cwcrenshaw Posted October 15, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 93 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/10/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted October 15, 2007 I am not the one who's confused about this. yes, you are, and you clearly have an axe to grind...take it elsewhere, isn't there an atheist.com? no axe to grind. When you make false statements about the constitution be prepared to be called on it. Your comments are very childish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwcrenshaw Posted October 15, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 93 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/10/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted October 15, 2007 you don't know what you're talking about, pure and simple I think you are wrong, but we will have to agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Copper Scroll Posted October 15, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 14 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 682 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/25/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted October 15, 2007 You're the one who posted about the seperation of church and state. copper scroll brought it up, not me Yeah, I brought it up, clearly without the intent of derailing this thread with a silly debate about the intention's of our country's founders. I most definitely was not saying that the exact phrase "separation of church and state" appears in the constitution, so I don't see the need for your canned response from the religious right about the aclu. The first amendment makes plain what I was referring to. People like you offer a reminder on why we should be continually grateful for this amendment. Believe, say, write, and waste $27 million on whatever you want (I support your right as a private citizen to do any and all of this), but thankfully your ideas about what is just in God's eyes has a marginal chance of affecting my life in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwcrenshaw Posted October 15, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 93 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/10/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted October 15, 2007 plain and simple, you flatly deny the authority and Divine inspiration of the scriptures...no Christian can say that I think he's simply remarking on the imperfection man brings into any situation he is involved in, even when that has to do with the Bible. And yes a Christian can say that...no fundamentalist can say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwcrenshaw Posted October 15, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 93 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/10/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted October 15, 2007 yes, evey translation is a step away from the original autograph, but the verdict of science is modern english translations are excellent verdict of science? since when have you cared about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwcrenshaw Posted October 15, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 93 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/10/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted October 15, 2007 (edited) predictable I care about true empirical science, I make my living from it...not the fairy tale world of darwinists (who can only be proven wrong) Oh i'm not even going to touch that one. Way too easy. Edited October 15, 2007 by cwcrenshaw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwcrenshaw Posted October 15, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 93 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/10/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted October 15, 2007 (edited) it's force fitting the evidence to a preconceived dogma/agenda Pot, meet Kettle. Edited October 15, 2007 by cwcrenshaw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwcrenshaw Posted October 15, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 93 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/10/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted October 15, 2007 the evidence supports the Biblical model of sudden creation and the global flood...period...anyone who denies that is blind You mentioned dinosaurs ("dead things") and carbon-dating...you mean to tell that you believe all dinosaurs were fossilized in under 6000 years, and that every single carbon-14 test ever conducted is flawed by millions and millions of years? Boy, that is some faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwcrenshaw Posted October 15, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 93 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/10/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted October 15, 2007 the evidence supports the Biblical model of sudden creation and the global flood...period http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ I hate to tell you this, but no..it doesn't. There are mountains of evidence in support of evolution and only a few desperate fundamentalist organizations against it. You tell me who has more credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwcrenshaw Posted October 15, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 93 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/10/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted October 15, 2007 you mean to tell that you believe all dinosaurs were fossilized in under 6000 years, and that every single carbon-14 test ever conducted is flawed by millions and millions of years? you obviously don't know much about the various dating methods: C14 cannot be used to date organic artifacts at "millions of years"...the fossils themselves are not dated, they are assigned a date, based on an arbitrary geologic time scales actually I know quite a bit more than you think I do. Of course c14 dating can only be accurate up to 60,000 years...but again this is much more than the 6000 years you are claiming. Again, you are assuming that all these measurements are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts