# One Nation Under Darwin....



## Banjo (Feb 12, 2009)

Today is the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin, and evolutionists are celebrating worldwide that they are nothing more than bags of meat and bone with electricity running through them. “Praise Darwin from whom all matter flows!,” their doxology goes. The religious character of Darwin is evident in the way those from the Freedom From Religion Foundation are commemorating his birth. Their billboards look like stained glass windows! Soon we’ll be seeing signs pointing us to First Church of Charles Darwin. Oh, wait, it’s the local public schools.

I want to celebrate, too. Michael Newdow has been pestering the Supreme Court to rule that the phrase “under God” found in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. While I disagree with him on historical and constitutional grounds, I’m willing to push for a more accurate Pledge given the worldview shift that we are experiencing in America, especially in our government schools where the Pledge is repeated in ritualistic fashion by government subjects. I’m willing to join Newdow in his campaign to forego the use of “one nation under God” for the more accurate “one nation under Darwin” or “one nation under the divine State.” The second option is more awkward, but it’s much closer to the truth.

Early in the Pledge’s history, there were a number of people and groups that dissented from being required to say the Pledge, for example, Mennonites, Jehovites, and Jehovah’s Witnesses.[1] The Mennonites objected because of their pacifist beliefs. The tiny sectarian group called the Jehovites considered pledging to be an act of idolatry.  

Some conservatives who argue for “under God” are doing so by claiming the phrase has no religious meaning. This is the position of former Solicitor General Theodore Olson. “Olson argued that the phrase is viewed as an ‘acknowledgment’ of religion’s role in the lives of America’s founders.”[2] It’s not that our nation is actually under the sovereign rule of God, he argued, but only that people once believed that it was. Olson’s argument is common:

Many pledge proponents offer secular justifications to fit Supreme Court rulings. They claim “under God” isn’t any sort of religious exercise or prayer but simply a factual acknowledgment of the nation’s past heritage of faith, for patriotic rather than religious reasons.[3]

If this is true, then why not have the Pledge read, “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, which people used to believe was one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

If we follow Olson’s claim that the phrase should be viewed as nothing more than an “acknowledgment” of religion’s role in the lives of America’s founders and not an “endorsement” of God, why not replace “one nation under God” with “one nation under slavery”? Children would not be “endorsing” slavery, but they would be acknowledging slavery’s role in the founding of America.

To be consistent, Newdow wants every religious reference removed from all official U.S. documents. This would mean a rewrite of the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and all 50 state constitutions, or at least the creation of an archival system that would allow students to see these documents only after they graduate from their government schools and are truly free citizens or if they get a note from mommy and daddy giving them permission to see the “historical pornography.”

If “under God” is removed from the Pledge, to be consistent, new coins would have to be struck and paper currency reprinted so they would no longer carry the motto “In God We Trust” but “In Darwin we Trust.” Francis Scott Key’s “Star Spangled Banner,” our National Anthem, would have to be rewritten because it carries the line, from which our nation’s motto is taken, “In God is our trust.” Or we could just replace the whole thing with John Lennon’s “Imagine,” the anthem of today’s atheists. There were some very nasty men in the 20th century who did not just imagine there was no religion; they acted as if there was no religion. 

The Supreme Court opens each session, even the one where the Pledge case has been heard, with a marshal saying, “God save the United States and this honorable court.” This would have to stop. And I guess government employees could no longer claim December 25th as a paid holiday because it would be an endorsement of the Christian religion. This is the case I would like to see argued before the Supreme Court. To be consistent, all government employees would have to work on Sundays and Christmas. Allowing government workers off on these days is an implicit endorsement of the Christian religion. Public schools should also be opened on Saturday and Sunday because they are religious days. (The Jewish Sabbath is on Saturday.) We don’t want to give the appearance that government is endorsing religion. Give government workers and public school kids Monday and Tuesday off. There would be a practical benefit in addition to the required secular status of the days off. The nation’s highways would be less congested on these two non-religious days since government employees and public school children would be at home, sleeping in on their weekend.

So in celebration of Darwin’s birthday, let’s force the issue. Maybe then Christian parents will get the message that government schools are not neutral and Darwin is their god.

www.americanvision.org


----------



## gtparts (Feb 12, 2009)

More silly rant from G. Demar? Your time would be better spent reading your Bible or spreading the Gospel.

Demar is becoming known for his irrational hyperbole. I would draw your attention to this paragraph.



> The Supreme Court opens each session, even the one where the Pledge case has been heard, with a marshal saying, “God save the United States and this honorable court.” This would have to stop. And I guess government employees could no longer claim December 25th as a paid holiday because it would be an endorsement of the Christian religion. This is the case I would like to see argued before the Supreme Court. To be consistent, all government employees would have to work on Sundays and Christmas. Allowing government workers off on these days is an implicit endorsement of the Christian religion. Public schools should also be opened on Saturday and Sunday because they are religious days. (The Jewish Sabbath is on Saturday.) We don’t want to give the appearance that government is endorsing religion. Give government workers and public school kids Monday and Tuesday off. There would be a practical benefit in addition to the required secular status of the days off. The nation’s highways would be less congested on these two non-religious days since government employees and public school children would be at home, sleeping in on their weekend.



Did I say "silly"? I apologize for having understated the nature of his rant.

Peace.


----------



## fivesolas (Feb 12, 2009)

Excellent post Banjo. No indoctrination camps for my kids.


----------



## Rage_On (Feb 12, 2009)

Some people are so hateful.  No one force fed any of Darwin's knowledge down your throats.   It's the man's birthday jezzz.
If you're scared of the knowledge or ideas, fear they will corrupt the faith inside yourselves or children, that are presented by the scientific community you should all get together and start your all private school system.  But then again you shouldn’t use any of that technology or advancements of the medical concepts dealing with human physiology. don't want you to contradict yourselves.


----------



## Free Willie (Feb 12, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Excellent post Banjo. No indoctrination camps for my kids.



