Marjorie Taylor Greene says she doesn't "believe in evolution" - "so called science"

[miketx]

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene says she doesn't "believe in evolution"

"I don't believe in that type of so-called science," the freshman Republican from Georgia said.

www.axios.com

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said this week she does not "believe in evolution," adding, "I don't believe in that type of so-called science."

Lord only knows what goes on in the space her brain should be. In Europe we just laugh at this sort of bollox but I suspect that she is not so much of an outlier in the US.

Is she the only one in Congress or does she have friends she can talk to ?

How come apes don't keep turning into people?

 

[james bond]

LOL Evolution is science not religion. Your faith is very fragile because you depend on Bronze Age myths.

You're still reeling from evolution not being observable nor testable lol. It's not science, but the atheists still want to believe it, blind faith, so that's why it's religion.

 

[Jets]

Rep Greene is entitled to her nescient opinion…

 

[surada]

You're still reeling from evolution not being observable nor testable lol. It's not science, but the atheists still want to believe it, blind faith, so that's why it's religion.

Of course its testable.. Look at the elephants being born without tusks. John Nelson Darby invented the rapture.

 

[surada]

All major religions have creation theology, but bigots like Tommy Tainant are really too stupid to know that.

LOLOL.. There are over 250 different creation myths.

Rapture Doctrine invented by John Darby in 1830 AD'

Rapture Doctrine invented by John Darby in 1830 AD

The purpose of this section of the outline is to refute the claim by those who believe the rapture doctrine was taught before John Nelson Darby (born 18 November 1800, died 29 April 1882) who is singlehandedly responsible for influencing all the cults 19 th century cults with their rapture theology and endless date setting that persists even to the present day.

 

[Papageorgio]

How many do you want ? How does it affect you ?

How does Greene's view on creation affect you? Not at all? Hypocrite!

 

[james bond]

Of course its testable.. Look at the elephants being born without tusks. John Nelson Darby invented the rapture.

Look at my sig. God created natural selection. Would you say natural selection just popped into existence? It was discovered by the creationists first in the Bible.

"Natural selection is considered to be the survival of the fittest and is often confused with evolution. But far from being proof for evolution and against creationism, natural selection is quite a reasonable and “God-given” process whereby we observe a certain genotype (the genetic makeup of an organism or group of organisms) that has pre-existed and has gradually adapted to one particular environment. Genes that are pre-existent are those genes that have always been there but certain environmental factors behave as a selection pressure that weeds out other genetic traits that are unsuitable. Hence, those that carry unsuitable genotypes are eventually removed from the gene pool.

...

It is because natural selection favors “pre-existent” genetic traits in any particular environment or situation that enables creationists to agree with the process. Clearly, there are many arguments against evolution, but the very fact that natural selection permits the expression of genetic material that may have never been manifested, due to the effects of being recessive or being diluted due to other, stronger traits, suggests that God has provided the means for survival in changing environments. If anything, natural selection would have been more prevalent after the flood due to the rapid change in climatic conditions. Despite all the consequences that the Fall brought into creation, the Most High had the wonderful ability to foresee the need for a process that would ensure the continuing survival of life on earth, for which He continues to care (Psalm 24:1; Job 12:7-9)."

What do creationists believe about natural selection? | GotQuestions.org

What do creationists believe about natural selection? Can creationists account for natural selection?

www.gotquestions.org

What Darwin discovered was used to justify racism, the rise of the Nazis, Hitler, the Holocaust, and worse.

"The belief claims that crude human-like beings eventually evolved and branched off into various hominids. Darwin, like many evolutionists, believed that some hominids developed larger brains faster, leaving others behind. The most advanced species (in the evolutionist’s evolved brain at least) was a 19th-century European gentleman who was supposedly far more evolved than the indigenous people of Australia.

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes . .. will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even .. . than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

"

The True Origin of the Species

Now that we understand more about genetics, we know that the process of natural selection can never form new kinds of animals and plants: this revelation uproots the weeds of racism

answersingenesis.org

The Rapture is found in the Bible as being "carried away" into heaven.

