A challenge to prove that evolution is, in fact, a "Pagan religious concept"

Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
A challenge to prove that evolution is, in fact, a "Pagan religious concept"

I don't get it, dudes...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Quit reading mindovermatter,

Quit reading mindovermatter, he'll drive you nuts. 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Quit reading

cj wrote:

Quit reading mindovermatter, he'll drive you nuts. 

Well maybe I'm like a pacifist, only accept in the case of peace, I'm more of a "Give morons a chance"

 

edit:"Subtle" languages annoy me ><

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:cj wrote:Quit

Kapkao wrote:

cj wrote:

Quit reading mindovermatter, he'll drive you nuts. 

Well maybe I'm like a pacifist, only accept in the case of peace, I'm more of a "Give morons a chance"

 

edit:"Subtle" languages annoy me ><

 

Isn't that insulting morons everywhere?

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Kapkao wrote:cj

cj wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

cj wrote:

Quit reading mindovermatter, he'll drive you nuts. 

Well maybe I'm like a pacifist, only accept in the case of peace, I'm more of a "Give morons a chance"

 

edit:"Subtle" languages annoy me ><

 

Isn't that insulting morons everywhere?

 

Good point.

Mind over Matter<most idiots.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
mind over matter

you thrive on paganism which is a satanic religion for controlling the masses.

evolution is a pagan concept for fools with no hope beyond mortality thus you submit to lies and rebellion in futility..

you think you are evolving into death.

 

there is no such thing as evolution.  there is only progression.

 

laws are made by a law maker and you are bound by those laws spiritual and physical.

 

the truth is to LOVE YAHUWAH and look with love.

YAHUWAH is salvation. thus the name YAHUWSHUA is the only name given under heaven to all who are called to hear and then to listen.

 

the liar says hurt  kill hate maim destroy.

mortality is a trial of penalty.

 

you are now without excuse  in this mortal life.

 

all matter in space over time is nothing without life everlasting.

oblivion is the final death. hell is a metaphore for the going to oblivion. the dead do not speak.

 

wake up chumps!

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
 wow, there is one worse

 wow, there is one worse than mol lol


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Personally

rebecca.williamson wrote:

 wow, there is one worse than mol lol

 

I think MoL is fairly traditional theist of epistemological leanings. I think Mind over Matter is a Poe - and an enjoyable one at that. Maybe Billy Bob has a split personality. MOM gets a good deal of pleasure from his performance.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
mind over matter wrote:you

mind over matter wrote:

you thrive on paganism


Another words, you're a slanderous dullshit liar.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
HALLELU-YAHUWAH unchanged in every tongue

 rebecca.williamson's picturethese are the false idols of a drone, they are 2 sides of the same coin that has no true value.

 wow, there is one worse

Submitted by rebecca.williamson on August 22, 2010 - 3:25am.

 

 wow, there is one worse than mol lol

  a challenge to prove all aspects of evolution (a pagan religious concept) through the scientific method
  1. The vanguard theory of evolution has taken on an almost sacred status.  The theory of ‘evolution’ that the evolutionists are really promoting, and which creationists oppose, is the idea that particles turned into people over time, without any need for an intelligent Designer.
  2. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the general theory of evolution’   is thereby proven or even essential, and creation disproved.  The key issue is the type of change required—to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content.
  3. The three billion DNA ‘letters’ stored in each human cell nucleus convey a great deal more information  (known as ‘specified complexity ) than the over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism.

  4. The DNA sequences in a ‘higher’ organism, such as a human being or a horse, for instance, code for structures and functions unknown in the sort of ‘primitive first cell’ from which all other organisms are said to have evolved.
  5. None of the alleged proofs of ‘evolution in action’ provide a single example of functional new information being added to genes. Rather, they all involve sorting and loss of information. To claim that mere change proves that information-increasing change can occur is like saying that because a merchant can sell goods, he can sell them for a profit.
  6.  
  7. The origin of information is a major problem for the GENERAL THEORY OF EVOLUTION
  8.  ‘ignoring important distinctions’! It’s evolutionary propagandists who generally mix them up. Biologists frequently define evolution as ‘change in gene frequency with time’ or ‘descent with modification,’ or other such ‘microevolution’ words, and then cite insignificant examples of change within species, such as Darwin’s finches, as clinching proof of ‘evolution’ in the ‘macro’ sense and disproof of creationism!  

 

  1. The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.

 

 

The steps of the scientific method are to:

  1. Ask a Question
  2. Do Background Research
  3. Construct a Hypothesis
  4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
  5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
  6. Communicate Your Results
  7. It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. A "fair test" occurs when you change only one factor (variable) and keep all other conditions the same.

 

 

1. Observation

 We exist.

2. Proposal of a question or a problem

 How did we get here?

3. A hypothesis or educated guess made

 We evolved from nothing, to dirt, to single cells, to multiple cells, to fish, to amphibians, to reptiles, to mammals, to humans.

4. Scientific experimentation

 Oh, wait a minute. Thats right, evolution can not be observed, tested, or measured. No one has ever done an experiment that made life come from non-life or a lower creature turn into a higher creature and without that empirical evidence evolution can not leave the hypothesis or model phase.
I do not need to prove the creation model true, I can simply prove the evolution model false. There are only two possibilities of how we got here, either we got here by supernatural intervention or we got here on our own, and if one of them can be proven absurd then the other has to be true. Someone that believes in atheistic evolution will never be able to disprove YAHUWAH or the creation because in order to disprove YAHUWAH you would need to be all knowing and omnipresent, in other words you have to have the attributes of YAHUWAH to disprove YAHUWAH. It would be as if you had an infinite amount of white ping pong balls and one red one. If you could never find the red one that does not disprove its existence; however, if someone found the red ball and showed it to you that would prove its existence.     
Evolution is not a proven fact               Evolution is not a scientific natural law                      Evolution is not even a scientific theory

evolution is not based in science. you think you are wise to say you know better but you are just being a smart ass belittling what I posted which is merely facts  based on real science and repeating them is fair.

you and all your slapnut atheist monkey wannabes keep professing your claim to knowledge through  science? I know it is a waste of my time to repeat myself to a bunch of mind bubbles in so many ways!!!

show me the origin of life and matter in space over time through the scientific method WITHOUT exposing youself in fact that you ARE of the spirit of satan as a liar and accuser:

atheist terminology falling under the stupid invented term EVOLUTION:which is being preached in maistream media


Cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary, organic, macro and micro -------evolution. dont play stupid they are all connected under the scam of evolution even if you ignore most of them because you cannot grasp the big picture. that does NOT mean they are ALL not a part of your unoriginal pagan religion of origins.


