Congratulations!  And PETA is presently in a dither over Obama's swatting a fly?

Peta will be...peta.

Ok, Lucas, but if you're going to have a strong stance at least please back it up before you jump on the opposite bandwagon.  

I think what you're seeing in me is my bias towards what you call my religion.  I'm the first to admit I have bias.  But you know what?  Everyone has bias.  But that's a diff animal than what we are talking about here.  Even though I'm biased when it comes to anything dealing with God or biblical doctrine I'll be the first to admit if I see something wrong from another person just like me, or if I do it myself. 

You have bias as well but you're not being very subjective or at least showing it here within your biased attitude.  You automatically jump to the side that is as close to you as you can without knowing all the facts.  That's what I'm talking about.  I have no probem with your bias and can respect that's where you're coming from....even if I disagee.  That's not what's bugging me here. 

So I guess what I'm saying is it's ok to have your bias and be objective as well even if it means you're going against those that are of the same ilk.  Wrong is wrong.  For me, wrong is wrong even if they are a Christian.  For you wrong is wrong even if they are homosexual. 

Of course.

Likewise KFC, I've admitted the same; there are people, places, things, etc. that I find fishy, wrong or suspicious - who I would normally support. 

Granted, I do tend to jump automatically; [ this ] might explain a bit when it comes to why I tend to do that.

Agreed.

nice answer.  Calling me ignorant makes you feel better? 

the fact that I'm supposed to consider myself an animal? 

The fact is..... there is  a big diff between opinions and facts. 

Don't you know that kind of language and teaching is exactly why we have a society acting like animals today?  We have people acting like brute beasts today because of such humanistic thinking.  Take a good look at the news. 

Go back and read some Darwin and Huxley while you're at it......

oh and I came across this quote the other day:

"In my eyes, both Adolf Hitler and my grandfather were false prophets of the 20th century"  Sophie Freud retired Simmons College professor of psychology on her grandfather Signund Freud. 

eh?  If it happens in nature it is natural, may not be nice but that isn't the point.  I am not agueing that it is 'right' only that if 400+ different species do it in nature, it must be natural. 

What defination of the word natural do you use?

KFC

Exactly. When it comes to human sexuality, homosexuality is unnatural and against the natural law.

Human nature is both rational and social. We cannot live except by mutual protection and support of other human beings. When God saw that it was not good for man to be alone, He provided him with a woman, (note: not another man which is the first indication of the definition of natural when it comes to human sexuality).

The first and most natural of all human associations begins with a man and a woman, the family. All friendship, all society, all of human existence arises from the physical difference of male and female human beings. From this physical difference arises the ground and purpose of human life, becasue it is the ground and purpose of nature.

It cannot be emphasized enough that the root of all human relationships, and the root of all morality, is nature, which is itself grounded in the generative distinction of male and female, different but complimentary. The distinction between a man and a woman is fundamental in nature. It's the ability of the differences yet complimentary natures of the man and the woman to generate a third.

Is rape natural? Is incest natural? Is sodomy natural? No to all.....but why? Becasue they are against the natural and good order  of the family as described above. 

I didn't 'call you' anything.  I made a statement, using the term in its proper context & meaning.

Heat.  Kitchen.  Take it from there.

And WTH does Fruitcake Freud have to do with the price of tomatoes?

Yes, of course, because there was no crime, incest of anything else before darwin etc.  It also doesn't matter what affect you think it has on society, all living things are classified as one of five things.  We are in the animal section.

Do you ever have your head in the sand if you truly believe this. Consider this: If Darwinism is really true, then people ARE just animals and can make up their own rules about right and wrong just as animals do...law of the jungle so to speak..On the other hand, if Special Creation is true as KFC outlined, then people were made specially by God well above all the animal "kinds", and becasue of that God gets to make the rules. His standards decide right and wrong. Either way, both ideas affect how people act. 

What is the history behind the scientific establishment's  "classification" system?  What? Who? When? On what basis?

The affect it has on society has no impact on the truth of it.  Even if darwins ideas led to hitler et al it would not alter the (likely) truth of darwins ideas. 

Also lots of non-human animals have rule of society, google vampire bats for a classic example.  It is far from the strongest wins, in the community a bat will give up its food if another one is starving unless that bat has a track record of not doing the same.  What is that if it is not a good way of running a community?  Not all wild animals have no sence of helping others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification for a brief overview of classification, the current way pretty much started in the 1700's. 

Hoaxes.  Good topic.  I read about 7 pages of comments before I just skipped to the end.

So, on the subject, I have a question.  Was or was not the universe created in 6 days (+1 day for a nap)?

NOTE:  There are only two answers to this question.  1) It was, 2) It was not.  No paragraphs full of BS required.  Answer the question.

Oh, and KFC, I understand your opposition to Lucas - calling him "contrary," "subjective," and other things, but I just read 7 pages of yours, his, and others' responses in a row.  I didn't find him to be any of those things.  What I saw was a guy asking questions, and whenever he asked one you couldn't answer, you got miffed.  That occurred several times.

In fact, I found many things, too many to cover in one response, very interesting.  Here's the one I bothered to copy for later pasting:

To answer the question, practical atheists know better than anyone on the planet that trying shut up those who believe in God is impossible.  We understand implicitly that if you have taken the shortcut to knowledge which you call "faith" that you are at once irrational.  It would therefore be unreasonable to expect you to behave rationally - from a logical standpoint. Therefore, I consider it proven that atheists are not trying or expecting those with irrational unproveable beliefs to shut up.  We really just want you to leave us alone.  Unfortunately, your beliefs make it impossible for you to do that.

Most religious folk (and even most on the fence folk) don't understand what an atheist is.  I've tried to explain before that "God haters" don't represent the average atheist anymore than Ernest Angley represents the average Christian.  "Practical" atheists are just people that say "I don't believe what I can't bear my own personal witness to."  Ironic that we more closely adhere to the badness of "bearing false witness" than anyone, don't ya think?

I disagree.  The Atheists, as Lula says, do so want to shut up the Christians.  It's like that in every communist country full of atheists.  So we're the irrational ones?  Well you've got a double sided argument going here.  We just so happen to think that you're irrational.  In fact there are many biblical passages written over a period of years by a variety of diff men that say an atheistic view of God is actually a  very foolish belief system. 

Then why do you come here if you want me to leave you alone? 

I understand exactly what an atheist is.   Just like you have diff degrees of Christians, some cold, some warm and some on fire for God, you have the same with the atheist.  There is no one type of atheist.  To me it all boils down to ....do you believe or not?  Let's not make it complicated. 

Not exactly.  I have to problem answering Lucas.   What I said to Lucas was between me and Lucas.  Not you.  You haven't been around enough to make a judgment call here.  This has nothing to do with one thread but over a series of diff threads and topics.    He understood quite perfectly what I was saying.  So if he understood and we had an understanding together that's all that counts.  I understand that you wish to align yourself with one who more closely resembles your belief system.  I get that but it's really between Lucas and I. 

Wow.  For someone who wishes the Christians to leave him alone, you're pretty demanding.  Hint:  you're not proving your case very well. 

Answer:  The universe was created in six days and God rested.  To rest does not mean he took a nap because there is no indication that he did.  In fact it says the opposite in scripture that God never sleeps.  The fact that it said he rested only means that he was finished.  He finished his creation. 

How's that for short and sweet?  Does it meet your demand?