What about home?


----------



## RThomas (Feb 12, 2009)

> ...government schools are not neutral and Darwin is their god.



Then I guess this means that Newton, Pasteur, and Galileo are all gods, too (among many many others).


----------



## Rage_On (Feb 12, 2009)

When did schools claim Darwin was a god? haha


----------



## fivesolas (Feb 12, 2009)

Rage_On said:


> Some people are so hateful.  No one force fed any of Darwin's knowledge down your throats.   It's the man's birthday jezzz.
> If you're scared of the knowledge or ideas, fear they will corrupt the faith inside yourselves or children, that are presented by the scientific community you should all get together and start your all private school system.  But then again you shouldn’t use any of that technology or advancements of the medical concepts dealing with human physiology. don't want you to contradict yourselves.



While I  understand your response, it does fall short to many of the facts. Darwinism does tend toward atheism and folks like Dawkins would agree. Darwinism is contrary to the Bible and to God. 

So yes, children who are impressionable at young ages can be corrupted and indoctrinated in the public school system which teach Darwinism, and nothing else, as fact. 

Also, the comments concerning physiology and the science that put my glasses on my face misses the mark of making distinction between historical science and operational science. 

Darwinism falls into the realm of historical science. Evolutionary belief, as far I know, cannot be said to have contributed anything of any merit to practical or operational science. I do not need to hold to Darwinism to invent eyeglasses. 

Darwinisn/neo-darwinism is a worldview. It is inherently atheistic and anti-God and anti-christ. Why is it a surprise when Bible-believers choose not to subject their children to that? 

So we have started our own private schools. Thousands upon thousands of them in the home. We teach our children a biblical worldview. Most of us, I assume, teach our children what evolution is and what darwinism is. We also teach them a biblical, creation science view. That is an education. 

-five


----------



## fivesolas (Feb 12, 2009)

Free Willie said:


> What about home?



It's the parent's authority to raise the children, not the state. Nor is it your place to or the state's to interfere with the education of my children. 

But I freely offer to all that our children recieve a biblical worldview in our home. Would you like that supressed?


----------



## Banjo (Feb 12, 2009)

RThomas said:


> Then I guess this means that Newton, Pasteur, and Galileo are all gods, too (among many many others).



Nope...two of these men were known Christians...I am not sure where Galileo stood.  They didn't attempt to replace the Creator God with a theory that excluded Him.


----------



## Rage_On (Feb 12, 2009)

Banjo said:


> Nope...two of these men were known Christians...I am not sure where Galileo stood.  They didn't attempt to replace the Creator God with a theory that excluded Him.



They used science to prove how the world works.  Blasphemers!


----------



## Rage_On (Feb 12, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Also, the comments concerning physiology and the science that put my glasses on my face misses the mark of making distinction between historical science and operational science.
> 
> Darwinism falls into the realm of historical science. Evolutionary belief, as far I know, cannot be said to have contributed anything of any merit to practical or operational science. I do not need to hold to Darwinism to invent eyeglasses.
> 
> ...



How do you think drugs are developed?   I will give you a moment to research this on your own time because I don’t want you to think I’m giving you some trash.
It will take some rolling back of the research and developmental time clock so I don't expect a reply right away.  
I would give it to you in a nutshell but I don’t what to thread jack Banjo’s OP.


----------



## addictedtodeer (Feb 12, 2009)

Rage_On said:


> No one force fed any of Darwin's knowledge down your throats.



I grew up in Canada, where I was forced to sit through every science class (1 a year for roughly 10 years; then 3 science classes for each of my junior and senior years) listening to how right evolution was and how wrong my beliefs were.
Government schools openly teach evolution and  encourage its belief. If a church did that you would call that being forced down your throat.

In this debate let us be honest, the government school system is slanted towards a belief system and a theory. Nothing wrong with that, I am heavily slanted in the other direction. Let us not insult anyone by saying that a government school system in unbiased. 

It has been interesting to see that the stronger the belief in socialism within a country, the stronger evolutionary theory is taught.


----------



## Banjo (Feb 12, 2009)

> It has been interesting to see that the stronger the belief in socialism within a country, the stronger evolutionary theory is taught.



This is an interesting thought...

Any thoughts as to why?  Socialism and Evolution are both anti-God.  Perhaps it has something to do with trying to create a utopian society.  If we "evolve" enough, eventually we will hit perfection....Socialism being the vehicle of choice for our society???


----------



## fivesolas (Feb 12, 2009)

Rage_On said:


> How do you think drugs are developed?   I will give you a moment to research this on your own time because I don’t want you to think I’m giving you some trash.
> It will take some rolling back of the research and developmental time clock so I don't expect a reply right away.
> I would give it to you in a nutshell but I don’t what to thread jack Banjo’s OP.



Well, the topic is evolution and darwinism. 

What has Darwinism actually contributed?


----------



## fivesolas (Feb 12, 2009)

Banjo said:


> This is an interesting thought...
> 
> Any thoughts as to why?  Socialism and Evolution are both anti-God.  Perhaps it has something to do with trying to create a utopian society.  If we "evolve" enough, eventually we will hit perfection....Socialism being the vehicle of choice for our society???



I would suggest social-darwinism. 