Cosmic evolution involves the origin of the universe, time and matter itself. The Big Bang theory falls within this discipline of evolution.                                        NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD



Chemical evolution involves the origin of complex elements. This discipline also attempts to explain the process in which those elements formed. 

NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD


Stellar and planetary evolution is the discipline used to explain the origin of the stars and planets. This is distinct from cosmic evolution, yet, at times, overlaps it.  NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
 


Organic evolution attempts to explain the origin of living matter. Those in origin of life studies most often focus on this discipline of evolution.
NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD


The two final disciplines of evolution are also the most often confused by people. They are macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Micro-evolution states that all living organisms experience mutations and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations. The difference between this and macro-evolution is that micro-evolution only deals with mutations within a species.

Macro-evolution, on the other hand, states that such adaptations and mutations allow new species to form.

 NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

 

Also micro changes can be observed with the scientific method. While all the other terms OF EVOLUTION are imaginary and preached as religious fact without question or basis in science or common sense. ( PAGAN HUMANIST /ATHEIST/ CHUMPS WITH CHIMP ENVY/ ARE OF THE SPIRIT OF SATAN)


fact


Evolution is an ancient pagan concept (MAN MADE RELIGION)where people worship nature / creation instead of a CREATOR or they invent idols based on nature/creation
the theory of evolution has been with us for a very, very long time. It actually comes from ancient pagan religious beliefs that continue to be reflected in many religious traditions around the globe today. It has been documented that many ancient pagan teachers and philosophers believed that the universe spontaneously evolved by itself, that the universe is millions of years old, that humans once resembled fish, and that all living things continue to evolve.
 

ABIOGENESIS:nonliving origin belief      (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)


1. (noun) abiogenesis, autogenesis, autogeny, spontaneous generation


a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.

Abiogenesis is the idea of life originating from non-living material (non-life).   (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)

This concept has expanded a great deal as mankind’s understanding of science has grown, but

all forms of abiogenesis have one thing in common: they are all scientifically unsupportable. 

There have been no experiments demonstrating abiogenesis in action.

It has never been observed in a natural or artificial environment.    (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)

Conditions believed to have existed on earth are either incapable of producing the building blocks needed, or self-contradictory.

No evidence has been found suggesting where or when such life might have generated. In fact, everything we know of science today seems to indicate that abiogenesis could not have happened under any naturally possible conditions.


http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/evolution.html

 

 

 

you should be given a fair trial of your intellect. so that you will know you are without excuse in you life testimony.

 

I suspect you are another drone pawn.

 

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
fat retard son of a crack

Kapkao's picturefat retard son of a crack whore. a true role model for a chump with chimp envy.

mind over matter wrote:you

Submitted by Kapkao on August 22, 2010 - 2:22pm.

 

 

mind over matter wrote:

 

you thrive on paganism,           and you know it     I simply exposed you as a fraud lover of lies.   you failed tomeet my challenge so you retreated to this mockery of a simple challenge to your intellect. I see you slithered your mentality into my headline yet still noone has bothered to meet the challenge to prove that evolution is, in fact, a "Pagan religious concept" and now you are asking people to prove it is without proving it is a fact to begin with without the need for faith?  LOL you are a slapnut in the image of cartman your idol.

 


Another words, you're a slanderous dullshit liar.----------->  lol oh is that what you say? please tell what my lies are?  and how am I not calling you what you are? chump with chimp envy drone bitchnugget minion expendable pawn of satan.

 

  you know what you are yet you came to me for direction because you are lost in your delusions abio-genesis / abio -evolution = non living origins myth which requires  faith not science.

 

poor so called  non theist fraud living in a non musement zoo  ignoring and ranting like a retardarwin.  you fit the profile so that should not be slander.

 

you call me a dulshit liar? lol that is a poor rebuttal for a mindbubble like you!

 

 

 

 

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
who is MoL? and why is MoM your new subneed?

Atheistextremist's picture

Personally

Submitted by Atheistextremist on August 22, 2010 - 9:52am.

 

 

rebecca.williamson wrote:

 

 wow, there is one worse than mol lol

 

 

 

I think MoL is fairly traditional theist of epistemological leanings. I think Mind over Matter is a Poe - and an enjoyable one at that. Maybe Billy Bob has a split personality. MOM gets a good deal of pleasure from his performance.

 

------------------>

you don't think enough to know reality. I do gain perspective on the fearful coward that is the so called non theist. who plays pitter patter flip flop drip drop  chimp chump

 A challenge to prove that evolution is, in fact, a "Pagan religious concept"---------------------

Evolution is an ancient pagan concept (MAN MADE RELIGION)where people worship nature / creation instead of a CREATOR or they invent idols based on nature/creation
the theory of evolution has been with us for a very, very long time. It actually comes from ancient pagan religious beliefs that continue to be reflected in many religious traditions around the globe today. It has been documented that many ancient pagan teachers and philosophers believed that the universe spontaneously evolved by itself, that the universe is millions of years old, that humans once resembled fish, and that all living things continue to evolve.
 

ABIOGENESIS:  nonliving origin belief      (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)

oh thats right you already admitted you would if you could but you can't so won't because your fraud heros in white lab coats and false credentials from humanist universities for drones; are still staring at a room full of monkeys shitting on typewriters in stead of typing the works of shakespear.


1. (noun) abiogenesis, autogenesis, autogeny, spontaneous generation


a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.

Abiogenesis is the idea of life originating from non-living material (non-life).   (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)

This concept has expanded a great deal as mankind’s understanding of science has grown, but

all forms of abiogenesis have one thing in common: they are all scientifically unsupportable. 

