Need A Belief System Be Rational???

[JoeB131]

Very little difference in the two.

Yeah, if you say so.... Funny, I don't remember the country becoming a dystopian nightmare before 2017...

 

[pknopp]

Yeah, if you say so.... Funny, I don't remember the country becoming a dystopian nightmare before 2017...

Trillions in debt. War everywhere. Wall Street running the country............you can consider that great if you wish.

 

[JoeB131]

Trillions in debt. War everywhere. Wall Street running the country............you can consider that great if you wish.

Yeah, um, how was Commie Bernie going to end the debt, exactly?

 

[pknopp]

Yeah, um, how was Commie Bernie going to end the debt, exactly?

You said things were great. I showed they were not and Sanders is one of the few willing to raise taxes to pay for things.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yep. It's the bread and butter of supporting the Alinsky method.

b-girl....I believe that it is more than supporting, and far more ancient than Alinsky.


They worship a very different entity.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Uh, Darwin's theory is proven by the fossil record, not to mention genetics, biology, ecology, and even observations of how viruses become anti-biotic resistant.
As for socialism, welfare... Um, we've gone from 60% of the population living below the poverty line in the 1920's to less than 20% today.

On the other hand, there is NO Evidence for a Magic Fairy in the Sky.

If there were, then why no matter what you believe in, the majority of the world believes something else.

If you are a Christian, 6 billion people are wrong.
if you are a Muslim, 6.5 billion people are wrong.
If you are a Hindu, 7 billion people are wrong.

Or maybe everyone is wrong.

A lie.

There is no such proof in the record.


First, 'evolving' suggests changing, in this case from the simple to the more advanced and complex organism. Outside of the kind of simple faith of peasants, science requires physical proof...in this sphere, that of the fossil record.

Evolution theory, sadly, falls short in that respect.



1. Even the fossil record definitively rejects the concept of speciation. There is absolutely no sign in the record of the countless intermediate species that should have once lived according to Darwinism. It has now been acknowledged that Darwin's claim that these fossils would be found in the future is definitely incorrect. 百盈彩票|百盈彩登录网址

a. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

b. "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.


2. The discovery of the Burgess Shale deposits pretty much nailed it. The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity, major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders ....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

b. " To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. " Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics

c. It was not the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity. It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record. Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!



But...you pretty much lie about everything, don't you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And the proof of where irrationality lies in the two divergent world views....


The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?”

But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder.
David Mamet

 

[Donald H]

A lie.

There is no such proof in the record.


First, 'evolving' suggests changing, in this case from the simple to the more advanced and complex organism. Outside of the kind of simple faith of peasants, science requires physical proof...in this sphere, that of the fossil record.

Evolution theory, sadly, falls short in that respect.



1. Even the fossil record definitively rejects the concept of speciation. There is absolutely no sign in the record of the countless intermediate species that should have once lived according to Darwinism. It has now been acknowledged that Darwin's claim that these fossils would be found in the future is definitely incorrect.

No, you're wrong. There are countless intermediate species that once lived.
There's no need to get into disproving the rest of your mistakes when this one provides enough to refute for the next 6 months.

Believe in creation too, but keep those beliefs in your church where they belong. Others need not dispute your Christian beliefs. They're irrelevant to scientific 'theories'.



That's a leftist on the right Chicy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, you're wrong. There are countless intermediate species that once lived.
There's no need to get into disproving the rest of your mistakes when this one provides enough to refute for the next 6 months.

Believe in creation too, but keep those beliefs in your church where they belong. Others need not dispute your Christian beliefs. They're irrelevant to scientific 'theories'.



That's a leftist on the right Chicy.

I'm never wrong......the only intermediate species is you.....and that is a backward devolution.

 

[Donald H]

I'm never wrong......the only intermediate species is you.....and that is a backward devolution.

I'll allow you to be right on everything except this one hon. The rest is N.A. and moot but you can't get away with this 'big' lie you're trying to get past the uneducated and gullible, on whom you depend as your audience.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'll allow you to be right on everything except this one hon. The rest is N.A. and moot but you can't get away with this 'big' lie you're trying to get past the uneducated and gullible, on whom you depend as your audience.

I don't see any list you're providing.


No list means you're full of ......manure.


In a century and a half since Darwin, with more scientists working than in all of history....there remains zero proof of his thesis.

And the folks advancing it are admitted Marxists.

Gould, who taught biology, paleontology, and geology at Harvard University, made the following statement: "Hegel's dialectical laws, translated into a materialist context, have become the official 'state philosophy' of many socialist nations. These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee."

One could nearly assume that Gould was telling the world he was indeed a Marxist. And by definition the theology of Marxism is atheism.

