People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD

[The Irish Ram]

All bullshit alang. Natural selection had nothing to do with the beginning of life on this planet. Adapting is not the same thing as mutating.
One single cell is not, as Darwin believed, simple life form to complex forms. It is complex from the very first living cell. To create a different species from one that already exists, DNA would have to mutate, and continue to make the exact mistake without mutating again for millions of years. DNA attempts to self correct.

No BS. While it is true Natural selection had nothing to do with the beginning of life on this planet it is not true that the first life on earth was a cell. Cells are very complex and the product of millions (billions?) of years of natural selection on even simpler life forms. Probably DNA was not even in the first life but you should understand that once DNA has been changed that change will be passed to succeeding generations.

No, not every bone is transitional. To the contrary, my femur is the same as my mother's femur, because my DNA knows how to create one. So did my mother's DNA. Neither DNA broke with tradition. There are no 1/2 monkey 1/2 human remains to be found when there should be millions of them.

Your DNA is not the same as your mother's so your femur is not the same. Your 1/2 & 1/2 comment demonstrates you don't understand evolution theory at a fundamental level.

As for the eye, it is extremely complex form the git go. Even Darwin disagrees with you:

Charles Darwin, the founder of evolutionary theory, wrote in regards to the difficulties of applying evolution to the eye. “… that the eye … could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”

Darwin was a great pioneer but he lived almost 150 years ago. Much has been learned since. You need to catch up.

Had Darwin known about DNA we would have never heard of Darwin.

Absurd. DNA fits neatly into evolution science.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD
※→ Sunni Man, et al,

Yes, and No!

​

This is a great example, --- a century old Jewish publication, --- of gibberish. The people of that time and era might have actually understood what the intent of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were. But it is just history now - of little value; turning yellow on the book shelf.

​

Have you ever read the book? .... ​

(COMMENT)

Well, I actually had a copy in my hands, but it was a copy published in German. At that time in my life, I was only a 2/2 for the language. I was able to skim through most of it. But it was written in a much older style --- a kind of Frakturscrift which complicated my reading and amplifying my 2/2 handicapped even more.

I have seen, in the dark web, a copy in English, but I found its accuracy somewhat suspect. So, yesterday, I looked-up the audio book summary on The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion to refresh my salient points on the subject.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[TNHarley]

If God is real, i still wont worship him. He is obviously a deranged psychopath. According to scripture anyways

 

[RoccoR]

RE: People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD
※→ Sunni Man, alang1216, et al,

And I take it that you are one of the many that have come to believe the book as being accurate.

RE: People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD
※→ Sunni Man, alang1216, et al,

There have been, there are, and there will be a measure of incitement of using ideas like that published here, designed to motivate extremism and
intolerance poses a serious and growing danger to the enjoyment of human rights, indirectly generate threats to the regional peace; plus the social and economic development of the Jewish State of Israel.

Does it bother you that the book was made up by people who hated Jews?

A court claimed it was a forgery. I'm not sure if the work was a forgery or not. Either way, I found the book to ring true based on current events. .....

(COMMENT)

There was a time that I was interested in the Quatrains of Nostradamus; in my mind I could make the obscure fortunetelling and tarot readings match the events of today. But, for a document that is not authentic, The Protocols have seen many by people use this to demonize the Jews for campaign and plan for global domination.

Most Respectfully,
R

So I take it that you have never read the book?

No, it's not a fortune telling type of book or based on occultic prophecy.

The Protocols just exposes in detail, the political goals and duplicitous agenda of the Zionists in their quest for land and power. .....

(COMMENT)

Although I have many many books (14th through 18th Century) on Mysticism, Symbols-Amulets-and-Talisman, the Notary Art of Solomon, Magic and Alchemy, (and many more for Runes Orations and Prayers), I am able to separate the fantasy and fiction from truth and reality. I was not suggesting that the Protocols were written occult fashion or in prophecy form; but, I did see some a Believable European common style in the effective presentation and conviction in the writing of the era; common to literary propaganda fiction.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

I'm agnostic, or a skeptic, however there's much organization in the Universe, one which would seem to be hard to come from nothing.

Imagine your surprise and horror to discover that, upon your entering the hereafter, that your salvation and redemption is dependent upon a Jew.

Jews reject Christ, some of them even hate, or mock Christ.

