mikeinsarasota

Is this a joke? The molecular conformation is supposed to prove what? It looks like this guy is way too into symbology, and is missing the point.

They look like very elegant experiments.

It's really quite simple. Creation may be evidence of a Creator, but the suitability of our planet is not. Yer starting to sound like "blah blah blah". Making a lot of noise but not saying anything. Real mature. I've made my point clear. Over and over again. It's still your opinion. Some things are matters of opinion, others are matters of fact. Some things are matters of faith, others are matters of reason. This is the latter of both. Your point is that Creation = Creator, but what I keep trying to tell you is that that is an entirely different and argument to whether or not the suitability of our universe invalidates atheism. The fact that the arguments are separate is not a matter of opinion. Ok. You win. Are you saying this because you can't and/or don't wish to expend the mental energy to understand what cache is saying and just want to be done with the conversation, or do you really admit to understanding and agree with cache? I don't agree with him. I just don't like being nagged. I know, right? People wanting you to think all the time. What's up with that?

It's really quite simple. Creation may be evidence of a Creator, but the suitability of our planet is not. Yer starting to sound like "blah blah blah". Making a lot of noise but not saying anything. Real mature. I've made my point clear. Over and over again. It's still your opinion. Some things are matters of opinion, others are matters of fact. Some things are matters of faith, others are matters of reason. This is the latter of both. Your point is that Creation = Creator, but what I keep trying to tell you is that that is an entirely different and argument to whether or not the suitability of our universe invalidates atheism. The fact that the arguments are separate is not a matter of opinion. Ok. You win. Are you saying this because you can't and/or don't wish to expend the mental energy to understand what cache is saying and just want to be done with the conversation, or do you really admit to understanding and agree with cache?

He's just as guilty as the rest. But at least now he's acknowledging that they were wrong. Being human means learning from our mistakes. If we can't recognize our mistakes, then we're in trouble. It doesn't hurt that you have the opportunity to profit from "acknowledging that they were wrong" either. I'm sure Scott McClellan is a smart guy. Smart enough to know there are much easier ways to make more money than writing a book. Like what? Futures markets, for one. Why do you ask? Do you think writing a book is the most lucrative undertaking one can become involved in?

He's just as guilty as the rest. But at least now he's acknowledging that they were wrong. Being human means learning from our mistakes. If we can't recognize our mistakes, then we're in trouble. It doesn't hurt that you have the opportunity to profit from "acknowledging that they were wrong" either. I'm sure Scott McClellan is a smart guy. Smart enough to know there are much easier ways to make more money than writing a book.

He's just as guilty as the rest. But at least now he's acknowledging that they were wrong. Being human means learning from our mistakes. If we can't recognize our mistakes, then we're in trouble.

Actually, he's proof that 'weaselness' is bipartisan..... Absolutely. I question the motivation of a person who toed the party line until it appeared convenient to him to make some money off a controversial book. Does he honestly want me to believe that he willingly sat on his hands while he knew the American people were being sold a line of horse hockey to promote going to war? If so, that makes him more despicable in my mind. It was his job to do so. He eventually admitted his guilt, by writing a book. Would you rather he never realized what he was doing was wrong and just blindly followed?

...is proof that even repubs can be honest sometimes.

Before I name one, I'd like to know if you are truly interested in finding a new news outlet, or just in attacking whatever source I list? I don't believe you have one. Kat, don't waste your time on this; it's just another troll looking for a bridge to live under. There's no substance to these posters and they can't debate anyone. It's always the same thing; they call you ignorant, suggest you don't have much education, that you can't read very well, that you're not Christian enough if you don't agree with their loser ideas.....it's a pat routine. Sticks and stones, brother. I'm praying for you.

You obviously missed the part where I wrote, "It is surely not infallible." Perhaps if you were able to read better you might not be so surprised. Do you ever even read the NYT? Do you follow current events at all? Oh, and you really shouldn't drink so early in the morning. Yeah. I confess, reading has always been a problem for me. Perhaps one day I can be as well read as you. Perhaps. But I never claimed to be well read. I see your critical reading skills could use a refresher. I tend not to read the drivel that comes out nowadays. Nothing good on it. It doesn't take much when the bar is set so low. You must be very proud of yourself, toot your own horn much? I could list my publications here, but I won't. Your claim sounds somewhat spurious. In what capacity are you on this list? And do they use as much white space in these books you are associated with as you did in your post, or do they fill the pages with actual content? A battle of wits? You are fighting windmills (its an allusion), brother. Besides, you sound too prideful for me to engage. I'll be praying for you.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but logic isn't really a subjective thing.

Before I name one, I'd like to know if you are truly interested in finding a new news outlet, or just in attacking whatever source I list?

Why don't you try a more neutral news outlet, like one that doesn't openly hawk divisive t-shirts. Maybe reading more balanced, less emotionally charged articles won't leave you so angry all the time. Such as? one that doesn't openly hawk divisive t-shirts Can you name one? I can.

