There Is Evidence For God

5. Hereā€™s an interesting point from Dennis Prager:
ā€œIn 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 thatā€™s not the only corresponding point between modern science and a belief in Godā€¦.

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.ā€ The Branding of a Heretic

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



1.We donā€™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 wouldnā€™t be uncharacteristic to put the opposite shoes on their feet. Youā€™d see ā€˜em walkinā€™ around, oblivious, as they are about even important things. Anyway, weā€™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:

ā€œthere 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 ā€˜tolerantā€™ folks. And they get really nasty if you donā€™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.
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 ā€œOrigin of Speciesā€ speaks of a ā€œCreatorā€ breathing life ā€œinto 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. Hereā€™s an interesting point from Dennis Prager:
ā€œIn 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 thatā€™s not the only corresponding point between modern science and a belief in Godā€¦.

And the Darwinists cannot abide by it.





You know, you're right: it was worth repeating.
 
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.
ā€¦.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 Iā€™ve come to expect to be either silent or actually supportive of the ā€˜activistsā€™ who are out to destroy our history, tradition, morality and valuesā€¦ā€¦.
Yupā€¦..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.

View attachment 359552View attachment 359554View attachment 359555



ā€œā€¦will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, or vice versa?ā€
Ben Shapiro

Christianity is just organized hate when the words of Jesus carry no weight in your attitudes and actions. Where is your love for your neighbor? Where is your charity? What is the example you show to the irreligious that Christians are good people? Jesus told us to look at ourselves before we criticize others. I took a close look at my faith years ago and found that American Christianity was nailing Christ back up on the cross every Sunday to shut him up all over again.
 
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 donā€™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 wouldnā€™t be uncharacteristic to put the opposite shoes on their feet. Youā€™d see ā€˜em walkinā€™ around, oblivious, as they are about even important things. Anyway, weā€™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:

ā€œthere 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 ā€˜tolerantā€™ folks. And they get really nasty if you donā€™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.
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 ā€œOrigin of Speciesā€ speaks of a ā€œCreatorā€ breathing life ā€œinto 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. Hereā€™s an interesting point from Dennis Prager:
ā€œIn 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 thatā€™s not the only corresponding point between modern science and a belief in Godā€¦.

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'.


Everything in my Science posts was based on science alone, and all my quotes were of scientists.


Like this: when I disputed the claims of Darwinists about fossils supporting their ...'religion'....I did it like this:

. "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).

There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

"Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.



My posts are always linked and supported.


Compare that to you and your cultists reduced to "is not, isssssssssss nooottttttt!!!!"
 
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 donā€™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 wouldnā€™t be uncharacteristic to put the opposite shoes on their feet. Youā€™d see ā€˜em walkinā€™ around, oblivious, as they are about even important things. Anyway, weā€™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:

ā€œthere 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 ā€˜tolerantā€™ folks. And they get really nasty if you donā€™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.
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 ā€œOrigin of Speciesā€ speaks of a ā€œCreatorā€ breathing life ā€œinto 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. Hereā€™s an interesting point from Dennis Prager:
ā€œIn 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 thatā€™s not the only corresponding point between modern science and a belief in Godā€¦.

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'.


Everything in my Science posts was based on science alone, and all my quotes were of scientists.


Like this: when I disputed the claims of Darwinists about fossils supporting their ...'religion'....I did it like this:

. "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).

There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

"Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.



My posts are always linked and supported.


Compare that to you and your cultists reduced to "is not, isssssssssss nooottttttt!!!!"

Actually, your phony, edited and parsed ''quotes'', taken largely from Harun Yahya, are dishonest frauds.

There's a reason why your ''quotes'' are cut and edited with ellipses.
 
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.
ā€¦.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 Iā€™ve come to expect to be either silent or actually supportive of the ā€˜activistsā€™ who are out to destroy our history, tradition, morality and valuesā€¦ā€¦.
Yupā€¦..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.

View attachment 359552View attachment 359554View attachment 359555



ā€œā€¦will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, or vice versa?ā€
Ben Shapiro

Christianity is just organized hate when the words of Jesus carry no weight in your attitudes and actions. Where is your love for your neighbor? Where is your charity? What is the example you show to the irreligious that Christians are good people? Jesus told us to look at ourselves before we criticize others. I took a close look at my faith years ago and found that American Christianity was nailing Christ back up on the cross every Sunday to shut him up all over again.

they rape children and then cover it up
and they pillage/attack christians cities for --------------------------------------$$$$$:
 
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.
ā€¦.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 Iā€™ve come to expect to be either silent or actually supportive of the ā€˜activistsā€™ who are out to destroy our history, tradition, morality and valuesā€¦ā€¦.
Yupā€¦..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.

