My point in calling it silly is that even you (as an intelligent person and deep in your heart) must know that Christ is not an invention. Jesus Christ came and no one can forget His personality, and what He did and said. No one, not the CC could ever invent Christ, for he was the One Who said things that men have died for, not just then in the first century, or the centuries following up to today, but hundreds of years from now until the end of the world. 

Lula posts:

What I said comes from the Bible, the Gospel of St.John 15:18. "If the world hates you, know that it hated Me before it hated you." 

When Christ said this, He was explaining to His Apostles and disciples that the world would be hostile towards them becasue they believed in Him and were His followers; hostile towards the Chuch He established and hostile towards His religion. 

So Christ told us how it would be for His Church and of course, His words are true. The world at the time of Christ hated Him first. And this is why His followers, His Church, from the Apostles on down through the ages were/are in their turn hated as well.

The Church from her beginning in 33AD has experienced this world wide hatred that Christ predicted. The world's hatred of Christ and His Church, His religion,  takes the form of systematic and unjust opposition to all the things of God.  

"The world" here in this passage means all those who have not believed in Christ and have rejected Him. 

No we are not animals. We are human beings, in every way far above the animals.

Man is an immortal soul incarnated in a human body. 

When animals die, it's over..final. When we die, it's just the beginning of everlasting life in Heaven or Hell. 

Lula, you have to be joking … you want to discuss evolution or is this just … Evolution Not 1.01? If you are going to try and disprove evolution as Mr. Wells does, you need to be prepared to discuss the time periods and frames that would be necessary for you to prove such things could not happen … are you prepared … or is this just another Catholic write off? “Icons of Evolution” is a book by the intelligent design advocate and fellow of the Discovery Institute, Jonathan Wells, which also includes a 2002 video companion. In the book, Wells criticized the paradigm of evolution by attacking how it is taught. The members of the scientific community that have reviewed “Icons of Evolution” have rejected his claims and conclusions as pseudoscience at best. I agree if looking at the beginning of the film is accurate (it's his film)? Lula, you still do not know right from wrong ... only between Catholic and the rest of society and you just think that is right and wrong.

Lula take it easy on me ok, hahaha … you are right, sorry. Here we stand at the crossroads between reality and the supernatural one more time. It is this simple; I ruled out God and am left with two options, little green men or we just managed to bump and grind our way here over hundreds of millions of years. I choose the later and it is called evolution. You know there is a lot of scientific and archeological information available and we are learning more all the time. I of course am anything but an expert … but I have to get from time point zero to present.

You pretty well summed it up for me but we are a long way from going back to the beginning of life on Earth. Unlike you, we do not have all the answers up front so we investigate you know, do scientific stuff and all. We just keep on updating things and discovering others and the theory of evolution becomes more and more complete. Evolution is simply the answer to the parable (hehehe) of “… What came first the chicken or the egg…?” This drama of course does not play out in the real world. The egg and the mother will have to be veritable duplicates based on the genetics so neither one could come first. … however, something that was not a chicken evolved over time (much) through the stimulations of nature (catalyst) … to eventually become a chicken so that it could lay its first chicken egg (evolution) … a fine point here I agree.

You know that you don’t need (probably don’t care) to ask me such question like “How does science explain this or that?” You can look it up just as I would have to do too??? … There was a turning point somewhere way back whenever when whatever (whew) was to become Man learned to use tools. And this usage eventually brought us to the point where we believed we could control our own environment much as we are still trying to do today (poorly). Then it was “Just help keep the huge SOB away from the camp” but from this, Man developed a purpose beyond the will to survive alone.

I could be convinced in a thousand simple ways to change my ‘evil manners’ and to worship at the altar of whatever God made his existence known … no matter what belief or religion. I am not the hard and fast one here, you guys are. For example how many ways could I possibly come up with to make you change your mind? I am always open to improving my understanding of things and I am wise enough to know that there are many wonderful discoveries yet to be made … for you guys to try and refute, hahaha.

Hahaha Lula ... I was going to put that in myself but it was windy enough, hehehe. Have a happy thanksgiving too. By the way, did God make male and female saber tooth tigers too ... just wondering? What does "an eternity" with God actually mean anyway?

Let's review a bit. 

I said morality (a sense of right and wrong) needs Religion and Almighty God revealed ancient Hebraic religion now become full blossomed Christian religion as taught by Our Lord Jesus Christ is the basis of morality....and that God gave us our inner sense of right and wrong..(conscience).  

You disagree believing with other Atheists that morality and our inner sense of right and wrong commonly known as conscience came by way of Evolution..that humans evolved from apes and thus from where our inner sense of right and wrong came. 

So, I provided Darwin's Evolutionary icon depicting "man kind evolved from ape kind". 

To which you replied: 

The point is, GFTESS, there is no looking up ape-man ancestry...as Science can not/will never ever be able to empirically explain or show Darwin's ape origin of man Evolution or that we humans got our inner sense of right and wrong from animals. 

Jonathan Well's book full title is "Icons of Evolution Science or Myth? Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong"? 

Yes, Jonathan Well's book was written to debunk Evolution, but it doesn't do so based on theological dogma! If you had actually read the book you would know that. 

Evolutionary theory is sold to students and the public using these various icons. 

Taking your example, I'll tell you why I use Well's book which is instructive in debunking these various icons of Evolution of which the "from ape to mankind" is but one. Some of the other evolutionary icons found in science books all over the world are the Miller-Urey experiment, Darwin's Tree of life, Haeckel's Embryos, Homology in Vertebrate Limbs, Peppered Moths, Four-winged Fruit flies, and Fossil Horses.  

Now, young unwary students who look at these pictures in the science and biology text books believe almost everything they see and read and what they are taught dealing with Evolution as substantially true. Well, Well's has shown otherwise...that all these evolution icons are blatantly misrepresentations and he goes into detail with evidence how so. Through these various icons, Darwinism encourages distortions of the truth and students and the public for that matter are being systematically misinformed. 

I "badmouth" Evolution (both Darwinism and Stellar) because it is false and dangerous and I'm sick and tired of it being indoctrinated as "fact" to unwary school children and the public the world over. 

The term "evolution" has, since the days of Darwin and Wallace been used in the scientific field to designate a biological process from one species to another, finally becomes a human being. What right reason and true Religion will not tolerate is the theory that indoctrinates that matter and motion came into existence by their own power. Right reason and true Religion will not and can not accept that life came from non-life....in other words, that the inorganic, by some Evolutionary process not even imaginable to us, in the course of eons of time, became organic by environment, and by potent conflict, developed a physical structure like our own, so that at length man appeared as the highest development of the vertebrate-being, different in degree, though not in kind, from the ape. It is against such Evolution theories of transmutation, and in favor of religious conviction that I endeavor to  "bad-mouth" as you put it, and revolt.  

PS. I'll be glad to debate any points Well's made in his book.   

I don’t need to review this Lula because I don’t lie and have no problem repeating myself whenever the topic comes up again. We have an abundance of empirical data to support evolutionary theory, but what we don’t have is any empirical evidence that proves it is in error and certainly NONE to justify a young earth as even a consideration. Lula, you always start by assuming your conclusions are all true and then you use them to justify all your arguments which is the classical definition of the circular logic of self-deception. It equates with ‘the ends justify the means’ scenario whereas I believe that the means justifies the ends. I have built my worldview from the bottom up starting with the people and ending with the people.

I am well aware of Mr. Wells and his work and I am not about to read his book, there are other ways. If you want to argue his views you will have to relate the specifics to me but I would rather discuss your views as if we were just talking to one another. Evolutionary theory is taught in biology … what else should they be taught in biology? You folks made the decision to challenge the courts with your ‘alternative’ and now there is legal president to deal with too … so again, what are they supposed to teach there? This Pope made this dogmatic declaration just ten years after the first publication of Darwin’s book when science as we know it today was still in its infancy. This also means that he was scientifically illiterate too.