Why are Evangelicals, Baptists etc. so retarded?

 

[The Irish Ram]

All bullshit alang. Natural selection had nothing to do with the beginning of life on this planet. Adapting is not the same thing as mutating.
One single cell is not, as Darwin believed, simple life form to complex forms. It is complex from the very first living cell. To create a different species from one that already exists, DNA would have to mutate, and continue to make the exact mistake without mutating again for millions of years. DNA attempts to self correct.

No BS. While it is true Natural selection had nothing to do with the beginning of life on this planet it is not true that the first life on earth was a cell. Cells are very complex and the product of millions (billions?) of years of natural selection on even simpler life forms. Probably DNA was not even in the first life but you should understand that once DNA has been changed that change will be passed to succeeding generations.

No, not every bone is transitional. To the contrary, my femur is the same as my mother's femur, because my DNA knows how to create one. So did my mother's DNA. Neither DNA broke with tradition. There are no 1/2 monkey 1/2 human remains to be found when there should be millions of them.

Your DNA is not the same as your mother's so your femur is not the same. Your 1/2 & 1/2 comment demonstrates you don't understand evolution theory at a fundamental level.

As for the eye, it is extremely complex form the git go. Even Darwin disagrees with you:

Charles Darwin, the founder of evolutionary theory, wrote in regards to the difficulties of applying evolution to the eye. “… that the eye … could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”

Darwin was a great pioneer but he lived almost 150 years ago. Much has been learned since. You need to catch up.

Had Darwin known about DNA we would have never heard of Darwin.

Absurd. DNA fits neatly into evolution science.

DNA molecules in the simplest of cells, uses coded instructions to control the way a cell behaves. You can't throw out enough letters to produce DNA Hamlet/monkey text. Which in itself would be pattern.
You can't over millions of years throw out enough "letters" to create a code that instructs. You would just end up with random letters that don't know their function.
For life to form DNA has to be complete from the start to continue to it's next stage. And it has to know what to do for the next stage to preform it's function, as does the next stage and so on.

Take the first picture. Pretend all of those letters randomly fell into place except it was still waiting a few billion years of letters to be been thrown out until the A and the T at the bottom that were missing, were put into place. That existing strand would die waiting, so you would have to start all over and find all the right letters at the same time for it's instructions to move on to the next stage could be unlocked.

A new species would demand that that bottom T be accidentally replaced with a G or a C and not revert back to the correct letter or a different letter for millions of years. It cannot happen. Picture #1 would not have the correct information it needed to get to picture # 2, and would become extinct.

^ Who created the information and embedded it in the very first stage? Random does not create information. And Darwin knew it. Which prompted his comment of the eye. And yes, we have learned much about the eye. Which makes Darwin's comment about it even more profound. It is an information marvel. Even Darwin knew it was beyond the scope of evolution. And we realize it even more so today.
And,
I am caught up. I know where the information came from...

 

[Sunni Man]

RE: People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD
※→ Sunni Man, alang1216, et al,

And I take it that you are one of the many that have come to believe the book as being accurate.

RE: People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD
※→ Sunni Man, alang1216, et al,

There have been, there are, and there will be a measure of incitement of using ideas like that published here, designed to motivate extremism and
intolerance poses a serious and growing danger to the enjoyment of human rights, indirectly generate threats to the regional peace; plus the social and economic development of the Jewish State of Israel.

Does it bother you that the book was made up by people who hated Jews?

A court claimed it was a forgery. I'm not sure if the work was a forgery or not. Either way, I found the book to ring true based on current events. .....

(COMMENT)

There was a time that I was interested in the Quatrains of Nostradamus; in my mind I could make the obscure fortunetelling and tarot readings match the events of today. But, for a document that is not authentic, The Protocols have seen many by people use this to demonize the Jews for campaign and plan for global domination.

Most Respectfully,
R

So I take it that you have never read the book?

No, it's not a fortune telling type of book or based on occultic prophecy.

The Protocols just exposes in detail, the political goals and duplicitous agenda of the Zionists in their quest for land and power. .....

(COMMENT)

Although I have many many books (14th through 18th Century) on Mysticism, Symbols-Amulets-and-Talisman, the Notary Art of Solomon, Magic and Alchemy, (and many more for Runes Orations and Prayers), I am able to separate the fantasy and fiction from truth and reality. I was not suggesting that the Protocols were written occult fashion or in prophecy form; but, I did see some a Believable European common style in the effective presentation and conviction in the writing of the era; common to literary propaganda fiction.

