Creationists' theory in detail

Newtonian

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
989
Reaction score
153
Points
53
Good post Actually black people are usually various shades of brown, and white people are never pure white. But, yes, as anthropologist Ashley Montagu showed in his book "Man's most dangerous myth - the fallacy of race" he shows that all races are related and that the variance within so-called races is usually greater than the variation of races.
They're inter-fertile, true, but there is no real evidence definitively proving we all originated from the same place; there could be several origins around the planet. Genetics, and genetic codes, are environmentally dependent by the very nature of the planetary environment itself, hence the differences in adaptations that do no appear to change quickly, or at all.


I think that was the book where I learned 'Peking man" had a similar skull size and structure to that of the Vedda of Sri Lanka (Ceylon) Genetic studies have long shown all races of man have a common origin in harmony with what the Bible actually teaches, e.g.:

Acts 17:26 (NW)
And he made out of one man+ every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth,+

More recently, studies have shown that all races also come from one woman - the mitochondrial Eve, and from one man - the y-chromosomal Adam.
Also a possibility. It's just not one I buy at the moment; I think the different peoples formed at different places, and I base this on the obeservation of the 'Out Of Africa' myth; if that were truly the case, then Africa would be now be the home of our most advanced and healthy and technically competent demographics . They aren't.

You are correct that the molecular clock is not reliable at all - so I disregard the dates and stick with the actual genetic research when I am researching this subject:

First from our literature giving the basics of this genetic finding:


"In recent years, scientists have researched human genes extensively. By comparing human genetic patterns around the earth, they found clear evidence that all humans have a common ancestor, a source of the DNA of all people who have ever lived, including each of us. In 1988, Newsweek magazine presented those findings in a report entitled “The Search for Adam and Eve.” Those studies were based on a type of mitochondrial DNA, genetic material passed on only by the female. Reports in 1995 about research on male DNA point to the same conclusion—that “there was an ancestral ‘Adam,’ whose genetic material on the [Y] chromosome is common to every man now on earth,” as Time magazine put it. Whether those findings are accurate in every detail or not, they illustrate that the history we find in Genesis is highly credible, being authored by One who was on the scene at the time."

The following source is off on the dating (molecular clock) but accurate on the genetics:


"In the field of human genetics, the name Mitochondrial Eve refers to the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently living anatomically modern humans, who is estimated to have lived approximately 100,000–200,000 years ago. This is the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, on their mother’s side, and through the mothers of those mothers, and so on, back until all lines converge on one person. Because all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) generally (but see paternal mtDNA transmission) is passed from mother to offspring without recombination, all mtDNA in every living person is directly descended from hers by definition, differing only by the mutations that over generations have occurred in the germ cell mtDNA since the conception of the original "Mitochondrial Eve". "

Note, however, the assertion (with zero proof) that there were other mothers before the mtDNA Eve. This is based on the assumption that the previous mother had only one daughter. This is very unlikely since the population was lower and large families would have been more likely. e.g Genesis 5:4 states Adam and Eve had plural daughters.

Concerning the Y-chromosomal Adam:



"In human genetics, Y-chromosomal Adam ( Y-MRCA) is the theoretical most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all living people are descended patrilineally (tracing back along the paternal lines of their family tree only)."


"In human genetics, the Y-chromosomal most recent common ancestor (Y-MRCA, informally known as Y-chromosomal Adam) is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all currently living males are descended patrilineally. The term Y-MRCA reflects the fact that the Y chromosomes of all currently living human males are directly derived from the Y chromosome of this remote ancestor. The analogous concept of the matrilineal most recent common ancestor is known as "Mitochondrial Eve" (mt-MRCA, named for the matrilineal transmission of mtDNA), the most recent woman from whom all living humans are descended matrilineally."

Thanks for the links; I'll give them a read later; and as said earlier, if they're going to teach' evolution' as fact, I have no problem with them teaching the above also. I would rather they not teach either as 'fact', personally, just as possibilities and philosophy.
Your welcome.