"The rapture will involve an instantaneous transformation of our bodies to fit us for eternity. “We know that when he [Christ] appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2). The rapture is to be distinguished from the second coming. At the rapture, the Lord comes “in the clouds” to meet us “in the air” (1 Thessalonians 4:17). At the second coming, the Lord descends all the way to the earth to stand on the Mount of Olives, resulting in a great earthquake followed by a defeat of God’s enemies (Zechariah 14:3–4).

The doctrine of the rapture was not taught in the Old Testament, which is why Paul calls it a “mystery” now revealed: “Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed” (1 Corinthians 15:51–52).

The rapture of the church is a glorious event we should all be longing for. We will finally be free from sin. We will be in God’s presence forever. There is far too much debate over the meaning and scope of the rapture. This is not God’s intent. Rather, the rapture should be a comforting doctrine full of hope; God wants us to “encourage each other with these words” (1 Thessalonians 4:18)."

What is the rapture of the church? | GotQuestions.org

What is the rapture of the church? Is the rapture biblical? What occurs at the rapture? Does the Bible even teach the concept of the rapture?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[james bond]

LOLOL.. There are over 250 different creation myths.

Rapture Doctrine invented by John Darby in 1830 AD'

Rapture Doctrine invented by John Darby in 1830 AD

The purpose of this section of the outline is to refute the claim by those who believe the rapture doctrine was taught before John Nelson Darby (born 18 November 1800, died 29 April 1882) who is singlehandedly responsible for influencing all the cults 19 th century cults with their rapture theology and endless date setting that persists even to the present day.

The word "rapture" isn't in the Bible, but we get the idea. Like I said, you don't know about Christianity, nor the Bible, and have been easily duped because you want evolution so badly to be something real. I'm not the one discussing religion in S&T. There. There. Lol.

Your links do not even have an author that we can verify. It's proof that you are easily duped because you want evolution to be real science so badly when it's a lie. The atheists need evolution to be real, so they can continue to claim no God/gods. Poor baby.

 

[surada]

Look at my sig. God created natural selection. Would you say natural selection just popped into existence? It was discovered by the creationists first in the Bible.

"Natural selection is considered to be the survival of the fittest and is often confused with evolution. But far from being proof for evolution and against creationism, natural selection is quite a reasonable and “God-given” process whereby we observe a certain genotype (the genetic makeup of an organism or group of organisms) that has pre-existed and has gradually adapted to one particular environment. Genes that are pre-existent are those genes that have always been there but certain environmental factors behave as a selection pressure that weeds out other genetic traits that are unsuitable. Hence, those that carry unsuitable genotypes are eventually removed from the gene pool.

...

It is because natural selection favors “pre-existent” genetic traits in any particular environment or situation that enables creationists to agree with the process. Clearly, there are many arguments against evolution, but the very fact that natural selection permits the expression of genetic material that may have never been manifested, due to the effects of being recessive or being diluted due to other, stronger traits, suggests that God has provided the means for survival in changing environments. If anything, natural selection would have been more prevalent after the flood due to the rapid change in climatic conditions. Despite all the consequences that the Fall brought into creation, the Most High had the wonderful ability to foresee the need for a process that would ensure the continuing survival of life on earth, for which He continues to care (Psalm 24:1; Job 12:7-9)."

What do creationists believe about natural selection? | GotQuestions.org

What do creationists believe about natural selection? Can creationists account for natural selection?

www.gotquestions.org

What Darwin discovered was used to justify racism, the rise of the Nazis, Hitler, the Holocaust, and worse.

"The belief claims that crude human-like beings eventually evolved and branched off into various hominids. Darwin, like many evolutionists, believed that some hominids developed larger brains faster, leaving others behind. The most advanced species (in the evolutionist’s evolved brain at least) was a 19th-century European gentleman who was supposedly far more evolved than the indigenous people of Australia.



"

The True Origin of the Species

Now that we understand more about genetics, we know that the process of natural selection can never form new kinds of animals and plants: this revelation uproots the weeds of racism

answersingenesis.org

The Rapture is found in the Bible as being "carried away" into heaven.

