Which do you think god would want us to be more concerned about, the fact that half the world’s children go to bed hungry each night, or the possibility that civil institutions might recognize civil marriages involving same sex couples?

Why don't we see the same righteous indignation and fanatical call to arms over real human suffering that we see over what ultimately is simply a question of personal taste which harms no one?

Clearly it is part of God's plan that those children are being punished because of people supporting gay marriage. They'll be rewarded later, well the christian ones who were baptised..the rest are screwed but that's ok.

/sarcasm off

JGC:

Why don't we see the same righteous indignation and fanatical call to arms over real human suffering that we see over what ultimately is simply a question of personal taste which harms no one?

You make a mistake in your last statement; believers clearly feel that your 'question of personal taste' does cause great harm, as seen here. Granted, their views are not reality-based, they have no standing in a reasonable argument. As for why they seem to care less about 'real' human suffering...I don't give them much credit for trying to alleviate suffering. What they are about is control, not comfort.

On the September 18, 2006, edition of National Public Radio's Fresh Air, host Terry Gross said to Hagee, "You said after Hurricane Katrina that it was an act of God, and you said 'when you violate God's will long enough, the judgment of God comes to you. Katrina is an act of God for a society that is becoming Sodom and Gomorrah reborn.' " She then asked, "Do you still think that Katrina is punishment from God for a society that's becoming like Sodom and Gomorrah?" Hagee responded:

HAGEE: All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment. And I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.

I suppose one could argue John Hagee's point in that the hurricane probably cancelled the gay pride parade, sort of a pre-emptive punishment (shades of Iraq) and that his god is not very precise in his approach; but his is a god of grand gestures, I suppose. Grand, genocidal, maniacal gestures. Could explain a lot about their behavior with that sort of example.

Just how many of these 'megachurches' are in a hurricane or tornado path.....

RR's have a different set of priorities...

they'll rally, speak out, and turn out to vote (usually) on the "threat" of gay marriage...but then donate a few nickels and dimes to some CHRISTIAN!!!!! relief agency in Tanzania where the kids get to learn how to read..as long as it's the Bible and their parents don't use condoms....

oh, but don't raise their taxes for "wasteful foreign aid"....in fact, don't raise their taxes even for "a titanic struggle against Islamo-fascism"...that's "socialism" and God is a laissez-faire capitalist (says so ...somewhere..II Samuel...or Corinthinians or something)

Been reading el cid's posts overmuch lately? :)

silent.observer:

Been reading el cid's posts overmuch lately? :)

Oh, the cid is great. Hard core "libertarian"...along the lines of the "true Ron Paul supporters", which of course means he's a nativist and a racist, both railing on "black crime statistics" and "illegals who came here with leprosy, stole our jobs, and then raped good honest white women".

for providing us a modernized interpretation of Scripture.

.

And a special thanks for keeping a tote list on transitional fossils. Do let us know when you capture a live tuna walking on the beach or a flying alligator.

Evolutionary theories predict we should never observe a live tuna walking on the beach or a flying alligator, after all.

But does your post indicate that you accept that the article documents the existence of a transitional fossil?

Evolutionary theories predict we should never observe a live tuna walking on the beach or a flying alligator, after all.

At this stage, what evolutionary theories PREDICT no longer holds my interest. So you and your fellow travelers can call me and those like me intellectually dishonest and feel good about it all you want.

But does your post indicate that you accept that the article documents the existence of a transitional fossil?

No, not in the least. Put it this way --- in my layman opinion, the odds of those fossils you cite being true honest-to-goodness transitional fossils between two distinct species are far, far, far, far less than the odds they are just another species. I base that on the fact that you have nothing to show for the billions of other animals and fossils, and also nothing happening today.

Have a good afternoon JGC. Remember, there is tons of fertile ground out there to sow and harvest. Billions of young minds and old minds alike quite willing to accept and run with it.

JV-12:

At this stage, what evolutionary theories PREDICT no longer holds my interest. So you and your fellow travelers can call me and those like me intellectually dishonest and feel good about it all you want.

So it's ok for JV-12 to disregard evidence for a theory he doesn't care for, but we're supposed to always treat his miracle stories with the utmost consideration. Hypocrisy suits you, sir.

Put it this way --- in my layman opinion, the odds of those fossils you cite being true honest-to-goodness transitional fossils between two distinct species are far, far, far, far less than the odds they are just another species. I base that on the fact that you have nothing to show for the billions of other animals and fossils, and also nothing happening today.

This is rich. I guess he doesn't realize that they are both. He really needs a carp with a snout to buy into evolution. I guess an impossible standard also suits!

Useless to speculate on JV-12's parting shot; I figure it's about indoctrination, but of course his statement is vague and he can play dodgeball with the meaning. Must be learning from watching Nano.

JV:12 At this stage, what evolutionary theories PREDICT no longer holds my interest. So you and your fellow travelers can call me and those like me intellectually dishonest and feel good about it all you want.

So it's ok for JV-12 to disregard evidence for a theory he doesn't care for, but we're supposed to always treat his miracle stories with the utmost consideration. Hypocrisy suits you, sir.

Just a reminder to you --- this isn’t about JV-12 doubting your claims. This is about scientists and other professional experts on evolution highly doubting and challenging the claims. Ok? They put out papers on it and explain why they highly, highly doubt the theory. Basically because the evidence is spurious or in most cases, non-existent. And note this --- some of them are agnostics, no believers in any faith, no agenda, just smart enough to be open and honest on what they are looking at. So do not fool yourself into thinking if you can pull one over on me that you have done your job.

