What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

There Is Evidence For God

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
110,638
Reaction score
45,349
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Unbeknownst to themselves, dummies decry traditional religion while bowing their head to their own religion, Militant Secularism. One denomination of MS religion is the cult of Darwinism. As much as it is trumpeted by Secularists, there is no proof of same.

"Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic

There is far more evidence for the God of the Bible. Examples on this thread.



1.We don’t often think about it, but we are lucky on this board to have some of the dumbest human beings around, folks for whom it wouldn’t be uncharacteristic to put the opposite shoes on their feet. You’d see ‘em walkin’ around, oblivious, as they are about even important things. Anyway, we’d miss out on a lot of humor, and also, the inspiration to dash off responses, sometimes impolite ones.

Sometimes those dummies open the door to the discussion.


2. The other day, one of the dumbest was irate that I posted criticism of a saint in his religion, Darwinism, and he wrote this:

“there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.
in fact...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists at all!”
Real Science…Not Darwin

BIG LETTERS!!! He sure was mad. But, he did cause me to consider if there is any evidence for the existence of God.



3. And he represents many of those who, no doubt, vote Democrat, and call themselves Liberals or Progressives, you know, the ‘tolerant’ folks. And they get really nasty if you don’t bow down to their god.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! "
Scientists should be humble, not arrogant



4. Funny thing is, lots of actual scientists write critical papers disputing Darwinism, and many are religious folks, as well.
"According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.
the public does not share scientists’ certainty about evolution. While 87% of scientists say that life evolved over time due to natural processes, only 32% of the public believes this to be true, according to a different Pew poll earlier this year.

[As for Darwin himself, the] concluding sentence of “Origin of Species” speaks of a “Creator” breathing life “into a few forms or into one.”
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times


Is that what the Darwinist fanatics so afraid of??


5. Here’s an interesting point from Dennis Prager:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



And that’s not the only corresponding point between modern science and a belief in God….

And the Darwinists cannot abide by it.
 
Last edited:

Marion Morrison

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
58,863
Reaction score
16,782
Points
2,190
Unbeknownst to themselves, dummies decry traditional religion while bowing their head to their own religion, Militant Secularism. One denomination of MS religion is the cult of Darwinism. As much as it is trumpeted by Secularists, there is no proof of same.

"Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic

There is far more evidence for the God of the Bible. Examples on this thread.



1.We don’t often think about it, but we are lucky on this board to have some of the dumbest human beings around, folks for whom it wouldn’t be uncharacteristic to put the opposite shoes on their feet. You’d see ‘em walkin’ around, oblivious, as they are about even important things. Anyway, we’d miss out on a lot of humor, and also, the inspiration to dash off responses, sometimes impolite ones.

Sometimes those dummies open the door to the discussion.


2. The other day, one of the dumbest was irate that I posted criticism of a saint in his religion, Darwinism, and he wrote this:

“there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.
in fact...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists at all!”
Real Science…Not Darwin

BIG LETTERS!!! He sure was mad. But, he did cause me to consider if there is any evidence for the existence of God.



3. And he represents many of those who, no doubt, vote Democrat, and call themselves Liberals or Progressives, you know, the ‘tolerant’ folks. And they get really nasty if you don’t bow down to their god.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! "
Scientists should be humble, not arrogant



4. Funny thing is, lots of actual scientists write critical papers disputing Darwinism, and many are religious folks, as well.
"According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.
the public does not share scientists’ certainty about evolution. While 87% of scientists say that life evolved over time due to natural processes, only 32% of the public believes this to be true, according to a different Pew poll earlier this year.

[As for Darwin himself, the] concluding sentence of “Origin of Species” speaks of a “Creator” breathing life “into a few forms or into one.”
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times


Is that what the Darwinist fanatics so afraid of??


5. Here’s an interesting point from Dennis Prager:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



And that’s not the only corresponding point between modern science and a belief in God….

And the Darwinists cannot abide by it.
Happy Sunday! :04:
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
228,732
Reaction score
53,986
Points
2,190
We don’t often think about it, but we are lucky on this board to have some of the dumbest human beings around

Anyone who reads Home Skool PC in her daily rants would have to agree
 

Muhammed

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
24,315
Reaction score
10,532
Points
950
Location
North Coast, USA
“there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.
This is a very common logical fallacy known as a false dilemma. A bifurcation fallacy.

Speaking as a lifelong athiest who is very tolerant of religious folks, I think it is a mistake to frame it as an either/or proposition in the first place.

The 'evolution vs. bible' bullshit posits that either the bible must be true, or the theory of evolution must be true, when actually both could be true. And both could be false.

AFAIK, there is nothing in the bible that inherently contradicts evolution or vice-versa.
 
Last edited:

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
88,588
Reaction score
32,838
Points
2,280
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
Anyone who reads Home Skool PC in her daily rants would have to agree
You'll notice she'll refuse to divulge whether she's actually a Christian, though. Very un-Christian-like.

Her schtick is to cynically leverage Christianity as a weapon, a bludgeon, much like a Jihadi leverages Islam.

Birds of a feather.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
110,638
Reaction score
45,349
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Unbeknownst to themselves, dummies decry traditional religion while bowing their head to their own religion, Militant Secularism. One denomination of MS religion is the cult of Darwinism. As much as it is trumpeted by Secularists, there is no proof of same.

"Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic

There is far more evidence for the God of the Bible. Examples on this thread.



1.We don’t often think about it, but we are lucky on this board to have some of the dumbest human beings around, folks for whom it wouldn’t be uncharacteristic to put the opposite shoes on their feet. You’d see ‘em walkin’ around, oblivious, as they are about even important things. Anyway, we’d miss out on a lot of humor, and also, the inspiration to dash off responses, sometimes impolite ones.

Sometimes those dummies open the door to the discussion.


2. The other day, one of the dumbest was irate that I posted criticism of a saint in his religion, Darwinism, and he wrote this:

“there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.
in fact...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists at all!”
Real Science…Not Darwin

BIG LETTERS!!! He sure was mad. But, he did cause me to consider if there is any evidence for the existence of God.



3. And he represents many of those who, no doubt, vote Democrat, and call themselves Liberals or Progressives, you know, the ‘tolerant’ folks. And they get really nasty if you don’t bow down to their god.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! "
Scientists should be humble, not arrogant



4. Funny thing is, lots of actual scientists write critical papers disputing Darwinism, and many are religious folks, as well.
"According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.
the public does not share scientists’ certainty about evolution. While 87% of scientists say that life evolved over time due to natural processes, only 32% of the public believes this to be true, according to a different Pew poll earlier this year.

[As for Darwin himself, the] concluding sentence of “Origin of Species” speaks of a “Creator” breathing life “into a few forms or into one.”
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times


Is that what the Darwinist fanatics so afraid of??


5. Here’s an interesting point from Dennis Prager:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



And that’s not the only corresponding point between modern science and a belief in God….

And the Darwinists cannot abide by it.
Happy Sunday! :04:


Stop readin' my mind!
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
110,638
Reaction score
45,349
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
“there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.
This is a very common logical fallacy known as a false dilemma. A bifurcation fallacy.

Speaking as a lifelong athiest who is very tolerant of religious folks, I think it is a mistake to frame it as an either/or proposition in the first place.

The 'evolution vs. bible' bullshit posits that either the bible must be true, or the theory of evolution must be true, when actually both could be true. And both could be false.

AFAIK, there is nothing in the bible that inherently contradicts evolution or vice-versa.


I'd like to see your view after this thread.
 

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
41,414
Reaction score
5,803
Points
1,830
What is creationism?


Many people find that the most important part of a theory is a clear description of what the theory says and does not say.

(1) Give a comprehensive statement of creationism. (There are questions below about conventional science, so please restrict your discussion here to the positive aspects of creationism.) This is the one question of over-reaching importance, so much so that you might consider many of the following questions merely asking for certain details of what makes up a comprehensive statement of creationism. It should be noted that many people prefer quantitative details where appropriate.

It is often a great help to communication if each party understands what the other means by certain critical expressions.

(2) Define technical terms and other words or expressions that are likely to be misunderstood.

(3) Include the evidence for creationism (please remember that merely finding problems with conventional science does not count as support for creationism, as there may be other theories which differ from both conventional science and creationism). A good example of evidence for creationism would be some observation which was predicted by it. That is much better support than merely giving an explanation for observations which were known before it was formulated. Far less convincing is evidence which has an alternative explanation.

In order to decide between conflicting theories, it is important that not only must the conflicting theories be well described, and that the evidence supporting the conflicting theories be proposed, but also that there be established some rules for deciding between the theories and evaluating the evidence.

(4) Can you suggest principles for so deciding and evaluating?

There are many alternatives to creationism. Some of the alternatives are: theistic evolution and old-earth creationism.

(5) Distinguish your theory of creationism from some of these alternatives and give some reasons for it rather than the others.

Many people find a theory which is open to change in the face of new evidence much more satisfying than one which is inflexible.

(6) Describe features of creationism which are subject to modification. Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change creationism? Is it open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?



  • Exposition of creationism.
  • Definitions of terms.
  • Evidence for creationism.
  • Rules of evidence.
  • Distinguishing characteristics of creationism.
  • Evidence which modifies creationism.
How do creationists describe conventional science?

It is helpful in any discussion that both sides understand what the other is talking about. In answering the questions above, you have helped us in understanding your theory. Often communication is helped if each participant explains what he thinks the other person is saying. It should also help those who support conventional science to clarify their exposition. These questions are in a sense parallel to the questions asked before about creationism.

(7) Explain what you think some of the terms used in conventional science mean. Here are some which seem to lead to misunderstanding:

  • evolution
  • primitive
  • natural selection
  • theory
(8) It would also be helpful if you could give a brief description of your understanding of conventional science. Please do not state here what your objections are to conventional science - that can be talked about later. Just say what conventional science says.
(9) It might be helpful if you explain why you think that conventional science came to its present position, and why people hold to conventional science. (And once again, please restrict this to a description, as debate can come later.)

Many people who support conventional science feel that those who oppose it do so because of unwelcome consequences.

(10) What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?



  • What are the meanings of the terms used by conventional science?
  • What is does conventional science say?
  • What is the evidence for conventional science?
  • What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?
How does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science?

In answering the earlier questions, you have described your theory and given us evidence for it. Now we ask for your opinions on the evidence for conventional science.

Many people hold to conventional science because they believe that it has been developed over centuries, driven by discoveries. They wonder how any person could explain the evidence any other way. Here is a very brief list of questions about evidence which many people find convincing.

(11) Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates. (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the sameanswers.)

(12) Explain the distribution, seemingly chronological, of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants (which are restricted to the higher levels of the fossil record). Here we are considering the distribution which conventional science explains as reflecting differences in time - the various levels of rock.

(13) In the contemporary world, different animals and plants live in different places. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? For example, how is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia and nearby islands, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Or why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

(14) There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?



  • Coherence of many different dating methods.
  • Chronological distribution of fossils.
  • Spatial distribution of living things.
  • Relationships between living things.
Theological questions

It is the impression of many people who support conventional science that many people who are creationists are so because of religious reasons. This is puzzling to people who consider themselves to be religious, yet accept the findings of conventional science.

For example, some people feel that it is necessary to give naturalistic explanations for the wondrous events described in the Bible. Other people are curious as to why there should be a search for naturalistic explanations for these events, rather than acceptance of these events as signs from God, outside of the normal.

(15) If you feel that the events of the Bible must be explained as the normal operation of natural phenomena, please explain why.

Some people who believe in God find it difficult to accept that God would mislead people by giving evidence for conventional science.

(16) Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?



  • Why should the wondrous events described in sacred writings be given naturalistic explanations?
  • Why does the plain reading of nature seem to support conventional science?
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
110,638
Reaction score
45,349
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
The shitty behavior of religious people is the single biggest factor in the decline of religiosity of Americans.


Re-post without the vulgarity and I'll provide the response you deserve.

Meanwhile......digest this: Father Jame Altman putting Democrats/Liberals in their place.
….that the Democrats are promising. Riots, murder, food deserts because the groceries have been burned and looted. Real Americans are shocked and disheartened by the encouragement and outright support looters, arsonists, and thugs have received from the major party of the United States.



But it was quite a surprise to see that shock and anger from a precinct that I’ve come to expect to be either silent or actually supportive of the ‘activists’ who are out to destroy our history, tradition, morality and values…….
Yup…..a valiant priest spoke up blistering the thugs, the Democrats, and even his superiors in the Church.

 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
110,638
Reaction score
45,349
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
While there are quite a number of secular, neo-Marxist individuals whose vocation is science, but whose religion is secularism, and are unable to keep the two endeavors separate, many scientists recognize the direction science is ineluctably heading.



6. Is this evidence for God, or simply an amazing coincidence:
Dr. Andrew Palmer, Oxford biologist, whose book, "The Genesis Enigma," states that the writer of the book of Genesis provides an uncannily similar synopsis of the events in the creation as compared to that accepted by modern science today.



Rather than ridicule the Bible, those very same secular, atheistic scientists have come around to accept the very order that the Old Testament claimed was the course of creation:

The idea of the miraculous confluence of the first chapter of Genesis and the sequence advanced by modern science is as follows:


a. The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


b. From a water covered planet, to terrestrial life. The images in that writer’s mind of how our planet and life came to be must have seemed curious for the knowledge and experience of the time! Yet….he presented it as though it had been dictated to him, as though he had been spoken to by God.


c. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, …then the seas appeared on earth, …and that life forms were photosynthetic.

d. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today.

e. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.

The above largely from chapter nine of zoologist Andrew Parker’s “The Genesis Enigma.”



Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!

Or…an alternative explanation: divine intervention.
 

occupied

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
28,310
Reaction score
9,038
Points
900
The shitty behavior of religious people is the single biggest factor in the decline of religiosity of Americans.


Re-post without the vulgarity and I'll provide the response you deserve.

Meanwhile......digest this: Father Jame Altman putting Democrats/Liberals in their place.
….that the Democrats are promising. Riots, murder, food deserts because the groceries have been burned and looted. Real Americans are shocked and disheartened by the encouragement and outright support looters, arsonists, and thugs have received from the major party of the United States.



But it was quite a surprise to see that shock and anger from a precinct that I’ve come to expect to be either silent or actually supportive of the ‘activists’ who are out to destroy our history, tradition, morality and values…….
Yup…..a valiant priest spoke up blistering the thugs, the Democrats, and even his superiors in the Church.

Hate filled defenders of the faith like you are the single biggest reason people walk away from your Jesus fan clubs and never look back. How's that you flaming hypocrite?
 

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
41,414
Reaction score
5,803
Points
1,830
This is a list of questions for theists, believers, faith, God, and religion. They apply to all religions, though you will note that they are more Christian-centric only because this is the religion I am most familiar with.

These questions are asked with the assumption that God exists and the text in the bible is true. If these assumptions are false, then all of the questions become irrelevant. To attempt to answer these myself would be a formidable task, so I shall leave the answers to you, the readers…

If there is one God and one religion, what happens to the rest of the people who do not belong to that religion? Do they go to hell? Why should they suffer if they were raised in an area which did not expose them to the “one true religion”? For example, there are 1.2 billion Catholics. What happens to the 5.6 billion people who are not Catholic? What happened to the people who died prior to the organized religion or the concept of God – default to eternal damnation?

If God is all powerful, why does he not just destroy Satan, once and for all? Why is Satan allowed to tempt humans? Why would God even allow the creation of Hell?

Do only humans go to heaven? What happens to young humans who die and go to heaven? What happens to a baby (assuming it’s baptized) – are they in heaven as a baby, permanently? How then, do they communicate, with the others in heaven, since they haven’t had a chance to learn anything in life, or develop their own personality?

Why does a perfect God – who is all powerful and has all knowledge – require us to praise Him by going to Sabbath? Should it not be sufficient for people to thank/praise the God in their own way? Why does He require praise at all? Why do only humans need to praise Him, while other species are off the hook?

If God created the Earth and all species that populate it, then why would God wait roughly 4.5 billion years before making humans on Earth. Worse still, why wait roughly 13.2 billion years, the age of the universe, before creating life as we know it?

If humans are special, and the Earth is the only planet with intelligent life (at least as intelligent as humans), then why go to the trouble of creating the cosmos? Why bother creating hundreds of billions of galaxies, and thousands of billions of stars?

“Finally, from what we now know about the cosmos, to think that all this was created for just one species among the tens of millions of species who live on one planet circling one of a couple of hundred billion stars that are located in one galaxy among hundreds of billions of galaxies, all of which are in one universe among perhaps an infinite number of universes all nestled within a grand cosmic multiverse, is provincially insular and anthropocentrically blinkered. Which is more likely? That the universe was designed just for us, or that we see the universe as having been designed just for us? (5()”
— Michael Shermer (Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design)
If the Universe came to be in two ways: from natural processes, or from God. Theists will say “But what was there before the Big Bang?”. The answer? Scientists don’t really know, yet – but they are working on it. But atheists can ask the same question, “What was there before God created the universe?”… to which theists will reply “God always was, and always will be!”. Well that’s not very fair now, is it? Circular reasoning is impermissible as evidence for truth.

If the Bible (or any other religious text) is “truth” and “law” – then is it not strange that humans are accepting laws written by men, and that there are many different versions seen from different perspectives? Which one is correct?

Why is it acceptable to join a religion that was created by a single man? For example, King Henry created the Church of England. How do we know if God approves this religion? How do we know that any religion is approved? Why is it acceptable for religions to evolve? Various religions have changed over time due to cultural pressures – how to we know these changes are “authorized”? (Don’t get me wrong – it’s a good thing that religions evolve)

Why is there often contempt for those who question religion? If humans were given the gift of intelligence and the freedom of choice, why should they be punished for using it? Why is there continuous conflict between different religions, and between those who believe, and those who don’t? How can anyone know if they are correct?

Why is the universe, Earth, and life so imperfect? Why would a god create a world where there is so much… wrong? Neil Degrasse Tyson says it best in his speech, where he describes how it seems much more likely that our univere was put together by chance, rather than by design.

For example, in our universe, most planet orbits are unstable; less than 3% of a gas cloud actually makes a star; most places kill life instantly via heat, radiation, or cold; galaxy orbits brings can bring us perilously close to a supernova; and it appears that we live in a one-way universe that will wind down to oblivion.

On Earth, we have earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and tsunamis that ravage cities and villages; 2/3 of the surface of the Earth is uninhabitable by humans; mass extinctions occur from disease, climate change, or asteroids; 90% of all life that ever lived is now extinct; and it took roughly 3.5 billions years before multicellular life arose.

In humans, diseases are common: childhood lukemia, hemophilia, sickle cell anemia, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, Parkinsons, ALS, birth defects;, we succumb to vision loss with age, our teeth fall out, we get Alzeimers, cancer, and a host of other age related diseases; our energy system is inefficient – we exhale most of the Oxygen we inhale; since we are warm-blooded, must eat constantly compared to reptiles; we are practically comatose for 1/3 of our lives while we sleep; we can’t detect dangerous magnetic fields, ionizing radiation fields, Radon, CO, CH4, CO2, and a host of other poisonous materials. A perfect design? An intelligent design? It sure doesn’t appear to be. It’s full of mistakes.

 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
41,467
Reaction score
17,499
Points
2,300
Unbeknownst to themselves, dummies decry traditional religion while bowing their head to their own religion, Militant Secularism. One denomination of MS religion is the cult of Darwinism. As much as it is trumpeted by Secularists, there is no proof of same.

"Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic

There is far more evidence for the God of the Bible. Examples on this thread.



1.We don’t often think about it, but we are lucky on this board to have some of the dumbest human beings around, folks for whom it wouldn’t be uncharacteristic to put the opposite shoes on their feet. You’d see ‘em walkin’ around, oblivious, as they are about even important things. Anyway, we’d miss out on a lot of humor, and also, the inspiration to dash off responses, sometimes impolite ones.

Sometimes those dummies open the door to the discussion.


2. The other day, one of the dumbest was irate that I posted criticism of a saint in his religion, Darwinism, and he wrote this:

“there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.
in fact...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists at all!”
Real Science…Not Darwin

BIG LETTERS!!! He sure was mad. But, he did cause me to consider if there is any evidence for the existence of God.



3. And he represents many of those who, no doubt, vote Democrat, and call themselves Liberals or Progressives, you know, the ‘tolerant’ folks. And they get really nasty if you don’t bow down to their god.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! "
Scientists should be humble, not arrogant



4. Funny thing is, lots of actual scientists write critical papers disputing Darwinism, and many are religious folks, as well.
"According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.
the public does not share scientists’ certainty about evolution. While 87% of scientists say that life evolved over time due to natural processes, only 32% of the public believes this to be true, according to a different Pew poll earlier this year.

[As for Darwin himself, the] concluding sentence of “Origin of Species” speaks of a “Creator” breathing life “into a few forms or into one.”
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times


Is that what the Darwinist fanatics so afraid of??


5. Here’s an interesting point from Dennis Prager:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



And that’s not the only corresponding point between modern science and a belief in God….

And the Darwinists cannot abide by it.
hahahhahahah--sure there is --sure
hahahahhahah
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
41,467
Reaction score
17,499
Points
2,300
Unbeknownst to themselves, dummies decry traditional religion while bowing their head to their own religion, Militant Secularism. One denomination of MS religion is the cult of Darwinism. As much as it is trumpeted by Secularists, there is no proof of same.

"Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic

There is far more evidence for the God of the Bible. Examples on this thread.



1.We don’t often think about it, but we are lucky on this board to have some of the dumbest human beings around, folks for whom it wouldn’t be uncharacteristic to put the opposite shoes on their feet. You’d see ‘em walkin’ around, oblivious, as they are about even important things. Anyway, we’d miss out on a lot of humor, and also, the inspiration to dash off responses, sometimes impolite ones.

Sometimes those dummies open the door to the discussion.


2. The other day, one of the dumbest was irate that I posted criticism of a saint in his religion, Darwinism, and he wrote this:

“there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.
in fact...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists at all!”
Real Science…Not Darwin

BIG LETTERS!!! He sure was mad. But, he did cause me to consider if there is any evidence for the existence of God.



3. And he represents many of those who, no doubt, vote Democrat, and call themselves Liberals or Progressives, you know, the ‘tolerant’ folks. And they get really nasty if you don’t bow down to their god.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! "
Scientists should be humble, not arrogant



4. Funny thing is, lots of actual scientists write critical papers disputing Darwinism, and many are religious folks, as well.
"According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.
the public does not share scientists’ certainty about evolution. While 87% of scientists say that life evolved over time due to natural processes, only 32% of the public believes this to be true, according to a different Pew poll earlier this year.

[As for Darwin himself, the] concluding sentence of “Origin of Species” speaks of a “Creator” breathing life “into a few forms or into one.”
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times


Is that what the Darwinist fanatics so afraid of??


5. Here’s an interesting point from Dennis Prager:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



And that’s not the only corresponding point between modern science and a belief in God….

And the Darwinists cannot abide by it.
.....how come god made humans to have to wipe their a$$e$, but animals don't have to???THERE--undeniable proof that creation does not make sense
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
110,638
Reaction score
45,349
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
The shitty behavior of religious people is the single biggest factor in the decline of religiosity of Americans.


Re-post without the vulgarity and I'll provide the response you deserve.

Meanwhile......digest this: Father Jame Altman putting Democrats/Liberals in their place.
….that the Democrats are promising. Riots, murder, food deserts because the groceries have been burned and looted. Real Americans are shocked and disheartened by the encouragement and outright support looters, arsonists, and thugs have received from the major party of the United States.



But it was quite a surprise to see that shock and anger from a precinct that I’ve come to expect to be either silent or actually supportive of the ‘activists’ who are out to destroy our history, tradition, morality and values…….
Yup…..a valiant priest spoke up blistering the thugs, the Democrats, and even his superiors in the Church.

Hate filled defenders of the faith like you are the single biggest reason people walk away from your Jesus fan clubs and never look back. How's that you flaming hypocrite?


Much better.

Here's your response, Democrats/Liberals/Militant Secularists/atheists.

1593950485650.png
1593950517174.png
1593950554803.png




“…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, or vice versa?”
Ben Shapiro
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
14,932
Reaction score
2,518
Points
245
Location
Virginia
Unbeknownst to themselves, dummies decry traditional religion while bowing their head to their own religion, Militant Secularism. One denomination of MS religion is the cult of Darwinism. As much as it is trumpeted by Secularists, there is no proof of same.

"Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic

There is far more evidence for the God of the Bible. Examples on this thread.



1.We don’t often think about it, but we are lucky on this board to have some of the dumbest human beings around, folks for whom it wouldn’t be uncharacteristic to put the opposite shoes on their feet. You’d see ‘em walkin’ around, oblivious, as they are about even important things. Anyway, we’d miss out on a lot of humor, and also, the inspiration to dash off responses, sometimes impolite ones.

Sometimes those dummies open the door to the discussion.


2. The other day, one of the dumbest was irate that I posted criticism of a saint in his religion, Darwinism, and he wrote this:

“there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.
in fact...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists at all!”
Real Science…Not Darwin

BIG LETTERS!!! He sure was mad. But, he did cause me to consider if there is any evidence for the existence of God.



3. And he represents many of those who, no doubt, vote Democrat, and call themselves Liberals or Progressives, you know, the ‘tolerant’ folks. And they get really nasty if you don’t bow down to their god.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! "
Scientists should be humble, not arrogant



4. Funny thing is, lots of actual scientists write critical papers disputing Darwinism, and many are religious folks, as well.
"According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.
the public does not share scientists’ certainty about evolution. While 87% of scientists say that life evolved over time due to natural processes, only 32% of the public believes this to be true, according to a different Pew poll earlier this year.

[As for Darwin himself, the] concluding sentence of “Origin of Species” speaks of a “Creator” breathing life “into a few forms or into one.”
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times


Is that what the Darwinist fanatics so afraid of??


5. Here’s an interesting point from Dennis Prager:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



And that’s not the only corresponding point between modern science and a belief in God….

And the Darwinists cannot abide by it.
I thank you for putting your anti-Darwin, anti-evolution, and anti-science writings where they belong, the 'Religion and Ethics' thread instead of 'Science and Technology'.
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
41,467
Reaction score
17,499
Points
2,300
5. Here’s an interesting point from Dennis Prager:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



And that’s not the only corresponding point between modern science and a belief in God….

And the Darwinists cannot abide by it.
proof of no god:
Unbeknownst to themselves, dummies decry traditional religion while bowing their head to their own religion, Militant Secularism. One denomination of MS religion is the cult of Darwinism. As much as it is trumpeted by Secularists, there is no proof of same.

"Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic

There is far more evidence for the God of the Bible. Examples on this thread.



1.We don’t often think about it, but we are lucky on this board to have some of the dumbest human beings around, folks for whom it wouldn’t be uncharacteristic to put the opposite shoes on their feet. You’d see ‘em walkin’ around, oblivious, as they are about even important things. Anyway, we’d miss out on a lot of humor, and also, the inspiration to dash off responses, sometimes impolite ones.

Sometimes those dummies open the door to the discussion.


2. The other day, one of the dumbest was irate that I posted criticism of a saint in his religion, Darwinism, and he wrote this:

“there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.
in fact...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists at all!”
Real Science…Not Darwin

BIG LETTERS!!! He sure was mad. But, he did cause me to consider if there is any evidence for the existence of God.



3. And he represents many of those who, no doubt, vote Democrat, and call themselves Liberals or Progressives, you know, the ‘tolerant’ folks. And they get really nasty if you don’t bow down to their god.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! "
Scientists should be humble, not arrogant



4. Funny thing is, lots of actual scientists write critical papers disputing Darwinism, and many are religious folks, as well.
"According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.
the public does not share scientists’ certainty about evolution. While 87% of scientists say that life evolved over time due to natural processes, only 32% of the public believes this to be true, according to a different Pew poll earlier this year.

[As for Darwin himself, the] concluding sentence of “Origin of Species” speaks of a “Creator” breathing life “into a few forms or into one.”
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times


Is that what the Darwinist fanatics so afraid of??

5. Here’s an interesting point from Dennis Prager:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



And that’s not the only corresponding point between modern science and a belief in God….

And the Darwinists cannot abide by it.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$191.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top