> Many studies of the origins of National Socialism claim that the volkisch and proto-Nazi movement arose largely as a reaction to the materialistic ideas of nineteenth-century science and especially to the naturalistic philosophy of Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League. Using hitherto unexplored material, Daniel Gasman calls this generalization into question. Arguing that the importance of science has been relatively neglected in accounts of the intellectual origins of Nazism, he attempts to show that Haeckel's "scientific" Darwinism, and his movement, the German Monist League, were proto-Nazi in character. Contrary to popular belief, Haeckel's type of social Darwinism actually played a critical role in the formation of National Socialist ideology. In his new introduction, Gasman notes that recent research goes far to confirm Haeckel's role as an ideological progenitor of fascist ideology. This is true not only for Germany, but also for the birth of fascist thought in Italy and France. In general, Gasman claims, the history of science plainly reveals how Haeckel's social Darwinism nourished the roots of fascism no less than avant-garde modernism. When The Scientific Origins of National Socialism initially appeared, the Times Literary Supplement called it a "very well-argued thesis...that is completely successful...and leaves the reader to extract his own moral lessons." Medical History, in its review of The Scientific Origins of National Socialism, said, "His book is essential for understanding modern Germany. It has a general message derived from the events in Germany, where scientific data were permitted to take on a mystical significiance...with ghastly consequences." Bruce Chatwin, in the New York Review of Books, called the book "brilliant." Now available in paperback, with a new introduction by the author, this seminal work will be of interest to intellectual historians, as well as those interested in twentieth-century Europe.



http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Origins-National-Socialism/dp/0765805812


----------



## fivesolas (Feb 12, 2009)

Rage_On said:


> They used science to prove how the world works.  Blasphemers!



Science doesn't "prove" anything. In science proof does not equal truth.


----------



## gtparts (Feb 12, 2009)

Rage_On said:


> Some people are so hateful.  No one force fed any of Darwin's knowledge down your throats.   It's the man's birthday jezzz.
> If you're scared of the knowledge or ideas, fear they will corrupt the faith inside yourselves or children, that are presented by the scientific community you should all get together and start your all private school system.  But then again you shouldn’t use any of that technology or advancements of the medical concepts dealing with human physiology. don't want you to contradict yourselves.




One does not have to reject science just because one rejects the unfounded speculations of pseudo-science.


----------



## Free Willie (Feb 12, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> It's the parent's authority to raise the children, not the state. Nor is it your place to or the state's to interfere with the education of my children.
> 
> But I freely offer to all that our children recieve a biblical worldview in our home. Would you like that supressed?



That is too easy for me. I would probably get banned for sure if I answered that one.


----------



## gtparts (Feb 12, 2009)

Rage_On said:


> How do you think drugs are developed?   I will give you a moment to research this on your own time because I don’t want you to think I’m giving you some trash.
> It will take some rolling back of the research and developmental time clock so I don't expect a reply right away.
> I would give it to you in a nutshell but I don’t what to thread jack Banjo’s OP.



How in the name of Jonas Grumby does this relate to Darwin's 200th?


----------



## footjunior (Feb 12, 2009)

Oh noes! Science is being taught in science classes?! That's not neutral!


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 12, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> While I  understand your response, it does fall short to many of the facts. Darwinism does tend toward atheism and folks like Dawkins would agree. Darwinism is contrary to the Bible and to God.
> 
> So yes, children who are impressionable at young ages can be corrupted and indoctrinated in the public school system which teach Darwinism, and nothing else, as fact.
> 
> ...



Agreed. Which is why stuff like that should not be decided by some freakin court...

And also why we home school.


----------



## gtparts (Feb 12, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Oh noes! Science is being taught in science classes?! That's not neutral!



Complain to the folks in charge if that bothers you.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 12, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Darwinism falls into the realm of historical science. Evolutionary belief, as far I know, cannot be said to have contributed anything of any merit to practical or operational science. I do not need to hold to Darwinism to invent eyeglasses.



I can think of one right off the top of my head: genetic algorithms...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm

We learned about this last semester. The theory of natural selection has inspired many ideas and products. Just because you can't think of any doesn't mean they aren't there.


----------



## fivesolas (Feb 12, 2009)

footjunior said:


> I can think of one right off the top of my head: genetic algorithms...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm
> 
> We learned about this last semester. The theory of natural selection has inspired many ideas and products. Just because you can't think of any doesn't mean they aren't there.



So how did darwinism lead to genetic algorithms?


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 12, 2009)

footjunior said:


> I can think of one right off the top of my head: genetic algorithms...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm
> 
> We learned about this last semester. The theory of natural selection has inspired many ideas and products. Just because you can't think of any doesn't mean they aren't there.



Just because you can't think independently doesn't mean everyone else who does is wrong.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 12, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> So how did darwinism lead to genetic algorithms?



That's a great question. The theory of natural selection has obviously been shown to find great designs for animals through the process of mutations and then selections on those mutations. Computer scientists looked at Darwin's theory and decided to implement it into algorithms which act in the same way. The algorithms mutate solutions to a problem, and then select the mutations which give solutions that are closer to solving the problem. In this way, algorithms can cut down on the time needed to solve complex problems.

That's a really, really short description of genetic algorithms. The bottom line is that without Darwin's theory, these computer scientists probably would have never thought of implementing natural selection into an algorithm.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 12, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Just because you can't think independently doesn't mean everyone else who does is wrong.



Do you ever add anything to the discussion, or is it always ad hominem?


----------



## Rage_On (Feb 12, 2009)

addictedtodeer said:


> I grew up in Canada, where I was forced to sit through every science class (1 a year for roughly 10 years; then 3 science classes for each of my junior and senior years) listening to how right evolution was and how wrong my beliefs were.
> Government schools openly teach evolution and  encourage its belief. If a church did that you would call that being forced down your throat.
> 
> In this debate let us be honest, the government school system is slanted towards a belief system and a theory. Nothing wrong with that, I am heavily slanted in the other direction. Let us not insult anyone by saying that a government school system in unbiased.
> ...



Private School
your problem is solved.


----------



## christianhunter (Feb 12, 2009)

Rage_On said:


> Some people are so hateful.  No one force fed any of Darwin's knowledge down your throats.   It's the man's birthday jezzz.
> If you're scared of the knowledge or ideas, fear they will corrupt the faith inside yourselves or children, that are presented by the scientific community you should all get together and start your all private school system.  But then again you shouldn’t use any of that technology or advancements of the medical concepts dealing with human physiology. don't want you to contradict yourselves.



