Again, your history is questionable. Marx would have hated the Dems of the last century but he must have been quite god-like to be a founding saint at the age of 10.The founding saint of the Democrat Party did....
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Again, your history is questionable. Marx would have hated the Dems of the last century but he must have been quite god-like to be a founding saint at the age of 10.The founding saint of the Democrat Party did....
It's extreme to insist that the literal rendering of bibles, korans and other ''holy texts'' are true and inerrant. There are identifiable posters, however, who believe them to be true.So it's "extreme" to believe that there is a higher power that created the universe and everything in it?
What is the "reasonable" view?
Satan comes from ancient fears and superstitions derived from tales and fables written by Men.Atheism comes from Satan. 2 Corinthians 4:4
Darwinism has a fossil record.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.
Darwinism has a fossil record.
god has blind childlike faith without any record.
Hahahah...oh man. So embarrassing to read. You know less than nothing about this topic. I mean that literally. You know nothing about it, and everything you think you know is wrong. You have net negative knowledge. A used condom has more net knowledge on evolution than you do.Actually....no, there is no such record.
Organisms simply appear, fully formed, with no such transition fossils.
Actually....no, there is no such record.
Organisms simply appear, fully formed, with no such transition fossils.
"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.
". . . 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.
11. We have pre-Cambrian fossils....and Cambrian fossils. In the latter there are fully formed brand new species with new body types and organs with no evidence of attempts in nature to lead up to these new species.
a. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
āPart of the intrigue with the Cambrian explosion is that numerous animal phyla with very distinct body plans arrive on the scene in a geological blink of the eye, with little or no warning of what is to come in rocks that predate this interval of time.ā
MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion - PubMed
āOne of the most interesting challenges facing paleobiologists is explaining the Cambrian explosion, the dramatic appearance of most metazoan animal phyla in the Early Cambrian, and the subsequent stability of these body plans over the ensuing 530 million years.ā
Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich, Mark A. McPeek, āMicroRNAs and macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian Explosion,ā (Hypothesis) Department of Biological Sciences, Dartmouth College
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~peterson/46-Bioessays.pdf
Actually....no, there is no such record.
Organisms simply appear, fully formed, with no such transition fossils.
"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.
". . . 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.
11. We have pre-Cambrian fossils....and Cambrian fossils. In the latter there are fully formed brand new species with new body types and organs with no evidence of attempts in nature to lead up to these new species.
a. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
āPart of the intrigue with the Cambrian explosion is that numerous animal phyla with very distinct body plans arrive on the scene in a geological blink of the eye, with little or no warning of what is to come in rocks that predate this interval of time.ā
MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion - PubMed
āOne of the most interesting challenges facing paleobiologists is explaining the Cambrian explosion, the dramatic appearance of most metazoan animal phyla in the Early Cambrian, and the subsequent stability of these body plans over the ensuing 530 million years.ā
Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich, Mark A. McPeek, āMicroRNAs and macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian Explosion,ā (Hypothesis) Department of Biological Sciences, Dartmouth College
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~peterson/46-Bioessays.pdf
Following this passage is:"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."
"Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. .... The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.
"Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost never see the transformation (because species are essentially static through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.
"Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record." to p183.
Hahahah...oh man. So embarrassing to read. You know less than nothing about this topic. I mean that literally. You know nothing about it, and everything you think you know is wrong. You have net negative knowledge. A used condom has more net knowledge on evolution than you do.
Yet here you are, a laughing stock who would fail sixth grade science quiz.Everything I post is linked, sources and documented, while you are merely our best source of greenhouse gases.
Yet here you are, a laughing stock who would fail sixth grade science quiz.
Then take your hilarious nonsense and publish your research. So we can all laugh at you.The vitriol is totally understandable. You simply cannot admit, even to yourself, that you have been so fooled, for so many years, to accept and endorse the very same beliefs as Stalin, Hitler, and pretty much every totalitarian in modern history.
Even when the proof is right before your eyes.....and in the linked, documented sources I provide.
You may be better prepared when you complete junior high.
Then take your hilarious nonsense and publish your research. So we can all laugh at you.
No, your dumb ass will be left shouting into the void on anonymous message board. Forever. While 12 year olds around the world know more about a topic you have obsessed over your entire life than you do or ever will. How embarrassing for you.
Intelligent folks have the ability to incorporate new ideas, when one judges their veracity.
Those, like you, don't.
And that brings us to your second problem...after your lack of intellect.
You don't read books.
"Liberals don't read books ā they don't read anything ā¦ That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter
There's really nothing you can do.....it's your lot by birth.
And apparently the entire, respected scientific community. Me, over here with them, and you, in the asylum with the spoonbenders, the alien abductees, the astrologists, and the voodoo priests.Intelligent folks have the ability to incorporate new ideas, when one judges their veracity.
Those, like you, don't.
apparently the entire, respected scientific community. Me, over here with them, and you, in the asylum with the spoonbenders, the alien abductees, the astrologists, and the voodoo priests.
Sounds fine to me! Back to the regularly scheduled flailing and wailing. I won't interrupt your swell thread again.
How sad that your gods are relegated to impo'tence by dishonest hacks who falsify ''quotes'' as a means to prop up their beliefs.When it comes right down to it, there is no importance in trying to argue of Godās existence. The important argument is Godās importance.
I agree. They leverage religion, vaccines, the oil business... lots of things... As weapons. Scofield and Samuel untermyer did the same thing 100 years ago.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.