There have been no experiments demonstrating abiogenesis in action.

It has never been observed in a natural or artificial environment.    (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)

Conditions believed to have existed on earth are either incapable of producing the building blocks needed, or self-contradictory.

No evidence has been found suggesting where or when such life might have generated. In fact, everything we know of science today seems to indicate that abiogenesis could not have happened under any naturally possible conditions.

 

 now once again I have met the challenge of this thread headline.  now I hope will please spread the word to all the failed rebels drones of the atheist alliance.  you are lost and found

 

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
mind over matter wrote:you

mind over matter wrote:

you thrive on paganism which is a satanic religion for controlling the masses.

evolution is a pagan concept for fools with no hope beyond mortality thus you submit to lies and rebellion in futility..

you think you are evolving into death.

 

there is no such thing as evolution.  there is only progression.

 

laws are made by a law maker and you are bound by those laws spiritual and physical.

 

the truth is to LOVE YAHUWAH and look with love.

YAHUWAH is salvation. thus the name YAHUWSHUA is the only name given under heaven to all who are called to hear and then to listen.

 

the liar says hurt  kill hate maim destroy.

mortality is a trial of penalty.

 

you are now without excuse  in this mortal life.

 

all matter in space over time is nothing without life everlasting.

oblivion is the final death. hell is a metaphore for the going to oblivion. the dead do not speak.

 

wake up chumps!

This from a person who worships a Canaanite sky-god and a fiction constructed by Paul the attention whore so he could make himself a "prophet". What god does evolution serve again?

If you believe in progression why are you afraid to do it? Too lazy to use your own brain so you borrow from amalgamations of old myths?

Laws are made by lawmakers - none of them are divine. The laws you claim God made were old when your God was thought up.

No matter how you spell it, you worship a Canaanite sky-god. Congratulations, you're a pagan

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
mind over matter

mind over matter wrote:

 rebecca.williamson's picturethese are the false idols of a drone, they are 2 sides of the same coin that has no true value.

 wow, there is one worse

Submitted by rebecca.williamson on August 22, 2010 - 3:25am.

 

 wow, there is one worse than mol lol

  a challenge to prove all aspects of evolution (a pagan religious concept) through the scientific method
  1. The vanguard theory of evolution has taken on an almost sacred status.  The theory of ‘evolution’ that the evolutionists are really promoting, and which creationists oppose, is the idea that particles turned into people over time, without any need for an intelligent Designer.
  2. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the general theory of evolution’   is thereby proven or even essential, and creation disproved.  The key issue is the type of change required—to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content.
  3. The three billion DNA ‘letters’ stored in each human cell nucleus convey a great deal more information  (known as ‘specified complexity ) than the over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism.

  4. The DNA sequences in a ‘higher’ organism, such as a human being or a horse, for instance, code for structures and functions unknown in the sort of ‘primitive first cell’ from which all other organisms are said to have evolved.
  5. None of the alleged proofs of ‘evolution in action’ provide a single example of functional new information being added to genes. Rather, they all involve sorting and loss of information. To claim that mere change proves that information-increasing change can occur is like saying that because a merchant can sell goods, he can sell them for a profit.
  6.  
  7. The origin of information is a major problem for the GENERAL THEORY OF EVOLUTION
  8.  ‘ignoring important distinctions’! It’s evolutionary propagandists who generally mix them up. Biologists frequently define evolution as ‘change in gene frequency with time’ or ‘descent with modification,’ or other such ‘microevolution’ words, and then cite insignificant examples of change within species, such as Darwin’s finches, as clinching proof of ‘evolution’ in the ‘macro’ sense and disproof of creationism!  

 

  1. The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.

 

 

The steps of the scientific method are to:

  1. Ask a Question
  2. Do Background Research
  3. Construct a Hypothesis
  4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
  5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
  6. Communicate Your Results
  7. It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. A "fair test" occurs when you change only one factor (variable) and keep all other conditions the same.

 

 

1. Observation

 We exist.

2. Proposal of a question or a problem

 How did we get here?

3. A hypothesis or educated guess made

 We evolved from nothing, to dirt, to single cells, to multiple cells, to fish, to amphibians, to reptiles, to mammals, to humans.

4. Scientific experimentation

 Oh, wait a minute. Thats right, evolution can not be observed, tested, or measured. No one has ever done an experiment that made life come from non-life or a lower creature turn into a higher creature and without that empirical evidence evolution can not leave the hypothesis or model phase.
I do not need to prove the creation model true, I can simply prove the evolution model false. There are only two possibilities of how we got here, either we got here by supernatural intervention or we got here on our own, and if one of them can be proven absurd then the other has to be true. Someone that believes in atheistic evolution will never be able to disprove YAHUWAH or the creation because in order to disprove YAHUWAH you would need to be all knowing and omnipresent, in other words you have to have the attributes of YAHUWAH to disprove YAHUWAH. It would be as if you had an infinite amount of white ping pong balls and one red one. If you could never find the red one that does not disprove its existence; however, if someone found the red ball and showed it to you that would prove its existence.     
Evolution is not a proven fact               Evolution is not a scientific natural law                      Evolution is not even a scientific theory

evolution is not based in science. you think you are wise to say you know better but you are just being a smart ass belittling what I posted which is merely facts  based on real science and repeating them is fair.

you and all your slapnut atheist monkey wannabes keep professing your claim to knowledge through  science? I know it is a waste of my time to repeat myself to a bunch of mind bubbles in so many ways!!!

show me the origin of life and matter in space over time through the scientific method WITHOUT exposing youself in fact that you ARE of the spirit of satan as a liar and accuser:

atheist terminology falling under the stupid invented term EVOLUTION:which is being preached in maistream media


Cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary, organic, macro and micro -------evolution. dont play stupid they are all connected under the scam of evolution even if you ignore most of them because you cannot grasp the big picture. that does NOT mean they are ALL not a part of your unoriginal pagan religion of origins.


