The scariest statement I have heard im a generation is, “I however, am in the prime of baby-making age.”

God forbid.

In other words, it’s a word that has a specific meaning. Use it incorrectly, as you’ve done over the last few posts, and you just end up looking like a complete ass.

“I still maintain that Darwinism will be a forgotten piece of scientific lore, a Snopes.com bit of trivia; while billions upon billions of people are comforted by, and rely upon God.”

Sure, and you have nothing to back this claim up. Absolutely nothing. Pixie dust, perhaps? Dreams and a wish? You’re an idiot.

“And if you want to hear about the Mount Everest of stupidity, how about someone who who is so incredibly ignorant of religion, that he thinks that God is someone’s “imaginary friend”.”

Well, let’s see. God is imaginary. Is he not your friend? No, I suppose not. I’ll retract half my statement, and issue the following correction. God is your “imaginary commander guy.” Is that better, shit-for-brains?

First of all, any reasonable person would suppose that living longer would suggest that you had “survived” longer, right?

So stop being a fucking obnoxious prig, and get over yourself.

You talk like Dr. Science, when you’re what, out of graduate school a year or two.

Get over yourself, you blowhard!

I still maintain that Darwinism will be a forgotten piece of scientific lore, a Snopes.com bit of trivia; while billions upon billions of people are comforted by, and rely upon God.

And if you want to hear about the Mount Everest of stupidity, how about someone who who is so incredibly ignorant of religion, that he thinks that God is someone’s “imaginary friend”.

The idea that man expects God to do everything leads inevitably to a callous misuse of prayer. For if God does everything, man then asks him for anything, and God becomes little more than a ‘cosmic bellhop’ who is summoned for every trivial need.

Guess who said that, doofus?

Wrong, Frank. You clearly have no idea what “fitness” means. You’re scientifically illiterate. A boob of the first order. Why do you bother asserting things when you don’t know that they’re true?

Your continued insistence that monotheism’s relatively old age next to Darwin’s theory somehow makes it more reasonable, or potentially more reasonable, is the height of stupidity. See, in science, we build on older knowledge to make BETTER predictions, to formulate better models, etc. Once we have a better model, or a better descriptor, or whatever, the old model is discarded like so much trash, even if it’s “older.” Read: Bush-Mostellar model of learning vs. Rescorla-Wagner model (just as an example).

You’re just always wrong. It’s quite remarkable. I’ve never encountered anything like it before.

Wrong. I knew it was PG because it’s part of my job. For someone who likes to Google me, you should have known that.

I also know that the MPAA, the organization that assigns ratings, has two ordained ministers as part of the process. So you are delusional if you think they attack Christianity.

“Proof that Christian principles are being marginalized? Again, yes.”

How? You were wrong about the rating, so how can you use it as proof for your claim.

PG is a perfectly appropriate rating for this movie. In fact, I doubt you could find a movie about a contact sport that earned a G rating. It’s just not possible.

Monotheism goes back over 6000 despite any number of assaults. Darwin’s theory is less than 200 years old. Get back to me in 2200, and let me know where they both stand.

As to whether that proves “everything I assert” is wrong, I would venture to say that it does not.

So, CSS runs to IMDB, and finds out that a movie with Christian content got a “PG” for thematic elements.

Proof that my memory failed me? Yes.

Proof that Christian principles are being marginalized? Again, yes.

I have a funny feeling the rest of your points are equally at odds with reality.
You should really keep your “funny feelings” to yourself.

Facing The Giants was given the following rating by the MPAA…

Rated PG for some thematic elements.

So unless you are talking about another Christian football movie that come out recently, I think you are mistaken.

I have a funny feeling the rest of your points are equally at odds with reality.

“Please explain to me how I’m the one who doesn’t know the future? And you are?”

You don’t know the present, how could you possibly know the future?

Wouldn’t want to disappoint.

Have you taught Pinky to brush his teeth yet?

You’re just a child in a lab smock.

Have you taught

That’s the way the trend has been going throughout history, Frank. It’s up to you to demonstrate why you thnk more scientific knowledge will prove God’s existence, and not make it less likely. As for examples the demonstrate my point… the ancient Greeks thought that Thor was angry with them when lightning storms hit. Now we know a scientific reason, the buildup of charge between the Earth and atmosphere, that causes the transfer of electrons during storms. No god needed. Many people worshipped the sun throughout history. Turns out the sun is not a god. Science has demonstrated that the Earth is much, much older than the 6000 years the Bible says it is, poking another hole in the credibility of that document. Etc, etc, etc. Tell me why this trend should be reversed anytime soon? I’ll bet you can’t.