Contradict?
Darwinism was disproven in the 90's.It just simply stopped making sense,not to say it ever did.He was wrong,it was proven,reported in the media.People are still recognizing it?
If a preacher is found out to be a false teacher.We don't listen to him anymore,and quickly forget him.Christians have a great perspective of things,we are led by our Creator.


----------



## Rage_On (Feb 12, 2009)

gtparts said:


> How in the name of Jonas Grumby does this relate to Darwin's 200th?



Darwin shows evolution > species evolved over time > science can show genetic links between different species > nasty test are run on these species because the react the same or similar how the human body would > human life is saved with Darwinism

or we can just assume God filled up the pill bottle on the store shelf.

It is way deeper then this but I’m not going there at the moment for two reasons:
(a)	thread jacking
(b)	you will tell me I’m making all of it up and I’ll be        wasting both our times.

*side note:
I went to private school, Sacred Heart Catholic School, science was thought including evolution along side religion.


----------



## Rage_On (Feb 12, 2009)

christianhunter said:


> Contradict?
> Darwinism was disproven in the 90's.It just simply stopped making sense,not to say it ever did.He was wrong,it was proven,reported in the media.People are still recognizing it?
> If a preacher is found out to be a false teacher.We don't listen to him anymore,and quickly forget him.Christians have a great perspective of things,we are led by our Creator.



What the heck are you talking about?  disproven....media.....because the media is always right


----------



## fivesolas (Feb 12, 2009)

footjunior said:


> That's a great question. The theory of natural selection has obviously been shown to find great designs for animals through the process of mutations and then selections on those mutations. Computer scientists looked at Darwin's theory and decided to implement it into algorithms which act in the same way. The algorithms mutate solutions to a problem, and then select the mutations which give solutions that are closer to solving the problem. In this way, algorithms can cut down on the time needed to solve complex problems.
> 
> That's a really, really short description of genetic algorithms. The bottom line is that without Darwin's theory, these computer scientists probably would have never thought of implementing natural selection into an algorithm.



Thanks for the reply. It is well thought out. Am I understanding you correctly that you are saying the theory of natural selection aided this research? 

If so, I would contend that the theory of natural selection is not evolution. Natural selection is merely selection of information that already exists. 

In fact, there isn't a creation scientist, even those scary young-earth ones lol, that deny the theory of natural selection. 

So, the two fallacies I see in your reply are:

1. Natural Selection is evolution. 
2. Mutation is evolution. 

Those two phenomena are not examples of evolution because they do not engender new genetic information. It mearly takes existing information, rearranges it, adapts it, et. Not even close to what is needed for molecules-to-man evolution.


----------



## Rage_On (Feb 12, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Just because you can't think independently doesn't mean everyone else who does is wrong.



because you sure don't think everyone else is wrong.....


----------



## pnome (Feb 12, 2009)

Fuel for the fire....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5705331.ece



> From The Times
> February 11, 2009
> Vatican buries the hatchet with Charles Darwin
> Richard Owen in Rome
> ...


----------



## christianhunter (Feb 12, 2009)

Rage_On said:


> because you sure don't think everyone else is wrong.....



Funny how nonbelievers will not touch the FACT that Darwinism,has been proven false.


----------



## Rage_On (Feb 12, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Thanks for the reply. It is well thought out. Am I understanding you correctly that you are saying the theory of natural selection aided this research?
> 
> If so, I would contend that the theory of natural selection is not evolution. Natural selection is merely selection of information that already exists.
> 
> ...


Footjunior...I got this one for you because I knew the question was coming.

Five, please educate yourself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

1. When organisms reproduce, their offspring may have new or altered traits. These new traits arise in two main ways: either from mutations in genes, or from the transfer of genes between populations and between species.
2.Two major mechanisms drive evolution. The first is natural selection, a process causing heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction to become more common in a population, and harmful traits to become more rare. This occurs because individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce, so that more individuals in the next generation inherit these traits


----------



## GA1dad (Feb 12, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> So yes, children who are impressionable at young ages can be corrupted and indoctrinated .
> 
> -five



The same statement can be said about religion. This is prolly the strongest tactic that religion has. Brainwashing in a nutshell. If a child is raised christian, chances are he/she stays christian.

However, I don't mean this in a bad way, just making a comparison. We also use this tactic to recruit furure sportsmen. "Take one,,, Make one".


----------



## Rage_On (Feb 12, 2009)

christianhunter said:


> Funny how nonbelievers will not touch the FACT that Darwinism,has been proven false.




I have my sources, where are theirs?
Naked Science set out to figure out which side was write.....a 200 year debate.


Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLrg6CjqY6E
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyTbUxwf7zI&feature=related
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6DkH9BD8jk&feature=related
Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ACYxYbIj2Y&feature=related
Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjUQSGWBOSs&feature=related


I know people are going to have their own videos claiming the other side of the story.  Mine has facts, theirs will not.

Here's the link for Intellegent Design:
1 of 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4z0IVivslc&feature=related 

I've watched both series.  Not to judge a book by its cover but the ID is weak in film quality, something like a homemade hunting video.  
Then you have the information which sounds good but is not concrete.  
Plus the support by the scientific community is behind Darwin not ID.


----------



## fivesolas (Feb 12, 2009)

Rage_On said:


> Footjunior...I got this one for you because I knew the question was coming.
> 
> Five, please educate yourself
> 
> ...



I would hope you mean no offense by "please educate yourself" It does sound condecending. 

I understand the red parts. It is a fallacy. Natural selection IS NOT evolution. Nor is natural selection sufficient to produce the molecules-to-man evolution claimed by scientists, nor does mutation create NEW genetic information. Information is LOST, morphed, changed, et.


----------



## fivesolas (Feb 12, 2009)

> I know people are going to have their own videos claiming the other side of the story. Mine has facts, theirs will not.



You do realize you just committed a logical fallacy don't you. lol


----------



## fivesolas (Feb 12, 2009)

> I've watched both series. Not to judge a book by its cover but the ID is weak in film quality, something like a homemade hunting video.
> Then you have the information which sounds good but is not concrete.
> Plus the support by the scientific community is behind Darwin not ID.



