Taxes

Originally posted by OdBod
If an "aberration" occurs that brings about an advantageous adaptation it can be passed onto the next generation, is it possible that given enough "aberrations" and passed on adaptation we might arrive at a DNA structure which would build an organism so different from the original as to constitute transmutation?

I don't mean to be rude but these things are purely elementary, it has been mandatory to attend school in Scotland since the middle ages, an interesting hypothesis never the less it remains unproven.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
How can domestic animals have been created before humans? Surely humans had to have been created first to carry out the domesticating?

its a generic term, you know, for cows, sheep, chickens, dogs, cats etc etc etc

Originally posted by RJHinds
Not in this case. Don't forget there was an evening and a morning just like the 24 hour day we have today. A day with an evening and a morning has always indicated a 24 hour day as far as I know. 😏

does, 'in my fathers day', refer to a twenty four hour period or an unspecified duration of time, when Paul stated that he was still in Gods rest day, was it twenty four hours after God rested from his works?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
For the third time, I have not missed the point, I merely have not seen any evidence of transmutation and as you have failed to provide any other than to state that bacteria adapts and remains bacteria I am left with the proposition that you are giving credence to an unobserved phenomena.

Have you read my post of 26 Jan 13 17:03? You seem to have responded to my previous post twice!

I would seem then that you have condemned your own words as nonsense.

I think you twisted my words to cleverly put forth implications. Here are some of the implications you devized.

God has only one way to supply the needs of those in need.
If you are elite enough to be in that system you are OK.
If you are not in the elite to "get in on" God's scheme, you're out of luck.

Now here are some of the things which my little paragraph did not say which I think you pretzel twisted around to make me appear to be saying:

I did not say in no other way will any human being's practical needs be supplied by God. I only meant to imply that He is faithful and encouraging to those who cheerfully have faith to act upon His promises.

I did not say the system is so legal that if you don't "get in" on it, you're doomed to always be short of you're needs.

I did not say that God cannot supply one's needs for other reasons.

Perhaps implied in your question was a indication that the very existence of a poor starving African child is evidence that God does not exist.

I also did not mean to imply that God would not reward generosity for its own sake. I did not mean to imply that only some bonifide clergy can be the only needs to which one's giving could go.

So I think your job you saw was to exploit whatever unfairness you could detect in order to score an anti-theistic point.

I have found that using scientific evidence in the face of religious belief is usually pointless.

Perhaps, my mention of the word "evidence" gives rise to this comment of yours.

Anyway, I am not afraid to talk science with anyone in relation to my Christian faith. Science has always fascinated me before and since becoming a believer in Christ.

I'm not sure why you made the science comment, unless it is kind of your way of saying "Hi" to Christians.

]
In this case I have used your own statement and placed it into a whole world context,this it appears you do not wish to discuss in a rational manner but dismiss with words such as "warped or nonsense".

After the phrase "it seems" what you discribed as supposedly my thoughts were largly so unrepresentative of them, I dismissed the innuendos as warped nonsense.

Ie. In essence you asked me "But how does the poor child qualify to get in on this elite system of your unfair god's scheme ?"

It seems that religion enables one to ignore selected scientific evidence and inconvenient dialogue.This is very effective way of defending a position,and says a lot about the religious view point.

The proposition is simple. Many believers have found God to be faithful in responding to their stepping out on faith and giving a portion of their earnings to certain spiritual or practical works deemed related to the furthering of the Christian Gospel.

You can say "I'm skeptical of that."
You can say "I have no personal experience of that."

You can even say "It sounds like some unfair ponzi scheme which only a priviledged capable can get in on."

Nevertheless plenty of biographical testimonies demonstrate the truth of what I wrote. I have found it true in my own life. It is one area where most consistently I have the feeling that something is up in the relationship between my faith to give and the consistency of the elimination of financial worries.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its a generic term, you know, for cows, sheep, chickens, dogs, cats etc etc etc

Your response doesn't address my question in anyway. How can domesticated animals exist before humans, you need humans on the planet to carry out the domestication process?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I don't mean to be rude but these things are purely elementary, it has been mandatory to attend school in Scotland since the middle ages, an interesting hypothesis never the less it remains unproven.

Sometimes in simplicity can be found clarity .You obviously choose not to address this "simple" line of logic and dismiss it as an"interesting hypothesis".It seems that the suggestion I made concerning religious thinking in my post of 26Jan13 13:18 may well be correct.

Originally posted by OdBod
Sometimes in simplicity can be found clarity .You obviously choose not to address this "simple" line of logic and dismiss it as an"interesting hypothesis".It seems that the suggestion I made concerning religious thinking in my post of 26Jan13 13:18 may well be correct.

I am still waiting for you to produce a single specimen of transmutation. You produced, bacteria which adapts and does not transmute to anything other than bacteria, your assertion therefore of stating that a theist avoids scientific discussion is quite simply simply put, ludicrous and is rather reminiscent of the completely unfounded assertions those who have limited their search for truth to unintelligent agencies are want to make.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Your response doesn't address my question in anyway. How can domesticated animals exist before humans, you need humans on the planet to carry out the domestication process?

cows and chickens cant exist before humans, yeah right.

Originally posted by OdBod
Fair enough! How would you organise and pay for all the services we use?

You want something pay for it, for the common good like roads and armies yes
taxes are required. The thing we have now that is called income taxes isn't
really just a "tax" it is a form of control, it should be called outcome punishment
or something along those lines, since the power behind the income tax is it
gives us breaks where they want us to behave and fines us where we do things
they do not want. If it were just an income tax then set a rate and be done
with it without the strings. With the new healthcare law passed in the US it will
be much worse, now smokers can be charged some huge precentage over the
non-smokers which many may agree with, but if they can do that to one group
they can do it to others.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You want something pay for it, for the common good like roads and armies yes
taxes are required. The thing we have now that is called income taxes isn't
really just a "tax" it is a form of control, it should be called outcome punishment
or something along those lines, since the power behind the income tax is it
gives us breaks where they want us to beha ...[text shortened]... h many may agree with, but if they can do that to one group
they can do it to others.
Kelly

For uses of tax, do you advocate some sort of a line item veto system for taxpayers?

Originally posted by FMF
For uses of tax, do you advocate some sort of a line item veto system for taxpayers?

I advocate a flat tax.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I advocate a flat tax.
Kelly

That's something different and a different issue altogether. I am responding to comments you have made about your specific objections to how taxes are spent. So I am asking you about whether you'd favour some kind of a line item veto system for each person who pays tax.

Originally posted by FMF
That's something different and a different issue altogether. I am responding to comments you have made about your specific objections to how taxes are spent. So I am asking you about whether you'd favour some kind of a line item veto system for each person who pays tax.

We have something that is supposed to work towards that end, its called
elections. The founding documents setup a system where the government was
not supposed to cross, those lines are being crossed now without much fanfare
and the media in my opinion are more cheerleaders then news orgs pushing
it along.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
We have something that is supposed to work towards that end, its called
elections. The founding documents setup a system where the government was
not supposed to cross, those lines are being crossed now without much fanfare
and the media in my opinion are more cheerleaders then news orgs pushing
it along.
Kelly

Well if you're happy to accept the results of elections then that makes you a supporter of democracy then, I suppose.