Why don't you try a more neutral news outlet, like one that doesn't openly hawk divisive t-shirts. Maybe reading more balanced, less emotionally charged articles won't leave you so angry all the time. Such as? one that doesn't openly hawk divisive t-shirts

Why don't you try a more neutral news outlet, like one that doesn't openly hawk divisive t-shirts. Maybe reading more balanced, less emotionally charged articles won't leave you so angry all the time.

Either way, the probability f life existing on a planet suited to its existence, like earth, is 100%. Either way you look at it, the suitability of our planet fits perfectly with both the Creationist view and the Atheist view, therefore it isn't evidence for or against either side. That's funny. I recognize creation as evidence of a creator, and that's part of the foundation of my faith. So I guess it's just not evidence for atheism. But it fits equally well with atheism, so it isn't evidence for either side. You can't claim it invalidates atheism when it simply doesn't. Yes I can. I just did. Ok, since you clearly missed the point, I'll restate what cache meant and naively thought you could understand. "You can claim it invalidates atheism, if you'd like. You would just be doing so foolishly and committing a logical fallacy." So are you saying that it's illogical for God to exist? I have to wonder why you don't have unbeliever in your profile. Probably because I love the Lord Jesus. I find your questioning of my faith misplaced and offensive. Why don't you have unbeliever in YOUR profile? That would be a logical fallacy. Why do you defend Atheism? You might want to brush up on your critical reading skills. Nowhere did I defend atheism.

Either way, the probability f life existing on a planet suited to its existence, like earth, is 100%. Either way you look at it, the suitability of our planet fits perfectly with both the Creationist view and the Atheist view, therefore it isn't evidence for or against either side. That's funny. I recognize creation as evidence of a creator, and that's part of the foundation of my faith. So I guess it's just not evidence for atheism. But it fits equally well with atheism, so it isn't evidence for either side. You can't claim it invalidates atheism when it simply doesn't. Yes I can. I just did. Ok, since you clearly missed the point, I'll restate what cache meant and naively thought you could understand. "You can claim it invalidates atheism, if you'd like. You would just be doing so foolishly and committing a logical fallacy." So are you saying that it's illogical for God to exist? I have to wonder why you don't have unbeliever in your profile. Probably because I love the Lord Jesus. I find your questioning of my faith misplaced and offensive. Why don't you have unbeliever in YOUR profile?

Umm, the entire world. Clever. And childish. It will be hard (well harder than it has been) for me to take you seriously now if you can't even recognize the NYT's journalistic superiority to a rag like the world tribune.

Either way, the probability f life existing on a planet suited to its existence, like earth, is 100%. Either way you look at it, the suitability of our planet fits perfectly with both the Creationist view and the Atheist view, therefore it isn't evidence for or against either side. That's funny. I recognize creation as evidence of a creator, and that's part of the foundation of my faith. So I guess it's just not evidence for atheism. But it fits equally well with atheism, so it isn't evidence for either side. You can't claim it invalidates atheism when it simply doesn't. Yes I can. I just did. Ok, since you clearly missed the point, I'll restate what cache meant and naively thought you could understand. "You can claim it invalidates atheism, if you'd like. You would just be doing so foolishly and committing a logical fallacy." Says you. To me it's totally logical. Fooloish is as foolish does. I always have to laugh when someone tries to tell you what someone else meant while, at the same time, not knowing what they're talking about themselves! Okay, that was my laugh for today........ how diplomatic and Christlike of you.

And I suppose you know it too, right? Yes, I do, as a matter of fact. What evidence do you have for this? http://www.worthynews.com/news/worldtribun...0164_05_22-asp/ Have you seen this, for starters? The pic is especially telling. Obviously you are drinking the Democrat koolaid. Sorry but I don't read shoddy, partisan journalism like that found in world tribune. I stick to reputable sources that actually fact check. Ah, like the always reliable New York Times, huh? For one, yes. It is surely not infallible, but they didn't get to be the world's most respected newspaper for reporting on the level of the world tribune, or world news daily.

And I suppose you know it too, right? Yes, I do, as a matter of fact. What evidence do you have for this? http://www.worthynews.com/news/worldtribun...0164_05_22-asp/ Have you seen this, for starters? The pic is especially telling. Obviously you are drinking the Democrat koolaid. Sorry but I don't read shoddy, partisan journalism like that found in world tribune. I stick to reputable sources that actually fact check.

Either way, the probability f life existing on a planet suited to its existence, like earth, is 100%. Either way you look at it, the suitability of our planet fits perfectly with both the Creationist view and the Atheist view, therefore it isn't evidence for or against either side. That's funny. I recognize creation as evidence of a creator, and that's part of the foundation of my faith. So I guess it's just not evidence for atheism. But it fits equally well with atheism, so it isn't evidence for either side. You can't claim it invalidates atheism when it simply doesn't. Yes I can. I just did. Ok, since you clearly missed the point, I'll restate what cache meant and naively thought you could understand. "You can claim it invalidates atheism, if you'd like. You would just be doing so foolishly and committing a logical fallacy."

And I suppose you know it too, right? What evidence do you have for this?

Ok, so you want to assault a senator because you think they are at fault for the current oil crisis. But can you counter any of forrestkc's facts? It seems your anger may be misdirected.