http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

You're welcome.

@kag

I never said i wrote it, It is a popular conversation.

Here is another drama that took place in a lecture hall, where a student took his atheist professor to the cleaners;

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

smile4kenn:

@kag

I never said i wrote it, It is a popular conversation.

I know you didn't write it. That wasn't why I posted the snopes link. It wasn't a conversation either. At least not a real one.

OLAADEGBU:

Here is another drama that took place in a lecture hall, where a student took his atheist professor to the cleaners;

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

http://www.whiterose.org/dr.elmo/blog/archives/001781.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bigdaddy.html

You're welcome.

KAG:

http://www.whiterose.org/dr.elmo/blog/archives/001781.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bigdaddy.html

You're welcome.

Isn't it true that rather than proofs of evolution, all that evolutionists can come up with are evidences for evolution to someone who already believes in evolution?

Another brave student stands up to his atheist professor

http://4allchristiansunite.multiply.com/video/item/136/Will_You_Stand_Up_For_God

@ topic

these are very intelligent arguments against evolution, which evolutionists cannot answer. Perhaps evolution is more of an atheistic concept.
I have always wondered about the rationality of both evolution and atheism.

OLAADEGBU:

Isn't it true that rather than proofs of evolution, all that evolutionists can come up with are evidences for evolution to someone who already believes in evolution?

IT's true that science doesn't do proof. However, the different lines of evidence for the theory of evolution are open to anyone.

noetic:

@ topic

these are very intelligent arguments against evolution, which evolutionists cannot answer. Perhaps evolution is more of an atheistic concept.
I have always wondered about the rationality of both evolution and atheism.

No, they aren't even close to being intelligent arguments. What's more, the arguments were answered in the links I provided. And evolution is accepted by more theists than atheists. Go figure.

OLAADEGBU:

Another brave student stands up to his atheist professor

http://4allchristiansunite.multiply.com/video/item/136/Will_You_Stand_Up_For_God

http://www.snopes.com/religion/chalk.asp

You're welcome.

KAG:

IT's true that science doesn't do proof. However, the different lines of evidence for the theory of evolution are open to anyone.

No, they aren't even close to being intelligent arguments. What's more, the arguments were answered in the links I provided. And evolution is accepted by more theists than atheists. Go figure.

The only genuine evidence for evolution is the fact that the leaders of 'intellectualism' believe it, and the only reason they believe it is their desperate desire to escape God. Listen to what God says about them: "Professing themselves to be wise, they become fools"

KAG:

http://www.snopes.com/religion/chalk.asp

You're welcome.

Instead of you to own up to the facts being presented you keep burying your head in the sand like the proverbial ostrich.  When will you guys start answering serious challenges to your faith or is it called 'fantasy' that Darwin sold to you?

Watch how another professor ducked and dodged when he was confronted with a pertinent question, and when he could no longer hide, he ended up diverting the question by answering something completely different, typical of Atheists.  And I wouldn't be surprised if you come up with an excuse that he was mentally fatigued or something like that.

Watch this short video and then read  the background story about it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

KAG:

IT's true that science doesn't do proof. However, the different lines of evidence for the theory of evolution are open to anyone.

No, they aren't even close to being intelligent arguments. What's more, the arguments were answered in the links I provided. And evolution is accepted by more theists than atheists. Go figure.

that probably explains why u and others have been able to answer the pertinent questions about the origin and pioneer evolution of life.
until u (all ye atheists on nairaland) answer those questions, my definition of atheism as an irrational state of mind where the subject of ones disbelief cannot be defined or substantiated stands and one of its erratic products is the evolution lie.

OLAADEGBU:

The only genuine evidence for evolution is the fact that the leaders of 'intellectualism' believe it, and the only reason they believe it is their desperate desire to escape God. Listen to what God says about them: "Professing themselves to be wise, they become fools"

That's nice. I like a good conspiracy theory too, but your's makes little sense. Worse still, many who accept evolution, including scientists that work in the field, are theists. So much for that.

OLAADEGBU:

Instead of you to own up to the facts being presented you keep burying your head in the sand like the proverbial ostrich.  When will you guys start answering serious challenges to your faith or is it called 'fantasy' that Darwin sold to you?

Um, you realise that the things you posted were lies, right? And the links I gave were in the hope that you'd stop lying for Jesus. You do realise that, right? Also, the theory of evolution isn't a faith nor is it fantasy. I've responded to your many questions on the theory of evolution and many other scientific theories. The end result has always been the same: spam or run.

Just so you know as well, ostriches don't bury their heads in sand.

Watch how another professor ducked and dodged when he was confronted with a pertinent question, and when he could no longer hide, he ended up diverting the question by answering something completely different, typical of Atheists.  And I wouldn't be surprised if you come up with an excuse that he was mentally fatigued or something like that.

Watch this short video and then read  the background story about it.

http://bsa-ca.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=1

That's nice.

noetic:

that probably explains why u and others have been able to answer the pertinent questions about the origin and pioneer evolution of life.
until u (all ye atheists on nairaland) answer those questions, my definition of atheism as an irrational state of mind where the subject of ones disbelief cannot be defined or substantiated stands and one of its erratic products is the evolution lie.

Good to know what you think. I've asked you before and I'll ask here again: start a thread with those "pertinent questions" and time willing, I'll participate. The conditions were and still are: "Don't duck out of questions when I ask them in return, and don't try to simply handwave away any of my responses - basically, engage actively with the contents of any potential responses. I'll also promise to do the same. Deal?"

KAG:

Good to know what you think. I've asked you before and I'll ask here again: start a thread with those "pertinent questions" and time willing, I'll participate. The conditions were and still are: "Don't duck out of questions when I ask them in return, and don't try to simply handwave away any of my responses - basically, engage actively with the contents of any potential responses. I'll also promise to do the same. Deal?"

I have heard this before from huxley, all i got eventually was "i dont know"

noetic:

I have heard this before from huxley, all i got eventually was "i dont know"

That's nice. Suit yourself. Whatever helps you with closure.

noetic:

I have heard this before from huxley, all i got eventually was "i dont know"

Was it not you who agreed to take part in a 20-20 questions debate-athon? We have that on record, remember. Was it not you again who duck out, shamefacedly out of the agreed debate-athon? How dishonest yuou christians are!

huxley:

Was it not you who agreed to take part in a 20-20 questions debate-athon? We have that on record, remember. Was it not you again who duck out, shamefacedly out of the agreed debate-athon? How dishonest yuou christians are!

good to know i am dishonest and u are deceitful. did i not accept ur challenge? did u answer my first two questions explicitly?
is "i dont know" an answer i should always look out for?

KAG:

That's nice. I like a good conspiracy theory too, but your's makes little sense. Worse still, many who accept evolution, including scientists that work in the field, are theists. So much for that.

This is a matter of a pot calling the kettle black.  It depends on what spectacles you use to view the facts, if you use the evolutionary fable glassess you will see the facts and call it fables and if you use the biblical creationists' spectacles to view evolutionary lies you will see them for what they are, lies from the pit of hell.   Show me one theist who accepts the evolutionary fantasy and I will show you who has swallowed the bait of the serpent hook, line and sinker.

KAG:

Um, you realise that the things you posted were lies, right? And the links I gave were in the hope that you'd stop lying for Jesus. You do realise that, right? Also, the theory of evolution isn't a faith nor is it fantasy. I've responded to your many questions on the theory of evolution and many other scientific theories. The end result has always been the same: spam or run.

Depending on which spectacles you are using, is it based on the Word of God or on the lies and philosophies of human reasoning?  If responses to my questions means posting the frantic efforts of your fellow atheists to twist the facts then the light you have is great darkness indeed.  As far as I can remember you are the one who runs when confronted with pertinent questions, do you remember the question on the origin of the universe?

KAG:

Just so you know as well, ostriches don't bury their heads in sand.

But you are aware of how you and your fellow evolutionists deny the obvious, twisting the facts to suit you.

KAG:

That's nice.

Is that all you have to say about how your apostle professor Dawkins was caught napping?  This is what I am talking about, how atheists/evolutionists avoid, dodge and duck pertinent questions and then when they have been found out they begin to put a twist on it.  I am waiting for the twist that you are going to put on this evidence. 

Watch it again here.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

huxley:

Was it not you who agreed to take part in a 20-20 questions debate-athon? We have that on record, remember. Was it not you again who duck out, shamefacedly out of the agreed debate-athon? How dishonest yuou christians are!

You must cover your face in shame.   You shot yourself in the foot when you opened yourself to challenges and when I asked you some pertinent questions about your blind faith you ducked and dived, avoiding to answer any of them.  I remember toneyt chasing you about to answer his question and you began to run from pillar to post.  You even put your foot in the mouth again when you pledged to pay £100.00 if anyone could show you a peer review article of a biblical creationist, this was produced immediately and you have been no where to be found, claiming not to have seen the post, typical atheist.

OLAADEGBU:

You must cover your face in shame. You shot yourself in the foot when you opened yourself to challenges and when I asked you some pertinent questions about your blind faith you ducked and dived, avoiding to answer any of them. I remember toneyt chasing you about to answer his question and you began to run from pillar to post. You even put your foot in the mouth when you pledged to pay £100.00 if anyone could show you a peer review article of a biblical creationist, this was produced immediately and you have been no where to be found, claiming not to have seen the post, typical atheist.

No its obvious who the dishonest one is. . , . . , .if u push him further he will say "I dont know"

OLAADEGBU:

That's nice. I like a good conspiracy theory too, but yours makes little sense. Worse still, many who accept evolution, including scientists that work in the field, are theists. So much for that.

This is a matter of a pot calling the kettle black.  It depends on what spectacles you use to view the facts, if you use the evolutionary fable glassess you will see the facts and call it fables and if you use the biblical creationists' spectacles to view evolutionary lies you will see them for what they are, lies from the pit of hell.   Show me one theist who accepts the evolutionary fantasy and I will show you who has swallowed the bait of the serpent hook, line and sinker.

No, not a case of the cliched pots and kettles. Nor does individual, relative point of view matter in this case. Simple fact: More theists than atheists accept the theory of evolution. Even a crazy fantasist that believes in the existence of Xenu should be able to see that. That point, then, refutes your conspiracy theory whether you like it or not. More interestingly, though, there a good number of Biblical Creationists - and other types of Creationists too - that accept evolution up to the speciation level and more.

You can insert devil and hook fallacy here.


By the way, I'm loving your Carico style.

Um, you realise that the things you posted were lies, right? And the links I gave were in the hope that you'd stop lying for Jesus. You do realise that, right? Also, the theory of evolution isn't a faith nor is it fantasy. I've responded to your many questions on the theory of evolution and many other scientific theories. The end result has always been the same: spam or run.

Depending on which spectacles you are using, is it based on the Word of God or on the lies and philosophies of human reasoning?  If responses to my questions means posting the frantic efforts of your fellow atheists to twist the facts then the light you have is great darkness indeed.  As far as I can remember you are the one who runs when confronted with pertinent questions, do you remember the question on the origin of the universe?

I don't wear spectacles. Further, spectacles don't change the fact that you posted lies, and that much is obvious. I love that anyone who points out or writes about the falsehoods you're posting is automatically an atheist. Makes for a fun-filled world. And, no, I never run away from pertinent questions. I've always answered questions on the origin of the universe directed at me. You and your ilk don't. More, you and your ilk have always spammed or run. Don't forget I gave you links to your posts to show you doing exactly that.

Insert glasses cliche here.

But you are aware of how you and your fellow evolutionists deny the obvious, twisting the facts to suit you.

No, that's Christian Creationists and, come to think to it, many apologists of the Christian and Muslim persuasion. I think it was Huxley that had this as a sig, and it's stuck with me: something along the lines of "it's permitted for Christians to be honest too". You should try it. Feels good, man.

Is that all you have to say about how your apostle professor Dawkins was caught napping?  This is what I am talking about, how atheists/evolutionists avoid, dodge and duck pertinent questions and then when they have been found out they begin to put a twist on it.  I am waiting for the twist that you are going to put on this evidence. 

