Please BCSpace

[_Tarski]

It has only been a few hours since you last posted a cut and past from WND!

Hurry! Come on come on. Please post more stuff, you don't even need to read it carefully (as you know).

But I have a request.....WND has lots of pro-creationist stuff. Cut and past some of that pleeez.

Here is one to get it started:
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/darwinian-ev ... ic-theory/

This one is written by David Rives of "The Heavens Declare the Glory of God" fame. A name you can trust for science!

[_bcspace]

It has only been a few hours since you last posted a cut and past from WND!

The record shows it's been at least several days if not more.

But I have a request.....WND has lots of pro-creationist stuff. Cut and past some of that pleeez.

Feel free to do it yourself since I personally am not a creationist. Plus, I've been having more fun watching Total Recall. What have you been doing? It seems like you're still addicted to blue pills.

[_Tarski]

The record shows it's been at least several days if not more.

Even worse! get going! (weeklystandard will do just as well of course)

I personally am not a creationist.

Well, you support the party that continually tries to suppress evolution in the classrom and in textbooks as well as the party that tries to injection creationism into the classroom.
On top of that you say that God created and designed life and that there was a Garden of Eden (such a childish notion) and no death and all that. You support a church whose leaders have gone on record against evolution many times.

So, you say you aren't a creationist but you are. In fact, you are an active creationist since you actively support the news outlets and blogs that are creationist when given the chance, you support the political party whose leadership and membership are dominated by creationists and a church whose leadership and membership are dominated by creationists.
You are a better card member of the creationist movement than most creationists if judged by the effect your political activities and campaigning has on the state of education.

The point is that actions speak louder than words. You say you aren't a creationist but....

[_EAllusion]

WND is wall-to-wall crazy. I don't think its young earth creationism advocacy is a top 5 nutty thing they put out. But you can, in principle, like the content on some of a political website without endorsing it all. The Huffington Post has Radley Balko, my favorite journalist, right now while simultaneously advocating all manner of harmful new age woo.

You could like WND's birtherism while disapproving of its creationism.

[_bcspace]

Even worse! get going! (weeklystandard will do just as well of course)

I see you had to do a quick shift there when you realized your facts were wrong again. Feel free to continue to numb your mind with MSNBC.

Well, you support the party that continually tries to suppress evolution in the classroom and in textbooks as well as the party that tries to injection creationism into the classroom.

There are certainly those in that party who are like that. But you consistently take up the regressive causes from the Democratic Party which have actual negative effect on the economy and moral society. These people, like creationists, also demand and fight for the silencing of others in the classroom.

I support the free flow of ideas and information, even if it means we have to suffer a little creationism. However, I know of no Democrat who doesn't support in some way bullying tactics to suppress facts and ideas other than those they agree with.

On top of that you say that God created and designed life

And that He used evolution big bang to do it.

and that there was a Garden of Eden and no death and all that

I believe the scriptures yes. I believe Christ was resurrected too and has power over death.

You support a church whose leaders have gone on record against evolution many times.

In most, if not all, cases in a non doctrinal sense or they attacked evolution but missed the mark. I have proven that LDS doctrine is completely compatible with evolution.

So, you say you aren't a creationist but you are. In fact, you are an active creationist since you actively support the news outlets and blogs that are creationist when given the chance, you support the political party whose leadership and membership are dominated by creationists and a church whose leadership and membership are dominated by creationists.
You are a better card member of the creationist movement than most creationists if judged by the effect your political activities and campaigning has on the state of education.

The point is that actions speak louder than words. You say you aren't a creationist but....

Here is the problem with your logic here. I don't qualify for the Romans 1:32 principle (have pleasure in them that do) like all Democrats or other Regressives who claim to be Mormon do because neither evolution or creationism is LDS doctrine.

WND is wall-to-wall crazy

And yet when I have quoted news from them, none of you has been able to point out where they might be misrepresenting the truth. WND itself is much like Drudge in that they merely collect the news from other outlets.

[_Tarski]

because neither evolution or creationism is LDS doctrine.

in that numerous prophets and seers have decribed in detail a creationist doctrine and none have ever said that evolution was doctrine. But your OK, since you are a creationist and/or a useful idiot for the creationist movement.

By they way,
here is the thumbnail explanation of liberals and conservatives in actual practice:
Perhaps cartoonical but it captures and essential tendencies.

On fiscal matters
1. Liberals: Tax and spend. Liberals want to spend money on programs they believe in (education, basic scientific research, infrastructure) but they want to pay for it using revenue drawn from all those who benefit.

2. Conservatives: Just spend, charge it, defer the consequences until the other party can be blamed.
Conservatives spend big money on programs they like all the time (on wars, nukes, defense, corporate welfare, farming subsidies etc.) but since they don't want to raise taxes lest their corporate overlords complain, they put it all on the credit card (quietly). Lucky for them the real effects of these actions on the deficit come home to roost about the time the other party gets in office so then they can play the blame game as if consequences can only be traced back as far as just after the last time they had someone in the white house but no further.

In short, conservatives love to spend and always do--but just on their favortie crap.

On freedom

1. Liberals: Freedom up until the point it harms other people, including future generations.
Liberals would be typically be OK with legalizing pot and have no desire to control people's sex lives.


