From: "Reuben Hick" 

"old man joe"  wrote in message
news:2it103tl6jv82hhvs59o1uef50sl005j61{at}4ax.com...

>  using their own ' science ' as the means to find a reality which
> makes sense only to them,  the Evolutionist will not use this same
> science in his own daily life.

I understand the use of quotes around the word 'science' since the
evolutionist likes to cloak their religion in gadgets and complicated
explanations which fit under the rhetorical category of Baffle Them With
Bravo Sierra.

The evolutionists certainly don't believe their own rhetoric as evidenced
in the existance and their demands to expand the Welfare State which is in
direct contradiction to the principle of Surivial of the Fittest.

Furthermore, if one looks at the current environmental movement, the exact
same kind of 'science' that is used to "prove" evolution is used
to "prove" Global Cooling in the '70s and "prove"
Global Warming in the '00s.  What the scientific environmentalist says is
that Evolved Man is not a part of nature, yet they are loath to indicate
what mutation is responsible for man become alien to nature.

>  this just shows the folly of the ' science ' used to concoct the
> thinking that the sum total of lies equal truth.

Actually, given the philosophy of the unregenerate to preach the gospel of
nuance and relativism, when you hear one of them say "This is the
[absolute] truth" understand that this is code for "I'm about to
tell you a whopping lie that is critical to advance my suicidal
agenda"

>  the Evolutionist will not get on a bullet train knowing there's
> tracks missing down the line but he certainly get on the Evolution
> Train with lots of tracks missing in his story line.

This is really a flawed analogy since the Evolutionist requires missing
rails on their track.   For instance, there are many things in the
Creationist's Tool Kit to confound the Evolutionist just in terms of dating
things.   The Evolutionist, out of the great wealth of things out there to
measure time, chooses the flakiest dating methods that can be manipulated
to indicate real long periods of time.  They tell us, despite the many
anecdotes of fossils bearing dates hundreds of thousands of years apart
depending on which part of the fossil is sampled,  that carbon dating is
the best method.   All dating methods are based on fallible dating method. 
Yet,
over 90% of all dating methods give dates far younger than evolutionists
require, so the evolutionist will ignore these methods since they don't fit
the desired results.  IOW, the evolutionist DEMANDS that 90% of the rails
are missing.

>  how elements that are not alive and never will be alive initiated
> life in themselves is simply not worth answering in the Evolutionists
> ' science '.  the elements making up the Evolutionists human body are
> not alive; were never alive and never will be alive... he is alive
> only because the Living God gave him life.

Yes, the evolutionist, at this point waves his hand and says that Evolution
doesn't address abiogenesis, it is assumed that it happened because of
circular logic.   It must have happened because things are alive.   Its an
article of faith that a rock woke up one day and started eating dirt and
reproducing mutant rocks.

>  this, they can't escape.... that's why they don't want to give an
> answer of how the elements of their body are not alive yet they are
> alive... the dodging of answering this basic part of their mighty
> Evolutionary science scheme exposes them for what they are...
> pathological liars.

I prefer to think of them as deluded misotheists.  Almost everyone you will
meet and believes in evolution is woefully ignorant of the issues and
accept almost everything they know based on the fact that they have an
emotional commitment to the first explanation of origins that didn't get
laughs from authority figures.

I really don't know people who celebrate the idea that they are the results
of a long string or random accidents.   Its really hard to justify any
self-esteem when a person's existance, thoughts and essence is nothing more
than chemical reactions and unpredictable electrical impulses.

>  an excerpt from Wikipedia :
>
>   A pathological liar is someone who often embellishes his or her
> stories in a way that he or she believes will impress people. It may
> be that a pathological liar is different from a normal liar in that a
> pathological liar believes the lie he or she is telling to be true---
> at least in public--- and is "playing" the role. He or she sometimes
> is seen to have a serious mental problem that needs to be rectified.

Look up "Spiritual Warfare" in there you will find a better answer.

>   It is not clear, however, that this is the case. It could also be
> that pathological liars know precisely what they are doing. Making up
> stories and at the same time believing them is known as confabulation.
> The term "pathological liar" is not an official clinical diagnosis
> however psychiatrists may agree that pathological lying is often the
> result of a mental disorder or low self-esteem.

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag