Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So your conclusion is that we started this planet with Adam and Eve. Your conclusion must also be that God is that simple minded: funny how Noahās Ark only wanted one female and one maleā¦ That is staying consistent with only Adam and Eve I guess.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.ā The Branding of a Heretic
There is far more evidence for the God of the Bible. Examples on this thread.
1.We donāt often think about it, but we are lucky on this board to have some of the dumbest human beings around, folks for whom it wouldnāt be uncharacteristic to put the opposite shoes on their feet. Youād see āem walkinā around, oblivious, as they are about even important things. Anyway, weād 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:
āthere is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.
in fact...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists at all!ā
Real Scienceā¦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 ātolerantā folks. And they get really nasty if you donāt 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.
ā¦the public does not share scientistsā 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 āOrigin of Speciesā speaks of a āCreatorā breathing life āinto a few forms or into one.ā
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times
Is that what the Darwinist fanatics so afraid of??
5. Hereās an interesting point from Dennis Prager:
āIn 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 scienceā¦.[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).ā
And thatās not the only corresponding point between modern science and a belief in Godā¦.
And the Darwinists cannot abide by it.
So your conclusion is that we started this planet with Adam and Eve. Your conclusion must also be that God is that simple minded: funny how Noahās Ark only wanted one female and one maleā¦ That is staying consistent with only Adam and Eve I guess.
So how DID God invent human beings?
Is it possible that Darwin stumbled upon the answer?
Do you think anyone other than PC read allow this?What is creationism?
Stumper Questions for Creationists
www.talkorigins.org
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?
How do creationists describe conventional science?
- Exposition of creationism.
- Definitions of terms.
- Evidence for creationism.
- Rules of evidence.
- Distinguishing characteristics of creationism.
- Evidence which modifies creationism.
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:
(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.
- evolution
- primitive
- natural selection
- theory
(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?
How does creationism explain the evidence for 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?
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?
Theological questions
- Coherence of many different dating methods.
- Chronological distribution of fossils.
- Spatial distribution of living things.
- Relationships between living things.
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?
Evolution is a fact and is supported by DNA and fossils.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.ā The Branding of a Heretic
There is far more evidence for the God of the Bible. Examples on this thread.
1.We donāt often think about it, but we are lucky on this board to have some of the dumbest human beings around, folks for whom it wouldnāt be uncharacteristic to put the opposite shoes on their feet. Youād see āem walkinā around, oblivious, as they are about even important things. Anyway, weād 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:
āthere is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.
in fact...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists at all!ā
Real Scienceā¦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 ātolerantā folks. And they get really nasty if you donāt 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.
ā¦the public does not share scientistsā 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 āOrigin of Speciesā speaks of a āCreatorā breathing life āinto a few forms or into one.ā
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times
Is that what the Darwinist fanatics so afraid of??
5. Hereās an interesting point from Dennis Prager:
āIn 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 scienceā¦.[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).ā
And thatās not the only corresponding point between modern science and a belief in Godā¦.
And the Darwinists cannot abide by it.
What claims of laws are you talking about? Your diatribe's details aren't really relevant to your thesis that Darwin was wrong and that science surrounding evolution is some sort of harmful cult.I asked you to document your claims with the actual language of laws you deem racist.
Seems you are simply a windbag.
BTW...you are incorrect about the inhabitants of the Ark, as well.
Imagine if you were restricted to posting about things you know......you'd be mute.
No real loss to anyone.
I really think we're dealing with a child here. Don't be too harsh on her, she doesn't know any better.In Russia, there only is one bill to vote on....
Those are harsh words coming from a time travelerI really think we're dealing with a child here. Don't be too harsh on her, she doesn't know any better.