Please note that there is a plethora of genetic evidence that all 'races' of man come from:
1. A common origin
2. from the y-chromosomal Adam (Acts 17:26 - one man)
3 from the mitochondrial Eve.
 
OP
harmonica

harmonica

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
26,107
Reaction score
3,837
Points
290
Good post Actually black people are usually various shades of brown, and white people are never pure white. But, yes, as anthropologist Ashley Montagu showed in his book "Man's most dangerous myth - the fallacy of race" he shows that all races are related and that the variance within so-called races is usually greater than the variation of races.
They're inter-fertile, true, but there is no real evidence definitively proving we all originated from the same place; there could be several origins around the planet. Genetics, and genetic codes, are environmentally dependent by the very nature of the planetary environment itself, hence the differences in adaptations that do no appear to change quickly, or at all.


I think that was the book where I learned 'Peking man" had a similar skull size and structure to that of the Vedda of Sri Lanka (Ceylon) Genetic studies have long shown all races of man have a common origin in harmony with what the Bible actually teaches, e.g.:

Acts 17:26 (NW)
And he made out of one man+ every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth,+

More recently, studies have shown that all races also come from one woman - the mitochondrial Eve, and from one man - the y-chromosomal Adam.
Also a possibility. It's just not one I buy at the moment; I think the different peoples formed at different places, and I base this on the obeservation of the 'Out Of Africa' myth; if that were truly the case, then Africa would be now be the home of our most advanced and healthy and technically competent demographics . They aren't.

You are correct that the molecular clock is not reliable at all - so I disregard the dates and stick with the actual genetic research when I am researching this subject:

First from our literature giving the basics of this genetic finding:


"In recent years, scientists have researched human genes extensively. By comparing human genetic patterns around the earth, they found clear evidence that all humans have a common ancestor, a source of the DNA of all people who have ever lived, including each of us. In 1988, Newsweek magazine presented those findings in a report entitled “The Search for Adam and Eve.” Those studies were based on a type of mitochondrial DNA, genetic material passed on only by the female. Reports in 1995 about research on male DNA point to the same conclusion—that “there was an ancestral ‘Adam,’ whose genetic material on the [Y] chromosome is common to every man now on earth,” as Time magazine put it. Whether those findings are accurate in every detail or not, they illustrate that the history we find in Genesis is highly credible, being authored by One who was on the scene at the time."

The following source is off on the dating (molecular clock) but accurate on the genetics:


"In the field of human genetics, the name Mitochondrial Eve refers to the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently living anatomically modern humans, who is estimated to have lived approximately 100,000–200,000 years ago. This is the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, on their mother’s side, and through the mothers of those mothers, and so on, back until all lines converge on one person. Because all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) generally (but see paternal mtDNA transmission) is passed from mother to offspring without recombination, all mtDNA in every living person is directly descended from hers by definition, differing only by the mutations that over generations have occurred in the germ cell mtDNA since the conception of the original "Mitochondrial Eve". "

Note, however, the assertion (with zero proof) that there were other mothers before the mtDNA Eve. This is based on the assumption that the previous mother had only one daughter. This is very unlikely since the population was lower and large families would have been more likely. e.g Genesis 5:4 states Adam and Eve had plural daughters.

Concerning the Y-chromosomal Adam:



"In human genetics, Y-chromosomal Adam ( Y-MRCA) is the theoretical most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all living people are descended patrilineally (tracing back along the paternal lines of their family tree only)."


"In human genetics, the Y-chromosomal most recent common ancestor (Y-MRCA, informally known as Y-chromosomal Adam) is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all currently living males are descended patrilineally. The term Y-MRCA reflects the fact that the Y chromosomes of all currently living human males are directly derived from the Y chromosome of this remote ancestor. The analogous concept of the matrilineal most recent common ancestor is known as "Mitochondrial Eve" (mt-MRCA, named for the matrilineal transmission of mtDNA), the most recent woman from whom all living humans are descended matrilineally."

