LG

Of course it's used that way, Jonny, because the show is designed to conceal the lack of substance. Socks used it correctly.

Lord, folks! A dog and pony show is any elaborate show with little substance. It derives from small touring circuses that had no large animals.

Pointless though it may be, I’ll respond. Nope. I merely pointed out that the first link was not what you claimed it to be and that the second was to a bogus offer. Other than to briefly and calmly clarify a couple of terms that you seem not to understand, note that the theory of evolution is compatible with Bible-based Christian belief, and clarify my interest in the topic, I have said little. You, on the other hand, have carried on rather excitedly about all sorts of things, many of which are hardly related, if at all, to anything I said. There easily could be. If this were a calm, rational discussion, I might explain. This is not incompatible with the theory of evolution. Again, if this were a calm, rational discussion, I might explain. Not one of those is excluded by the theory of evolution. It might be, yet there are plenty of people who believe in Christ, who also accept the theory of evolution as the current best explanation of observed evidence and most reliable predictor of outcomes addressed by the theory. And again, the fall of man and redemption of Christ are just as possible within the framework of evolution as without. Yes, but that has nothing to do with its truth, but rather its literary form. Accepted by whom, on the basis of what evidence? If accepted as “fact,” that suggests to me that the person(s) accepting are not very scientific. The last I read, the evidence suggested somewhere between about 50,000 years and 150,000 years. Even if it is less, that doesn’t invalidate the theory of evolution. If what you know of science is what you’ve read or heard from Christian Fundamentalist sources, then your knowledge is lacking. There is nothing about the theory of evolution that rules out the God of the Bible. The ones putting forth that argument are a minority of Christians. Most Christians, most scientists, most people who understand science, and even most atheists would disagree. Hardly. That’s fine. Assuming that, do you really think the Bible says in just a few paragraphs exactly how God brought everything into being? Or is it possible that God chose to merely give the “gist” of it to people who wouldn’t have understood a more detailed version anyway? Really? Got any references for that? I don’t either, but that is not necessary, in order for the Bible to be true and the theory of evolution to be valid. ”Long Gone” means long gone from TWI. I’m getting tired of the handle, but what I call myself is completely irrelevant. Not really, and especially not as I used them. I said Hovind’s offer was bogus, for the reasons I stated. In your response, you said, “We can sue him for fraud.” That’s why I pointed out that his offer was not fraud. He, on the other hand, is a fraud, a person who is not what he pretends to be. However, his being a fraud is not grounds to sue him for fraud.

HCW, You didn't post a theory. You posted a claim. They're not the same thing. Nobody "fell for the bait" that you didn't throw out. You apparently know as little about law as you do about science. Hovind's offer is not fraud. It's bogus in exactly the sense I said it was. My interest is as stated in my previous post. There is no point in continuing a dialogue with you on this thread.

Lord, HCW! Nobody said anything about anybody being smarter than anybody else. Among others, you made two points to which I chose to respond. Somehow or another, that amazed you. Look, I don't care what you believe. I don't care what AiG and "No AiG" say. I clicked on a link you said was to a scientific site. It wasn't. I said so. I clicked on the link you provided to Hovind's offer. I briefly pointed out why the offer is bogus. I also happen to think, from a little investigation prompted by a previous GS discussion, that Hovind is a fraud. I said so. That's really all there was to it. I'm not a believer, but I don't have a sour attitude about religion. I'm not anti-Christianity. I'm not anti-Bible. In fact, I'm rather fond of both of them. I don't believe them, in the sense that you do, but that's neither because of a lack of knowledge of the Bible, nor my knowledge of science. I could go through the Bible, particularly the book of Genesis, and show that the notion of evolution does not contradict the Biblical doctrine of man's fall and the redemption of Christ, which is one of the major problems many fundamentalists have with it. Nor does it contradict any other Biblical doctrine. I studied that in great detail years ago, while I was still involved (though loosely) with TWI. I discussed it briefly on a thread on the old GS foruums. I really don't feel like going through all that at this time. The only input I really want to offer here is that the AiG-like literature I've read gives a wrong understanding of science and and scientific theories, particularly the theory of evolution, and that the theory of evolution is completely compatible with Bible-based Christianity.

HCW, You carried on for several paragraphs about that link being to a scientific site. I posted two sentences in rebuttal. You made a big deal about Hovind’s “offer.” I told you why it is bogus. And that amazes you? You seem to be easily amazed. I responded to what you said. That, to me, seems topical. I have briefly looked at the AiG site, some time ago, only because someone mentioned it in a previous GS discussion. I also looked at Hovind’s site, and several others, about that time. I don’t think I’ve ever looked at “No Answers in Genesis.” I’m not interested in any of them. My only interest in the so-called “controversy” is that scientific education and investigation not be hampered by religion and that religion not be taught as science in public schools. There’s not much danger of the latter any more, but the former continues to be a problem.Every evolution-phobic (“creationist”) work I’ve read misrepresents science and specifically misrepresents the theory of evolution. There’s really not much point in arguing about it here, but I will, on occasion, point out bogus claims. I might also, as I did earlier in this thread, note that not a single aspect of the theory of evolution is contrary to a belief in the Bible, though some see it (actually a gross distortion of it) as a threat to their particular beliefs about the Bible.

No one suggested that Galen is an idiot. He is, however, extremely stubborn in holding to his error, and insistent on proclaiming it. I have pointed out to him that WTC and WTO are completely different several times, and at least once included links to Internet sites where he could inform himself, if he so chose.

