My responses are in bold type.
8.2.3.1
Eugene S
October 17, 2011 at 8:08 am
Elizabeth,
I disagree with you on this.
Of course you do. You're an IDiot.
While true science is indeed neutral to morality, neo-Darwinism serves a scientific justification for materialistic dogmas that pretend to be science.
What a ridiculous thing to say. It's your stupid ID agenda that pretends to be science. You IDiots are the ones who use your religious dogma as the justification to poison everything you possibly can.
BTW, sin as a matter of fact is not neutral to our gene pool. If in one’s ancestry there were ten successive generations of drunkards, genetically s/he will have a higher propensity to alcoholism. The same goes with other sins, such as fornication (promiscuity)&c. The correlation is pretty strong.
Uh, if it weren't for fornication, you wouldn't exist, dipshit. And how about you actually showing legitimate scientific evidence of your claim that "sin is not neutral to our gene pool"? Is there a "sin" molecule in a gene? Is there a "sin" gene? Are there "sin" atoms?
Your claim about alcoholism is debatable. You also call alcoholism a sin. Are you contending that sin is a genetically inherited trait?
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/have-we-profoundly-misunderstood-harvard-evolutionary-biologist-richard-lewontin-in-his-jan-1997-nyrb-article-billions-and-billions-of-demons/comment-page-1/#comment-404416
8.2.3.1
Eugene S
October 17, 2011 at 8:08 am
Elizabeth,
I disagree with you on this.
Of course you do. You're an IDiot.
While true science is indeed neutral to morality, neo-Darwinism serves a scientific justification for materialistic dogmas that pretend to be science.
What a ridiculous thing to say. It's your stupid ID agenda that pretends to be science. You IDiots are the ones who use your religious dogma as the justification to poison everything you possibly can.
BTW, sin as a matter of fact is not neutral to our gene pool. If in one’s ancestry there were ten successive generations of drunkards, genetically s/he will have a higher propensity to alcoholism. The same goes with other sins, such as fornication (promiscuity)&c. The correlation is pretty strong.
Uh, if it weren't for fornication, you wouldn't exist, dipshit. And how about you actually showing legitimate scientific evidence of your claim that "sin is not neutral to our gene pool"? Is there a "sin" molecule in a gene? Is there a "sin" gene? Are there "sin" atoms?
Your claim about alcoholism is debatable. You also call alcoholism a sin. Are you contending that sin is a genetically inherited trait?
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/have-we-profoundly-misunderstood-harvard-evolutionary-biologist-richard-lewontin-in-his-jan-1997-nyrb-article-billions-and-billions-of-demons/comment-page-1/#comment-404416
