Isn't it true that the more a group tries to censor it's members, the more suspect it is?

[Subduction Zone]

Didn't you say, "Bible are morality tales at best"? But here you said my "sin".

Yes, you accused others of having your flaws. The reason I used scare quotes was that you indicated that the activity was wrong, therefore a "sin".

Is that so hard to understand?

 

[Neb]

Yep, I even know how to spell "Scopes" correctly. A biased judge found for the state. Do you have a point? The judge also gave Scopes only a slap on the wrist and he did not wish to go through the pains of a trial again so even though he had backing refused to appeal the verdict.

Once again, what point do you hope to make? Later trials in effect reversed that ruling.

Forgive me for saying a singular Scope. It's about teaching evolution in school. If you google Nebraska Man and ScopeSSSSSS Monkey trial you will see Dr. Henry Osborn and George William Hunter and Darwin, Galton, Huxley, Haeckel. If you want to talk about evolutions and eugenics disguising as science these names were always present and don't forget Darwin's son Leonard.

 

[Neb]

Yes, you accused others of having your flaws. The reason I used scare quotes was that you indicated that the activity was wrong, therefore a "sin".

Is that so hard to understand?

Wrong = sin. Sin = hell, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Forgive me for saying a singular Scope. It's about teaching evolution in school. If you google Nebraska Man and ScopeSSSSSS Monkey trial you will see Dr. Henry Osborn and George William Hunter and Darwin, Galton, Huxley, Haeckel. If you want to talk about evolutions and eugenics disguising as science these names were always present and don't forget Darwin's son Leonard.

The mans name was "Scopes". In this case "Scopes" is the singular.

Link your claims. And why refer to that? Amateurs get science wrong all of the time. If I recall correctly the judge, who was very biased, did not allow expert testimony making your point worthless. The guilty verdict was also overturned on a technicality, but that still means that Scopes was not found guilty. The people supporting Scopes knew that they would easily win an appeal since the judge was obviously biased and misinstructed the jury, but since Scopes was essentially not guilty due to the technicality he did not wish to continue:



Scopes Trial - Wikipedia

Site your sources and link them please if you want to make a claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong = sin. Sin = hell, right?

Nope, I see that yo do not understand the concept of scare quotes either:

Scare quotes - Wikipedia

"Scare quotes (also called shudder quotes,[1][2] sneer quotes,[3] and quibble marks) are quotation marks a writer places around a word or phrase to signal that they are using it in a non-standard, ironic, or otherwise special sense.[4] Scare quotes may express that the author is using someone else's term, similar to preceding a phrase with the expression "so-called";[5] they may imply skepticism or disagreement, belief that the words are misused, or that the writer intends a meaning opposite to the words enclosed in quotes."

 

[Neb]

Lucy, a chimp, was a hoax, and you and the other guy knew it was a hoax and all them "MISSING -macro- LINKS" you got were all fake too. You wanna be a chimp, go ahead, nobody is stopping you

The mans name was "Scopes". In this case "Scopes" is the singular.

Link your claims. And why refer to that? Amateurs get science wrong all of the time. If I recall correctly the judge, who was very biased, did not allow expert testimony making your point worthless. The guilty verdict was also overturned on a technicality, but that still means that Scopes was not found guilty. The people supporting Scopes knew that they would easily win an appeal since the judge was obviously biased and misinstructed the jury, but since Scopes was essentially not guilty due to the technicality he did not wish to continue:



Scopes Trial - Wikipedia

Site your sources and link them please if you want to make a claim.

You still not getting it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lucy, a chimp, was a hoax, and you and the other guy knew it was a hoax and all them "MISSING -macro- LINKS" you got were all fake too. You wanna be a chimp, go ahead, nobody is stopping you
You still not getting it.

There is nothing to get. You made no point and worse yet could not support it.

EDIT: And you are breaking the Ninth Commandment again. Lucy was not a hoax, that is a false charge that you cannot support. Her hips are far more like yours than those of a chimp. The profile picture makes it obvious. By the way, by making these false claims you are in effect calling yourself a chimp. That is again not a wise debating technique.

Why don't you try to support your claims with actual evidence? Oh wait, you don't have any.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Neb, you saw pictures of the profiles of the hips. There is no way that an honest person could deny the vast difference between Australopithecus and Chimp hips. Here is an illustration for you showing chimp, australopithecus, and human hips head on. Along with feet from the three species:

Early Hominin Evolution: Analysis of Early Hominids

By the way, this is what you need to do. Find a reliable source. Quote it or use its illustrations. And post a link.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Forgive me for saying a singular Scope. It's about teaching evolution in school. If you google Nebraska Man and ScopeSSSSSS Monkey trial you will see Dr. Henry Osborn and George William Hunter and Darwin, Galton, Huxley, Haeckel. If you want to talk about evolutions and eugenics disguising as science these names were always present and don't forget Darwin's son Leonard.

You do realize that a court of law is not the scientific community, don't you?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Lucy, a chimp, was a hoax,

By their fruits you will know them.

 

[Neb]

There is nothing to get. You made no point and worse yet could not support it.