HCW, That link you say is to a reputable scientific site is not. It’s to the Rutgers School of Law and the document has nothing to do with science, but is about Nazi religious persecution. Kent Hovind is a fraud. His offer you referenced is bogus. For one thing, he either doesn’t know what the theory of evolution is or he is lying about it. It has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. Also, it is flat-out impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt how (the processes by which) the universe or life came into being. No reasonable person would take such an offer seriously, any more than any reasonable person would take seriously a million dollar offer for proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a god or gods brought the universe into being. But apparently bogus “offers” like that impress credulous people.

Galen, I don't think you're a heartless SOB, but sometimes you come across as one. You also come across as a bit mindlessly stubborn. For about the tenth time, the attack on the WTC had nothing, nada, zip to do with the WTO. They are two completely different things. You also come across as a bit egocentric. Wacky's questions about others wanting to personally pay their respects to the Pope had nothing to do with who or what you might pay your respects to, or how or when you might do that. Many people loved John Paul II in a very personal way. Many more loved him for who he was, what he stood for, and his faithful and loving exercise of his office. Many others honored him as one of the greatest forces for good in the last century. It is completely understandable that of the many billions of people he benefitted, several million would choose to pay their respects in person, during the only few days when it is possible to do so. In a few hours, he will be entombed in a place that is not publicly accessible, so anyone who has not paid their respects in person will never be able to do so. It is completely understandable that many people would avail themselves of that one-time opportunity.

Congratulations! I'd have extended my congratulations sooner, but I had to get over my anger for your planting that **** song in my head. It's been running through my mind for days! Arrrgghh!!! (Just kidding about the anger, but not about the song running through my mind.)

Yes, but common law weighs heavily in our system also.

To say that something has "no known function" is not to "arrogantly declare that it is useless."

Did you "get" the lines of people who paid their respects to Reagan? Worldwide, the Pope was a much more beloved, respected, well-known, and important figure.

There is nothing about the scientific theory of evolution (or any other scientific theory) that excludes the possibility of a creator, including the Christian God. Many (most?) scientists and other people who accept (not the same as “believe in”) the theory of evolution are theists. Many are fervent Christians, who believe that the God of the Bible is the Creator of all things and all life. Science is “atheistic” only in the sense that it does not assume the existence or action of a deity. Neither does it assume the non-existence or inaction of a deity. Those assumptions are outside the province of science and irrelevant to scientific pursuit.

I’m not. I attribute them to you, and only you. Nobody suggested that they are, or that you said they are. I addressed your statements that the suit is about “making TWI stop and think about what they are doing” and ”making the remaining followers take notice of where their ABS money is now going.” I also addressed your statement that the Peelers “aren’t going to settle.” I said nothing negative about the Peelers, but you read blame and criticism of them into my response to you. I addressed that, again without negativity, blame, or criticism. I see no point in continuing.

It wasn't on the testimony of Michael Schiavo, Trefor.

Did they say, or even think to ask, how in the world he'd have access to the originals of those records, rather than copies?

Why are they suing? To get back at TWI for actual or perceived wrongs done to them. They have the right to seek relief through the courts and I support them doing so, if they wish. I would expect them, and most others who file suit, to say no less. But most suits end with a settlement and I suspect that they would settle, if they believed that was to their advantage. TWI might not be willing to settle. Unless there was something unusual in TWI’s dealings with the Peelers, as opposed to their dealings with “believers” in general, I don’t see how TWI could afford to settle this one. To do so would invite a flood of similar suits. I’m not blaming them for anything. I don’t even think about them, unless I happen to read something here. If I do, and if I have a comment about what I’ve read, I post it. I wouldn’t say that “we should all” do anything. This is a discussion forum. I would expect people to post whatever thoughts they wish, within the bounds of GS rules. Most people haven’t criticized them. I don’t stand behind them. Neither do I stand in opposition to them. The most I’ll do that will have anything to do with them will be to occasionally post a few thoughts on threads other people start.

If you think so, then you are na?, to say the least. See above comment. I suspect they’d be happy to settle. TWI, I suspect, would be most unwilling to settle, unless there is something specific to the Peeler case that would not apply generally. Otherwise, TWI pretty much has to win this one.

An interesting St. Petersburg Times article by the last reporter to see Terri Schiavo. http://www.sptimes.com/2005/04/03/Perspect...he_circus.shtml

What TWI taught about giving, including consequences of not giving, was a doctrinal matter, something courts are not likely to get into, and shouldn't, IMO. I read the initial filing some time ago and unless there is something specific to the Peeler case that didn't apply to TWI as a whole, I don't think there's much liklihood of success. Sometimes the thing to do is to just look at yourself, say "boy, was I stupid!," and go on with life.

While still a priest in Krakow, he was ten times the man Vic knew to be, or ever was. He became much more than that and, even in this infidel's eyes, a blessing to the world. How twi views him is about as significant as how a stray cat views me.

waterbuffalo, I just read that story to my 82-year-old mother. This woman gave birth (naturally, no anesthesia) to ten children. She also assisted in the birth of one of her granddaughters, in the back of her station wagon, on the way to the hospital. One of my mother’s children died at two weeks of age. Another was born with a physical deformity that took specialized surgery and years of therapy to overcome. Another was born mentally retarded. Still another was brain-damaged from being struck by a pickup truck when he was 5 years old. Her husband (my father) was blinded in the service and never saw most of his children. This woman knows something about birth, untimely birth in a vehicle in front of others, and tragedy. She is now rather feeble and in poor general health, nearly blind, and in near-constant pain from severe arthritis, so she doesn’t laugh too much these days. As I read her that story, she laughed louder and longer than I’ve heard her in years. Just thought you’d like to know that you gave an old woman some pleasure. Thanks.

A good choice, saint ex.

Not that guy in Washington, Seth!