Most Respectfully,
R

I view the Protocols as being much like Machiavelli's "The Prince".

Both are insightful works that are based on political realities that are both timeless and truthful. ....

 

[Likkmee]

People are going to have to face the reality that there's no God. The odds of such developing out of thin space is nearly ZERO.

Sure, physics and chemistry takes some faith in the start but it most certainly explains everything since. Everything when using evidenced based science works together very well.

The first stars came around 12 or billion years ago to form the first galaxies.
Our star formed within our galaxy a little earlier then the earth as gravity had to develop the planets like earth. So earth about 4.3 billion years ago.
The first single celled life
The first muilti celled life
Land life
on up to humans is everything at odds with the 2,000 year old book. The book makes no sense and it is just a crock of shit.

That is reality.

Life formed in the oceans
The fossil record shows that man is only a few million years old as a "family" group and a few hundred thousand years old as a single species.
The sun came first in the case of our solar system
Then the planets
Then life
Then more advanced life in the oceans
Then life on land
Then after a few hundred million years humans come into the picture.

This is once again reality.

One is a fool if they attempt to put belief ahead of the facts and evidence.

Time to come to the conclusion that there probably isn't a god and you shouldn't force religion on other people...Those other people are more likely to be RIGHT.

If you're wrong and the book is right ???
You are a genetically modified cave dweller.There is no missing link, altho you could perhaps apply for the position.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Well, there's no denying that the Cosmological Argument, the best one for there being at least one god in our realm, suffered a huge blow when it was established that it is at least possible for someting to come from nothing. It may take a very long time to determine what has come into existence that way, but give it time and humanity will determine what has.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Alang brought up a good point. Not for evolution, but for the basis of an existing God. Letters:

If you had an large box of letters and spilled them onto a table the odds that they would match Shakespare's Hamlet are infinitesimally small. However some would match and if you removed every letter that didn't match and spilled them out again some more would match. It wouldn't take very long to get to Hamlet with this selective pressure..

Spill the box of letters on a table. Construct sentences with them. In the context of your sentences put letters in equal distances apart so that you can extract just those letters and obtain a "monkey text" within a book full of sentences. You may extract enough letters to say, "Kennedy assassinated", Or "Lincoln-Ford-Theater".

God put together every letter of the Old Testament. And in doing so, created, a computer necessary to be uncovered, text. At first unbelievers cried, "monkey text, any book has it."
The coded information in the Torah being monkey text at this point, with all of the information that has been uncovered, according to science the odds of it happening by chance are incalculable.
God is the IT guy/ Biologist/ Physics guy/Creator/ Father you are looking for...

 

[Avatar4321]

First, I know by the Spirit that there is a God. I've felt His love and power. He has reveal truth to me. Why should I deny Him based on faulty reasoning when He has demonstrated He lived again and again in my life?

Second, God didn't create anything out of "thin space". The elements are eternal as He is. He organized them, as we would build a home out of the materials we have. In fact the Hebrew word in Genesis says just that.

Third, He loves you. He is waiting for you with open arms. Come to Him and be healed.

 

[Avatar4321]

Research the complexity of DNA. The incredible complexity of the very first eye to realize, as science tells us, there was nothing random about the seeing eye. It needed an extremely complex code to form and work.
The thing people don't realize is that the simplest of life forms was embedded with a complex code. That single celled life form had a complex code.
Codes don't appear. They are created. Look to your computer. Did it just come into existence one fine day or was it encoded in order for it to work?

How long it takes? The math has been calculated. DNA is self correcting, so if it starts to mutate, it will attempt NOT to mutate again. For a species to mutate into a different species, the DNA would have to make the exact same mistake for millions of years for Darwin to be correct. We would be walking on all of the bones of all of "missing links" it would take to finally emerge as a new species. It never happened.
Who had the information to code DNA into a life form? It had to come from someone. We know Gates encoded computers. Who encoded the amoeba?

You'd be much more convincing if you actually understood what you were talking about. If you want to dispute something you must study it first and you have obviously not done so.

