

Science is a poor foundation on which to base all truth, since science changes all the time. What is considered fact today, could change tomorrow. For centuries, the worlds best scientists insisted the world was flat. That was a scientific truth! Opps, now it isn't. FYI - the Bible let us knbow the world was round rather that flat, centuries before the concept was even conceived by scientists. Your source of "truth" is science that changes constantly. Mine is the Word of God that never changes!

See, the only sources that count are the ones that can be supported. If it isn't a scientific source, it has no business being used to support or discredit a scientific theory.

If they actually did investigate their sources, they would have known that their "evidence" had been disproven.

[anonemouse 1]

Science is a poor foundation on which to base all truth, since science changes all the time. What is considered fact today, could change tomorrow. For centuries, the worlds best scientists insisted the world was flat. That was a scientific truth! Opps, now it isn't. FYI - the Bible let us knbow the world was round rather that flat, centuries before the concept was even conceived by scientists. Your source of "truth" is science that changes constantly. Mine is the Word of God that never changes!

So, wait. Why did you get that little implant called the lap-band? It was made with that unreliable science, you know. Seems a little hypocritical, doesn't it, only accepting science when it benefits you?

[Ron Cusano 0]

Absolutely not! Science is right most of the time . . . but not all of the time. Who knows, next year they may be saying the band does some harm we don't know about today! I said, "it makes a poor foundation on which to base all truth"! You only read what you want and then twist it around to try to make a point that is not there.

The fact is, you do worship a God, only it's not called God. It's called science, and you worship it at the alter of secular humanism. And your God is ofter wrong. It is fallible. The God of the Bible is infallible and His truth never changes.

So, wait. Why did you get that little implant called the lap-band? It was made with that unreliable science, you know. Seems a little hypocritical, doesn't it, only accepting science when it benefits you?

[anonemouse 1]

You only read what you want and then twist it around to try to make a point that is not there.

You of all people, saying this? Incredible.

You know Ron, I like you. At least you're always good for a laugh.

[Ron Cusano 0]

It's interesting that you ignore the rest of the post but focus on that! That is what is laughable!

You of all people, saying this? Incredible.

You know Ron, I like you. At least you're always good for a laugh.

[anonemouse 1]

It's interesting that you ignore the rest of the post but focus on that! That is what is laughable!

I have long since figured out that it is a waste of time to try and show you evidence. We both (and most other people here, too) know that you don't care about evidence. I have debated science and evolution with more knowledgeable people on this site, so I recommend you go find those threads. Every statement you make shows how ignorant you are about science.

At this point, I am not even attempting to have an intelligent debate with you. I am just winding you up and watching you blow.

[Ron Cusano 0]

Don't flatter yourself! You aren't making me blow! I have wised up to you and your mind games!

The truth hurts, doesn't it? The truth is, it takes a lot more "faith" to believe that science is the only truth, than it takes to believe the God of the Bible. We're talking about a lot more that evolution here. I admit that I am not well versed on science, but I have discussed it with scientists far more educated and knowledgeable that you who believe in the creation fact over the evolution theory. I know it's a kick in your ego to think there are others more intelligent and educated that you, but you can take that to the bank. The evidence to support creation far outweighs the evolution evidence.

I have long since figured out that it is a waste of time to try and show you evidence. We both (and most other people here, too) know that you don't care about evidence. I have debated science and evolution with more knowledgeable people on this site, so I recommend you go find those threads. Every statement you make shows how ignorant you are about science.

At this point, I am not even attempting to have an intelligent debate with you. I am just winding you up and watching you blow.

[anonemouse 1]

Don't flatter yourself! You aren't making me blow! I have wised up to you and your mind games!

Oh, really? I guess you really are blind, then, or maybe senile. You explode very easily, Ron. Read back on this thread and the other controversial ones you've posted on, if you need the evidence.

The truth hurts, doesn't it? The truth is, it takes a lot more "faith" to believe that science is the only truth, than it takes to believe the God of the Bible. We're talking about a lot more that evolution here. I admit that I am not well versed on science, but I have discussed it with scientists far more educated and knowledgeable that you who believe in the creation fact over the evolution theory. I know it's a kick in your ego to think there are others more intelligent and educated that you, but you can take that to the bank. The evidence to support creation far outweighs the evolution evidence.