In responding your points...

1. Film quality? you have got to be kidding. How about dealing with the research. 

2. How is the information not concrete. This ambiguity says nothing. 

3. Yeah, and the Egyptian community at one time thought Pharoah was god. *yawn*

Don't take my reply as a personal attack on you, its not meant that way. I think we have both seen good debate and discussion on both sides, and poor debate and discussion on both sides. 

Also, unless either one of us are Phd's, neither of us can speak as experts. I hold an undergradutate degree in a soft science. That's it. 

I have read the theory and reasoning of dawinianism. I think it has many, many holes in it and will eventually die. Ironically, it will not survive because its not fit. hahahaha

This is why you have and ID movement. They see the holes as well. This is where social science may provide some insight. It is quite natural in my opinion for the Darwinists to get more agressive. Darwinism is their worldview. They hold to it like a religious zealot holds to their religion. And they will even fight for it (probably with just words). 

This is not unusal behavior. We saw a similar pattern when Darwinism tried to enter the educational scence. There was opposition to it. Now the opposition is against Darwinism as a sufficient explaination for origins. 

Basically, Darwin ain't goin down without a fight. The ID movement will strike their blows. Separate from them, the biblical creation movement will strike theirs. 

I'm putting my money on creation, just not sure when the knock-out will happen. 

-five


----------



## Rage_On (Feb 12, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> You do realize you just committed a logical fallacy don't you. lol



hahaha I agree.  I typed it in a hurry because lunch was making a quick exit.
but you are right.  I love the word perspective.

Didn't mean to sound like a jerk or smartbutt two or three post up on eduation.


----------



## Rage_On (Feb 12, 2009)

For all the anti-Darwinites......


----------



## fivesolas (Feb 12, 2009)

Rage_On said:


> For all the anti-Darwinites......


----------



## Rage_On (Feb 12, 2009)

fivesolas said:


>



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Humor brings the world together


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 12, 2009)

Facts__________???????????????????

Can't argue with that can we....

Nope... Like has been said many times before. Where are the missing links in all this stuff? Ape to Man, Dinosaur to Bird, Pre-Cambrian soup to ????????




Rage_On said:


> I have my sources, where are theirs?
> Naked Science set out to figure out which side was write.....a 200 year debate.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## footjunior (Feb 12, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Thanks for the reply. It is well thought out. Am I understanding you correctly that you are saying the theory of natural selection aided this research?



Yes. The theory of natural selection served as a model for these algorithms.



> If so, I would contend that the theory of natural selection is not evolution. Natural selection is merely selection of information that already exists.
> 
> In fact, there isn't a creation scientist, even those scary young-earth ones lol, that deny the theory of natural selection.



I agree completely.



> So, the two fallacies I see in your reply are:
> 
> 1. Natural Selection is evolution.



Where did I say it was? The theory of natural selection explains the evolution that we see occurring in nature.



> 2. Mutation is evolution.



Again, where did I say it was? Mutation is not evolution, but it is most definitely part of the evolutionary process.



> Those two phenomena are not examples of evolution because they do not engender new genetic information. It mearly takes existing information, rearranges it, adapts it, et. Not even close to what is needed for molecules-to-man evolution.



The theory of natural selection is not abiogenesis. The theory of natural selection explains the diversity of life on earth. It does not explain the origins of life from non-life.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 12, 2009)

Keep your head in the sand Foot...


----------



## footjunior (Feb 12, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Keep your head in the sand Foot...



More ad hominem. Attack the arguments, not the person making them.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 12, 2009)

footjunior said:


> More ad hominem. Attack the arguments, not the person making them.



Been there done that. You aren't adding anything of substance to the discussion. Just what you have been spoon fed. Be proud of yourself though. I'm sure you will do well you regurgitate easily...

It would help if you thought and studied for yourself.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 12, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Been there done that. You aren't adding anything of substance to the discussion. Just what you have been spoon fed. Be proud of yourself though. I'm sure you will do well you regurgitate easily...
> 
> It would help if you thought and studied for yourself.



Your last few posts have added nothing to the discussion since you seem incapable of not posting attacks against me. I really don't think you can help it.

Yes. We had a discussion in one of my computer science classes about genetic algorithms and their history. I then went home and studied them in greater detail for myself. Are you saying that, since I learned about genetic algorithms from someone else I am not able to bring them up?

If so, I don't want to see any articles from creationist websites, anything from Biblical commentaries, scripture, anything that you have learned from someone else. Seems fair enough.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 12, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Your last few posts have added nothing to the discussion since you seem incapable of not posting attacks against me. I really don't think you can help it.
> 
> Yes. We had a discussion in one of my computer science classes about genetic algorithms and their history. I then went home and studied them in greater detail for myself. Are you saying that, since I learned about genetic algorithms from someone else I am not able to bring them up?
> 
> If so, I don't want to see any articles from creationist websites, anything from Biblical commentaries, scripture, anything that you have learned from someone else. Seems fair enough.



Nope not saying that at all. Just that your research is too limited. You only care what your group thinks because it fits what you want. It allows you to do what you want.


----------



## fivesolas (Feb 12, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Yes. The theory of natural selection served as a model for these algorithms.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, it has been my experience that natural selection is equated with evolution. For example, a definition is:

"Evolutionary change based on the differential reproductive success of individuals within a species." Michael A.Park, Introducing Anthropology: An Integrated Approach, 2nd Ed., glossary. 

