Summations Only

I'll take your bet.In Message 645, you said, "I'm willing to bet you $1.55 that what the Catholic Church teaches is the truth ..."Go ahead and do a DNA test on your next communion wafer. If it has any Jewish ancestry there's $1.55 on it's way to you.(See how easy it is to test hypotheses?)

I hope you realize that to us normals (as dwise1 calls us) are about as insulted by that word as you would be if you were called a "Little-Endian". (That's a Lilliputian "Little-Endian".) Why would it be "thinly veiled"? Why would it be veiled at all? Human intellect is all we have (and that includes you). What would be more worthy of worship? We're winning now.

Who cares about amgels. When HUMANS pray, "Hail Mary," they're worshipping Mary. Here it is again:

quote:

---

Hail Mary, full of grace,
the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

---

Notice the BIG part. Calling her "Holy" is worship. Calling her the "Mother of God" is worship. How could it not be?Even your fellow-Catholic frllow-idiot Porkncheese agrees that it is worship. Message 643 To Elizabeth, "my Lord" was not God, it was Jesus. The trinitarian heresy was invented later. And "a" lord is not the same as "the" Lord.

Until you learn what assumptions are, your objection is worthless. And if you ever DO learn what assumptions are, you'll drop the silly objection.Yes, we do assume that radioactive decay rates are constant - and the fact that they ARE constant has been VERY thoroughly confirmed. Scientists have been unable to find any conditions or processes that can change decay rates.So, an "asumption" in science is a fact that has already been confirmed by other work. That would appear to be a lie, since you're still espousing the totally-refuted creationist nonsense about radiometric dating.(Even the creationist RATE group had to concede that creationist objections to radiometric dating are groundless.)

The earth itself is a record of its past. Dig a hole and you'll see the record of the latest local flood, the latest volcanic eruption, etc. The number of floods will even give you a pretty good idea about the weather in the past. You'll see the remains of the animals that used to live there, so you'll get a pretty good idea about what they ate, which will also give you an idea about the weather.And you can learn it by yourself in your own back yard.Avoid those lying creationist websites and learn something. Some liar has told you that. If you did find a fossil in your back yard, how would you know whether it was transitional or not? If you can't recognize a transitional fossil, how can you say there are none? Nor can we see Rome being built. Yet we're pretty sure it was built - and we can get a pretty good idea of HOW it was done. By your logic, there is no way that we could learn anything about ancient Rome. Neither abiogenesis nor evolution "disprove" God's creation. However, the evidence supports abiogenesis and evolution. There is no evidence that supports God. Swiss cheese is not defined by the holes; it's defined by the cheese. (Are you a big enough fool to not understand that?)

*shrug* You say that like it was a bad thing.Sure there are gaps in our knowledge. There are gaps in our knowledge on every subject. (Even your almighty knowledge of your god has gaps in it.)As I said, we don't ignore the cheese just because it has holes in it. The cheese itself is still good. YOU can talk all YOU want but YOUR talk won't eliminate the transitional fossils that we DO have. If you were honest (you're not), you could look up "transitional fossils" yourself and find out how many transitional fossils we DO have. But you'd rather believe the lies that creationist tell you. Liar. If you looked, you'd find them. Show us your calculations. You can't, can't you? Because those numbers are just lies made up by creationists. Darwin would certainly be impressed by how thoroughly his ideas have been confirmed. Look at DNA, for example. Darwin only knew D and N and A as letters in the alphabet. Today, DNA has confirmed evolution many, many times over.Why are your "arguments" a hundred years old? Because you don't have the first inkling of a clue about DNA? And? It seems impossible for you to learn anything.

We've heard that lie before.I'll make it easy on you: since you claim there are "hundreds", name just fifty.

You're misquoting John Stuart Mill:

quote:

---

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative.

---

You prove his point.

So, to be clear, you're in favor of executing woman who have abortions?WWJD? What would Jesus do?Hm....

quote:

---

John 8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

---

I like to point out that Jesus didn't cast the first stone either.

Stop it. Republicans have taxes too.

You're making that up. Jesus wan't born until centuries after the Ten Commandments were written. Misguided people - like you - try to use the Old Testament to overrule Jesus. I didn't say anything about judging. Go ahead and judge all you want. What Jesus said was that none of us is qualified to carry out our judgement, at least not to the point of death. And He included Himself in that disqualification. See? By all means, judge your brother - but only after you have judged yourself by the same standard (or an even higher standard). By all means, stone the adulterous woman - but only after you have been stoned yourself for your own sins. Remember Who also said that we are ALL sinners? That makes no sense.But even if it did, it would include the adulterous woman's death penalty. What life? How can a god be alive? What about a twelve-year-old girl who is raped? Shall we execute her too? They already are. It's what the (human) law should say that's in question here.You would execute a doctor who saves a woman's life by terminating a pregnancy that is killing her. That's sick.

That is not true.

quote:

---

Enslavers came from all parts of the political spectrum. The Post’s database includes lawmakers who were members of more than 60 political parties. Federalists, Whigs, Unionists, Populists, Progressives, Prohibitionists and dozens more: All those parties included slaveholders. source

---

We say "intellectually challenged" now. My brother used to coach a Special Olympics track team and he said that "we" should be more like "them". I've met a lot of the team members and I tend to agree. You seem to be in favor of executing women who have abortions. Are you or are you not?And how is it different if the woman was raped? Is it not still "murder"? Because she had an abortion, which you call "murder". So what? If abortion is "murder", then she's a murderer, even if she had the abortion to save her life. Why isn't EVERY situation between the woman, her husband, if she has one, and God? Why do you have to stick your nose in? I'm against all murders of babies. But abortion is not considered murder in any civilized society. If I couldn't read, how do you think we got this far, genius? It does. What has that got to do with abortion? I am honest. Paul was wrong.

Abraham Lincoln would weep if he saw the thugs in the Republican Party today.

No hubris about it. Jesus wasn't born until millennia after the creation, so Paul was clearly wrong to associate Him with it. Since you don't answer most of what I post, I don't feel obligated to answer everything you demand.If you want to discuss Paul being wrong, there's already an example on the table.