Jesus created Sex

[joobz]

Rand, your continuing approval of sick humor and sick appreciation of those being crucified and tortured surely shows a basic human flaw in your make up.

I repeat crucifixion is not funny. Torture is not funny. Inflicting pain on others is not funny !!!

But racist humor is moral? DJJ, why do you have racist jokes on your website? How is this allowable but black humor isn't?

Pardon me for not buying that you are pious man who wishes to spread peace and morality. You are a self-indulgent, arrogant hypocrite. Exactly the kind of person that Jesus rebelled against.

 

[Davidjayjordan]

But racist humor is moral? DJJ, why do you have racist jokes on your website? How is this allowable but black humor isn't?

Pardon me for not buying that you are pious man who wishes to spread peace and morality. You are a self-indulgent, arrogant hypocrite. Exactly the kind of person that Jesus rebelled against.

Please reframe from accusing me of being a racist, just because I have caught sooo mnay using sick black humour against a serious topic. Crucifixion and pain and suffering is not funny.

I do not have racist jokes on my website, unless I have overlooked it. We can make fun of racist atitudes to show that racism is wrong and apalling and that NO Nation is superiori to any other nation or nationality.

All are equal in the Lord if they choose love and equality. Its all a matter of choice as each individual in each race has that choice.

And please reframe from name calling and slandering... I am not a arogant hyprocrite.

Attack the message not the messenger.

 

[Davidjayjordan]

No one says otherwise. Evolution is the great answer to Paley's watch thesis. Just as humans artificially selected for change through breeding of domesticated animals so did the environment naturally select for change to wild animals.

No species has ever changed from being that species. there is ZERO evidence to support such a wild wild claim.

Horses have gottern taller, people have gotten taller, but that is within the frame work of their genome. Horses have never changed into people, or vice versa.

Natural selection weeds out the week and the DIFFERENT. A supposed mutant that supposedly retained resessive mutations millions of years to eventually wait for millions of other recessive mutations to finally bring in a NEW breed of man horse, just has never happenned except in the minds of the evolutionary CHURCH. They have such Faith in the impossible.

Natural selection weeds out those that are different sexually, new comers lose out.... they by instinct and design look to the ideal. Study sexual selection of the different species.

 

[RandFan]

No species has ever changed from being that species. there is ZERO evidence to support such a wild wild claim.

Factually incorrect. There is mountains of evidence. The job of evolutionary scientists is to attempt to falsify evolution. To make predictions based on the theory of evolution and test those theories. Time and again the scientists are proven correct. Genetics is just the most recent discipline to be used but it is a growing mountain of evidence in and of itself and it matches up with all other evidence that predates genetic research.

Horses have gottern taller, people have gotten taller, but that is within the frame work of their genome. Horses have never changed into people, or vice versa.

Straw man.

The difference between a Saint Bernard and Chihuahua are significant and one does not give birth to the other. There is a gradient between the two. There is a gradient between humans and the common ancestor we share with the horse. There are far more changes. A little common sense will easily dispel such a ridiculous argument.

Natural selection weeds out the week and the DIFFERENT. A supposed mutant that supposedly retained resessive mutations millions of years to eventually wait for millions of other recessive mutations to finally bring in a NEW breed of man horse, just has never happenned except in the minds of the evolutionary CHURCH. They have such Faith in the impossible.

Silly and completely a straw man. Your ridiculous example does not represent evolutionary theory.

 

[joobz]

Please reframe from accusing me of being a racist, just because I have caught sooo mnay using sick black humour against a serious topic. Crucifixion and pain and suffering is not funny.

Wrong. I didn't call you a racist, I stated you have race laden Jokes on your website. Your "chinese Proverbs" under the joke section are written in the broken english style of a Bad Jerry Lewis Routine.

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/JokeBoard.html

I simply pointed out that you are being a hypocrite with your attack against people's sense of humor. If you don't want to be called a hypocrite, don't do hypocrital things.

I do not have racist jokes on my website, unless I have overlooked it. We can make fun of racist atitudes to show that racism is wrong and apalling and that NO Nation is superiori to any other nation or nationality.

I agree, racism is wrong. And I, personally, see nothing wrong with humor that pokes fun at differences. But don't act superior when someone makes a joke you don't agree with. Let it slide and I'll let your jokes slide.

All are equal in the Lord if they choose love and equality. Its all a matter of choice as each individual in each race has that choice.

And please reframe from name calling and slandering... I am not a arogant hyprocrite.

Attack the message not the messenger.

I'm attacking you as a hypocrite, because you have been hypocritcal. I'm calling you arrogant, because you demanding apologies from people who did nothing wrong is arrogant.

You've labelled my actions as "slithering" and weak. you accuse me of slander when many of your posts are slanderous. Again, you prove yourself a hypocrite. Remember, It isn't slander when it is true.

 

[Paulhoff]

Natural selection weeds out the week and the DIFFERENT. A supposed mutant that supposedly retained resessive mutations millions of years to eventually wait for millions of other recessive mutations to finally bring in a NEW breed of man horse, just has never happenned except in the minds of the evolutionary CHURCH. They have such Faith in the impossible.

What idiot ever said this, humans are not the end produce of all natural selections. Humans are an unfortunate outcome of evolution on this poor planet, look at what they have done to the earth so far.

Paul

 

[fuelair]

Please reframe from accusing me of being a racist, just because I have caught sooo mnay using sick black humour against a serious topic. Crucifixion and pain and suffering is not funny.

I do not have racist jokes on my website, unless I have overlooked it. We can make fun of racist atitudes to show that racism is wrong and apalling and that NO Nation is superiori to any other nation or nationality.

All are equal in the Lord if they choose love and equality. Its all a matter of choice as each individual in each race has that choice.

And please reframe from name calling and slandering... I am not a arogant hyprocrite.

Attack the message not the messenger.

Which are you then? Arrogant or hypocrite? I'm pretty sure I have seen examples of both in your spewings here - and I am certain joobz is right on the arrogant. Your pretense that only you see the truth is pure errant arrogance just by itself.

 

[fuelair]

I will happily reframe from calling DJ an arrogant, hypocritical racist (especially since I never framed it in the first place). But I cannot refrain from thinking of him as even lower than that.
I am sure joobz will also reframe!!!

 

[joobz]

No species has ever changed from being that species. there is ZERO evidence to support such a wild wild claim.

False
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

Among many many others.

 

[Kochanski]

I have answered all questions, except personal ones. You answer none because you have no answers and are afraid to stand for anything.

You have not answered all questions. Hokulele asked a number of questions that you did not answer. Taffer asked a number of questions you did not answer.

The only questions you ask are relating to your own interpretation of a very old book written by men and without showing support in the form of EVIDENCE there is no reason for any of us to take your questions seriously.

BTW, I have read the book as well as other relgious ones and found only stories written by men that do not explain anything in the real universe.

So stop the pretense and arrogance and learn something and defend something and be some ONE.

I have been defending something in case you have forgotten, EVOLUTION. You see I know what it is, I have studied it. You on the other hand have demonstrated over and over that you do not, or do not wish to understand it because you see it as a threat to your beliefs.

And quite excusing your flippancy and others flippant remarks and QUITE excusing your childish drawings and rude comments. Discuss and learn.

When you start saying something serious, I will take you seriously. As long as you post nonsense, I will reply in kind.

And the Daleks are not my drawings, I am not getting in trouble with the estate of Terry Nation by taking any credit for them. I wanted cybermen, but there are none in the smilies, so daleks will have to do. Although, the Ood seem more appropriate in this case. You would like the Ood, they are easily led.

 

[slingblade]

Attack the message not the messenger.

Cripes, I am tired of having this thrown in my face by people who have no clue what it means and can't even say it properly!

The word you want is argument, not message. And yes, there is an important distinction between the two.

In this post by Darat on behalf of the forum management, it plainly says:

attack the argument not the arguer.

It does not say "message/messenger," and for good reason.

What's the difference?

An argument is a set of logical statements: a premise or premises, and a conclusion. The premises provide support for the conclusion, and the conclusion is asserted to be true on the basis of the premises. An argument is valid when true premises cannot lead to a false conclusion. An argument is sound when its content is true or factual.

An argument can be proven or disproven, regardless of who speaks it or why. It can be falsified or verified, independent of the one who makes it. Its truth or falsity rests on its claims, not on its speaker. For example, smoking is bad for one's health. This is true even when a smoker makes the argument.

A message is an opinion. It is an emotion-based statement of belief, feeling, or point of view (among other descriptors). It can be false, it can be based on error, and it can be full of crap. Opinion is not argument, and the simple fact that you hold a particular opinion does not make either it or you unassailable.

If one persists in presenting moronic opinions as if they were unassailable fact, I will tell him just how ignorant he seems to me. I don't know any polite way to inform you that I think you're a moron, but I'll try to be nice about it as long as you seem to be listening and giving a care.

When you persist in trying to magically turn your opinions into unassailable fact, I will give you grief for it.

Try using actual argumentation for once, and try doing so with an open mind, willing to accept that what you think you know might not be so. Check your facts, and make sure they're facts, not opinions.

In fact, try doing even a little reading on logic, argument, and fallacies. It certainly couldn't hurt, unless one's true desire is to remain comfortably blanketed by one's ignorance.

 

[fuelair]

Go Slingblade!!!!

 

[RandFan]

Cripes, I am tired of having this thrown in my face by people who have no clue what it means and can't even say it properly!

The word you want is argument, not message. And yes, there is an important distinction between the two.

In this post by Darat on behalf of the forum management, it plainly says:

It does not say "message/messenger," and for good reason.

What's the difference?

An argument is a set of logical statements: a premise or premises, and a conclusion. The premises provide support for the conclusion, and the conclusion is asserted to be true on the basis of the premises. An argument is valid when true premises cannot lead to a false conclusion. An argument is sound when its content is true or factual.

An argument can be proven or disproven, regardless of who speaks it or why. It can be falsified or verified, independent of the one who makes it. Its truth or falsity rests on its claims, not on its speaker. For example, smoking is bad for one's health. This is true even when a smoker makes the argument.