On this subject, creationist writer Georgia Purdom notes:




> Many people give credit to Charles Darwin for formulating the theory of natural selection as described in his book On the Origin of Species. Few realize that Darwin only popularized the idea and actually borrowed it from several other people, especially a creationist by the name of Edward Blyth. Blyth published several articles describing the process of natural selection in Magazine of Natural History between 1835 and 1837—a full 22 years before Darwin published his book. It is also known that Darwin had copies of these magazines and that parts of On The Origin of Species are nearly verbatim from Blyth’s articles.7
> 
> Blyth, however, differed from Darwin in his starting assumptions. Blyth believed in God as the Creator, rather than the blind forces of nature. He believed that God created original kinds, that all modern species descended from those kinds, and that natural selection acted by conserving rather than originating. Blyth also believed that man was a separate creation from animals. This is especially important since humans are made in the image of God, an attribute that cannot be applied to animals (Genesis 1:27). Blyth seemed to view natural selection as a mechanism designed directly or indirectly by God to allow His creation to survive in a post-Fall, post-Flood world. This is very different from Darwin’s view. Darwin wrote, “What a book a devil’s chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horridly cruel works of nature.”8
> 
> ...



http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolution#fnList_1_1

Click the link to check the references. 

Basically, natural selection does not equal or mean evolution. The two have been talked about in common so long it has just become "assumed" that natural selection is evolutionary. 

-five


----------



## footjunior (Feb 13, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Well, it has been my experience that natural selection is equated with evolution. For example, a definition is:
> 
> "Evolutionary change based on the differential reproductive success of individuals within a species." Michael A.Park, Introducing Anthropology: An Integrated Approach, 2nd Ed., glossary.
> 
> ...



Well I somewhat agree. When someone says the word evolution, I think of natural selection. When someone says natural selection, I think of evolution. However, the two are different things. Evolution is a natural phenomenon. Natural selection is a theory which explains evolution.

However, the reason natural selection and evolution are often thought of as the same thing is because natural selection describes evolution so well and so completely. No other theory comes close.

By posting that article, you seem to be advocating the usual young-earth "micro, but not macro" stance. If this is true, I would urge you to look at the evolution of the horse posts that I made in the other thread. Or really it would probably be easier to just Google "evolution of the horse" or something along those lines. Since microevolution is defined as changes within a species, and the fossils from horses show evolutionary changes between genera (that is genus, which is a level above species), it is clear that macroevolution has taken place, and horses are probably one of the clearest examples.

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse


----------



## Buckmoses (Feb 13, 2009)

Evolution is a only a theory, but so is gravity.  The sad truth is Biblical literalists can't get out of the corner they have boxed themselves into, and can't see that evolution is simply a  way God creates.  

I think Science doesn't cancel out God, but just shows the depth of his intelligence.  Our ancient relatives of Faith seemed to desire simple explanations for what we know are complex ideas.  Were that it was so simple, but we are studying the mind of God, and, while we have caught glimpses of its depth, we are only scratching the surface.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Feb 13, 2009)

Buckmoses said:


> Evolution is a only a theory, but so is gravity. The sad truth is Biblical literalists can't get out of the corner they have boxed themselves into, and can't see that evolution is simply a way God creates.
> 
> I think Science doesn't cancel out God, but just shows the depth of his intelligence. Our ancient relatives of Faith seemed to desire simple explanations for what we know are complex ideas. Were that it was so simple, but we are studying the mind of God, and, while we have caught glimpses of its depth, we are only scratching the surface.


 

Excellent post.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 13, 2009)

Buckmoses said:


> Evolution is a only a theory, but so is gravity.  The sad truth is Biblical literalists can't get out of the corner they have boxed themselves into, and can't see that evolution is simply a  way God creates.
> 
> I think Science doesn't cancel out God, but just shows the depth of his intelligence.  Our ancient relatives of Faith seemed to desire simple explanations for what we know are complex ideas.  Were that it was so simple, but we are studying the mind of God, and, while we have caught glimpses of its depth, we are only scratching the surface.



Actually gravity can be tested, measured, experienced, and observed. Everywhere from dropping something in your den to the way a far away star rotates at an oblong angle because of the gravitational pull of a circling planet. We measure it by G forces. Thus the Law of Gravity.

Evolution on the other hand can't be experienced, measured, or observed. And we are seeing the exact opposite of what evolution predicts with speciation. So the theory of evolution. Just like the theory of little green men.


----------



## fivesolas (Feb 13, 2009)

Buckmoses said:


> Evolution is a only a theory, but so is gravity.  The sad truth is Biblical literalists can't get out of the corner they have boxed themselves into, and can't see that evolution is simply a  way God creates.
> 
> I think Science doesn't cancel out God, but just shows the depth of his intelligence.  Our ancient relatives of Faith seemed to desire simple explanations for what we know are complex ideas.  Were that it was so simple, but we are studying the mind of God, and, while we have caught glimpses of its depth, we are only scratching the surface.



The corner we bible-believers have backed ourselves into is the Scripture itself. It's a very comfy corner...

What your describing is Theistic Evolution. Any form of Evolution, molecules-to-man, is contrary to the revelation of God in Scripture. So, ultimately, the issue isn't science vs. religion. It's biblical authority. Answers in Genesis, a biblical Christian ministry that focuses on orgins, outlines 10 dangers to Theistic Evolution:

1. It misrepresents the nature of God. It represents God as using millions of years of death and suffering as principles of creation. God's work is very good, holy, perfect, righteous, et. Death and suffering are not a part of that. 

2. God becomes the god of the gaps. "...in theistic evolution the only workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot ‘explain’ with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to being a ‘god of the gaps’ for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This leads to the view that ‘God is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has evolved—He is evolution" 

3. Theistic Evolution denies central biblical teachings. The teaching of the Bible in Genesis serve as a foundation for Christianity. Even unbelievers understand this...undermine Genesis, and you undermine Christianity itself. Theistic evolution must re-interpret Genesis in an un-natural manner and basic principle of biblical interpretation. 

4. Loss of the way of finding God. Romans 7:18-19, Luke 19:10 and numerous other verses describe the human condition as a fallen condition into sin, being ensared by it through the fall of Adam, resulting in death. The wages of sin is death. 

Evolution undermines this teaching. Sin simply does not exist in evolutionary thinking. 