Watch it again here.

http://bsa-ca.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=1

You - or someone similar - have posted it several times before. There are only so many times I'm willing to respond to the same thing. I defer to Dawkins' explanation of what actually occured, not because he's an atheist or I like him, but because he had written about it (information) before the incident, and still more after the filming. Incidentally, I find interesting that Creationists like you think acceptance of the theory of evolution or even atheism is anything like your religion. You know, the one where you elevate a human to god-like status, ala the pope or pastor, then feel betrayed (or something) when they show themselves to be human.

It's very interesting to me.

KAG:

No, not a case of the cliched pots and kettles. Nor does individual, relative point of view matter in this case. Simple fact: More theists than atheists accept the theory of evolution. Even a crazy fantasist that believes in the existence of Xenu should be able to see that. That point, then, refutes your conspiracy theory whether you like it or not. More interestingly, though, there a good number of Biblical Creationists - and other types of Creationists too - that accept evolution up to the speciation level and more.

You can insert devil and hook fallacy here.

This is the evidence of what your evolutionary fantasy is all about.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." - Charles Darwin

(The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)

KAG:

I don't wear spectacles. Further, spectacles don't change the fact that you posted lies, and that much is obvious. I love that anyone who points out or writes about the falsehoods you're posting is automatically an atheist. Makes for a fun-filled world. And, no, I never run away from pertinent questions. I've always answered questions on the origin of the universe directed at me. You and your ilk don't. More, you and your ilk have always spammed or run. Don't forget I gave you links to your posts to show you doing exactly that.

Insert glasses cliche here.

This is another evidence of how you abandoned the thread and ran with your tail between your hind legs:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=241487.0

The point of your opaque glassess has been made.

KAG:

No, that's Christian Creationists and, come to think to it, many apologists of the Christian and Muslim persuasion. I think it was Huxley that had this as a sig, and it's stuck with me: something along the lines of "it's permitted for Christians to be honest too". You should try it. Feels good, man.

Remember that you have no obligation to be honest.  My honesty has a source who I appeal to which is the Bible and God Almighty, but why would you have to be honest since you have no reason to be moral, you simply make up your own rules, break them and make others as it suits your selfish self?

KAG:

You - or someone similar - have posted it several times before. There are only so many times I'm willing to respond to the same thing. I defer to Dawkins' explanation of what actually occured, not because he's an atheist or I like him, but because he had written about it (information) before the incident, and still more after the filming. Incidentally, I find interesting that Creationists like you think acceptance of the theory of evolution or even atheism is anything like your religion. You know, the one where you elevate a human to god-like status, ala the pope or pastor, then feel betrayed (or something) when they show themselves to be human.


It's very interesting to me.

Do you know what 'Kofeso' Dawkins' response was to a similar question that was put to him?

Ques: Have you or anyone ever observed this transition?

Ans: "evolution has been observed it's just that it hasnt't been observed while it's happening."

That's all the evidence you need.

OLAADEGBU:

This is the evidence of what your evolutionary fantasy is all about.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." - Charles Darwin

(The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)

Quote-mines are evidence for the theory of evolution? News to me. Full context of the Darwin quote:

For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for, thinking of so many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be wholly wrong, and therefore I rest in peace. Thank you for criticisms, which, if there be a second edition, I will attend to. I have been thinking that if I am much execrated as an atheist, etc., whether the admission of the doctrine of natural selection could injure your works; but I hope and think not, for as far as I can remember, the virulence of bigotry is expended on the first offender, and those who adopt his views are only pitied as deluded, by the wise and cheerful bigots.

This is another evidence of how you abandoned the thread and ran with your tail between your hind legs:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=241487.0

The point of your opaque glassess has been made.

Lol, you really can't help being dishonesst can you? Let's take a look at the thread in question. I had responded to everything, then the thread came to an end. You then, after spending days ignoring the thread and spamming the forum, return to it two weeks later, post some random cut\paste in the thread everyone - but you - had forgotten about. You're not being very honest. In any case, I'll respond to it now that I've been drawn to it. However, if that's the best you can offer, then . . . well, you know.