A message is an opinion. It is an emotion-based statement of belief, feeling, or point of view (among other descriptors). It can be false, it can be based on error, and it can be full of crap. Opinion is not argument, and the simple fact that you hold a particular opinion does not make either it or you unassailable.

If one persists in presenting moronic opinions as if they were unassailable fact, I will tell him just how ignorant he seems to me. I don't know any polite way to inform you that I think you're a moron, but I'll try to be nice about it as long as you seem to be listening and giving a care.

When you persist in trying to magically turn your opinions into unassailable fact, I will give you grief for it.

Try using actual argumentation for once, and try doing so with an open mind, willing to accept that what you think you know might not be so. Check your facts, and make sure they're facts, not opinions.

In fact, try doing even a little reading on logic, argument, and fallacies. It certainly couldn't hurt, unless one's true desire is to remain comfortably blanketed by one's ignorance.

Outstanding slingblade. You have hit the nail squarely on the head. DJJ doesn't contribute anything other than to spout opinion.

 

[joobz]

Outstanding slingblade. You have hit the nail squarely on the head. DJJ doesn't contribute anything other than to spout opinion.

The message/messanger issue is that typically the "message" is not the opinion of the messager (who is just the person delivering the message), so to attack that person is missplaced. However, the messanger here is the origin of the message. So it is fully appropriate to bring the messanger to task for the things presented.

 

[strathmeyer]

Someone who gleefully anticipates the wholesale slaughter of the entire human species at the hand of his "loving" God dares to lecture anyone on the tastefulness of crucifixion humour?

Your pretense of offence is its own parody.

Not to mention that he wants everyone who doesn't play make believe with him to be tortured for eternity, and he wonders why we make fun of torture?

Davidjayjordan, why do you still have a sig line that says to e mail you when you have made it completely clear in your personal correspondence with me that you have no intention of teaching me about Jesus, and instead just ridiculed and made fun of me? Is this the Christian thing to do? Do come to a forum and tell a bunch of lies, and then encourage people to e mail you so that you can feel better about yourself by making fun of them? Is this the good, right, moral, Christian thing to do?

 

[RandFan]

Not to mention that he wants everyone who doesn't play make believe with him to be tortured for eternity, and he wonders why we make fun of torture?

Davidjayjordan, why do you still have a sig line that says to e mail you when you have made it completely clear in your personal correspondence with me that you have no intention of teaching me about Jesus, and instead just ridiculed and made fun of me? Is this the Christian thing to do? Do come to a forum and tell a bunch of lies, and then encourage people to e mail you so that you can feel better about yourself by making fun of them? Is this the good, right, moral, Christian thing to do?

It's ok to lie for jesus.

 

[Hokulele]

So you want to know how sex could evolve? I think we should first start with the basics, and find out how much you already know. So, here is a simple quiz.

DJJ, please take this quiz so I can determine how best to address your question. I tried once earlier in this thread, but you demonstrated that you had no idea what I was talking about, so I want to make sure I don't go over your head again. Here we go:

1) Which chromosomal pair represents the human female gender, XX or XY?

2) Which of the following use sexual reproduction techniques:

Boa Constrictors
Tiger lilies
Humans
Puffball mushrooms
Ridley's sea turtles
Mildew
Portugese Man-O-War jellyfish
Maple trees
Very small rocks

3) How many sexes are represented in the natural world (1? 2? 3? More?)?

4) In the human reproductive cycle, which happens first, implantation or fertilization?

5) Which of the following exists mainly as a single-stranded molecule, RNA or DNA?

This isn't a complete quiz, but at least it gives me an idea of your level of understanding basic biology. I will address your evolution question once you have taken this quiz.

H, answer your own questions and state something for a change rather than trying to claim nothing and standing for nothing. learn something, connect something. And learn the rules as you don;t have to answer my questions and won;t and I don't have to answer your pet questions.

I have answered all questions, except personal ones. You answer none because you have no answers and are afraid to stand for anything.

Liar.

 

[neon]

I didn't see anything personal in the mini-quiz. It's a silly cop-out for him to pick one tiny thing that offends him and refuse to participate anymore. "If you don't let me win, I'm going to take my ball and go home" is not an intelligent strategy. He ought to answer. They seem like simple enough questions to me.

 

[RandFan]

I didn't see anything personal in the mini-quiz. It's a silly cop-out for him to pick one tiny thing that offends him and refuse to participate anymore. "If you don't let me win, I'm going to take my ball and go home" is not an intelligent strategy. He ought to answer. They seem like simple enough questions to me.

DJJ is a blatant liar. He has ignored many points and questions. He does not discuss or debate in any reasonable fashion.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Styles evolve through manipulation of designers, nothing evolves through luck and chance.

So when a mountain side evolves due to a landslide that is evidence of deliberate design? When cells in a human brain evolve into a baseball sized tumor this is evidence of design?

Definitions do not define when they limit the understanding of principles. learn the principles first then everything else falls in place. Do not be controlled by language but use language to pass on principles.

You are the one who seemed to have misunderstood the definition of "evolve" in the context of the post to which you were responding. Lisa's use of the word was entirely appropriate. Your comments were made in ignorance.