Cosmic evolution involves the origin of the universe, time and matter itself. The Big Bang theory falls within this discipline of evolution.                                        NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD



Chemical evolution involves the origin of complex elements. This discipline also attempts to explain the process in which those elements formed. 

NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD


Stellar and planetary evolution is the discipline used to explain the origin of the stars and planets. This is distinct from cosmic evolution, yet, at times, overlaps it.  NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
 


Organic evolution attempts to explain the origin of living matter. Those in origin of life studies most often focus on this discipline of evolution.
NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD


The two final disciplines of evolution are also the most often confused by people. They are macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Micro-evolution states that all living organisms experience mutations and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations. The difference between this and macro-evolution is that micro-evolution only deals with mutations within a species.

Macro-evolution, on the other hand, states that such adaptations and mutations allow new species to form.

 NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

 

Also micro changes can be observed with the scientific method. While all the other terms OF EVOLUTION are imaginary and preached as religious fact without question or basis in science or common sense. ( PAGAN HUMANIST /ATHEIST/ CHUMPS WITH CHIMP ENVY/ ARE OF THE SPIRIT OF SATAN)


fact


Evolution is an ancient pagan concept (MAN MADE RELIGION)where people worship nature / creation instead of a CREATOR or they invent idols based on nature/creation
the theory of evolution has been with us for a very, very long time. It actually comes from ancient pagan religious beliefs that continue to be reflected in many religious traditions around the globe today. It has been documented that many ancient pagan teachers and philosophers believed that the universe spontaneously evolved by itself, that the universe is millions of years old, that humans once resembled fish, and that all living things continue to evolve.
 

ABIOGENESIS:nonliving origin belief      (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)


1. (noun) abiogenesis, autogenesis, autogeny, spontaneous generation


a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.

Abiogenesis is the idea of life originating from non-living material (non-life).   (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)

This concept has expanded a great deal as mankind’s understanding of science has grown, but

all forms of abiogenesis have one thing in common: they are all scientifically unsupportable. 

There have been no experiments demonstrating abiogenesis in action.

It has never been observed in a natural or artificial environment.    (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)

Conditions believed to have existed on earth are either incapable of producing the building blocks needed, or self-contradictory.

No evidence has been found suggesting where or when such life might have generated. In fact, everything we know of science today seems to indicate that abiogenesis could not have happened under any naturally possible conditions.


http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/evolution.html

 

 

 

you should be given a fair trial of your intellect. so that you will know you are without excuse in you life testimony.

 

I suspect you are another drone pawn.

 

 

 

Honestly I didn't find the need to put forth any intellect towardsthis since you haven't put forth any yourself. I am fairly smart as far as science goes but I don't consider myself to be an expert on it. What I do see is you make up stuff as you go along and you actually post it on here in essence making yourself look like a dumb ass.

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
mind over matter wrote: lol

mind over matter wrote:


 

lol oh is that what you say? please tell what my lies are?

everything except the "fat retard son of a crack whore"... that part I like

(even though it isn't all that... accurate in of itself)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
a pagan is someone like you who worships creation dumbass

mind over matter wrote:you

new

Submitted by jcgadfly on August 25, 2010 - 12:21pm.

 

 

mind over matter wrote:

 

you thrive on paganism which is a satanic religion for controlling the masses.

evolution is a pagan concept for fools with no hope beyond mortality thus you submit to lies and rebellion in futility..

you think you are evolving into death.

 

there is no such thing as evolution.  there is only progression.

 

laws are made by a law maker and you are bound by those laws spiritual and physical.

 

the truth is to LOVE YAHUWAH and look with love.

YAHUWAH is salvation. thus the name YAHUWSHUA is the only name given under heaven to all who are called to hear and then to listen.

 

the liar says hurt  kill hate maim destroy.

mortality is a trial of penalty.

 

you are now without excuse  in this mortal life.

 

all matter in space over time is nothing without life everlasting.

oblivion is the final death. hell is a metaphore for the going to oblivion. the dead do not speak.

 

wake up chumps!

 

 

This from a person who worships a Canaanite sky-god---------------->you are a  true bullshit artist and you show how much you care to know about history and paganism.  a pagan is someone who worships creation and not the CREATOR. many pagans as you already know use the original terms from the language and true scriptures when refering to a mighty one instead of  almighty EL  . the term elohim is for the false gods whereas the true term ELOAH is originally meant for YAHUWAH the one true ALIMIGHTY EL THE ETERNAL LOVING YAH OF THE GREAT PEOPLE.  the reason people use the pagan term god today is because of slapnuts like you who use pagan terms from pagan days and you apply them to the real CREATOR in error eg. lord/baal,  god/fortune ,ie sus(ei zeus), allah/baal , shiva (unchanged name),  budda(unchanged) 

 

 

 and a fiction constructed by Paul the attention whore so he could make himself a "prophet".----------->>> FICTION you say?  lol  that is quite a chump with chimp envy remark.  the fiction is evolution from nothing through noone to dumbass atheist bitchnugget drone like you constructed by humanist conduits of shatan/satan.  PAUL WAS CONVERT FROM DUMBASS LIKE YOU TO A TRUE BELIEVER IN THE TRUE RELATION TO YAHUWAH/ HE DIED FOR FAITH AND CONVICTION TO SPREAD THE GOOD NEWS OF SALVATION THROUGH YAHUWAHSHUA which means YAHUWAH SAVES. ALL THE APoSTLES WERE MURDERED BY PAGAN BITCHES>people like you who worship satans humanist lies.

 

What god does evolution serve again?------------->the term you should be using is abio-evolution since that covers the whole scam of your closet  pagan religion for chumps with chimp envy. and the god you serve is shatan and evolution is the religion that worships creation and not the CREATOR WHO IS IDENTIFIED AS THE INFINITE PERSON YAHUWAH and is universally praised in every culture with the unchanged original language HALLELU =YAH(short form YAHUWAH)  the original written form of this expression HALLELUYAH is a preservation of the true spelling of YAHUWAH.  and the for your information the prophets were the people who came before the comming of YAHUWSHUA to prepare the way and you will know most of them by their names containing a form of YAHUWAH in their names eg.sign name JOHN  (YAHUWCANNON), JERIMIAH (JIRAMIYAHUW), JOSHUA (YAHUWSHUA) Isaiah (YASHA YAHUW) etc..... also their names usually meant somethine in referrence to YAHUWAH.

you are such an expendable pawn.

 

If you believe in progression why are you afraid to do it?--------> I do believe in progression that is why I tell you stop using stupid atheist wannabe words like evolution . I am NOT afraid of growth and progression, it is instilled in the design of all pro-creation. I perpetuate the ideal by my very presence on this thread

 

 Too lazy to use your own brain so you borrow from amalgamations of old myths?------------>no just busy living in the glory of YAHUWAH fullfilling the meaning of life.  I did not borrow nothing from  amalgamations of old myths as you accuse me of doing. you have twisted reality to suite your pathetic humanist worldview which is an amalgamation of old myths( hypocrite)

Laws are made by lawmakers - none of them are divine.---------> again you are deluded when you preach.  man made laws are made to serve man. not all of them are inspired by YAHUWAH. therefore not all of them are divine.

 

The laws you claim God made were old when your God was thought up.--------> you seem to thrive off propaganda. I never claimed god anything. you are the one fools fool using the pagan term in place of YAHUWAH.  the LAWS of YAHUWAH are unchanged as is HIS NAME ABOVE ALL NAMES given under the 1st heaven.  as far as old, you are deulsional when it comes to the definition.  and you are a chump with chimp envy to say the original NAME OF ELOAH ALMIGHY was made up. after it was covered over by slapnuts like you.  you need to unlearn the lies that infest your mind bubble. you are deaf dumb and blind and now you know it and just care enough about yourself to fear it.

No matter how you spell it, you worship a Canaanite sky-god. Congratulations, you're a pagan----------->no matter how you lie to sooth your own selfish pride and ego you are still a failed rebel drone expendable pawn of humanist lies invented by shatan.  I do not share lies with the conquered pagan canaanites who used the term EL in their pantheon of false idols.  just because you are foolish like the muslims and catholics(both are 2 sides of the same pagan coin of the roman empire) and hindus/buda's and shintos and mithrans and egyptians and shatanists abroad (and local american pagans included) and the babylonians of the mystery religions etc...... that does not prove anything you ranted about me in character or in the truth I share to your benefit and your reproach.  you are free to research the facts before you respond like the empetuous fraud lover that you are.

 

the message of YAHUWAH IS to trust love and obey HIM first, then look with love  from above.  not to look for love as you closet pagans love to do in countless false ways. you lack true direction in eternity. that is why you  ignore and rant  in your rebuttals which makes you ignorant. you ignore and amuse yourself which makes you an ignoramus who belongs in an non musement zoo.

 

abio-genesis= non living origins  which should be correctly stated abio-evolution = non living progress from nothing through noone. 

go learn yourself you fraud lover of lies.

you don't think enough to know reality. I do gain perspective on the fearful coward that is the so called non theist. who plays pitter patter flip flop drip drop  chimp chump,  could have may have might  have been we suppose,believe, suggest, imply, preach, propose, that it looks like seems to be, thought to be, recreated in a drawing s and animation, live action film with actors , sculpted by artists imagaination, sketched by artists imagination,presupposed assumptions of time and distance and of people places and events never observed or recorded by by real people, using fake measurements and implied data to supoort the beliefe not the science etc......

 A challenge to prove that evolution is, in fact, a "Pagan religious concept"---------------------

Evolution is an ancient pagan concept (MAN MADE RELIGION)where people worship nature / creation instead of a CREATOR or they invent idols based on nature/creation
the theory of evolution has been with us for a very, very long time. It actually comes from ancient pagan religious beliefs that continue to be reflected in many religious traditions around the globe today. It has been documented that many ancient pagan teachers and philosophers believed that the universe spontaneously evolved by itself, that the universe is millions of years old, that humans once resembled fish, and that all living things continue to evolve.
 

ABIOGENESIS:  nonliving origin belief      (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)

oh thats right you already admitted you would if you could but you can't so won't because your fraud heros in white lab coats and false credentials from humanist universities for drones; are still staring at a room full of monkeys shitting on typewriters in stead of typing the works of shakespear.


1. (noun) abiogenesis, autogenesis, autogeny, spontaneous generation


a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.

Abiogenesis is the idea of life originating from non-living material (non-life).   (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)

This concept has expanded a great deal as mankind’s understanding of science has grown, but

all forms of abiogenesis have one thing in common: they are all scientifically unsupportable. 

There have been no experiments demonstrating abiogenesis in action.

It has never been observed in a natural or artificial environment.    (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)

Conditions believed to have existed on earth are either incapable of producing the building blocks needed, or self-contradictory.

No evidence has been found suggesting where or when such life might have generated. In fact, everything we know of science today seems to indicate that abiogenesis could not have happened under any naturally possible conditions.

 

 now once again I have met the challenge of this thread headline.  now I hope will please spread the word to all the failed rebels drones of the atheist alliance.  you are lost and found

 

 

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
mind over matter wrote:The

mind over matter wrote:


The vanguard theory of evolution has taken on an almost sacred status.  The theory of ‘evolution’ that the evolutionists are really promoting, and which creationists oppose, is the idea that particles turned into people over time, without any need for an intelligent Designer.



Couching evolution in religious terms does not make it religious. The is really pure equivocation.

mind over matter wrote:


A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the general theory of evolution’   is thereby proven or even essential, and creation disproved.  The key issue is the type of change required—



This is a conspiracy theory at best. Where's the evidence for this "bait and switch" tactic?

mind over matter wrote:


to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content.

The three billion DNA ‘letters’ stored in each human cell nucleus convey a great deal more information  (known as ‘specified complexity ) than the over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism.

The DNA sequences in a ‘higher’ organism, such as a human being or a horse, for instance, code for structures and functions unknown in the sort of ‘primitive first cell’ from which all other organisms are said to have evolved.