Thanks for the links; I'll give them a read later; and as said earlier, if they're going to teach' evolution' as fact, I have no problem with them teaching the above also. I would rather they not teach either as 'fact', personally, just as possibilities and philosophy.
Your welcome.

Please note that there is a plethora of genetic evidence that all 'races' of man come from:
1. A common origin
2. from the y-chromosomal Adam (Acts 17:26 - one man)
3 from the mitochondrial Eve.
you can't use the bible/etc for proof!!!!!!
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
7,713
Reaction score
577
Points
155
That’s quite a manipulative ideology you subscribe to. Let's be honest. Religions don’t coerce their adherents via promises of free thinking and individualistic expression, they use fear. I have no reason to believe I’m going to hell for not obeying a religious doctrine. The concept only derives from various religious texts and tales and fables. These tales are derived to invoke fear. Fear is a powerful motivational tool. What better way for an elite ruling class to coerce conformance from the toiling masses than to threaten them with such things as burning flesh, eternal damnation and eternal pain.
You look at things too negatively. Fear is good. It invokes the fight or flight response which is a physiological response theory. Is your post invoking the fight response or is it your flight response? If God is good, then there in no need to run away. Neither does one have to fight. If the Christian God and his word the Bible weren't true, then the naysayers would've debunked it thousands of years ago. Basically, my philosophy to the naysayers is my hero's Blaise Pascal's wager:

pascals_wager.png

Furthermore, I have said what the Bible states about end times is allegorical and metaphor. It starts with the narrow gate and door of Jesus or the wide and pearly gates of the other. One leads to a path in heaven while the other is the Lake of Fire. We don't exactly know everything heaven entails since it's description is metaphorical, but it's a new Earth like what Adam and Eve had. Genesis provides part of its description. We don't exactly know what the Lake of Fire is, but we do know it was a place of fire and sulfur that was created for Satan and his demons. It's not a pleasant place to remain forever. That's part of the physical description in Genesis.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
7,713
Reaction score
577
Points
155
you can't use the bible/etc for proof!!!!!!
I use the Bible, facts, reasoning, and historical truth. You use poor reasoning such as in your OP and faith in false things such as the sky fairy, the "god of the world and the prince of the power of the air," and belief in his fairy tales of evolution.
 
OP
harmonica

harmonica

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
26,107
Reaction score
3,837
Points
290
you can't use the bible/etc for proof!!!!!!
I use the Bible, facts, reasoning, and historical truth. You use poor reasoning such as in your OP and faith in false things such as the sky fairy, the "god of the world and the prince of the power of the air," and belief in his fairy tales of evolution.
hahahhahahahahahha
.....either you tell and give me your theory on evolution --now--or you will prove my points
 
OP
harmonica

harmonica

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
26,107
Reaction score
3,837
Points
290
you can't use the bible/etc for proof!!!!!!
I use the Bible, facts, reasoning, and historical truth. You use poor reasoning such as in your OP and faith in false things such as the sky fairy, the "god of the world and the prince of the power of the air," and belief in his fairy tales of evolution.
I'll rephrase it--give me your theory on how man was created
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
9,298
Reaction score
436
Points
85
generically speaking - that is everything from antiquity - is filtered ... by all persuasions.
Again, you provide no links to back up your claims. We can put you down as opinion,
Again, you provide no links to back up your claims. We can put you down as opinion,
an original is at the time of the event publication that would include etchings in stone or pottery - as stated before there is nothing in stone or pottery and there are no timely originals for any of the written text - and more compelling anything whatsoever from the religious itinerant himself.


Discovered in a monastery in the Sinai desert in Egypt more than 160 years ago, the handwritten Codex Sinaiticus includes two books that are not part of the official New Testament and at least seven books that are not in the Old Testament.