I'm guessing that is why you didn't challenge anything she said

 

[RoccoR]

RE: People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD
※→ Sunni Man, a et al,

Well there are similar goals. Certainly you have felt a part of the Machiavellian Way.

I view the Protocols as being much like Machiavelli's "The Prince".

Both are insightful works that are based on political realities that are both timeless and truthful. ....

(COMMENT)

I find that just about every leader that reads "The Prince" and the recommendations of Niccolò dei Machiavelli, takes a little something different from it.

"Will Heaven, The Spectator Paper, UK wrote"][/URL]
At one point, Powell notes Machiavelli’s advice to the prince’s court from The Discourses (1531): the aim, the Florentine diplomat wrote, must always be to ensure that the prince’s ‘reputation was greater than his strength’. In The Prince (1513), Machiavelli says that the prince ‘should strive to bear himself so that greatness, courage, wisdom, and strength may appear in all his actions’.

But Machiavelli, wrote in terms of the positive advancement of a Political Leader (The Prince). The intent of The Protocols was the incite resentment against a specific cultural class by making the target look like an evil threat. To be Machiavellian is to be clandestinely subversive through active operations and positive intelligence.

The Protocols is a mixture of Grey and Black Propaganda. It is a counterintelligence nightmare. It is covertly produced fabrication and openly distributed with the intent of subvert public support for a specific cultural target. This type of propaganda is sprinkled with true commentary and manipulated in a false perspective and context.

Just My Thoughts,

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Avatar4321]

It takes far more "faith" to believe in evolution, than to believe in religion. .....

Evolution is a Fact

God is a theory

Which is why its called the theory of evolution....

 

[Avatar4321]

It takes far more "faith" to believe in evolution, than to believe in religion. .....

Evolution is a Fact

God is a theory

Hell,

Evolution is a theory that has been battled tested for the last two centuries and stands up each time.

God is a goddamn Belief based on nothing.

Can you provide a single example of a recorded instance of one species becoming another through evolution?

 

[Avatar4321]

Evolution is a theory that has been battled tested for the last two centuries and stands up each time.

Only in your mind. .... ...

Well, there goes your tiny belief again attacking hundreds of years of evidenced based theory. Where is your paper and decades of research? Oh'yess, you have nothing besides throwing shit at the wall.

That is all religion is.

The theory of evolution is not hundreds of years old.

And since its inception no person has witnessed any organism evolve into another one.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD
※→ Avatar4321, et al,

The concept of a Supreme Being is not a theory. It is based on a belief system that cannot be tested through a scientific methodology. The "belief" needs no proof or empirical data behind the concept.

A "theory" cannot subject a supernatural being to the scientific method; their source of energy, power and/or characteristic cannot be defined.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Avatar4321]

RE: People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD
※→ Avatar4321, et al,

The concept of a Supreme Being is not a theory. It is based on a belief system that cannot be tested through a scientific methodology. The "belief" needs no proof or empirical data behind the concept.

A "theory" cannot subject a supernatural being to the scientific method; their source of energy, power and/or characteristic cannot be defined.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course it can be tested.

Jesus taught us if we do His will we will know whether its of the Father or He made it up. We are told that if we ask, we can receive. If we seek we can find. If we lack wisdom, we can ask of God.

Alma 32 teaches us how to experiment on the word of God. The Book of Mormon promises those who sincerely read it and ask God that He will reveal Himself and show you its true.

So I have a challenge. An experiment for you. Read the Book of Mormon daily for a month. Ask God every morning and night whether it's true and whether He actually is there. Be sincere with Him. Not just going through the motions. Be honest with Him. If you don't know whether He is there tell Him that. Let Him know you want to know Him if He is there.

And exercise.a particle of faith. Just this one thing. That if He is there that He can reveal to you that He is there.

I promise you that if you humbly do this, when you are done, you will know He is real. And that the scriptures are true.

So try the experiment. What do you have to lose?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That is not correct use of the word, "proof". It also is not even evidence. It is easily explained without the need to introduce your magical thinking, nor is it compelling. Stop using the words "evidence" and "proof" in your diatribes. For accuracy, substitute " kinda sorta feels like" and "because I say so".

.

That is not correct use of the word, "proof". It also is not even evidence. It is easily explained without the need to introduce your magical thinking, nor is it compelling. Stop using the words "evidence" and "proof" in your diatribes. For accuracy, substitute " kinda sorta feels like" and "because I say so".