"The rapture will involve an instantaneous transformation of our bodies to fit us for eternity. “We know that when he [Christ] appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2). The rapture is to be distinguished from the second coming. At the rapture, the Lord comes “in the clouds” to meet us “in the air” (1 Thessalonians 4:17). At the second coming, the Lord descends all the way to the earth to stand on the Mount of Olives, resulting in a great earthquake followed by a defeat of God’s enemies (Zechariah 14:3–4).

The doctrine of the rapture was not taught in the Old Testament, which is why Paul calls it a “mystery” now revealed: “Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed” (1 Corinthians 15:51–52).

The rapture of the church is a glorious event we should all be longing for. We will finally be free from sin. We will be in God’s presence forever. There is far too much debate over the meaning and scope of the rapture. This is not God’s intent. Rather, the rapture should be a comforting doctrine full of hope; God wants us to “encourage each other with these words” (1 Thessalonians 4:18)."

What is the rapture of the church? | GotQuestions.org

What is the rapture of the church? Is the rapture biblical? What occurs at the rapture? Does the Bible even teach the concept of the rapture?

www.gotquestions.org

Got questions is real low brow Scofield heresy.

 

[surada]

The word "rapture" isn't in the Bible, but we get the idea. Like I said, you don't know about Christianity, nor the Bible, and have been easily duped because you want evolution so badly to be something real. I'm not the one discussing religion in S&T. There. There. Lol.

Paul (or Timothy) was trying to reassure the Thessalonians about their relatives who died before the return of Christ. That's so simple and something you should know.

 

[surada]

Rapture Theory Is Heresy Not Prophecy
‘You have persevered and endured for My name's sake, and have not grown weary’ (Revelation 2:3).
‘They who endure to the end will be saved’ (Matthew 24:13).

This Bible study is about the modern, erroneous rapture teaching and how it ‘leaked’ into the church. We will
also explain the differences between the so-called ‘rapture’ and the true resurrection. Jesus, John and Paul
all used the term ‘resurrection’. Not once did they say ‘rapture’. It is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible.
The term ‘rapture’ is more than a misnomer – the teaching is heresy. What is spoken of in the Bible are the
first and second resurrections. We must think logically about this; if Jesus taught us about the First
Resurrection, by logic of language there must be a second resurrection. Jesus was the first to be resurrected
from death and Christians will share in His resurrection, the condition being, we are baptised in water by full
immersion like He was. ‘Do you not know that all we who were baptised into Jesus were baptised into His
death? We were buried with Him through baptism to death, and just like Jesus was raised from the dead
through the glory of the Father so we might walk in newness of life, for if we have become united with Him in
the likeness of his death, we will also be part of His resurrection’ (Romans 6:3 to 5). Paul said his hope was
in the resurrection of the dead (Acts 23:6) and said, “If by any means I may attain to the resurrection”
(Philippians 3:7 to 21). That means he would do anything to be part of the first resurrection, and he implied
this teaching was for the more mature Christian. Paul taught about the resurrection of the dead – not a
‘rapture’ of the living (Acts 24:15 & 21).
The teaching of the first resurrection is past the elementary stage of the teachings of Jesus and is given to
those that belong to spiritual maturity, and God wants to bring everyone to more advanced teaching – the
teaching of the resurrection (Hebrews 6:1 to 3). Jesus taught about the first resurrection many times, which
amazed people (Matthew 22:23 to 33; Mark 12:18 to 27; Luke 20:27 to 39). Martha knew about the first
resurrection and she knew it would be at the last day (John 11:24). It is of no surprise that the teaching of the
first resurrection causes contention. Paul was placed on trial because he taught the truth about the first
resurrection (Acts 24:21). In Jesus’ resurrection, He overcame the fear and sting of death and has made us
to be conquerors. Jesus’ death was not futile (1 Corinthians 15:54 to 58). If people would put away the
teaching of the rapture where they think they do not have to do very much for God, and if Christians would
use the word resurrection where God expects a higher level of holiness, then Christians would mature in
God at a very fast pace and we would not have to keep feeding milk to weak carnal Christians, and we would
be able to feed people the meat of the Word (1 Corinthians 3:2 & 3).

continued

 

[westwall]

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene says she doesn't "believe in evolution"

"I don't believe in that type of so-called science," the freshman Republican from Georgia said.

www.axios.com

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said this week she does not "believe in evolution," adding, "I don't believe in that type of so-called science."