The New Testament books are in a different order, and include numerous handwritten corrections -- some made as much as 800 years after the texts were written, according to scholars who worked on the project of putting the Bible online. The changes range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences.


the fact is bond they wrote the religion in the 4th century - just the way you want it to read to satisfy your own latent desire of disinformation as the means for your own self interest over an accord for all humanity - the same for all three desert religions, selfserving abandonment of the religion of antiquity and that of a homologous humanity.
 
OP
harmonica

harmonica

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
26,107
Reaction score
3,837
Points
290
you can't use the bible/etc for proof!!!!!!
I use the Bible, facts, reasoning, and historical truth. You use poor reasoning such as in your OP and faith in false things such as the sky fairy, the "god of the world and the prince of the power of the air," and belief in his fairy tales of evolution.
where is your theory on creation of man??
I'm waiting
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
35,211
Reaction score
3,287
Points
1,115
That’s quite a manipulative ideology you subscribe to. Let's be honest. Religions don’t coerce their adherents via promises of free thinking and individualistic expression, they use fear. I have no reason to believe I’m going to hell for not obeying a religious doctrine. The concept only derives from various religious texts and tales and fables. These tales are derived to invoke fear. Fear is a powerful motivational tool. What better way for an elite ruling class to coerce conformance from the toiling masses than to threaten them with such things as burning flesh, eternal damnation and eternal pain.
You look at things too negatively. Fear is good. It invokes the fight or flight response which is a physiological response theory. Is your post invoking the fight response or is it your flight response? If God is good, then there in no need to run away. Neither does one have to fight. If the Christian God and his word the Bible weren't true, then the naysayers would've debunked it thousands of years ago. Basically, my philosophy to the naysayers is my hero's Blaise Pascal's wager:

View attachment 319008
Furthermore, I have said what the Bible states about end times is allegorical and metaphor. It starts with the narrow gate and door of Jesus or the wide and pearly gates of the other. One leads to a path in heaven while the other is the Lake of Fire. We don't exactly know everything heaven entails since it's description is metaphorical, but it's a new Earth like what Adam and Eve had. Genesis provides part of its description. We don't exactly know what the Lake of Fire is, but we do know it was a place of fire and sulfur that was created for Satan and his demons. It's not a pleasant place to remain forever. That's part of the physical description in Genesis.
I’m pessimistic about some things; religions ability to foment hate and divides, the poisoning of the planet but optimistic about about mankind’s search for answers to our existence.

I’m pessimistic about your willingness to acknowledge that you completely deconstruct the arguments for your gods. On the one hand you admit that what your bibles claim about the “end times” is allegorical and metaphor and then on the other hand, you dump silly cartoons in the thread with silly threats about your gods meting out pain and torture to non-believers. You make yours gods little more than mafioso enforcers who “make’em an offer he can’t refuse”.

Religionists often recite this need for religion to give them a purpose in life or more alarming, to coerce behavior. I understand entirely this perspective as the history of many religions delineates a pyramid structure of authority. I'm certainly willing to learn and to express. I have no "agenda" other than to find the truth as best I can. In fact, I would love to find a god-paradigm that works. I am not pessimistic because of my atheism, but eternal life and a perfect being and so on-- all are very attractive promises but as you acknowledge, it’s allegorical and metaphor. I just need the model to provide credible evidence as to its veracity and not crumble under even the most cursory of scrutiny as you have demonstrated.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
35,211
Reaction score
3,287
Points
1,115
you can't use the bible/etc for proof!!!!!!
I use the Bible, facts, reasoning, and historical truth. You use poor reasoning such as in your OP and faith in false things such as the sky fairy, the "god of the world and the prince of the power of the air," and belief in his fairy tales of evolution.
How do you assign “reading” to talking snakes?
 
OP
harmonica

harmonica

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
26,107
Reaction score
3,837
Points
290
That’s quite a manipulative ideology you subscribe to. Let's be honest. Religions don’t coerce their adherents via promises of free thinking and individualistic expression, they use fear. I have no reason to believe I’m going to hell for not obeying a religious doctrine. The concept only derives from various religious texts and tales and fables. These tales are derived to invoke fear. Fear is a powerful motivational tool. What better way for an elite ruling class to coerce conformance from the toiling masses than to threaten them with such things as burning flesh, eternal damnation and eternal pain.
You look at things too negatively. Fear is good. It invokes the fight or flight response which is a physiological response theory. Is your post invoking the fight response or is it your flight response? If God is good, then there in no need to run away. Neither does one have to fight. If the Christian God and his word the Bible weren't true, then the naysayers would've debunked it thousands of years ago. Basically, my philosophy to the naysayers is my hero's Blaise Pascal's wager:

View attachment 319008
Furthermore, I have said what the Bible states about end times is allegorical and metaphor. It starts with the narrow gate and door of Jesus or the wide and pearly gates of the other. One leads to a path in heaven while the other is the Lake of Fire. We don't exactly know everything heaven entails since it's description is metaphorical, but it's a new Earth like what Adam and Eve had. Genesis provides part of its description. We don't exactly know what the Lake of Fire is, but we do know it was a place of fire and sulfur that was created for Satan and his demons. It's not a pleasant place to remain forever. That's part of the physical description in Genesis.
I’m pessimistic about some things; religions ability to foment hate and divides, the poisoning of the planet but optimistic about about mankind’s search for answers to our existence.

I’m pessimistic about your willingness to acknowledge that you completely deconstruct the arguments for your gods. On the one hand you admit that what your bibles claim about the “end times” is allegorical and metaphor and then on the other hand, you dump silly cartoons in the thread with silly threats about your gods meting out pain and torture to non-believers. You make yours gods little more than mafioso enforcers who “make’em an offer he can’t refuse”.

Religionists often recite this need for religion to give them a purpose in life or more alarming, to coerce behavior. I understand entirely this perspective as the history of many religions delineates a pyramid structure of authority. I'm certainly willing to learn and to express. I have no "agenda" other than to find the truth as best I can. In fact, I would love to find a god-paradigm that works. I am not pessimistic because of my atheism, but eternal life and a perfect being and so on-- all are very attractive promises but as you acknowledge, it’s allegorical and metaphor. I just need the model to provide credible evidence as to its veracity and not crumble under even the most cursory of scrutiny as you have demonstrated.
....that's a key aspect--humans feel a ''need'' for religion ..if not, their life is like you say = without purpose
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
7,713
Reaction score
577
Points
155
you can't use the bible/etc for proof!!!!!!
I use the Bible, facts, reasoning, and historical truth. You use poor reasoning such as in your OP and faith in false things such as the sky fairy, the "god of the world and the prince of the power of the air," and belief in his fairy tales of evolution.
where is your theory on creation of man??
I'm waiting
I provided it to you many times, but important things just :aug08_031:. I mean how many times have I posted :aug08_031:as you? I'm glad you said that you are waiting because it will be pointed out to you one day -- GUARANTEED. Then you will have gotten the proof you crave and I guarantee that you that important things will not :aug08_031:anymore and that you won't ever forget it. I think that's fair enough.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
7,713
Reaction score
577
Points
155
That’s quite a manipulative ideology you subscribe to. Let's be honest. Religions don’t coerce their adherents via promises of free thinking and individualistic expression, they use fear. I have no reason to believe I’m going to hell for not obeying a religious doctrine. The concept only derives from various religious texts and tales and fables. These tales are derived to invoke fear. Fear is a powerful motivational tool. What better way for an elite ruling class to coerce conformance from the toiling masses than to threaten them with such things as burning flesh, eternal damnation and eternal pain.
You look at things too negatively. Fear is good. It invokes the fight or flight response which is a physiological response theory. Is your post invoking the fight response or is it your flight response? If God is good, then there in no need to run away. Neither does one have to fight. If the Christian God and his word the Bible weren't true, then the naysayers would've debunked it thousands of years ago. Basically, my philosophy to the naysayers is my hero's Blaise Pascal's wager:

View attachment 319008
Furthermore, I have said what the Bible states about end times is allegorical and metaphor. It starts with the narrow gate and door of Jesus or the wide and pearly gates of the other. One leads to a path in heaven while the other is the Lake of Fire. We don't exactly know everything heaven entails since it's description is metaphorical, but it's a new Earth like what Adam and Eve had. Genesis provides part of its description. We don't exactly know what the Lake of Fire is, but we do know it was a place of fire and sulfur that was created for Satan and his demons. It's not a pleasant place to remain forever. That's part of the physical description in Genesis.
I’m pessimistic about some things; religions ability to foment hate and divides, the poisoning of the planet but optimistic about about mankind’s search for answers to our existence.

I’m pessimistic about your willingness to acknowledge that you completely deconstruct the arguments for your gods. On the one hand you admit that what your bibles claim about the “end times” is allegorical and metaphor and then on the other hand, you dump silly cartoons in the thread with silly threats about your gods meting out pain and torture to non-believers. You make yours gods little more than mafioso enforcers who “make’em an offer he can’t refuse”.

Religionists often recite this need for religion to give them a purpose in life or more alarming, to coerce behavior. I understand entirely this perspective as the history of many religions delineates a pyramid structure of authority. I'm certainly willing to learn and to express. I have no "agenda" other than to find the truth as best I can. In fact, I would love to find a god-paradigm that works. I am not pessimistic because of my atheism, but eternal life and a perfect being and so on-- all are very attractive promises but as you acknowledge, it’s allegorical and metaphor. I just need the model to provide credible evidence as to its veracity and not crumble under even the most cursory of scrutiny as you have demonstrated.
I think we're just talking past each other and have been for some time. I can guarantee that one day you'll understand what I've been saying while you won't have a chance to say, "Oh I get it now, Mr. Bond." It is what it is.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
35,211
Reaction score
3,287
Points
1,115
That’s quite a manipulative ideology you subscribe to. Let's be honest. Religions don’t coerce their adherents via promises of free thinking and individualistic expression, they use fear. I have no reason to believe I’m going to hell for not obeying a religious doctrine. The concept only derives from various religious texts and tales and fables. These tales are derived to invoke fear. Fear is a powerful motivational tool. What better way for an elite ruling class to coerce conformance from the toiling masses than to threaten them with such things as burning flesh, eternal damnation and eternal pain.
You look at things too negatively. Fear is good. It invokes the fight or flight response which is a physiological response theory. Is your post invoking the fight response or is it your flight response? If God is good, then there in no need to run away. Neither does one have to fight. If the Christian God and his word the Bible weren't true, then the naysayers would've debunked it thousands of years ago. Basically, my philosophy to the naysayers is my hero's Blaise Pascal's wager:

View attachment 319008
Furthermore, I have said what the Bible states about end times is allegorical and metaphor. It starts with the narrow gate and door of Jesus or the wide and pearly gates of the other. One leads to a path in heaven while the other is the Lake of Fire. We don't exactly know everything heaven entails since it's description is metaphorical, but it's a new Earth like what Adam and Eve had. Genesis provides part of its description. We don't exactly know what the Lake of Fire is, but we do know it was a place of fire and sulfur that was created for Satan and his demons. It's not a pleasant place to remain forever. That's part of the physical description in Genesis.
I’m pessimistic about some things; religions ability to foment hate and divides, the poisoning of the planet but optimistic about about mankind’s search for answers to our existence.

I’m pessimistic about your willingness to acknowledge that you completely deconstruct the arguments for your gods. On the one hand you admit that what your bibles claim about the “end times” is allegorical and metaphor and then on the other hand, you dump silly cartoons in the thread with silly threats about your gods meting out pain and torture to non-believers. You make yours gods little more than mafioso enforcers who “make’em an offer he can’t refuse”.