View attachment 359552View attachment 359554View attachment 359555



ā€œā€¦will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, or vice versa?ā€
Ben Shapiro

Christianity is just organized hate when the words of Jesus carry no weight in your attitudes and actions. Where is your love for your neighbor? Where is your charity? What is the example you show to the irreligious that Christians are good people? Jesus told us to look at ourselves before we criticize others. I took a close look at my faith years ago and found that American Christianity was nailing Christ back up on the cross every Sunday to shut him up all over again.



"Where is your love for your neighbor? Where is your charity? "

I'm glad you asked.....now watch me put you in your place.


The folks on my side are far more charitable than Liberals/Democrats/Progressives.



1."'Tis the season for givingā€”and it turns out that conservatives and like-minded welfare skeptics more than hold their own when it comes to charity. So says Arthur C. Brooks in his new book Who Really Cares?: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.


2. Arthur Brooks, a public policy professor at Syracuse University, sums up his own results thusly: Giving is dictated by "strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills--all of these factors determine how likely one is to give."


3. ...those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention, with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes.


4. Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn't explained by income differentialā€”in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year.


5. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. ... "People who do not value freedom and opportunity simply don't value individual solutions to social problems very much. It creates a culture of not giving."


6. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood." Liberals, he says, give less than conservatives because of religion, attitudes about government, structure of families, and earned income.


7. ...young liberals are less likely do nice things for their nearest and dearest, too. Compared with young conservatives, "a lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love."


8. "Tangible evidence suggests that charitable giving makes people prosperous, healthy, and happy. And that on its own is a huge argument to protect institutions of giving in this country, as individuals, in communities, and as a nation. We simply do best, as a nation, when people are free and they freely give."


"There's something incredibly satisfying, inherently, about voluntary giving,"...
The Giving Gap




Another custard pie in your ugly kisser, huh?


Here's yet another book you'll never read:

1593952105113.png
 
How one pastor explained it just last Sunday (June 28) is that the two creation stories in the Book of Genesis aren't meant to be taken scientifically but rather are theological truths put in terms of the limited knowledge of Earth folks had at that time.
The first few minutes of his sermon explains the notion: In the Beginning



Here is an actual scientists documenting how a 3 millenia old text provides the same view as modern science.


1593952231512.png
 
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 donā€™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 wouldnā€™t be uncharacteristic to put the opposite shoes on their feet. Youā€™d see ā€˜em walkinā€™ around, oblivious, as they are about even important things. Anyway, weā€™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:

ā€œthere 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 ā€˜tolerantā€™ folks. And they get really nasty if you donā€™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.
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 ā€œOrigin of Speciesā€ speaks of a ā€œCreatorā€ breathing life ā€œinto 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. Hereā€™s an interesting point from Dennis Prager:
ā€œIn 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 thatā€™s not the only corresponding point between modern science and a belief in Godā€¦.

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'.


Everything in my Science posts was based on science alone, and all my quotes were of scientists.


Like this: when I disputed the claims of Darwinists about fossils supporting their ...'religion'....I did it like this:

. "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).

My posts are always linked and supported.

Your ā€œquotesā€ are linked and supported?

letā€™s look at your Francis Hitching ā€œquoteā€


Francis Hitching is one, world class whack job.

Francis Hitching: Commonly Quoted by Creationists

Francis Hitching is the author of, among other books, The Neck of the Giraffe. He believes evolution is directed by some sort of cosmic force, but does not like Darwinism.


Research on Hitching turned up the following: Hitching is basically a sensational TV script writer and has no scientific credentials. In The Neck of the Giraffe he claimed to be a member of the Royal Archaeological Institute, but an inquiry to that institute said he was not. He implied in the "Acknowledgements" of The Neck of the Giraffe that paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould had helped in the writing of the book, but upon inquiry Gould said he did not know him and had no information about him. Hitching also implied that his book had been endorsed by Richard Dawkins, but upon inquiry Dawkins stated: "I know nothing at all about Francis Hitching. If you are uncovering the fact that he is a charlatan, good for you. His book, The Neck of the Giraffe, is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for years."