I believe in things I can see or prove. I can't do either with God. You only need faith when you have no evidence. Ron, I highly doubt you've ever discussed science (or anything else) with someone who has challenged your beliefs. You explode way to easily. You come across as a person who has always had their opinions treated as fact by the people around you, just because you talk about them with confidence. Well, guess what, you won't get that here. I know that there are people that are more educated and intelligent than me out there, but I also know I know more about science than you do.

I am sure there are scientists out there that believe in creation. Nothing says you can't believe in both creation and evolution. The two theories don't necessarily preclude each other. But while there are biologists out there that do believe in it, there are relatively few. I'd like to see you prove that there is more evidence out there for creation than evolution. That would sure clear up the last 150 years of debate.

[Ron Cusano 0]

Maybe you can't see or prove God because are spiritual blind and dead. You can't see the wind either, but you can see it's effects. That is how God it too! There a great verse in the Bible that says, "the fool hath said in his heart, the is no God"! That pretty well sums it up!

You can doubt who I have spoken with all you want, but that doesn't make it untrue. Personally, I couldn't care less what you think! You are so impressed with yourself that it bugs you when YOU are challenged. YOU are a legend in your own mind. In my mind, you are very sad.

So you know more than me about science! WoW! Aren't you the bright one! I am so impressed! But I forgot, science is your "god", even if it is a fallible god! There is a whole lot more to life and death that you precious science!

There are many, many very reputable scientises out there that believe in creation and do not embrace evolution. You just tune them out because you already have you mind made up.

Oh, really? I guess you really are blind, then, or maybe senile. You explode very easily, Ron. Read back on this thread and the other controversial ones you've posted on, if you need the evidence.

I believe in things I can see or prove. I can't do either with God. You only need faith when you have no evidence. Ron, I highly doubt you've ever discussed science (or anything else) with someone who has challenged your beliefs. You explode way to easily. You come across as a person who has always had their opinions treated as fact by the people around you, just because you talk about them with confidence. Well, guess what, you won't get that here. I know that there are people that are more educated and intelligent than me out there, but I also know I know more about science than you do.

I am sure there are scientists out there that believe in creation. Nothing says you can't believe in both creation and evolution. The two theories don't necessarily preclude each other. But while there are biologists out there that do believe in it, there are relatively few. I'd like to see you prove that there is more evidence out there for creation than evolution. That would sure clear up the last 150 years of debate.

[Ron Cusano 0]

http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/christ/creation.html

[anonemouse 1]

You are so impressed with yourself that it bugs you when YOU are challenged.

Ron, it bugs me when people like you challenge me over something they have no comprehension about or even a basic understanding of what they are challenging. I don't challenge you over website design, do I? That's because you know more about it than I do. I'm impressed with myself because I actually have evidence to back myself up? Uh huh.

http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/christ/creation.html

Um, Ron, that guy believes in evolution. If anything, he's a Christian evolutionist.

The statistical models I have seen discussed in attempts to refute evolution are far too simple-minded. Although I haven't had the time to really work on it - perhaps I'll do so some day -, one should get much more acceptable probabilities under proper modeling. But good models require more knowledge and work than those interested in the creation-evolution battle are usually prepared to invest.

Evolution doesn't happen by itself. Even atheists only claim evolution through a cooperation of chance and necessity. Where does the part that forces necessity come from? Atheists and agnostics usually ignore this question of origin.

Indeed, the cooperation of chance and necessity is a highly structured mathematical masterpiece of God that allows chance to do its creative work.

Evolution is one of God's major constructive principles in our universe, at every scale, not just the evolution of life. The evolution of snow crystals freezing at the surface of a window follows the same mathematical pattern as the growth of the bones in a human hand or the development of an animal species; in each case, the underlying model is a partial differential equation of reaction-diffusion type. The working of the nuclear reactions in an H-bomb is essentially similar though complicated by quantum phenomena.

Thus validating what I said earlier:

Nothing says you can't believe in both creation and evolution. The two theories don't necessarily preclude each other.