You can respond with some more laughable cliches now.

No, that's Christian Creationists and, come to think to it, many apologists of the Christian and Muslim persuasion. I think it was Huxley that had this as a sig, and it's stuck with me: something along the lines of "it's permitted for Christians to be honest too". You should try it. Feels good, man.

Remember that you have no obligation to be honest.  My honesty has a source who I appeal to which is the Bible and God Almighty, but why would you have to be honest since you have no reason to be moral, you simply make up your own rules, break them and make others as it suits your selfish self?

Actually, I have an obligation to be honest because striving for honesty is part of my moral code. I'm not perfect, but I try. You and your ilk, on the other hand, despite your rhetoric and assertions generally have little truck with honesty. If discussing and debating your kind has taught me anything, it's that lying and all-round disingenuousness is a standard you guys generally adopt. It may seem harsh, but it's the truth. Then again, I suppose that's easy to do if you feel your sky daddy will excuse your dishonesty if it's done for his "glory".

Do you know what 'Kofeso' Dawkins' response was to a similar question that was put to him?

Ques: Have you or anyone ever observed this transition?

Ans: "evolution has been observed it's just that it hasnt't been observed while it's happening."

That's all the evidence you need.

Actually, that's not evidence, that's quote-mining. All the evidence you need are in the unfalsified independent lines of evidence that indicate the workings of evolution. Really, though, with genetic evidence in the shape of the presence of chromosome no.2, shared ERVs, etc; fossil evidence by way of transitionals like the dinosaur-bird remains, ape-human, etc; abstract ones like nested-heirarchies, etc; it's easy to understand why we consider the theory of evolution to be the best explanation for origins and diversity of species.

In any case, what worries me at this point isn't that you reject evolution, but that you haven't acknowledged the fact that the stories - glurges in Snopes speak - you posted in this thread are dishonest.

@ Huxley or Kag

Let me ask Huxley, or Kag this question. What comprised the first unicellular organism, and how did it happen to put itself together in such an orderly fashion to have become the launching pad for life?

Bobbyaf:

@ Huxley or Kag

Let me ask Huxley, or Kag this question. What comprised the first unicellular organism, and how did it happen to put itself together in such an orderly fashion to have become the launching pad for life?

I do not know. In a similar vein, what blood group type was Jesus?

@ huxley

I do not know

Thank you.

Now scientists say that proteins are built by the genes from the DNA double helix. They call it the central dogma of biology of which you're aware no doubt.

Can you tell me if the first cell had a DNA double helix the way we know it today?

Bobbyaf:

@ huxley

Thank you.

Now scientists say that proteins are built by the genes from the DNA double helix. They call it the central dogma of biology of which you're aware no doubt.

Can you tell me if the first cell had a DNA double helix the way we know it today? 

NO I can't, cuz I don't know. But where are you heading?

huxley:

NO I can't, cuz I don't know. But where are you heading?

This is fast becoming a standard answer

KAG:

Quote-mines are evidence for the theory of evolution? News to me. Full context of the Darwin quote:

For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for, thinking of so many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be wholly wrong, and therefore I rest in peace. Thank you for criticisms, which, if there be a second edition, I will attend to. I have been thinking that if I am much execrated as an atheist, etc., whether the admission of the doctrine of natural selection could injure your works; but I hope and think not, for as far as I can remember, the virulence of bigotry is expended on the first offender, and those who adopt his views are only pitied as deluded, by the wise and cheerful bigots.

And what information has your quoting of the whole passage added to the quote I made?  Wasn't I the one who quoted Charles Darwin, giving you the full reference for you to check up on?  Why didn't you quote the whole chapter if you felt that it will change the meaning of the point I made?  And what is your point that was different from what I quoted?

KAG:

Lol, you really can't help being dishonesst can you? Let's take a look at the thread in question. I had responded to everything, then the thread came to an end. You then, after spending days ignoring the thread and spamming the forum, return to it two weeks later, post some random cut\paste in the thread everyone - but you - had forgotten about. You're not being very honest. In any case, I'll respond to it now that I've been drawn to it. However, if that's the best you can offer, then . . . well, you know.

You appeared to have been stung here did you?  Remember that it was you who started to point your accusing finger at Christians that they were cutting and running away from your threads without replying, and when I made you see that when you point your crooked finger at others you should guess what direction the other fingers are pointing to.   Don't pretend that you have forgotten about the thread, you have the e-mail notification reminding you of replies to your posts.  Now you will know that he who sows to the wind will nowadays, reap the hurricane, and that to a devastating effect.   The point that you atheists are the runners has been proved.

KAG:

You can respond with some more laughable cliches now.
Actually, I have an obligation to be honest because striving for honesty is part of my moral code. I'm not perfect, but I try. You and your ilk, on the other hand, despite your rhetoric and assertions generally have little truck with honesty. If discussing and debating your kind has taught me anything, it's that lying and all-round disingenuousness is a standard you guys generally adopt. It may seem harsh, but it's the truth. Then again, I suppose that's easy to do if you feel your sky daddy will excuse your dishonesty if it's done for his "glory".

What obligation, and to who?  Is it the moral code that you make up when it suits your selfish self?  What is your stance on homosexual behaviour and gay marriage, euthanasia and abortion, family break-up, pornography, and racism?  Do you want to tell us that the lies of evolution has not made these evil social vices the norm of society today?  If you want to be morally upright you will appeal and be subject to the supreme source of absolute morality, the Holy Bible whose source is God who you unfortunately don't reckon with.

KAG:

Actually, that's not evidence, that's quote-mining. All the evidence you need are in the unfalsified independent lines of evidence that indicate the workings of evolution. Really, though, with genetic evidence in the shape of the presence of chromosome no.2, shared ERVs, etc; fossil evidence by way of transitionals like the dinosaur-bird remains, ape-human, etc; abstract ones like nested-heirarchies, etc; it's easy to understand why we consider the theory of evolution to be the best explanation for origins and diversity of species.

Yes, I agree, and here they are "The nine Great Proofs of Evolution" and why they are all false.

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53

KAG:

In any case, what worries me at this point isn't that you reject evolution, but that you haven't acknowledged the fact that the stories - glurges in Snopes speak - you posted in this thread are dishonest.

I appeal to the source of Truth, which is the Holy Bible and you subscribe to the lies from the pit of hell as presented by your evolution and scopes.com which has been found out to be a far left democratic, liberal propagandist, created by a couple Barbara and David Mikkelson, all to deceive, and only those who have refused to accept the truth will fall into the deception of the last days.

http://www.techchuff.com/web-2-0/snopes_hoax

http://www.thetreeofliberty.com/vb/showthread.php?t=34125

OLAADEGBU:

And what information has your quoting of the whole passage added to the quote I made?  Wasn't I the one who quoted Charles Darwin, giving you the full reference for you to check up on?  Why didn't you quote the whole chapter if you felt that it will change the meaning of the point I made?  And what is your point that was different from what I quoted?

Totally. It does change the slant you were trying to present. This is never made clearer than when one reads the sentence that follows your quote-mine:

. . . "Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be wholly wrong, and therefore I rest in peace."

The picture you were trying to paint is thereby evidently different from what Darwin's letter in its context implies: that Darwin was being modest, and more, was certain that at that point he was certain the theory championed by himself and Wallace was no "phantasy" but as yet largely unfalsified science.

I posted the rest of the context, by the way, so you could realise that attitudes change very little. You should read the rest of it, if no other reason than to see your unintelligent bigotry preceded by over a century.

Lol, you really can't help being dishonesst can you? Let's take a look at the thread in question. I had responded to everything, then the thread came to an end. You then, after spending days ignoring the thread and spamming the forum, return to it two weeks later, post some random cut\paste in the thread everyone - but you - had forgotten about. You're not being very honest. In any case, I'll respond to it now that I've been drawn to it. However, if that's the best you can offer, then . . . well, you know.