5. The doctrine of the incarnation is undermined. Scripture teaches that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Christ Jesus was made in the likeness of men. John 1:14, Phill 2:5-7. In the theory of evolution mankind is something other than what the Bible descibes man is. 

6. The biblical basis of the redemption of Christ is mythologized. I quote in full:

The Bible teaches that the first man’s fall into sin was a real event and that this was the direct cause of sin in the world. ‘Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned’ (Romans 5:12).

Theistic evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man, nor that he was created directly from ‘the dust of the ground’ by God (Genesis 2:7). Most theistic evolutionists regard the creation account as being merely a mythical tale, albeit with some spiritual significance. However, the sinner Adam and the Saviour Jesus are linked together in the Bible—Romans 5:16-18. Thus any theological view which mythologizes Adam undermines the biblical basis of Jesus’ work of redemption.

7. Loss of biblical chronology. The Bible provides a time-scale for history. There is a well-defined beginning, Genesis 1:1, the total duration of creation days, Exodus 20:11, the age of the universe estimated on geneologies, the fullness of times, Galations 4:4, which happened 2,000 years ago, and the return of Christ. 

8. Loss of creation concepts. The Bible teaches creation concepts. God created without using pre-existing material. This is often called ex-nihilo. Theistic evolution must ignore this. God created the earth first, and on the 4th day made the moon, the solar system, our galaxy, and all other star systems. This teaching is opposed to evolutionary cosmology. 

9. Misrepresentation of reality. I quote:

The Bible carries the seal of truth, and all its pronouncements are authoritative—whether they deal with questions of faith and salvation, daily living, or matters of scientific importance.

Evolutionists brush all this aside, e.g. Richard Dawkins says, ‘Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants’.4

If evolution is false, then numerous sciences have embraced false testimony. Whenever these sciences conform to evolutionary views, they misrepresent reality. How much more then a theology which departs from what the Bible says and embraces evolution!

10. Missing the purpose. 

In no other historical book do we find so many and such valuable statements of purpose for man, as in the Bible. For example:

1. Man is God’s purpose in creation (Genesis 1:27-28). 
2. Man is the purpose of God’s plan of redemption (Isaiah 53:5). 
3. Man is the purpose of the mission of God’s Son (1 John 4:9). 
4. We are the purpose of God’s inheritance (Titus 3:7). 
5. Heaven is our destination (1 Peter 1:4). 

However, the very thought of purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. ‘Evolutionary adaptations never follow a purposeful program, they thus cannot be regarded as teleonomical.’5

Thus a belief system such as theistic evolution that marries purposefulness with non-purposefulness is a contradiction in terms.

The doctrines of creation and evolution are so strongly divergent that reconciliation is totally impossible. Theistic evolutionists attempt to integrate the two doctrines, however such syncretism reduces the message of the Bible to insignificance. The conclusion is inevitable:* There is no support for theistic evolution in the Bible.*


http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v17/n4/theistic-evolution


----------



## Banjo (Feb 13, 2009)

Theistic Evolution is nothing more than a compromise many liberal churches are willing to make with the world.

After all, if Genesis isn't to be taken literally, what else cannot?


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 13, 2009)

Banjo said:


> Theistic Evolution is nothing more than a compromise many liberal churches are willing to make with the world.
> 
> After all, if Genesis isn't to be taken literally, what else cannot?



Banjo- Check out www.reasons.org look at how this does take an old earth (not the same as theistic evolution) stance that is clearly in the biblical writings.


----------



## fivesolas (Feb 13, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Banjo- Check out www.reasons.org look at how this does take an old earth (not the same as theistic evolution) stance that is clearly in the biblical writings.



That's Hugh Ross's website, who is one of the leading Progressive Creationists. Progressive Creationism is also a compromising position against the Scripture. 

Check out the other side of the coin here http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0823ross_full.asp

-five


----------



## Banjo (Feb 13, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Banjo- Check out www.reasons.org look at how this does take an old earth (not the same as theistic evolution) stance that is clearly in the biblical writings.




I will check it out later...., but I am with fivesolas on this one.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 13, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> That's Hugh Ross's website, who is one of the leading Progressive Creationists. Progressive Creationism is also a compromising position against the Scripture.
> 
> Check out the other side of the coin here http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0823ross_full.asp
> 
> -five



I've read it as well. I guess it would go back to the original meaning of Genesis 1. Is it 7 days or 7 periods of time. Plenty of scholarship on both sides to support it. 

I agree with Ross though on his point about God making the Universe as we see it. 

But this is one of those issues we can have a good time discussing.

BTW- Ross' main point though does come back around to saying that Man is not a part of evolutions and Darwinism is a false idea. Evolution as taught by today's scientists doesn't hold up. Man was created as it says in Genesis. Which in my mind is the important part of the first chapter. THE most important part. That we were created in the image of God.


----------



## PoBoy (Feb 13, 2009)

If you dont believe we evolved from apes, just look around wal-mart the next time you go. There you will see all sorts of people who did not complete the evolutionary process.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 13, 2009)

PoBoy said:


> If you dont believe we evolved from apes, just look around wal-mart the next time you go. There you will see all sorts of people who did not complete the evolutionary process.


----------



## fivesolas (Feb 13, 2009)

PoBoy said:


> If you dont believe we evolved from apes, just look around wal-mart the next time you go. There you will see all sorts of people who did not complete the evolutionary process.



The older I get the more hair growth I am finding...so it does make one wonder. Perhaps I am devolving.


----------



## addictedtodeer (Feb 13, 2009)

Rage_On said:


> Private School
> your problem is solved.



Absolutely, yet you have not acknowledged that the government school forces it down the students throat, let not avoid this.


----------



## addictedtodeer (Feb 13, 2009)

5 Solas-excellent points


----------



## fivesolas (Feb 13, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> I've read it as well. I guess it would go back to the original meaning of Genesis 1. Is it 7 days or 7 periods of time. Plenty of scholarship on both sides to support it.
> 
> I agree with Ross though on his point about God making the Universe as we see it.
> 
> ...



