Ben haven’t you heard it is fact! We don’t need concrete evidence. All we need is to the indirect evidences put together and they lead to this being the only option. Your ancestor was pond scum and you still are.

you’re a moron. if i was a muslim and i complained, would you afford me the courtesy?

why don’t i just shut up and accept the creationism you morons are pushing? if i was a navajo or a hindu, would you let me publish my own version of creationism in public schools? get the fuck out of here.

Atheist Professor from Berkeley gets a glimpse of hell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vj0qKthCgg&sns=em

“Actually Fo I wasn’t around for the Enlightenment.”

REALLY! No kidding, Ben-Hor, we angry, vile, abotionist (you theists took child-molesting first) atheists always considered you to be enlightened! How could we possibly think otherwise?

“I don’t. I await the macroevolutuonist to prove their process.”

This claim, while irrelevant to the discussion of god, religion, and “why any intelligent person would be angry at the role religion plays in American society” (even though it illustrates why such anger would exist) is false in that implies that macro-evolution isn’t real. It’s just another Ben-Hor lie. It’s a way in which theists like him “move the goal posts.” At first they claimed that evolution was only a theory, and like macro-evolution now, they awaited evolutuonists “to prove their process.”

But once they were forced to accept the fact of evolution, they “moved the goal post” – they falsely imply that macroevolution hasn’t been “proven,” even though it has.

I posted some snippets, but there is much more macro-evolution at

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

What is macroevolution?

First, we have to get the definitions right.

Creationists often assert that “macroevolution” is not proven, even if “microevolution” is, and by this they seem to mean that whatever evolution is observed is microevolution, but the rest is macroevolution. In making these claims they are misusing authentic scientific terms; that is, they have a non-standard definition, which they use to make science appear to be saying something other than it is.”

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning “the origin of a branch”, see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

The misuse of the terms by creationists is all their own work. It is not due to the ways scientists have used them. Basically when creationists use “macroevolution” they mean “evolution which we object to on theological grounds”, and by “microevolution” they mean “evolution we either cannot deny, or which is acceptable on theological grounds”.

“What process do you propose in place of evolution”

“I don’t. I await the macroevolutuonist to prove their process.”

On top of being generally dishonest, Ben now shows that he’s intellectually dishonest.

He also ignores “36.Anonymous said …Now let’s suppose that’s true, and let’s even suppose that evolution is false, let’s see where that goes.” No, he must continue the false debate about macro-evolution as if that somehow supports god and creationism, and attacks those who disbelieve it.

Then he completely ignores:

So, help us out, Ben.

- Which god, or gods, do you worship?
- What is your proof?
- Why do you reject these other gods?
- What process do you propose in place of evolution and where is your evidence?

It just goes to show the true nature of theists like Ben who will lie and cheat in the name of their imaginary god. Some religion!

Namely when you did use the phrase “Nobody is keeping your from your porn, drugs, gay lifestyle or forcing you into church” I held you feet to the fire, religion can claim it is all open minded, NOW when it doesn’t have complete temporal power, but it still attempts to assert itself in whatever ways it can politically muster. But, somehow, you shy away from these facts and try to use sly language to impeach my intellectual chops:

“I order to discover God, you cannot do a “suppose” like you are playing some new board game. Sure, sounds great, reminds you of college class exercises. Still in college Fo?”

Seriously, do you think I wouldn’t call you on that sort of slime? I used a “suppose” analogy to illustrate why God believers create anger not to “Find God.” So you show your level of intellectual honesty, that is to say, you don’t have any.

- Which god, or gods, do you worship?
- What is your proof?
- Why do you reject these other gods?
- For all the billions of people who are “wrong”, i.e. don’t worship “your” god, are they also untrustworthy, gay, drug-addicts, and all the things you claim atheists are? If not, why not? They are not worshiping your god(s) so there’s nothing to keep them in line, right?