bio-engineering; synthetic DNA, that replicates - a bit scarey - Page 3

VK I said " I don't care what you think about God, Christianity, or evolution one way or the other,, ..Believe what you like,,, :) "...........Because I care a little bit this is for you,,,....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxX3kEJT88g#t=101

you live and insist on some parts of the bible and ignore the rest, and no special pleading, compartmentalization, and cherry picking or  extreme mental gymnastics to attempt to rationalize that and contextualize it to a certain situation and a certain time period. your bible says this of women;

1 Timothy 2:12 - But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

1 Corinthians 11:9 - Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

1 Corinthians 11:3 - But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.

1 Timothy 2:13-14 - For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
Genesis 3:16 - Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

1 Corinthians 11:5 - But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

so when you gonna be a real christian women, like this cuckoo bird;

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/schlafly-married-women-can%E2%80%99t-be-raped-husbands

At one point, Schlafly also contended that married women cannot be sexually assaulted by their husbands.

"By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape," she said.

gg all scientists are skeptical about evrything and at the top of their list of things they are skeptical of is science and other scientists; all scientists do is try and prove each other wrong, that is what science is.

if a scientists can prove any major theory or fact to be wrong they are famous and get money, even a nobel prize. if anyone scientists or not could actually refute evolution with proof they will go to the top level of science, their career would be set for life and they would be financially secure for the next 100 years.

so what is yr point. you think science is all a big conspiracy, where all scientists for over a hundred years have secret meetings and all agree on what lies to tell???

why to you reduce yr reasoning power so much just to defend yr belief system. i think you are better than that.

show some evidence for your beliefs not arguing from absence of knowledge and from ignorance which is all you are doing. the hardest atheist/scientist whatever will fall in line. what you think of the evolution in the lab project i posted, as a biologist it must be an interesting project. the creationist response was disgusting, they even submitted a deliberately flawed refutation that was so bad it could not be published just so they can claim that they are being censored, clever and dishonest turds.

VK posted ,,,

1 Timothy 2:12 - But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

1 Corinthians 11:9 - Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

1 Corinthians 11:3 - But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.

1 Timothy 2:13-14 - For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
Genesis 3:16 - Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

1 Corinthians 11:5 - But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven

I agree  with these verses, and we must seek to understand them in their context,,,It does not mean that we live it out perfectly all the time,,,I am a very unsubmissive woman by nature..lol...,,It is something that I strive to do in honoring God; sanctification is a process..God has also set a standard for the way in which men should conduct themselves towards their wives,,Your point is what ??,,,

Did you watch the video I posted for you?,,:)

Ruger1, what vk4 is saying if I may rephrase it for you correctly? P.T.de Chardin often quoted by the greatest evolutionists of the 20^th century at least arguing so and as quoted by F.J. Ayala.

And it says [Evolution] is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow – that is what evolution is.

Now this is really the most astounding quotes I ever came across on the internet, right on the beginning it admits it’s nothing but a general postulate that is another word for hypotheses, not even something that been proved, just something that people conjured up in their imaginations, say well we can tested but we don’t know if it’s true yet. Well somehow this postulate or hypotheses has the power to say all world systems must bow before it, and you know what Ruger1, if you don’t stop and say wait a minute – you don’t have an authority to do that, they or VK4 will run over you and say hey see those top well known worldwide evolutionist professors say so…so what is it about there names makes them right? Dropping names does not determine truth and if it just a postulate, it has to go through whatever other postulates has to go through…proof by the scientific method; that has not happened for evolution. 

Science redefined as materialism: You see Ruger1 you may search for truth – but only where and how evolutionist tells you to. Only materialistic explanations are allowed. Now the problem Ruger1, what is the problem? Whenever you allow your opponent or VK4 will be good illustration to define the rules of argument – you lose my dear Ruger1. If they get to set a definition, guess what they always going to define the rules in such a way no matter what happens they win and you lose. For example: The first rule “I set the rules and you don’t!” Since I get to set the rules, you conceded me that right, I set the rules and you don’t, that’s the first rule. And what is the second rule? “Heads, I win – Tails, you lose!” So when your opponent or good illustration again will be VK4 allowed and conceded authority to define science in a self-serving matter, he controls the rule book you never going to win my dear Ruger1 in that situation, it doesn’t matter if in a football game you scored all the touchdowns or in basketball game you get all the hoops, if the rule book says you lose by the definition, it doesn’t matter and that literary the position evolutionists put themselves in. Well VK4 says it doesn’t matter what evidence creationists have or it doesn’t matter what arguments they have, we have real science on our side, says who? Their own self-serving definition and we have to take away from them, they don’t have an authority, nobody died and be equate to them, the right to change the classic definition of science which is the search for truth for whatever that truth may be. And here is my conclusion my dear Ruger1, the search for truth, for truth’s own sake, is unimportant “according to their definition” – the only thing that matters is that a materialist victory is assured by controlling the definition of “science” so that no matter what – they have to win – by definition. Thank you for reading again. Shtal.      

shtal your rambling and quote mining out of context has not answered a single question, you just add gibbersish. the question was about how kangaroos got to australia. when you don't have an answer it is better to say nothing than quote mine and add gibbersish.

i read some of yr gibberish, it does matter what evidence creationists have, show me some......

Carlin,

Couldn't agree more

Shtal.

shtal the only thing missing from your epic fly-by cut and paste incoherent posts is evidence.

show us some evidence shtal.

or just post funny icons, that is about the only thing you can do that is remotely original.