Zone1 Yet another hoax by Darwinian "scientists." But this one was tragic - Human zoos

[Woodznutz]

Anti-Semitic Karma strikes again.

That was a positive statement about the Jews.

If you compare the poverty of today with that of the past the difference is dramatic. For much of history it was barely possible to grow more food than you needed for yourself.

Much of today's poverty is self-inflicted.

 

[alang1216]

If you don't believe religion has any part in finding solutions, we can hardly cooperate, can we?

You don't use a shovel to chop wood. Religion is not the right tool to learn about nature, except maybe human nature. Science is not the right tool to learn your ethics from.

The abortion debate is a current example, IMHO. Science can tell us a lot about life but it can't tell us when it is OK to terminate a life.

 

[alang1216]

The fossil/geological pattern is "ruin/restoration", which is God's pattern. The restoration of Genesis One is the prime written example of this.

All creatures found in the fossil record were fully developed with no evidence of having evolved or evolving.

Is this pattern still active today? Is God still creating new species? If not when did the process stop?

 

[alang1216]

That was a positive statement about the Jews.

If the neighbors of the Jews were not so anti-Semetic they might have survived the plagues better. This is Karma.

Much of today's poverty is self-inflicted.

Really? No child is in self-inflicted poverty. No physically or mentally ill person is in self-inflicted poverty.

 

[cnm]

Do you not understand English?

It's gibberish that I have trouble with.

 

[Woodznutz]

You don't use a shovel to chop wood. Religion is not the right tool to learn about nature, except maybe human nature. Science is not the right tool to learn your ethics from.

The abortion debate is a current example, IMHO. Science can tell us a lot about life but it can't tell us when it is OK to terminate a life.

The bible suggests using manure for fertilizer, not chemicals. Chemical use is an admission of the failure of modern agriculture. The bible also suggests smaller fields.

 

[alang1216]

The bible suggests using manure for fertilizer, not chemicals. Chemical use is an admission of the failure of modern agriculture.

Did the Bible mention that manure may contain parasites? Chemical use is why a few people can now feed thousands, a success of modern agriculture.

 

[Woodznutz]

Really? No child is in self-inflicted poverty. No physically or mentally ill person is in self-inflicted poverty.

This must be determined on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Woodznutz]

Did the Bible mention that manure may contain parasites? Chemical use is why a few people can now feed thousands, a success of modern agriculture.

That's what composting is for, to kill parasites and other pathogens. Farming has been called "manure management".

Modern agriculture has ensured the future starvation of millions (perhaps billions) by facilitating overpopulation.

 

[alang1216]

Modern agriculture has ensured the future starvation of millions (perhaps billions) by facilitating overpopulation.

I say there are way fewer, at least percentage-wise, than ever in history.

 

[alang1216]

This must be determined on a case-by-case basis.

But you said "Much of today's poverty is self-inflicted". Which is true?

 

[AMart]

It's gibberish that I have trouble with.

No it was clear post, well written, that you could not understand. You are a cock sucking science denier.

 

[cnm]

No it was clear post, well written

To those who speak gibberish, no doubt.

 

[AMart]

To those who speak gibberish, no doubt.

You are an idiot fool un scientific idiot fsg who has no kids nor ever will have any. You are a waste of air.

 

[Woodznutz]

But you said "Much of today's poverty is self-inflicted". Which is true?

I chose the term "much" carefully.

 

[alang1216]

I chose the term "much" carefully.

Got a hard percentage?

 

[Woodznutz]

Got a hard percentage?

Gotta go case by case, then we'll know.

 

[jehanne1431]

By definition, science is the study of the natural world. Many have tried to study the supernatural but have failed.

I would say, science is not in the business of trying to prove God, but they sure seem to be in the business of trying to disprove the need for a god. For ulterior motives.
However: When it comes to the Shroud of Turin, the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City, the weeping wooden statue of Mary in a convent in Akita, Japan --- and many others --- we have science to thank for pointing out so many qualities or visuals which they have no explanation for.

Right, because nature could never create something as intricate as a snowflake.

Not sure of your point? My point was --- perhaps evolution did occur, although I doubt it ---- none of it, including your snowflakes and my mosquitos, could ever have come to being without an Intelligent Designer. God, that is.

We can see all the stages that led to our eyes in primitive creatures alive today.

Yes? And all by chance or pure dumb luck these transitions occurred. No intelligent being or force or energy caused this? I know, you call it "natural selection," as though a term alone gives it credence. . . . Natural selection: "Today is a good day to start making a kidney, no animal has had one yet. . . No, not one kidney, two kidneys."

When ID comes forward with evidence that stands up to peer review, they will be taken seriously. Until then they are like children yelling 'is not!'.

Pure logic and application of what is known about our world demands an Intelligent Designer. That is reason enough. Same as you see a painting, we know there has to be an intelligent painter. . . . . . . Evolutionist high priest Richard Dawkins says in his book --- "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”

“the illusion of design and planning.” --- right. . That’s not science, Richard… that’s agenda.

 

[SweetSue92]

Science is well aware it does not have a monopoly on the truth and that is part of the self-correction. Evidence interpretation and explanatory theories are constantly questioned but the fundamental scientific processes are well proven and can be trusted.

Reminder:

"science" told us that we should go one way down grocery store aisles, put cotton cloth over our mouths to prevent an airborne respiratory virus, and eat in restaurants built OUTSIDE the restaurant. Oh, and at that restaurant, sit down unmasked, but when you leave your table--mask.

And not only could we NOT "question the science"....if we did, we wanted Grandma to die.

Your "science" sucks now. Sorry.

 

[alang1216]

Gotta go case by case, then we'll know.

So when you said:

Much of today's poverty is self-inflicted.

You didn't know if really was 'much'.