There is no doubt that you believe what you say but my heart is where I determined there can be no manmade god called Jesus and that is where you will have to look too because that is where the BS detector works best. You need a fully functional human conscience to view others with any kind of equality something you cannot even grant other Christians because only you and your church know everything. But that is your problems not mine as I view them all equally. It seems that just believing in your god isn’t at all enough because the three desert tribal religions all believe in the same god and look at that mess.

That's just it...I DO listen to you. 

Actually, you do a pretty good job telling us what you believe..and then some! 

I know you have said that man didn't come from apes.

But, in this discussion you said that we humans are animals.

To which I probed into that asking, if Almighty God and His Judaic/Christian Religion is not the basis of our morality, where does our sense of right and wrong come from. 

I said I have asked this question before of other Atheists and one gal said our sense of right and wrong came by way of  evolution but upon further questioning, she clammed up, and would not/could not explain her answer any further.

To which you replied: 

See the confusion???  First, you say we are animals and that Evolution is the only answer...but that man didn't come from apes although if one believes in Evolution, then our inner sense of right and wrong came from Evolution.

That's why I posted the Evolution "from apes to mankind" icon. It says it all. You may not believe what that picture signifies, (I certainly don't) namely that man evolved from apes, but that is exactly what Evolution posits in the dictionary definition, science textbooks and videos. In short, it's what the teachers are teaching. 

Evolutionary theory and the Evolutionary "from ape to mankind" icon comes from Charles Darwin's, "The Descent of Man," 2nd ed. Collier & Son. 1905.

"In forming a judgment on the head with reference to man, we must glance at the classification of the Simiadae. This family is divided by almost all naturalists into the Catarrhine group, or Old World monkeys...and into the Platyrhine group or New World monkeys...  Now man unquestioningly belongs in his dentition, in the structure of his nostrils, and some other respects, to the Catarrhine or Old World division. ....There can, consequenstly, hardly be a doubt that man is an offshoot from the Old World Simian stem; and that, he must be classed with the Catarrhine division. (Vol.I, pg. 205.

"The early progenitors of man must have been once covered with hiar, both sexes having beards; their ears were probably pointed, and capable of movement; and their bodies were provided with a tail, having the proper muscles.... The foot was then prehensile, judging from the condition of the great toe in the foetus; and our progenitors no doubt, were arboreal in their habits, and frequented some warm, forest-clad land" page 214. 

"The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World monkey and the Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the universe,  proceeded. (pg. 220). 

"Man, as I have attempted to show, is certainly descended from some ape-like creature."pg.759.

"The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely, that man is descended from some lowly organized form, will, I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many...." pg. 796.  

Ah no! It's the Evolutionists who took what Darwin wrote, made a theory from it, made picturesque icons, published it in science textbooks and taught it as scientifically true. 

No you don't. Truth is, there is no empirical data to support or validate Evolutionary Theory. Scientific authorities will back that the fossil remains are either fully animal or fully human. Although science textbooks contain fanciful pictures of "apemen", there are no true fossil remains, no skeletons, nothing found of an "apeman". Plenty of frauds and forgeries and imaginative pictures  though.    

Then supply the data which supports your claim that "Evolution is the only answer as far as where/how our inner sense of right and wrong" came. 

It's not enough that disbelief in God is proof of Evolution. Your arguments are not for the validity of Evolution but rather just deny God. What you are doing won't do...By supposedly proving Evolution, while denying the existence of God, you then charge that Evolution must be have occurred, as there is no other option. 

Again, I just wanted to point out that you're wrong in saying Well's was debunking evolution based on theological dogma when he was doing no such thing. His book has nothing to do with theological dogma. He argues from science and those who have misrepresented science to push Evolution as true to school kids.

I know I have the textbooks and seen some of the videos.  The problem is they present Evolution Theory as fact to be believed rather than as a hypothesis still being tested. 

Here is the World Book Dictionary definition of "Evolution" on page 737. 