None of the alleged proofs of ‘evolution in action’ provide a single example of functional new information being added to genes. Rather, they all involve sorting and loss of information. To claim that mere change proves that information-increasing change can occur is like saying that because a merchant can sell goods, he can sell them for a profit.


You're either (a) supposing teleology which is question begging, or (b) equivocating between DNA and written language. Either way, this is fallacious.

mind over matter wrote:

 The origin of information is a major problem for the GENERAL THEORY OF EVOLUTION
 
'ignoring important distinctions’! It’s evolutionary propagandists who generally mix them up. Biologists frequently define evolution as ‘change in gene frequency with time’ or ‘descent with modification,’ or other such ‘microevolution’ words, and then cite insignificant examples of change within species, such as Darwin’s finches, as clinching proof of ‘evolution’ in the ‘macro’ sense and disproof of creationism!  


This is a false distinction put forth by creationist who have to concede something about evolution in light of evidence for evolution. Speciation has been shown to happened between species based upon the same mechanism that produces varieties within a species.

mind over matter wrote:

I do not need to prove the creation model true, I can simply prove the evolution model false. There are only two possibilities of how we got here, either we got here by supernatural intervention or we got here on our own, and if one of them can be proven absurd then the other has to be true. Someone that believes in atheistic evolution will never be able to disprove YAHUWAH or the creation because in order to disprove YAHUWAH you would need to be all knowing and omnipresent, in other words you have to have the attributes of YAHUWAH to disprove YAHUWAH. It would be as if you had an infinite amount of white ping pong balls and one red one. If you could never find the red one that does not disprove its existence; however, if someone found the red ball and showed it to you that would prove its existence.

First, then unless you have omnipresence and omniscience, your left with solipsism, such that you cannot know that anything is true, even the existence of a deity.

Second, why does one need to posit supernatural intervention? I think you're bifurcating here.

Even so, given enough time, a chimpanzee with a typewriter could produce the works of Shakespeare on accident. Understandings in cosmology suppose the existence of multiverses or an oscillating universe could exist, and so long as this is even a possibility (unproven or otherwise) there is no need to suppose a deity. The possibility of multiple iterations that contain billions and billions of stars and billions and billions of planets over billions and billions of years substantially increases the probability in favor of the conditions necessary for life to evolve as it has.

mind over matter wrote:

NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

First, if you're claiming that what is called "science" is not science, then what grounds to you suppose we prove anything on?

Second, showing that something hasn't been shown to be true does not make it necessarily false. Such as this, I don't think you've even met your own criterion that says if evolution is false, supernatural intervention is true. According to your argument, I don't know think we can know that either one is true.

 

In summary, you're argument is shaky and riddled with fallacies.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
mind over matter wrote:mind

mind over matter wrote:

mind over matter wrote:you

new

Submitted by jcgadfly on August 25, 2010 - 12:21pm.

 

 

mind over matter wrote:

 

you thrive on paganism which is a satanic religion for controlling the masses.

evolution is a pagan concept for fools with no hope beyond mortality thus you submit to lies and rebellion in futility..

you think you are evolving into death.

 

there is no such thing as evolution.  there is only progression.

 

laws are made by a law maker and you are bound by those laws spiritual and physical.

 

the truth is to LOVE YAHUWAH and look with love.

YAHUWAH is salvation. thus the name YAHUWSHUA is the only name given under heaven to all who are called to hear and then to listen.

 

the liar says hurt  kill hate maim destroy.

mortality is a trial of penalty.

 

you are now without excuse  in this mortal life.

 

all matter in space over time is nothing without life everlasting.

oblivion is the final death. hell is a metaphore for the going to oblivion. the dead do not speak.

 

wake up chumps!

 

 

This from a person who worships a Canaanite sky-god---------------->you are a  true bullshit artist and you show how much you care to know about history and paganism.  a pagan is someone who worships creation and not the CREATOR. many pagans as you already know use the original terms from the language and true scriptures when refering to a mighty one instead of  almighty EL  . the term elohim is for the false gods whereas the true term ELOAH is originally meant for YAHUWAH the one true ALIMIGHTY EL THE ETERNAL LOVING YAH OF THE GREAT PEOPLE.  the reason people use the pagan term god today is because of slapnuts like you who use pagan terms from pagan days and you apply them to the real CREATOR in error eg. lord/baal,  god/fortune ,ie sus(ei zeus), allah/baal , shiva (unchanged name),  budda(unchanged) 

 

 

 and a fiction constructed by Paul the attention whore so he could make himself a "prophet".----------->>> FICTION you say?  lol  that is quite a chump with chimp envy remark.  the fiction is evolution from nothing through noone to dumbass atheist bitchnugget drone like you constructed by humanist conduits of shatan/satan.  PAUL WAS CONVERT FROM DUMBASS LIKE YOU TO A TRUE BELIEVER IN THE TRUE RELATION TO YAHUWAH/ HE DIED FOR FAITH AND CONVICTION TO SPREAD THE GOOD NEWS OF SALVATION THROUGH YAHUWAHSHUA which means YAHUWAH SAVES. ALL THE APoSTLES WERE MURDERED BY PAGAN BITCHES>people like you who worship satans humanist lies.

 

What god does evolution serve again?------------->the term you should be using is abio-evolution since that covers the whole scam of your closet  pagan religion for chumps with chimp envy. and the god you serve is shatan and evolution is the religion that worships creation and not the CREATOR WHO IS IDENTIFIED AS THE INFINITE PERSON YAHUWAH and is universally praised in every culture with the unchanged original language HALLELU =YAH(short form YAHUWAH)  the original written form of this expression HALLELUYAH is a preservation of the true spelling of YAHUWAH.  and the for your information the prophets were the people who came before the comming of YAHUWSHUA to prepare the way and you will know most of them by their names containing a form of YAHUWAH in their names eg.sign name JOHN  (YAHUWCANNON), JERIMIAH (JIRAMIYAHUW), JOSHUA (YAHUWSHUA) Isaiah (YASHA YAHUW) etc..... also their names usually meant somethine in referrence to YAHUWAH.

you are such an expendable pawn.