2. Conservatives: Guns and cigars but no weed or contraceptives.

Freedom to have any kind of guns, freedom to pollute, to disenfranchize.
Conservatives want their weapons, their booze, their cigars, their right to unfettered profiteering without rules, and freedom to glorify violence, and freedom to bully other nations who don't give us their oil or don't host the activities of our corporations on our terms. But oh, marijuana has to be totally illegal, sexual adult media must be eliminated, contraceptives need to be eliminated, sexual activity outside of procreation in marriage is to be eliminated---oh, and no burning of any cloth is if is has stars and stripes on it. (Just how much freedom is that?)
In short they don't stand for freedom per se. They stand for freedom to engage in their favorite activities but want to eliminate other freedoms which they simply deem immoral, deviant or "unamerican".

On what's silly:

Conservatives: Climate change science and evolutionary biology are silly while things like multilevel marketing, investing in limited edition gold coins, women's bodies protect against pregnancy in case of a rape, faith healing, the garden of eden story, Jonah and the whale and Jesus riding in on a winged dinosaur to fix everything and punish to socialists are all ideas that are totally not silly.

Liberals: Conservatives are silly.

[_bcspace]

none have ever said that evolution was doctrine

The Church has never said creationism is doctrine either and I personally have never said an LDS creationist is an apostate in the religious sense or necessarily in conflict with doctrine. In fact, the Church has said, regarding the existence of pre Adamite races of men that neither their existence or non existence is doctrine.

On fiscal matters

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

On freedom

"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."

On Liberal silliness:

"History is a gallery of pictures in which there are few originals and many copies."

[_EAllusion]

The LDS Church's Old Testament CES manual endorses creationism right off the bat in its analysis of Genesis:

http://www.LDS.org/manual/old-testament ... 2?lang=eng

It offers some trash arguments against evolutionary theory in the process of explicitly arguing for creationism using creationist terminology and arguments from the period.

The room it allows for debate is whether to be an old earth creationist or a young earth creationist. It seems to favor old earth creationism, but portrays young earth creationism as a minority, though respectable position to take. It favorably cites Immanuel Velikovsky.

In addition to this, there is an extensive list of quotes from past and present Church leaders either explicitly endorsing creationism or doing so implicitly in other doctrinal positions. This blog from a faithful, fundamentalist Mormon does a pretty awesome job laying that out. To argue that the Church hasn't weighed in on this doctrinal matter is to argue a bunch of other basic positions LDS normally regard as doctrinal are not. The LDS Church tolerates, though does not particularly welcome lack of creationist belief among its members. Rejecting creationism is like getting a tattoo.

[_EAllusion]

Besides the JW's, the LDS Church has the single highest % of creationists of any major denomination in the United States. It's more creationist than evangelical protestants as a group are. There's a reason for that.

[_bcspace]

The LDS Church's Old Testament CES manual endorses creationism right off the bat in its analysis of Genesis

No it doesn't. It offers an alternative view using Coffin's much outdated science (if it ever was science) plus it fixes official LDS doctrine as no doctrine on the age of the earth.

In addition to this, there is an extensive list of quotes from past and present Church leaders either explicitly endorsing creationism or doing so implicitly in other doctrinal positions

Most quotes are either non doctrinal or they don't address evolution at all or they don't conflict with evolution in any way.

Besides the JW's, the LDS Church has the single highest % of creationists of any major denomination in the United States. It's more creationist than evangelical protestants as a group are. There's a reason for that.

If true, it is because of Fielding-McConkites which are prone to quoting non doctrinal sources rather than official doctrine in support of their view. ON top of that, numbers of members believing something doesn't qualify that something as doctrine.

Notice these two quotes, for example, from the top of the first example given in the aforementioned blog:

THE NOBLEST WORK OF THE GREAT DESIGNER

Thomas S. Monson asks, "Who can doubt that there is a designer?" He answers using both thoughtful consideration and the revealed word of God: "If there is a design in this world in which we live, there must be a Designer." President Monson reminded that "the Grand Designer created the heaven and the earth." For example, there was light because the Grand Designer said "Let there be light." The sun, moon, and stars "came by His design."

"Man alone," he said, "received intelligence, a brain, a mind, and a soul. Man alone with these attributes had the capacity for faith and hope, for inspiration and ambition." He testified that "Man [is] the noblest work of the Great Designer." (Ensign, May 2010.)

Evolution does not preclude a Designer in any way whether or not one believes the clock was wound and never touched afterwards or that adjustments were made while the clock was ticking or some combination of the two.

THE CROWNING ACHIEVEMENT

D. Todd Christofferson: “Those who believe that our bodies are nothing more than the result of evolutionary chance will feel no accountability to God or anyone else for what they do with or to their body. We who have a witness of the broader reality of premortal, mortal, and postmortal eternity, however, must acknowledge that we have a duty to God with respect to this crowning achievement of His physical creation. In Paul's words:

“ ' What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

" ' For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s' (1 Corinthians 6:19–20).” (Ensign, Nov. 2010.)

There is no science that can account for all atoms on the earth for all time. Chemical reactions and even DNA can be manipulated in one or several examples of a species and science could never tell. Events that drive natural selection such as climate or geology can have been manipulated and no scientist could ever preclude God.

That will remain true for all time. Again here is an argument that does not address evolution. I've never claimed that our bodies were a result of evolutionary chance. I've only claimed that God used evolution to create our bodies.