Hitching believes in the paranormal and has written on Mayan pyramid energy and for some "In Search Of..." episodes on BBC television. The reference work Contemporary Authors, Vol. 103, page 208, lists him as a member of the Society for Psychical Research, the British Society of Dowsers and of the American Society of Dowsers. His writings include: Earth Magic, Dowsing: The Psi Connection, Mysterious World: An Atlas of the Unexplained, Fraud, Mischief, and the Supernatural and Instead of Darwin.


It appears the OP spends an inordinate amount of time trolling some very, very odd people with very, very odd notions.
 
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.
ā€¦.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 Iā€™ve come to expect to be either silent or actually supportive of the ā€˜activistsā€™ who are out to destroy our history, tradition, morality and valuesā€¦ā€¦.
Yupā€¦..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.

View attachment 359552View attachment 359554View attachment 359555



ā€œā€¦will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, or vice versa?ā€
Ben Shapiro

Christianity is just organized hate when the words of Jesus carry no weight in your attitudes and actions. Where is your love for your neighbor? Where is your charity? What is the example you show to the irreligious that Christians are good people? Jesus told us to look at ourselves before we criticize others. I took a close look at my faith years ago and found that American Christianity was nailing Christ back up on the cross every Sunday to shut him up all over again.



"Where is your love for your neighbor? Where is your charity? "

I'm glad you asked.....now watch me put you in your place.


The folks on my side are far more charitable than Liberals/Democrats/Progressives.



1."'Tis the season for givingā€”and it turns out that conservatives and like-minded welfare skeptics more than hold their own when it comes to charity. So says Arthur C. Brooks in his new book Who Really Cares?: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.


2. Arthur Brooks, a public policy professor at Syracuse University, sums up his own results thusly: Giving is dictated by "strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills--all of these factors determine how likely one is to give."


3. ...those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention, with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes.


4. Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn't explained by income differentialā€”in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year.


5. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. ... "People who do not value freedom and opportunity simply don't value individual solutions to social problems very much. It creates a culture of not giving."


6. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood." Liberals, he says, give less than conservatives because of religion, attitudes about government, structure of families, and earned income.


7. ...young liberals are less likely do nice things for their nearest and dearest, too. Compared with young conservatives, "a lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love."


8. "Tangible evidence suggests that charitable giving makes people prosperous, healthy, and happy. And that on its own is a huge argument to protect institutions of giving in this country, as individuals, in communities, and as a nation. We simply do best, as a nation, when people are free and they freely give."


"There's something incredibly satisfying, inherently, about voluntary giving,"...
The Giving Gap




Another custard pie in your ugly kisser, huh?


Here's yet another book you'll never read:

View attachment 359577

I hear no love and charity for anyone in your words and never have. Your politics are nothing except a twisted rationalization for passing by on the other side without guilt.
 
It is gratifying to me, and must be embarrassing to the other side, that none of them can argue that Genesis of the Old Testament didn't predate modern science's view of the order of creation.


That, and Prager's comment that, now, the fact that there was an origin to the universe, and the Bible always claimed, is accepted by even atheistic science.....


Looks like I'm in the lead, two to zip.
 
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.
ā€¦.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 Iā€™ve come to expect to be either silent or actually supportive of the ā€˜activistsā€™ who are out to destroy our history, tradition, morality and valuesā€¦ā€¦.
Yupā€¦..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.

View attachment 359552View attachment 359554View attachment 359555



ā€œā€¦will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, or vice versa?ā€
Ben Shapiro

Christianity is just organized hate when the words of Jesus carry no weight in your attitudes and actions. Where is your love for your neighbor? Where is your charity? What is the example you show to the irreligious that Christians are good people? Jesus told us to look at ourselves before we criticize others. I took a close look at my faith years ago and found that American Christianity was nailing Christ back up on the cross every Sunday to shut him up all over again.



"Where is your love for your neighbor? Where is your charity? "

I'm glad you asked.....now watch me put you in your place.


The folks on my side are far more charitable than Liberals/Democrats/Progressives.



1."'Tis the season for givingā€”and it turns out that conservatives and like-minded welfare skeptics more than hold their own when it comes to charity. So says Arthur C. Brooks in his new book Who Really Cares?: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.


2. Arthur Brooks, a public policy professor at Syracuse University, sums up his own results thusly: Giving is dictated by "strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills--all of these factors determine how likely one is to give."


3. ...those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention, with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes.


4. Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn't explained by income differentialā€”in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year.


5. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. ... "People who do not value freedom and opportunity simply don't value individual solutions to social problems very much. It creates a culture of not giving."


6. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood." Liberals, he says, give less than conservatives because of religion, attitudes about government, structure of families, and earned income.


7. ...young liberals are less likely do nice things for their nearest and dearest, too. Compared with young conservatives, "a lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love."


8. "Tangible evidence suggests that charitable giving makes people prosperous, healthy, and happy. And that on its own is a huge argument to protect institutions of giving in this country, as individuals, in communities, and as a nation. We simply do best, as a nation, when people are free and they freely give."


"There's something incredibly satisfying, inherently, about voluntary giving,"...
The Giving Gap




Another custard pie in your ugly kisser, huh?


Here's yet another book you'll never read:

View attachment 359577

I hear no love and charity for anyone in your words and never have. Your politics are nothing except a twisted rationalization for passing by on the other side without guilt.




I proved my point, documented same with Brooks' book.....

...and the best the government school grad can do is ignore it.
 
How one pastor explained it just last Sunday (June 28) is that the two creation stories in the Book of Genesis aren't meant to be taken scientifically but rather are theological truths put in terms of the limited knowledge of Earth folks had at that time.
The first few minutes of his sermon explains the notion: In the Beginning



Here is an actual scientists documenting how a 3 millenia old text provides the same view as modern science.


View attachment 359579


ā€œThis was a wonderful sci-fi book. Very entertaining; I laughed the whole way through it. Unfortunately for the author, I do not believe that was his intent.
All sarcasm aside, this book was complete drivel. This book does not attempt to use science to prove creation, but rather the Bible to prove evolution.ā€œ
 
It is gratifying to me, and must be embarrassing to the other side, that none of them can argue that Genesis of the Old Testament didn't predate modern science's view of the order of creation.


That, and Prager's comment that, now, the fact that there was an origin to the universe, and the Bible always claimed, is accepted by even atheistic science.....


Looks like I'm in the lead, two to zip.

You will be a valuable addition to the other democratic socialist politburo mouthpieces.
 
Genesis claimed the earth to be the center of the universe.

What happened with that?
 
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.
ā€¦.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 Iā€™ve come to expect to be either silent or actually supportive of the ā€˜activistsā€™ who are out to destroy our history, tradition, morality and valuesā€¦ā€¦.
Yupā€¦..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.

View attachment 359552View attachment 359554View attachment 359555



ā€œā€¦will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, or vice versa?ā€
Ben Shapiro

Christianity is just organized hate when the words of Jesus carry no weight in your attitudes and actions. Where is your love for your neighbor? Where is your charity? What is the example you show to the irreligious that Christians are good people? Jesus told us to look at ourselves before we criticize others. I took a close look at my faith years ago and found that American Christianity was nailing Christ back up on the cross every Sunday to shut him up all over again.



"Where is your love for your neighbor? Where is your charity? "

I'm glad you asked.....now watch me put you in your place.


The folks on my side are far more charitable than Liberals/Democrats/Progressives.



1."'Tis the season for givingā€”and it turns out that conservatives and like-minded welfare skeptics more than hold their own when it comes to charity. So says Arthur C. Brooks in his new book Who Really Cares?: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.


2. Arthur Brooks, a public policy professor at Syracuse University, sums up his own results thusly: Giving is dictated by "strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills--all of these factors determine how likely one is to give."


3. ...those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention, with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes.


4. Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn't explained by income differentialā€”in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year.


5. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. ... "People who do not value freedom and opportunity simply don't value individual solutions to social problems very much. It creates a culture of not giving."


6. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood." Liberals, he says, give less than conservatives because of religion, attitudes about government, structure of families, and earned income.


7. ...young liberals are less likely do nice things for their nearest and dearest, too. Compared with young conservatives, "a lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love."


8. "Tangible evidence suggests that charitable giving makes people prosperous, healthy, and happy. And that on its own is a huge argument to protect institutions of giving in this country, as individuals, in communities, and as a nation. We simply do best, as a nation, when people are free and they freely give."


"There's something incredibly satisfying, inherently, about voluntary giving,"...
The Giving Gap




Another custard pie in your ugly kisser, huh?


Here's yet another book you'll never read:

View attachment 359577

I hear no love and charity for anyone in your words and never have. Your politics are nothing except a twisted rationalization for passing by on the other side without guilt.




I proved my point, documented same with Brooks' book.....

...and the best the government school grad can do is ignore it.

There are certainty some very charitable Christians out there but you are not one of them. If you care about anyone but yourself you have never shown it, not even once.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top