Religionists often recite this need for religion to give them a purpose in life or more alarming, to coerce behavior. I understand entirely this perspective as the history of many religions delineates a pyramid structure of authority. I'm certainly willing to learn and to express. I have no "agenda" other than to find the truth as best I can. In fact, I would love to find a god-paradigm that works. I am not pessimistic because of my atheism, but eternal life and a perfect being and so on-- all are very attractive promises but as you acknowledge, it’s allegorical and metaphor. I just need the model to provide credible evidence as to its veracity and not crumble under even the most cursory of scrutiny as you have demonstrated.
I think we're just talking past each other and have been for some time. I can guarantee that one day you'll understand what I've been saying while you won't have a chance to say, "Oh I get it now, Mr. Bond." It is what it is.
I’m not clear as to what I’m supposed to ‘get”. You acknowledge the “end times” fables are allegory and metaphor so why use those as a threat?
 

Newtonian

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
989
Reaction score
153
Points
53
No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.
Well, other than the fossil record.
Rubbish. the fossil record is a few bones scattered over millions of years, of extinct species of apes.
And extinct species of humans as well. Indeed school kids are usually taught evolution. Teaching creationist doctrines would violate the separation of church and state. However, they could teach alternate scientific interpretations instead of implying macro-evolution is proven.
My premise is if they are going to teach the evolution rubbish in science classes as 'facts', then they should also teach some of the better intelligent design theories as well. I'm not a 'creationist', nor am I stupid enough to parrot 'evolution' rubbish just so I can be a member of some treehouse club for tards who obviously have political agendas, not 'scientific' ones or 'rational' ones. It's that simple. My premise is we shouldn't babble about 'evolution' and then also expect kids to buy into empiricism and methodologies after lying so blatantly to them.
There’s no such thing as “better ID / creationism” as it’s just remanufacturing of Christian fundamentalism. The creationist hacks lost their legal battle over teaching creationsm in schools because It was about the Christian religion.The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The earlier attempts by Christian fundamentalists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more desperate.
Your bias is showing. And we are not creationists - we believe what the Bible and science reveal.
There was no bias about the history of Christian fundamentalists attempting to put religion into the public school system. The Dover trial reaffirmed that.

The courts have ruled consistently that creationism is a religious claim.

Hollie - again you are confusing us with creationists. We also do no want creationist doctrines taught in public schools - that would violate the separation of church and state. It would be nice, though, if schools pointed out that there are other models contradictory to what they do teach in school.

We encourage family study and teach our children the truth so they can defend our beliefs in school.
I don’t see any material difference between JW’s and creationists.
We don't believe as Creationists do that the creative days were 24 hours each - and we believe earth and universe are billions of years old - for starters.

Most creationists believe in the trinity doctrine - we don't.

Also, if you check out creationist vs. evolutionist debates - both sides usually charge the other side with having no evidence. We realize that both sides do present evidence of certain things.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
40,464
Reaction score
3,618
Points
1,855
Also, if you check out creationist vs. evolutionist debates - both sides usually charge the other side with having no evidence
What a freaking joke. I am embarrassed for you jist reading this pile of shit.
 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
16,966
Reaction score
2,465
Points
290
Location
Texas
Also, if you check out creationist vs. evolutionist debates - both sides usually charge the other side with having no evidence
What a freaking joke. I am embarrassed for you jist reading this pile of shit.
Well, you deviants also think your anuses are for 'normal' sex and other mentally ill beliefs, so nobody really cares about your idiotic opinions, you're just here to be laughed at yourself.
 

Aletheia4u

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
5,160
Reaction score
666
Points
195
''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing
Its says that spirits uses some sort of telepathy to communicate with. No sounds or any physical methods that they use to communicate with.
But God spoken His very first words by saying "let there be light".

 
OP
harmonica

harmonica

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
26,107
Reaction score
3,837
Points
290
''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing
Its says that spirits uses some sort of telepathy to communicate with. No sounds or any physical methods that they use to communicate with.
But God spoken His very first words by saying "let there be light".

that's the theory?
 

New Posts

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top