Two of Gould's fellow Harvard biological "revolutionaries" (Lewontin and Levin) co-authored a book on Marxist biology entitled The Dialectical Biologist, published by Harvard University Press in 1986. In a review of this textbook in Nature magazine, its author, David L. Hull, said, "Richard Levin and Richard Lewontin are two of the most knowledgeable and innovative evolutionary biologists working today. They also view themselves as Marxist revolutionaries. As Marxists, Levin and Lewontin insist that the economic substructure of a society strongly influences its ideational superstructure, including science"

Gould, along with Lewontin, Levin, Jonathan Beckwith, Ruth Hubbard, and Herb Fox, founded an organization entitled "Science for the People." Wikipedia begins its discussion of this organization as follows: "Science for the People is a leftwing organization that emerged from the antiwar culture of the United States in the 1970s." Harvard's E.O. Wilson labeled the organization "American Marxists." Not insignificantly, the cover of its magazine contains the Communist clinched fist!

In other words, nearly everything Gould touched over his lifetime would force most neutral onlookers to the conclusion that he was indeed a Marxist and by implication an atheist.


And you just verified that I'm never wrong, commie-boy.

 

[Donald H]

I don't see any list you're providing.


No list means you're full of ......manure.


In a century and a half since Darwin, with more scientists working than in all of history....there remains zero proof of his thesis.

And the folks advancing it are admitted Marxists.

Gould, who taught biology, paleontology, and geology at Harvard University, made the following statement: "Hegel's dialectical laws, translated into a materialist context, have become the official 'state philosophy' of many socialist nations. These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee."

One could nearly assume that Gould was telling the world he was indeed a Marxist. And by definition the theology of Marxism is atheism.

Two of Gould's fellow Harvard biological "revolutionaries" (Lewontin and Levin) co-authored a book on Marxist biology entitled The Dialectical Biologist, published by Harvard University Press in 1986. In a review of this textbook in Nature magazine, its author, David L. Hull, said, "Richard Levin and Richard Lewontin are two of the most knowledgeable and innovative evolutionary biologists working today. They also view themselves as Marxist revolutionaries. As Marxists, Levin and Lewontin insist that the economic substructure of a society strongly influences its ideational superstructure, including science"

Gould, along with Lewontin, Levin, Jonathan Beckwith, Ruth Hubbard, and Herb Fox, founded an organization entitled "Science for the People." Wikipedia begins its discussion of this organization as follows: "Science for the People is a leftwing organization that emerged from the antiwar culture of the United States in the 1970s." Harvard's E.O. Wilson labeled the organization "American Marxists." Not insignificantly, the cover of its magazine contains the Communist clinched fist!

In other words, nearly everything Gould touched over his lifetime would force most neutral onlookers to the conclusion that he was indeed a Marxist and by implication an atheist.


And you just verified that I'm never wrong, commie-boy.

As I suggested, you can have your commie/socialist accusations and all of the rest of your extremism, but you're not going to get the creation vs. evolution debate for free.

Divert the debate however you like but don't wag your gums on the main issue or you'll be shot down in flames. The link with Dawkins and Dillihunty made the point abundantly clear.

And in fact several leaders of various Christian churches have already left you out in the cold with your panties down when they ran away from the creation nonsense..

The Pope Would Like You to Accept Evolution and the Big Bang

The Roman Catholic Church is pro-evolution and Big Bang, but with a twist

www.smithsonianmag.com

Note, with a twist. For our twisted sisters.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As I suggested, you can have your commie/socialist accusations and all of the rest of your extremism, but you're not going to get the creation vs. evolution debate for free.

Divert the debate however you like but don't wag your gums on the main issue or you'll be shot down in flames. The link with Dawkins and Dillihunty made the point abundantly clear.

And in fact several leaders of various Christian churches have already left you out in the cold with your panties down when they ran away from the creation nonsense..

The Pope Would Like You to Accept Evolution and the Big Bang

The Roman Catholic Church is pro-evolution and Big Bang, but with a twist

www.smithsonianmag.com

Note, with a twist. For our twisted sisters.

There's no debate....as you proved by being unable do document your claim.

Now slither away.

 

[Donald H]

There's no debate....as you proved by being unable do document your claim.

Now slither away.

How many early human species existed on Earth?

It depends on your definition of human.

www.livescience.com

There's the list hon.

It's not your debating opponent that's going to be doing any slithering this time!

Take it to your church where it belongs and you get a free pass from me. Try to talk creation alongside of science with me and we're here for a good time, albeit maybe not a long time! LOL

 

[PoliticalChic]

How many early human species existed on Earth?

It depends on your definition of human.

www.livescience.com

There's the list hon.

It's not your debating opponent that's going to be doing any slithering this time!

Take it to your church where it belongs and you get a free pass from me. Try to talk creation alongside of science with me and we're here for a good time, albeit maybe not a long time! LOL

There's no list, you lying scum.

You claimed lots of intermediate species.....there aren't.

Darwin's theory is a political term of art.



One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.



In the words of twentieth century evolutionist Ernst Mayr, Darwin “replaced theological, or supernatural, science with secular science. … Darwin’s explanation that all things have a natural cause made the belief in a creatively superior mind quite unnecessary.”
Charles Darwin: Reluctant Revolutionary


And, of course, Marxism is your church.

