. . . . .

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: The other side of the poll.



God...

1) Egomaniac?
2) Violent, hot-tempered child?
3) Pitifully weak wrestler?
4) Fairy tale?

Okay, let the voting begin!

 

[Susan]

Please close this thread, it is of no use.

 

[LadyShea]

The Bible passage does not address evolution. Evolution does not equal atheism and atheism is not evolution. One is a scientific theory, the other is a matter of belief or disbelief in regards to deities.

 

Susan, it is not fair or mature of you to open up these cans of worms left and right then run to the moderators when things don't go your way.

 

Instead, why don't we discuss your misconceptions or our misconceptions like adults....let's actually exchange ideas instead of inanities and insults. I would love to learn more about your views...but can't get past the manner in which you discuss. I read a great post by you in the prayer forum...an anology of the manner in which you serve food. It was great! Let's see more of that!

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: Seems like a case of the old "I can dish it out but I can't take it" syndrome.

 

[Susan]

Without evolution there is no atheism, without atheism to some extent there is no evolution. The two are interdependent.

 

[LadyShea]

No Susan, you have a misconception. Many people who believe in evolution are not atheists. In fact many Christians believe in evolution.

 

[Susan]

Yes, but to do so they are denying the power of God to some extent. They are practical atheists.

 

[LadyShea]

No, they believe evolution was the mechanism by which God created. They believe God created the scientific laws that govern the Universe.

 

[Annabel Lee]

Originally posted by Susan
Yes, but to do so they are denying the power of God to some extent. They are practical atheists.

Is that right Susan? Please preach on. Tell me how you KNOW I am an atheist.
"The Gospel According to Susan"?

 

[Susan]

You deny the power and love of the Almighty God and replace that with a merciless evolution.

 

[Annabel Lee]

This is just another play for attention by Susan.
Do not even consider implying I'm a non-Christian. Do I make myself clear?
(No offense to the atheists and non-Christians. But imagine, if you will, if someone kept insisting that an atheist was a Christian. It's very frustrating dealing with people like Susan)

 

[Annabel Lee]

Originally posted by Susan
You deny the power and love of the Almighty God and replace that with a merciless evolution.

I deny neither the power or the love of God.
I do deny the hate and spite I see in your form of Christianity.
You are a sad little girl Susan.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Annabel Lee
This is just another play for attention by Susan.

Agreed.

*tacks up DO NOT FEED THE TROLL sign*

 

[LadyShea]

No offense taken. I have no problem with anyone believeing whatever they want, I just really despise misconceptions and misinformation being propogated.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Actually on this subject I have to side with the pro evolutionists (and probably other creationists agree with me) that the poll is biased in that you only get 1 answer to pick from and not really 4. I don't know if you can edit polls on here but I would suggest it Susan to be fair.

 

[TheBear]

In Susan's defense, she is not guilty of any spamming.

Rule No. 3 - No "Spamming"
"3) You will not post any messages anywhere on this site that are primarily for the promotion or advertising of any website, email address, business, MLM, activity, church, ministry or other entities that you have an affiliation with (ie. no self-promotion). You will not cross-post the same message in multiple forums. You will not post your email in anywhere on this site - people can email you via the site by clicking on the email button - this way your email address remains private."

 

[jon1101]

In Susan's defense, she is not guilty of any spamming.

Okay, so spamming, by CF's definition of the term, was the wrong word. Perhaps 'posting inflammatory insults devoid of any substance that do nothing to further the ongoing debate' would have been a better way of putting it. 

-jon

 

[ifriit]

Cancer To Iniquity: Perhaps 'posting inflammatory insults devoid of any substance that do nothing to further the ongoing debate' would have been a better way of putting it. 

That's "trolling."

 

[TheBear]

....or flaming...

 

[Pete Harcoff]

However you want to label it, it does not promote meaningful, insightful discussion.

Maybe this thread should be stickied as an example of how NOT to open a thread on the discussion of evolution/creationism.