View attachment 152759

incontestable proof of a transition from one being into another ... without an intermediary stage. - suck on it fort fun ...


without the need to introduce your magical thinking -


... and where is the being during the process.

"incontestable proof of a transition from one being into another ... without an intermediary stage. - suck on it fort fun ..."

Hello .... McFly..... those are not different beings... seriously man, take a high school level science course! And of course there is an intermediate stage... several, actually. You can literally watch the nymph form the adults structures slowly. Where DO you get this laughable nonsense?

.

those are not different beings

they are different beings, one is bound to land the other has wings the same would be true of a human that grew wings they would be two different beings your assumption of DNA constraint is without substance the DNA is not the controlling factor.

an evolutionary transition without an intermediary stage is verifiable and observed as per the original discourse of disbelief by that poster.

And of course there is an intermediate stage...

again from the original poster, intermediate stages are required for proof is inaccurate when the being transforms from one to another the process eventually becomes metaphysical single stage irregardless the creature. the intermediate stages are the aberrations or test runs for the metaphysical process that is not required though occasionally observed.

"they are different beings, one is bound to land the other has wings"

False. They are the exact same being: a cicada. "Growing wings" is a silly, arbitrary standard. There is absolutely nothing metaphysical about it, and we can explain every detail in purely materialistic terms. You are trying to introduce magical nonsense where none is required to explain anything.

.

There is absolutely nothing metaphysical about it, and we can explain every detail in purely materialistic terms.

- link, you have zero credibility for your foolhardy and absurd statement(s) that germinate from your hollowed cranium.

They are the exact same being: a cicada. "Growing wings" is a silly, arbitrary standard.

they are grown without an intermediate transitional stage by a metaphysical presence not associated with cicada exclusively that is the mechanism for all evolutionary change, the relay from the origin genome to species and the proof of their existence through progression.

Well that was a bunch of silly nonsense you just made up, there.

You are demanding a link that shows we understand insect metamorphosis? Haha...go pound sand, Shaman Boy. Look it up yourself.

Wait, you never looked it up? You just pretended to have the answers and made up some hilarious, magical nonsense? Of course you did.

 

[BreezeWood]

What is it you think I missed? Is there not a DNA code in singled celled life forms?

You missed a lot but this one you did get.

Is DNA random? What does science say about randomness?

You fail to understand that evolution is NOT a random process. Natural selection is the key. If you had an large box of letters and spilled them onto a table the odds that they would match Shakespare's Hamlet are infinitesimally small. However some would match and if you removed every letter that didn't match and spilled them out again some more would match. It wouldn't take very long to get to Hamlet with this selective pressure.

Where are all of those "transitional" bones?

Every bone is a transitional bone, every fossil a transitional fossil.

How difficult is it for an eye to form correctly?

Not difficult at all if you have enough time.

Can it happen by chance?

No and it didn't.

All bullshit alang. Natural selection had nothing to do with the beginning of life on this planet. Adapting is not the same thing as mutating.
One single cell is not, as Darwin believed, simple life form to complex forms. It is complex from the very first living cell. To create a different species from one that already exists, DNA would have to mutate, and continue to make the exact mistake without mutating again for millions of years. DNA attempts to self correct.

No, not every bone is transitional. To the contrary, my femur is the same as my mother's femur, because my DNA knows how to create one. So did my mother's DNA. Neither DNA broke with tradition. There are no 1/2 monkey 1/2 human remains to be found when there should be millions of them.

As for the eye, it is extremely complex form the git go. Even Darwin disagrees with you:

Charles Darwin, the founder of evolutionary theory, wrote in regards to the difficulties of applying evolution to the eye. “… that the eye … could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”

Had Darwin known about DNA we would have never heard of Darwin.

.

To create a different species from one that already exists, DNA would have to mutate, and continue to make the exact mistake without mutating again for millions of years.

that is not correct, DNA is not the determining factor but the physical mechanism to bring about the change - the metaphysical component of the cell, the cell itself determines the procedures progression to dictate the information the DNA uses to make the alternations. the stored metaphysical information may in a final step in certain circumstances create an entirely new species in a single step without an intermediary trail. parent to offspring where the offspring is an entirely a new species that will reproduce from that time foreward.