Lord only knows what goes on in the space her brain should be. In Europe we just laugh at this sort of bollox but I suspect that she is not so much of an outlier in the US.

Is she the only one in Congress or does she have friends she can talk to ?

I don't "believe" in evolution either. "Belief" is a religious term.

As a scientist I support the basic framework of the theory of punctuated equilibrium which is a subset of evolutionary theory.

Only anti science religious nutjobs use the term "believe" when they spew their nonsense.

 

[james bond]

How come apes don't keep turning into people?

They can't even walk bipedal. It's proof that evo is wrong. Atheists are usually wrong.

 

[james bond]

Only anti science religious nutjobs use the term "believe" when they spew their nonsense.

You have no evidence either. It's just opinion. Why don't we call yours as stupid as abu afak if you don't like believe. Call it what you want. If it's opinion, then you shouldn't care if we "believe" you're as stupid as abu afak. So just STFU and stay out.

 

[westwall]

You have no evidence either. It's just opinion. Why don't we call yours as stupid as abu afak if you don't like believe. Call it what you want. If it's opinion, then you shouldn't care if we "believe" you're as abu afak. So just STFU and stay out.

You either talk about science with scientific terms or you don't.

If you want to use religious terms, then acknowledge that. I am a scientist, thus my use of language.

And there is evidence to support punctuated equilibrium.

 

[james bond]

And there is evidence to support punctuated equilibrium.

It's evolution of the gaps by two atheist scientists Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge. If you want to opine for it, then who am I to argue? You can easily switch to another hypothesis tomorrow. I rather talk with someone who has faith in their evo science.

 

[surada]

Is this one of the Q prophesies that generally fail to happen ?

Have any of their prophecies come true?

These QAnon Predictions All Failed To Come True

These QAnon Predictions All Failed To Come True

The conspiracy theorists' belief that Donald Trump will be inaugurated as president is not their first wild claim that has failed to come to fruition.

www.newsweek.com

Mar 04, 2021 · In recent years, followers of the QAnon conspiracy theory have pinned their hopes on a number of dates they believed would see a major event taking place, validating their beliefs.

QAnon: All Times QAnon Predictions Failed to Come Through

Here is every QAnon prediction that's failed to come true

They don't make very good prognosticators, whoever they are.

www.dailydot.com

Aug 27, 2018 · These QAnon predictions range from specific incidents taking place on exact days, to general claims of great events to come.

 

[Wuwei]

Lol. You lost badly in S&T, so now are bringing in politics to the science forum. Wrong forum.

This is not the wrong forum. This is a thread featuring Margery T Greene.

 

[james bond]

You either talk about science with scientific terms or you don't.

If you want to use religious terms, then acknowledge that. I am a scientist, thus my use of language.

And there is evidence to support punctuated equilibrium.

You're just like the other atheists. You want to disregard creation science when science backs up the Bible. My side is considered religion, so has no place in S&T. That's why I argue to have creation science taught in public schools, so the smarter students can understand they have a choice between evolution or creation science. Anyway, you're just arguing semantics because of it and have already disregarded my position as science.

It doesn't matter. Abiogenesis has been destroyed by the swan neck experiment. There can be no life from non-life, so evolution didn't even have a beginning.

 

[surada]

You're just like the other atheists. You want to disregard creation science when science backs up the Bible. My side is considered religion, so has no place in S&T. That's why I argue to have creation science taught in public schools, so the smarter students can understand they have a choice between evolution or creation science. Anyway, you're just arguing semantics because of it and have already disregarded my position as science.

It doesn't matter. Abiogenesis has been destroyed by the swan neck experiment. There can be no life from non-life, so evolution didn't even have a beginning.

Just teach Creation Science in your church and Sunday school.