Archaeologica.org

To be honest I don't think nobody likes Arch here.I do in a way and so doesMin i guess . I confess sometimes I enjoy the easy victories discussing with him .His mental abilities are not diminished but severely impaired by the education he has enjoyed (so to speak ) at sunday classes and bible schools.It is a process of brainwashing that could have befell to any of us .If Arch would have been born in Thailand he would have been a budhist no doubt about that . I think being an expat in Corea makes him lonely .

i think his constant assertions of things that even his religious leaders don't claim means the brianwashing didn't take very well and he's lost his faith
people who have faith don't talk crap about it to prove they have it
lets face it
hes not proving to us he is an intellectual man of god is he
hes trying to prove it to himself
we all are our own worst critics
in Arch's case his personal critic is about to cast him into hell
luckily as we all know it doesnt exist theres no harm done

if you are going to talk about me, please wake me up so i can be a part of the discussion and set things straight.

frank-- i have never insulted you nor try to insult people. you read what i write and feel insulted as i may err in communicating probably. sometimes i toss an off hand comment out because i have had my fill of being insulted, which i shouldn't do, so sorry.

but also completely ignorant of the concept

i do understand the concept of evolution and i read few creation books. if you look at the concept and how it was formed by darwin, you will see that there is ot static or organized method to the theory, allowing anythng and everything to be considered part of the process.

which by the way eliminates the responsibility toproduce coherent evidence to support the theory. that is why the finch mutations can be used to prove that apes turned into man. there is no rhyme or reason for producing any sort of logical proof and the concept is so structured that conjecture can be used to promote evidentery nonsense.

for evolution, you need to construct wild timelines, fanciful hereditary functions, extrapolate fossils and so on buildiung a case upon which you cannot produce any evidence for the theory to respond in the manner you proclaim.

for me and creation all i have to do is take you to the maternity ward of both human and animal hospitals, take you to a plant nursery, or farm and i can produce all the evidence of the result of the creation process without the conjecture and manipulation.

this is the biggest stumbling block to evolution's credibility and viability and one they cannot get around.

p.s.--frank--i have been meaning to ask you, were you a PK or a MK?

Sorry, Arch. I don't know what PK and MK mean.

okay that probably answers my question.

PK = preacher's kid

MK = missionary kid

Minimalist wrote:

Why doesn't America believe in evolution?

Too many Fundys!

Or they polled too many of us country folk. Question: Do you believe evolution is a fact? Answer: Well, ya'll call it the theory of evolution, so it can't be a fact now can it? (I have actually overheard similar statements a number of times over the years. And I guarantee if any of my Grandies were polled they would say they didn't believe evolution was a fact. Even while believing in the theory of evolution.)

Hope for the world...if not the US.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/578972.stm

Of the 103 church leaders who took part in the survey - including Church of England and Catholic bishops and Methodist ministers - only three said they believed in the literal, Biblical, version of the Creation in which God created the world in six days.

Virgin Birth 'not accepted'

Asked whether they believed that Adam and Eve really existed, only 13 of the church leaders said yes, with 80 saying no.

Nor was the Virgin Birth universally accepted, with nearly one in four saying they did not believe in it.

they are in fact just following church teachings in saying that
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 32,00.html
of course as per usual it takes a while to filter down into the fundementalist sheep amongst the flock

also
did anyone else notice that the word fundementalist contains the word
"mentalist"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentalist
snigger

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

Perhaps you weren't here for the discussion of "Catholics aren't Christians?"

The majority of leading public figures including church leaders and politicians do not believe in the Biblical version of the Creation, according to a survey.

you notice they don't name what churches these leaders belong to. so i am betting they manipulated the results by sending these surveys to non-evangelical, non-fundamentalist church leaders.

creating a scenario to influence others away from the Bible.

did anyone else notice that the word fundementalist contains the word
"mentalist

did anyone notice that the word 'marduk' contains the word 'ark' in it??

did anyone notice that the word 'marduk' contains the word 'ark' in it??

it doesn't !!!
where did you learn english ?

Mardark???? Markduk???

archaeologist wrote:

The majority of leading public figures including church leaders and politicians do not believe in the Biblical version of the Creation, according to a survey.


you notice they don't name what churches these leaders belong to.

Actually, they do.

including Church of England and Catholic bishops and Methodist ministers

Luckily for our British cousins they don't have a lot of fundamentalist nut jobs running around loose over there.

Mardark???? Markduk???

Jesus has jews in it
Jeu.ss
and also sue
js.sue
see
that proves it eh

sue jews cos jesus and Arch say so

it also has 'mad' in it which must mean that marduk is crazy--ha.