“I am not expecting to be alive when Darwin’s theory of evolution is proven false, but I know this: monotheism has been around for about 6,000 years, Darwin’s theory less than 200. I’m betting that monotheism is fitter.”

How can I possibly argue with this kind of idiocy? This is just another variation of your “I’m old, therefore I’m right” argument. Which is just about the worst argument you’ve ever thought up, which is saying alot because you have expressed many dumb ideas on this blog.

“We’re fighting religious fanatics for control of the earth. You’re on the side of those who want to leave the battle field”

What if we all left the battlefield, Frank? What if every single person did? It would be a much more peaceful world to live in. John Lennon was fucking right.

“Oh, screw the Founding Fathers”

I agree. We in America idealize them, as if they were infallible. They weren’t. They were human, just like you and me, Frank, and perfectly capable of making mistakes. For fuck’s sake, some of them owned slaves. Again, I’ll refer you to my previous post about how appealing to the Founding Fathers is not a real argument. I don’t care if you did know them personally.

Consider:
1) We don’t want you practicing that religion stuff in school, near our kids (recently, a movie about a high school football team that turned to Jesus to win football games was given a PG - 13). Parents! Be careful! In this movie, they talk about Jesus — approvingly. Be careful.

2) We don’t want religion practiced on public territory, A municipality was forced recently to cover up a Worl War I memorial because it was shaped like a cross.

3) Prayer in school — gone… Bible Study Group after school — gone!

4) Mention of Christmas is controversial.

If anyone seems nervous and insecure it’s you atheists

Please explain to me how I’m the one who doesn’t know the future? And you are?

We’re fighting religious fanatics for control of the earth. You’re on the side of those who want to leave the battle field, and yet you can predict the demise of religion as a force in people’s lives?

From the standpoint of religiosity vs. secularism, how do you see secularism as the winner in what Samuel Huntington calls “The Clash of Civilizations”.

I am not expecting to be alive when Darwin’s theory of evolution is proven false, but I know this: monotheism has been around for about 6,000 years, Darwin’s theory less than 200. I’m betting that monotheism is fitter.

Oh, screw the Founding Fathers, they weren’t automatically right about everything. They also kind of liked the idea of thinking for yourself.

So yeah, anyway, don’t hold your breath waiting for Darwin to be disproven. It’s not likely to happen. Meanwhile, watch your imaginary friend grow continually smaller and weaker. I’m loving the view from here.

And I am not playing the age card when I tell you that the long peptide chains in swamp water trick goes back to before you were even born. And has never progressed any farther.

That’s why I tend to side with the people who say that the problem with evolution is that it is way to slow. “Punctuated equilibrium” was offered up for a while as a possible answer to that, but I seem to recall it was discarded.

I would say that people behaving well without the spectre of an angry God or eternal hellfire are intrinsically MORE moral than those who are coerced into good behavior.
You would say that if, and only if, you were ignorant of the religious beliefs of most of the people on this planet. Which is why it wouldn’t hurt for people to learn more about religion.

Based on most of the comments I have read here on this blog, most of the posters know little or nothing about the religions they criticize.

Mambochicken: I suggest you read up on any and all the Founding Fathers you choose, and see if you can find one that didn’t believe 1) In a God who created the world and guided and protected the founding of the United States; 2) That the free and unfettered right to practice religion, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, was a right we all were born with.

Does anyone have a clue as to what this means?
Once the insults start, I know you have run out of things to say. So the snarkiness and condescension creeps in like Carl Sandburg’s Fog, on “little cat’s feet”.

Here’s what it means: You, and the other Darwinists, are magnanimously telling us exactly where and when we can practice religion, and defining it for us. But when we do it, it’s tyrannical and theocratic.

Finally, I don’t really care if evolution “needs” God’s hand to guide it. I didn’t say it “needed it”, or that it couldn’t have taken place without His guiding hand.

I’ll say it again: The time will come, in the future, when the existence of a conscious source of all the life in Universe (which still exists) will be “proven”, “demonstrated” with evidence, and all the necessary scientific requirements.

And, on that day, Darwinism will go the way of the homunculus, phlogiston, and mal aria.

I see you’re out of argument again, so I’ll quit here. I think I was pretty reasonable, I think I heard you out, without any need to insult you.

You seem to have failed to accomplish those three things.