And the reason I have lost total interest in JGC’s addendums is because there are still about a dozen white elephants in the room that make it difficult for me to care about anything else. Like I once said, the most revered evolution scientist in the world (in some ways of looking at it) Gould did not buy into gradual change because the evidence was not there --- yet, you and yours insist we do and it be taught. That is rich.

.

.

JV-12 Put it this way --- in my layman opinion, the odds of those fossils you cite being true honest-to-goodness transitional fossils between two distinct species are far, far, far, far less than the odds they are just another species. I base that on the fact that you have nothing to show for the billions of other animals and fossils, and also nothing happening today.

This is rich. I guess he doesn't realize that they are both. He really needs a carp with a snout to buy into evolution. I guess an impossible standard also suits!

A carp with a snout is much easier for me to digest than an amoeba growing a liver and eyes and nervous systems and brains.

Useless to speculate on JV-12's parting shot; I figure it's about indoctrination, but of course his statement is vague and he can play dodgeball with the meaning. Must be learning from watching Nano.

I will try my best to avoid causing consternation amongst your club in the future by withholding comment. But some days, one of those human weaknesses God told me were present get the best of me.

.

PS – the day you have evidence or a valid explanation for the weeping Madonna statue in Akita, Japan --- that is the day I begin to take certain skeptics seriously. Until then, I can only produce pity. (another weakness of mine)

JV-12:

PS – the day you have evidence or a valid explanation for the weeping Madonna statue in Akita, Japan --- that is the day I begin to take certain skeptics seriously. Until then, I can only produce pity. (another weakness of mine)

So which of these should we "believe" in JV-12 if Joe Nickel and others hadn't been there to do an actual investigation?

<link>

Or is it once again "our job"to disprove each and every claim, and until such time as that occurs you will claim that we can't disprove it was a miracle much the same way you turn a blind eye to the transitional fossils and try to dismiss them because they don't neatly fit into your world view?

JV-12:

Just a reminder to you --- this isn’t about JV-12 doubting your claims. This is about scientists and other professional experts on evolution highly doubting and challenging the claims. Ok? They put out papers on it and explain why they highly, highly doubt the theory. Basically because the evidence is spurious or in most cases, non-existent. And note this --- some of them are agnostics, no believers in any faith, no agenda, just smart enough to be open and honest on what they are looking at. So do not fool yourself into thinking if you can pull one over on me that you have done your job.

When you state your claim without evidence I apply it to you alone. When you provide evidence, we can analyze and discuss it. Thus far you have failed to do so -- simple.

And the reason I have lost total interest in JGC’s addendums is because there are still about a dozen white elephants in the room that make it difficult for me to care about anything else. Like I once said, the most revered evolution scientist in the world (in some ways of looking at it) Gould did not buy into gradual change because the evidence was not there --- yet, you and yours insist we do and it be taught. That is rich.

Again, when you can back up the claims, we can discuss them. As for Gould, your revisionist history is false -- he was neither against evolution nor a creationist. As you can see here, his ideas are still being discussed, challenged and processed by different scientists. Perhaps I'm one of them, since I'm reading Dinosaur in a Haystack.

Early in his career, Gould and Niles Eldredge developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium, in which evolutionary change occurs relatively rapidly, as compared to longer periods of relative evolutionary stability.[12] According to Gould, punctuated equilibrium revised a key pillar "in the central logic of Darwinian theory."[3] Some evolutionary biologists have argued that while punctuated equilibrium was "of great interest to biology,"[13] it merely modified neo-Darwinism in a manner that was fully compatible with what had been known before. [14] Others however emphasized its theoretical novelty, and argued that evolutionary stasis had been "unexpected by most evolutionary biologists"[15] and "had a major impact on paleontology and evolutionary biology."[16] Some critics of the theory referred to punctuated equilibrium as "evolution by jerks," a play on words Gould himself joked about.

This is rich. I guess he doesn't realize that they are both. He really needs a carp with a snout to buy into evolution. I guess an impossible standard also suits!

A carp with a snout is much easier for me to digest than an amoeba growing a liver and eyes and nervous systems and brains.

Ok, now it's a single-celled organism growing multi-cellular organs. Since either standard is impossible, it's a distinction without a difference. But you come by it spiritually, so it's understandable.

PS – the day you have evidence or a valid explanation for the weeping Madonna statue in Akita, Japan --- that is the day I begin to take certain skeptics seriously.

I've presented alternatives, but due to your personal definition of 'valid,' we'll have to agree to disagree there. That it stopped over twenty years ago doesn't help, either. Of course, if I were to use your standard, I could simply disregard it as you do evolution. I can see why such a practice would be appealing to you. I prefer to think and reason.

Well I am very happy for you. Your article points out a statue or two that was either a hoax or could somehow be explained in the natural. So now you have your smoking gun I take it? Because science can uncover a fraud that proves the hundreds of others are all frauds and case closed.

Fine Uncle Spike, you can use that logic and discernment and order your life accordingly. But nothing pleases the devil more than a fraud and a willing audience to use that fraud to ignore all the rest. Not unlike a bad or corrupt TV evangelist discrediting the whole Christian movement for those so eager to have it discredited. All Christians are just like Jim Bakker or Jimmy Swaggart they have concluded.

Also: what is with the idolatry claim from your article? It’s totally bogus in the case of Akita, Fatima, Lourdes, and so on. But keep slinging mud as some is sticking.

.

You and yours have done nothing to counter the scientific investigation of the statue at Akita witnessed by the medical doctor himself doing the investigation. And if you finally do address that honestly you might want to look at the many scores of others deemed “worthy of belief” by the Catholic Church. I think it is an impressive list.

<link>