 

If you believe in progression why are you afraid to do it?--------> I do believe in progression that is why I tell you stop using stupid atheist wannabe words like evolution . I am NOT afraid of growth and progression, it is instilled in the design of all pro-creation. I perpetuate the ideal by my very presence on this thread

 

 Too lazy to use your own brain so you borrow from amalgamations of old myths?------------>no just busy living in the glory of YAHUWAH fullfilling the meaning of life.  I did not borrow nothing from  amalgamations of old myths as you accuse me of doing. you have twisted reality to suite your pathetic humanist worldview which is an amalgamation of old myths( hypocrite)

Laws are made by lawmakers - none of them are divine.---------> again you are deluded when you preach.  man made laws are made to serve man. not all of them are inspired by YAHUWAH. therefore not all of them are divine.

 

The laws you claim God made were old when your God was thought up.--------> you seem to thrive off propaganda. I never claimed god anything. you are the one fools fool using the pagan term in place of YAHUWAH.  the LAWS of YAHUWAH are unchanged as is HIS NAME ABOVE ALL NAMES given under the 1st heaven.  as far as old, you are deulsional when it comes to the definition.  and you are a chump with chimp envy to say the original NAME OF ELOAH ALMIGHY was made up. after it was covered over by slapnuts like you.  you need to unlearn the lies that infest your mind bubble. you are deaf dumb and blind and now you know it and just care enough about yourself to fear it.

No matter how you spell it, you worship a Canaanite sky-god. Congratulations, you're a pagan----------->no matter how you lie to sooth your own selfish pride and ego you are still a failed rebel drone expendable pawn of humanist lies invented by shatan.  I do not share lies with the conquered pagan canaanites who used the term EL in their pantheon of false idols.  just because you are foolish like the muslims and catholics(both are 2 sides of the same pagan coin of the roman empire) and hindus/buda's and shintos and mithrans and egyptians and shatanists abroad (and local american pagans included) and the babylonians of the mystery religions etc...... that does not prove anything you ranted about me in character or in the truth I share to your benefit and your reproach.  you are free to research the facts before you respond like the empetuous fraud lover that you are.

 

the message of YAHUWAH IS to trust love and obey HIM first, then look with love  from above.  not to look for love as you closet pagans love to do in countless false ways. you lack true direction in eternity. that is why you  ignore and rant  in your rebuttals which makes you ignorant. you ignore and amuse yourself which makes you an ignoramus who belongs in an non musement zoo.

 

abio-genesis= non living origins  which should be correctly stated abio-evolution = non living progress from nothing through noone. 

go learn yourself you fraud lover of lies.

you don't think enough to know reality. I do gain perspective on the fearful coward that is the so called non theist. who plays pitter patter flip flop drip drop  chimp chump,  could have may have might  have been we suppose,believe, suggest, imply, preach, propose, that it looks like seems to be, thought to be, recreated in a drawing s and animation, live action film with actors , sculpted by artists imagaination, sketched by artists imagination,presupposed assumptions of time and distance and of people places and events never observed or recorded by by real people, using fake measurements and implied data to supoort the beliefe not the science etc......

 A challenge to prove that evolution is, in fact, a "Pagan religious concept"---------------------

Evolution is an ancient pagan concept (MAN MADE RELIGION)where people worship nature / creation instead of a CREATOR or they invent idols based on nature/creation
the theory of evolution has been with us for a very, very long time. It actually comes from ancient pagan religious beliefs that continue to be reflected in many religious traditions around the globe today. It has been documented that many ancient pagan teachers and philosophers believed that the universe spontaneously evolved by itself, that the universe is millions of years old, that humans once resembled fish, and that all living things continue to evolve.
 

ABIOGENESIS:  nonliving origin belief      (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)

oh thats right you already admitted you would if you could but you can't so won't because your fraud heros in white lab coats and false credentials from humanist universities for drones; are still staring at a room full of monkeys shitting on typewriters in stead of typing the works of shakespear.


1. (noun) abiogenesis, autogenesis, autogeny, spontaneous generation


a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.

Abiogenesis is the idea of life originating from non-living material (non-life).   (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)

This concept has expanded a great deal as mankind’s understanding of science has grown, but

all forms of abiogenesis have one thing in common: they are all scientifically unsupportable. 

There have been no experiments demonstrating abiogenesis in action.

It has never been observed in a natural or artificial environment.    (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)

Conditions believed to have existed on earth are either incapable of producing the building blocks needed, or self-contradictory.

No evidence has been found suggesting where or when such life might have generated. In fact, everything we know of science today seems to indicate that abiogenesis could not have happened under any naturally possible conditions.

 

 now once again I have met the challenge of this thread headline.  now I hope will please spread the word to all the failed rebels drones of the atheist alliance.  you are lost and found

 

 

 

By your own definition you are a pagan. You worship a created God instead of the people who created it. Thank you for saying so.

Paul was converted to Judaism - yes. Then he threw that away to make Christianity and deify Yahuwshua and aggrandize himself. You should be offended at this. Your Yahuwshua would have been. Why do you defend the heretic Paul? Go home and learn.

All religions are man-made. Evolution isn't a religion. Your Yahuwah practiced abiogenesis according to your holy book - is abiogenesis only a bad thing when there isn't a magic man (created by humans) involved? Oh, and the Miller-Urey experiment proved you wrong many years ago. Other experiments have continued to prove you wrong. If your Yahuwah is so powerful - why does he/she/it need you to defend it? Are you feeling the pain that the Israelites and Paul did when their creations were attacked?

Ok, the laws of Yahuwah were set in stone (literally) before he was created by the early civilizations you should be worshipping, pagan.

I accept your defeat, pagan. Go back and worship your man-made deities and leave the adults alone.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
I accept your failure to meet my posted challenge, chump!

ubuntuAnyone's picture>>>>>>  wrote this>

Couching evolution in religious terms does not make it religious. The is really pure equivocation.--------------------<For something to be scientific, it has to be observable, repeatable, and testable. Evolutionists admit that you can not observe evolution because it is to slow. You definitely can not repeat evolution. And how can you test evolution? Evolution is not fact, it is a religion. you believe because you choose to despite the lack of facts that say it it depends on faith.
 