 

[Donald H]

There's no list, you lying scum.

You claimed lots of intermediate species.....there aren't.

Darwin's theory is a political term of art.



One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.



In the words of twentieth century evolutionist Ernst Mayr, Darwin “replaced theological, or supernatural, science with secular science. … Darwin’s explanation that all things have a natural cause made the belief in a creatively superior mind quite unnecessary.”
Charles Darwin: Reluctant Revolutionary


And, of course, Marxism is your church.

The main problem with your talking points Chicy, is that they're a little too sophisticated for your intended audience. My suggestions:

da eart is 6000 years cuz dem fawzils are fake.
dere's hooman footprints wit da dinosaurus wot he was riding on.
end da ark is on a mountain so's everbuddy can see it!
End everbuddy knows ta keep yer slaves is wot's gud too!

Yabba dabby dooooooo!

 

[PoliticalChic]

The main problem with your talking points Chicy, is that they're a little too sophisticated for your intended audience. My suggestions:

da eart is 6000 years cuz dem fawzils are fake.
dere's hooman footprints wit da dinosaurus wot he was riding on.
end da ark is on a mountain so's everbuddy can see it!
End everbuddy knows ta keep yer slaves is wot's gud too!

Yabba dabby dooooooo!

Where is the list of intermediate speicies that you claimed to have?

Why has there been zero proof of Darwin's theory in a century and a half?

Why are you an inveterate liar?

 

[Donald H]

There's no list, you lying scum.

You claimed lots of intermediate species.....there aren't.

Darwin's theory is a political term of art.

There are thousands of intermediate species known in fossil records, as well as hundreds of thousands missing, due to incomplete fossil records. And not even needing to mention the millions of extinct species that lived on the earth and no longer exist.

Transitional fossil - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We're going to have to start at the grade school level with you hon.
Can we at least keep the debate separate and isolated from religious superstitious beliefs in the young earth poppycock?

Or would you rather jump over to religious beliefs as a separate topic. It's just not possible to combine the two. It would be scummy and commie.

 

[Mashmont]

And, if so, how do 'rational' and 'high body count' fit together????



1.It seems ‘rational’ for a system of belief be just that, based on reason and logic. It just seems that that relationship should be a part of the human condition. After all, we are known scientifically as Homo sapiens…..which translates to ‘man the wise.’

Of course it should go without saying that the above pertains to adults, not children. It’s just that we run into a problem in contemporary America in that the dominant political party infantilizes its adherents. Imagine actual adults believing that their party will take care of them from cradle to grave, and they have nothing to give up….well, except for freedom, liberty and the right to make their own decisions.
And.....when obedience is the coin of the realm......how to accomplish one's own survival?
This is where ‘rational’ comes in.





2. But today, a most specific consideration of rational, as it pertains to religion. That dominant political party goes far out of its way to ridicule, marginalize, and de-legitimize religion. And by religion, I don’t mean the ersatz version substituted by the Left, the worship of man himself, and the collectivization of man, what we call government. This faux religion, Militant Secularism, projects its desire to be considered a real religion by draping itself in a number of religious trappings.

For example, they refer to their candidates as god, Jesus or the messiah. They kneel as one might in church..

View attachment 588736

Democrats kneel for 8 minutes as they propose âtransformativeâ new police procedures, accountability - The Boston Globe

A sweeping overhaul of police oversight and procedures is being proposed by Democrats in response to the deaths of black Americans at the hands of law enforcement.

www.bostonglobe.com

3. From the perspective of history, the religion of the Founders, the Judeo-Christian faith, was the reason for the success of Western Civilization, while the ‘religion’ of the Left gave us the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks and the Nazis, all of which resulted in piles of bodies.
See where ‘rational’ might fit in to judging a belief system?

4. “Why Do Atheists Think They’re the Party of Reason When They Reason So Poorly?”​

…Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, and Victor Stenger telling us about The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason, and The Center for Inquiry pronouncing it’s time for science and reason.”
Why Do Atheists Think They're the Party of Reason When They Reason So Poorly? - The Stream



I shouldn’t have to point out that replacing the ol’ time religion with science and reason is why the French Revolution resulted in an abattoir……that means ‘slaughter house.’ As did every other movement with that basis.
After all, science might tell us what we can do.....


......but not what we should do.

What are Democrats kneeling for? Certainly not in prayer since they generally don't believe in God.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are thousands of intermediate species known in fossil records, as well as hundreds of thousands missing, due to incomplete fossil records. And not even needing to mention the millions of extinct species that lived on the earth and no longer exist.

Transitional fossil - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We're going to have to start at the grade school level with you hon.
Can we at least keep the debate separate and isolated from religious superstitious beliefs in the young earth poppycock?

Or would you rather jump over to religious beliefs as a separate topic. It's just not possible to combine the two. It would be scummy and commie.

"transitional form" is a species that is intermediate between two different species.

Pick one and stick to it.


Bet you can't.