Actually you cannot refute it. You were reading it yesterday from wiki, right?

EDIT: And you are breaking the Ninth Commandment again.

Remember the "morality tales at best"

Lucy was not a hoax, that is a false charge that you cannot support.

do you really believe Lucy was a 3.2 million-year-old hominid? Come on, man. How could you let them insult your intelligence?

Her hips are far more like yours than those of a chimp. The profile picture makes it obvious.

After it was altered.

By the way, by making these false claims you are in effect calling yourself a chimp.

stop acting like a chimp, man.

That is again not a wise debating technique.

Human rules I follow but never a chimp's

Why don't you try to support your claims with actual evidence? Oh wait, you don't have any.

"Actual evidence"? Where is your actual evidence, again?

 

[Neb]

By their fruits you will know them.

An atheist quoting Matthew 7:20?

 

[Neb]

You do realize that a court of law is not the scientific community, don't you?

Yeah, and

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually you cannot refute it. You were reading it yesterday from wiki, right?

Neb, this is not true. Tell me, why are you arguing science when you have no knowledge of the sciences at all? Is reality that big of a threat to your beliefs? As I pointed out earlier this is an indication of a very weak faith on your part. Christians with a strong faith can accept reality and still believe.

Here is a helpful hint, when you do not understand a refutation you should ask questions politely and properly. Though you have been acting foolishly no one has insulted you here and this post of yours is full of weak insults.

Remember the "morality tales at best"

What about it? Do you realize it probably is just a bedtime fairy tale?

do you really believe Lucy was a 3.2 million-year-old hominid? Come on, man. How could you let them insult your intelligence?

Once again, you are the one with no education in the sciences. You should be the last to make this claim.

stop acting like a chimp, man.

Human rules I follow but never a chimp's

"Actual evidence"? Where is your actual evidence, again?

You still do not understand what is and what is not evidence. You have been behaving worse than a chimp lately. Losing is no reason to shriek and howl. When you have to break up even individual sentences in a post you have admitted that you lost.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An atheist quoting Matthew 7:20?

Ironically most atheists understand the Bible better than most Christians. That is why they are atheists in the first place. Christians quite often have to ignore parts of the Bible or deliberately misinterpret those parts to protect their weak faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, and

Your argument that you could not even support in the first place is moot.

When you refer to something you need to be able to quote and link, you could not do that. Worse yet you referred to a lawsuit that you did not understand where no science experts were allowed at all. The oration of amateurs has no merit in a scientific debate.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

An atheist quoting Matthew 7:20?

A Christian who bears false witness against scientists.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

If the atheist simply knows nothing then as a Christian I know more than he.

But the problem is that you DON'T. Old Man Coyote could've created the earth.

Atheist arguments don strike nerves in Christian theological discussions, they have no place being there.

Atheists would be willing to bring in things that Christians blind themselves to. They are *ahem* "God's gift" to religion, a necessary check and balance.

A fish can´t discuss the workings of an internal combustion engine with a group of auto engineers

But a discussion of the ethics of amphibious vehicles would interest them highly.

I understand what atheism is. I said SOME make a religion of science. That is they consider it the ultimate authority. They have FAITH that it;s unproven theories and conclusions are fact, and explain all questions of existence.

Jesus said to judge a tree by its fruit. Science looks at evidence and makes conclusions. Faith attempts to deny that. An evangelist will say they have proof of a delicious apple. A scientist can test it and determine it's a picture of a banana. A faith-only type will eat the picture and claim it's the most delicious apple ever.

It's the ONLY avenue to the truth in Christianity.

That would be idolatry, because the bible is a book. God is God.

The point is, unless a person is a super scientist, a space traveler, a mathematician, a physicist, they have little first hand knowledge of what they declare to be true.

And you have a theology degree? Are you a prophet? What is YOUR expertise?

What the molecule to man theory and Lucy, the 3.2 million-year-old chimpanzee? Have you observed and tested this before it became a theory?

Please do an experiment to show we came from a dirt puppet. Thanks.

LOL! Seriously shmogie both of you are looking very bad. As a former law enforcement person you and Neb sound like a couple of "Sovereign Citizens" here. In case you have never heard of them here is one such example of a police Sovereign Citizen confrontation:

I agree. It's this fascination with quoting outdated/cancelled/repealed information that gets me.

I believe in the God of the Bible and I don’t belong to any lineages of chimps, that’s my reality.

Was Job a Creationist? Didn't God mock him for his "knowledge"? I mean, even when God is telling you you're wrong ....

Wrong = sin. Sin = hell, right?

Nope. God can always save/teach/redirect. Nothing FORCES God to send people to hell for sin. Our afterlives, if any, are His whim and nothing more.

 

[Neb]

Ironically most atheists understand the Bible better than most Christians. That is why they are atheists in the first place. Christians quite often have to ignore parts of the Bible or deliberately misinterpret those parts to protect their weak faith.

So you read the Bible too, huh?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you read the Bible too, huh?

Yes, I used to be a Christian. In the U.S. a good number of atheists were Christians earlier in their lives. Reading and understanding the Bible is quite often a major step in becoming an atheist.