iMmINeNt RApTUre .. your misrepresentation .. knowingly, or not, i don't know ..
It is not possible to get an accurate picture of evolution from creationist literature — creationists simply won't use key scientific terminology the same way scientists do. Because the subject is scientific, though, this means they are using key terminology incorrectly. What's more, it's implausible that they are ignorant of the fact that they are using that terminology incorrectly. So, it's difficult not to conclude that they are simply lying about science for the sake of a religious agenda.
[...]
What creationists fail to understand — perhaps because they invest so much time and effort into misrepresenting and misunderstanding evolution — is that the acceptance of microevolution does not allow for continued denial of macroevolution:
In point of fact, the natural, evolutionary processes giving rise to adaptations are so well documented today that many creationists will tell you that they accept microevolution (adaptive evolution within a species) but that they do not accept macroevolution (evolution giving rise to new species).
However, by accepting the scientific explanation for microevolution, modern creationists, ignorant of the history of their own arguments, concede to the evolutionists the correctness of evolutionary explanations of adaptive, functional structures and processes by natural, unintelligent causes. Yet it was these very same functional structures and processes that were supposed to establish the need for intelligent causation as a consequence of the argument from design. ...
...the varieties that result from microevolutionary processes (processes driving changes within species that creationists have been forced to accept on pain of looking as silly as flat-Earth geographers) are driven still further apart by the continued action of the same mechanisms so as to constitute new species in their own right. In this way, microevolutionary changes, continued long enough, give rise to macroevolutionary phenomena.
AND by the way, on your "F6-it is better to have prayed and not been answered than to never have prayed at all (eom)" .. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=67480900 .. it's nonsensical to put eom beyond the 8th word as only the first 8 show on the board view, (whatever you call it) .. i mean that only as a tip for you ..
I'll grant you one reason for praying, the only one we know of, i have accepted this in earlier posts .. that if praying helps one to feel better then that's just fine .. but it does not follow 'it is better to have prayed than to have not ..'
FINALLY as for Christian values ..
Paula, as you know the golden rule is simply good common sense. My focus in the area is more simply to remind those who claim, even believe, it and other such sensible views to be 'thanks to Christian thought', that, in fact, Christians, or those of any other religions, never had a monopoly on any of it.
To remind that, in fact, the reason in all good values, the rational of good loving, oops, lol, of good living, of so many good human values were not 'invented' by Christians, but in fact evolved as a result of human rational thought from the time thinkers all over the world, including philosophers NOT connected to any religion, first started thinking about how a good life might be lived. (Sorry, that's convoluted as hell, but i hope conveys the idea .. lol) .. more http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=64090383
no .. sod forbid .. i am not going to help you create a board as we did yesterday, so please dwell on this post awhile ..
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