"Evolution" is

n. 1. any process of formation or growth; gradual development. 2 something evolved; product of development; not a sudden discovery or creation. 3 the theory that all living things developed from a few simple forms of life through a series of physical changes. According to evolution, the first mammal developed from a type of reptile, and ultimately all forms are traced back to a simple single-celled organism. ... Philosophy....the theory that a process or progressive change, with the development of more complex entities, characterizes all force and matter in the universe. Evolution is advance from the simple to the complex.

Now, also a definition of Evolution from a 10th grade biology text book by Miller/Levine, (yes, the same Ken Miller in your video).

in the chapter on Evolution, page 269, the definition of "Evolution" is given as a "process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient organisms."   Note, Miller's textbook is saying the same as the dictionary definition #3. 

Now, let's go back to the first definition...n. 1. any process of formation or growth; gradual development."

I agree with this definition of Evolution AS LONG AS THE PROCESS OF FORMATION OR GROWTH IS WITHIN KIND OR SPECIES.

I agree science has empirical evidence and data of the first definition of Evolution....it's called MICRO-EVOLUTION, meaning small changes over time within species. I also agree that the number 1 definition of evolution does indeed go back to the first pre-socratic Greek philosophers. 

BUT definitions #2 and 3 are defining something totally different than definition #1. It's called MACRO-Evolution--transformation or change from one species to a different one. The number 2 and 3 definitions is the modern theory of Evolution that developed in the 19th century from Charles Darwin's writings such as his book I cited above in which he clearly describes macroevolution. It's commonly called Darwinism.   

In his book, "In the Origin of Species" published Nov. 1859, Darwin maintained that organisms were produced by a process called evolution and that just as each new organism comes from pre-existing organisms, each species has descended from other species over time. 

So, as far as me being angry, you bet. 

The # 2 and 3 dictionary definitions and Miller/Levine Biology textbook definitions is MACRO-Evolution being taught in all public schools and commonly held across society as true ..when in fact, Macro-evolution is a complete hoax. Every living thing, plant, animal and humans didn't evolve from a common one celled ancestor; Reptiles can't possibly transform (evolve) into birds and ape-kind  never evolved to human kind. 

That's why to your assertion---that We have an abundance of empirical data to support evolutionary theory, I said No you don't for the reason there is no empirical data to support or validate the numbers 2 and 3 definitions of Evolutionary Theory aka Darwinism or Macroevolution.

Science possesses empirical data for definition #1 of evolution, but that's as far as it goes and ever will go.  

There is no empirical science, no data, no evidence, behind definitions #2 and 3 of Evolution. 

If you want to continue asserting that there is science behind Evolution according to these definitions, then provide the scientific evidence that demonstrates Macroevolution. 

Genetic similarities does not validate MACRO-evolution. 

You wrote: I count 22 religions that are considered 'major ones' but the offshoots number in the hundreds.

Well, You know you should get used to being corrected when you are mistaken about something.

Hypocritical dogma of the CC!  Ha, ha, you want to defend that?

Yes, Christianity is the religion given and practiced by Christ's one Church founded upon St. Peter. See St.Matt. 16:18-19. The Church is the one who gave the world the canonical Gospels and other NT writings.

More correctly, adherents of the Christian Faith are known as Catholics. Christianity and the Christian Faith is practiced at every Catholic Mass where the "clean oblation" is offered as per the prophecy of Malachais 1:11.

There is no such thing as the Protestant faith..that's why I said they are not offshoots of the true Christian religion. 

C'mon. get with it....those who practice Secular and Atheistic Humanism number way more than only 9 percent of the American population. ..and they are in control of academia and the media which controls the culture.

The evolutionary course of Equidae (wide family including all horses and related animals) is often viewed as a typical example of macroevolution. The earliest known genus, Hyracotherium (now reclassified as a palaeothere), was an herbivore animal resembling a dog that lived in the early Cenozoic. As its habitat transformed into open arid grassland, selective pressure required that the animal become a fast grazer. Thus elongation of legs and head as well as reduction of toes gradually occurred, producing the only extant genus of Equidae, Equus

Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. We have been through this before Lula. Lastly I don’t see any conflict in your definitions I suppose because I understand them and am not out to try and ‘make’ them say something else.