You appeared to have been stung here did you?  Remember that it was you who started to point your accusing finger at Christians that they were cutting and running away from your threads without replying, and when I made you see that when you point your crooked finger at others you should guess what direction the other fingers are pointing to.   Don't pretend that you have forgotten about the thread, you have the e-mail notification reminding you of replys to your posts.  Now you will know that he who sows to the wind will nowadays reap the hurricane, and that to a devastating effect.   The point that you atheists are the runners has been proved.

I'll start from the bottom up. No, I don't get any email notifications. If I do then they must end up in the spam area of my account - I don't look at the spam area of my account. More importantly, though, like I wrote previously, if that's the best you've to offer, you really have nothing then. The thread was dead for two weeks. I was gone. Now that you've revived it and called my attention to it, I've responded to it. If that's running, then another for what your ilk does may have to be invented.

Let me make my point clearer, you did what you should have done in the first place: called my attention to a thread in which you responded to my post almost three weeks after it was made. I have rebutted your post. Now if only Christians of your type could be honest, we'd make some progress.

You can respond with some more laughable cliches now.
Actually, I have an obligation to be honest because striving for honesty is part of my moral code. I'm not perfect, but I try. You and your ilk, on the other hand, despite your rhetoric and assertions generally have little truck with honesty. If discussing and debating your kind has taught me anything, it's that lying and all-round disingenuousness is a standard you guys generally adopt. It may seem harsh, but it's the truth. Then again, I suppose that's easy to do if you feel your sky daddy will excuse your dishonesty if it's done for his "glory".

What obligation, and to who?

An obligation to mostly my sphere of immediate interaction. You see, one needn't make a pact with a make believe entity to be obliged to striving for honesty. You ought to try it sometime. Feels good, man.

Is it the moral code that you make up when it suits your selfish self?  What is your stance on homosexual behaviour and gay marriage, euthanasia and abortion, family break-up, pornography, and racism?  Do you want to tell us that the lies of evolution has not made these evil social vices the norm of society today?  If you want to be morally upright you will appeal and be subject to the supreme source of absolute morality, the Holy Bible whose source is God who you unfortunately don't reckon with.

My stance on homosexuality and gay marriage are they a-ok as long as it's between two consenting adults. I'm mostly in support of adults being able to choose when it comes to euthanasia and abortion. However, I'm inclined to being able to view it in other ways depending on the situation at hand. I'm against racism; and inclined against family break ups. Althought I realise they are sometimes inevitable. I've no problem with legal pornography.


No, evolution - especially not the theory of - didn't make any of those things norms. Humans, some who accept the theory, others who don't, made those things sometimes acceptable in societies. The theory of evolution , on the other hand, is a field in biology that explains species.

Finally,like I wrote previously, if you're a product of the "absolute morality" of the Bible, then I'll pass.

Actually, that's not evidence, that's quote-mining. All the evidence you need are in the unfalsified independent lines of evidence that indicate the workings of evolution. Really, though, with genetic evidence in the shape of the presence of chromosome no.2, shared ERVs, etc; fossil evidence by way of transitionals like the dinosaur-bird remains, ape-human, etc; abstract ones like nested-heirarchies, etc; it's easy to understand why we consider the theory of evolution to be the best explanation for origins and diversity of species.

Yes, I agree, and here they are "The nine Great Proofs of Evolution" and why they are all false.

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53

Hey, here's an idea, why don't pick the one you think is the best "evidence", then we can go over it. I've posted examples of excellent evidence for the occurrence of evolution. As is usual, they remain ignored.

In any case, what worries me at this point isn't that you reject evolution, but that you haven't acknowledged the fact that the stories - glurges in Snopes speak - you posted in this thread are dishonest.

I appeal to the source of Truth, which is the Holy Bible and you subscribe to the lies from the pit of hell as presented by your evolution and scopes.com which has been found out to be a far left democratic, liberal propagandist, created by a couple Barbara and David Mikkelson, all to deceive, and only those who have refused to accept the truth will fall into the deception of the last days.

http://www.techchuff.com/web-2-0/snopes_hoax

The hell? All of that to ignore what I wrote. Wow. Look, you can introduce as many ad hominems as you want, but it doesn't change the fact that those stories that were peddled in this thread are made up - essentially, lies for Jesus. So much for "absolute morality", I guess.