That would be an interesting discussion. I need to look deeper into progressive creationism then. Is it just the time frame? I thought Ross taught concerning a pre-adamic race?


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 13, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> That would be an interesting discussion. I need to look deeper into progressive creationism then. Is it just the time frame? I thought Ross taught concerning a pre-adamic race?



Not as evolutionary science. Only as a preparation of the world for man's coming. He points out the extinction rate of animals is slower where neanderthals existed vs where man arrives with no preparation. 

But mainly he does make the time line issue a lot more clear. 7 periods of creation. We are currently in the 7th (the sabbath because the Lord rested) where there are no new species coming into existence. His points on the Universe and time are fascinating IMO. I do not believe he "belittles" the Bible at all. He shows how indeed God worked within the laws of science to create the Universe. Laws He created.


----------



## Banjo (Feb 13, 2009)

> He points out the extinction rate of animals is slower where neanderthals existed vs where man arrives with no preparation.




Were Neanderthals some kind of sub-human race???  I need a definition here of what Neanderthals are.

Does he think they existed before Adam and Eve, or were they descendants?


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 13, 2009)

Banjo said:


> Were Neanderthals some kind of sub-human race???  I need a definition here of what Neanderthals are.
> 
> Does he think they existed before Adam and Eve, or were they descendants?





Banjo- They were used to prepare the world for Man. So BEFORE Adam and Eve. and they were not made with God's image so no they are not descendants of ours. We are unique.


----------



## Big7 (Feb 13, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Science doesn't "prove" anything. In science proof does not equal truth.



Say what?
So now proof is not truth?


----------



## ToLog (Feb 13, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Banjo- They were used to prepare the world for Man. So BEFORE Adam and Eve. and they were not made with God's image so no they are not descendants of ours. We are unique.



Man Alive!  i might have had some minor amounts of Neanderthal in my DNA, from the early days.  Is that Ok?


----------



## Banjo (Feb 14, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Banjo- They were used to prepare the world for Man. So BEFORE Adam and Eve. and they were not made with God's image so no they are not descendants of ours. We are unique.



SAY WHAT?????

How could anyone get that from the Bible?  Why would God need any help "preparing" the world for Man.  He spoke all things into existence....

This would make a good sci-fi movie, especially if we could throw some aliens in the equation somehow...but terrible Bible scholarship...


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Feb 14, 2009)

Banjo said:


> SAY WHAT?????
> 
> How could anyone get that from the Bible? Why would God need *any help* "preparing" the world for Man. He spoke all things into existence....
> 
> This would make a good sci-fi movie, especially if we could throw some aliens in the equation somehow...but terrible Bible scholarship...


 

*Genesis 1:26*
Then God said, "Let *us* make man in *our* image, in *our* likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."


----------



## Banjo (Feb 14, 2009)

scooter1 said:


> *Genesis 1:26*
> Then God said, "Let *us* make man in *our* image, in *our* likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."



That would be referring to the Trinity....Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  Three in one and one in three.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Feb 14, 2009)

Banjo said:


> That would be referring to the Trinity....Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Three in one and one in three.


 
So I've heard, from man.


----------



## Banjo (Feb 14, 2009)

scooter1 said:


> So I've heard, from man.



Have you heard from anyone/anything besides man?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Feb 14, 2009)

Banjo said:


> Have you heard from anyone/anything besides man?


 
Plenty, why do you ask?


----------



## Banjo (Feb 14, 2009)

scooter1 said:


> Plenty, why do you ask?



Just curious....


----------



## PWalls (Feb 14, 2009)

scooter1 said:


> So I've heard, from man.



So you doubt the Trinity or you doubt the Trinity's work in Creation?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 14, 2009)

Banjo said:


> That would be referring to the Trinity....Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  Three in one and one in three.



Maybe he was talking to Ganesh or Osiris.....



Banjo said:


> Have you heard from anyone/anything besides man?



I haven't had the voices since they upped my lithium.


----------



## Rage_On (Feb 18, 2009)

Over the weekend I visited my girlfriend in NYC.  She lives a few blocks from the American Museum of Natural History.  This museum is incredible. I spent roughly seven hours over two days combing over the different wings, wow, so much knowledge in one location.   I believe everyone should go there just to see the thousands upon thousand of artifacts from dinosaur bones, "Lucy" herself (the branch of humans we evolved from) along with evolution of man, cultures/religions from around the world (Muslim section was very informative, loved it, wonderful religion with some awesome messages), detail to exhibits were artistic wonders and mind blowing, climate change show extremely informative, and so much more that will leave you speechless.

Everyone should make it a point to go once in their life.  I know several people believe fossils are some test my God on our faith…..yea anyways but still it’s extremely educational.  

http://www.amnh.org/home/?gclid=COvPjJGo5pgCFQwNGgodu0yFdA


----------



## RThomas (Feb 18, 2009)

Great suggestion, Rage On.  However, I believe Lucy is currently on tour in Seattle until March.   Hope she takes some great photos


----------



## Rage_On (Feb 18, 2009)

RThomas said:


> Great suggestion, Rage On.  However, I believe Lucy is currently on tour in Seattle until March.   Hope she takes some great photos



Dangit! I thought I was looking at the original!!!!  Wow what a great copy.

Guess I'm a monkey's descendant and didn't notice she had a stand in.  Looks like Lucy is on tour till March 8th at the Pacific Science Center.

http://www.pacsci.org/


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Feb 18, 2009)

Rage_On said:


> Guess I'm a monkey's descendant


 
Explains a lot... 



DB BB


----------



## Rage_On (Feb 18, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Explains a lot...
> 
> 
> 
> DB BB



hahaha figured i toss a softball out there for someone


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 18, 2009)

Rage_On said:


> hahaha figured i toss a softball out there for someone



More like put it on a tee....


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Feb 18, 2009)

any opportunity to make people laugh....

It gets to serious in here sometimes...

DB BB


----------