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to modern Christianity (which is another issue), with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.  belief in molecules-to-man evolution can and does cause people to become atheists as admitted by leading atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins, the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. In answer to the question “Is atheism the logical extension of believing evolution?” Dawkins replied, “My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism.”

 

  •  The holy book of the evolutionists is Darwin’s Origin of Species. The evolutionists believe that this book gives an explanation for the origin and development of life on earth without the need of any CREATOR or supernatural agent.
  •  
  •  evolution teaches that in the beginning nothing exploded and gradually--- EVOLVED---- over billions of years into the universe that we see today.
  •  Evolution does not recognize the word sin but teaches that fish-to-philosopher evolution can only proceed via death. Hence, death, disease, and suffering are the necessary driving forces of evolution; from this concept, we get the phrase survival of the fittest.
  • amoeba-to-architect evolution teaches that humans have evolved from some apelike ancestor, which in turn evolved from another sort of animal.
  •  Evolution teaches that humans are not the end product of evolution; evolution will continue and humans will either become extinct or evolve into some other species of creature that will definitely not be human.
  • Evolution, teaches that one day the universe will reach what is called a heat death, although it is in effect a cold death, for the temperature of the universe will be just a fraction of a degree above absolute zero. This will happen when all the energy that is available to do work will have been used up, and then nothing will happen—the universe will just “be.” The time period for the universe to reach this state is almost unimaginable. It is thought that it will take about a thousand billion years for all the stars to use up all their fuel and fizzle out. By then, of course, there will be no life in the universe; every single life-form, including humans, will have become extinct billions of years previously. There will still be, however, occasional flashes of starlight in the dark universe as very large stars collapse in on themselves to form black holes. For the next 10122 (that is the figure 1 followed by 122 zeros!) years, this so-called Hawking radiation will be the only thing happening in the universe. Then, when all the black holes have evaporated, there will be darkness for 1026 years, during which time the universe will simply “be” and nothing will happen.
  •  
  • Evolution is an ancient pagan concept (MAN MADE RELIGION)where people worship nature / creation instead of a CREATOR or they invent idols based on nature/creation
    the theory of evolution has been with us for a very, very long time. It actually comes from ancient pagan religious beliefs that continue to be reflected in many religious traditions around the globe today. It has been documented that many ancient pagan teachers and philosophers believed that the universe spontaneously evolved by itself, that the universe is millions of years old, that humans once resembled fish, and that all living things continue to evolve. 
     

This is a conspiracy theory at best. Where's the evidence for this "bait and switch" tactic?---------->In biology, LIKE KINDS is a  change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. These changes are caused by a combination of three main processes: variation, reproduction, and selection  what you atheists have done is invented a term called evolution and then revised the definition from all things to sub divisions to pass the buck from one bullshit artist to another.
 

By itself the above definition is true and has been observed since before Darwin. It simply describes the obvious fact that there is variation within every species / kind of animal and plant. Natural selection, due to environmental reasons, can encourage some traits over others in subsequent generations. We can and do observe natural selection reinforcing existing traits. But such things are not mechanisms to add new information into the genes and change one kind of animal (e.g., a reptile) into a totally different kind (e.g., a bird). that is fiction not science.

Darwin may have been considered a great observer, like other naturalists of his day. He was right about natural selection”right about different species (within a kind, of course) becoming more focused on specific traits (we use the term speciation) but he was wrong about his belief that one could extrapolate this as a mechanism to explain the evolution of all the different kinds of animals, plants, etc. Darwin knew he had a problem with the fossil record, and to this day there is no evidence of new kinds of animals making the gradual change to higher and higher and totally different kinds of animals. that includes all the atheist proposed sculptures and film animations and frauds still beings used in secular schools to brainwash fraud lovers like YOU!

Creationists believe YAHUWAH who most people mistakenly refer to with  the pagan term god made the original animal and plant kinds. There have been considerable changes within the kinds since that time. For instance, after the global Flood, different species of dogs have formed, but they are still the dog kind and will never change into a different kind.

Secularists often falsely tell students that creationists believe animals dont change (but they do), and then tell them that we see animals changing (speciation) and then slip in the term evolution for such changes. In the strict definition of the word evolution meaning simply change, then one could say that. But these same secularists know that when students hear the word evolution, they think of Darwinian evolution, meaning

the molecules-to-man idea.  Again something you choose to ignore when you accept your fairy tale evolution

Thus, a straw man is set up, and students think that creationists arent good scientists, so one cant trust them. Change is all around us, therefore Evolution is true! This has become an effective bait and switch tactic, especially on students who are captive in a classroom.

 

Without much discussion, or challenge from the students, the minor changes of natural selection are then extrapolated to mean, not just variation within an animal group or kind, but that the variation over (unseen) time has allowed invertebrates to transform into vertebrates, and yes – it includes the full range of change from microbes to mankind. It is this extrapolation that is inferred to have happened, that is then taught as a fact – just like that.

 Believe in a little change, and suddenly we are told See, Evolution is true!

Therefore you must believe that all the required and significantly broad changes in physiology in all animals alive today, came from a common ancestor! It is this extrapolation, this immense jump, from minor changes where existing traits are selected to wholesale development of all new life that is the problem and is truly non-science. But in fact a world scam  of manipulation for fools who say in their hearts there is no YAHUWAH who is ELOAH ALMIGHTY YAH AM.

micro-evolution /invented term to help sell the scam of evolution

Horizontal Change – Creationists have never had a problem with Natural Selection, and variation within a kind or family group, or in some cases the phyla or species. (There is no consistent definition of species). Everyone understands change and variation in what characteristics the descendants may inherit and become dominant. This includes the length of beaks in finches and coloring of moths, and even dominant hair and skin color in humans. This variation can be controlled by humans (i.e. dog breeding) and can also happen naturally (hence: Natural Selection) such as long beaked finches having an advantage in times of drought. Their longer beak allows them to pick food deeper out of rock crevices, survive and breed, while their short beaked cousins die off.

Natural Selection does cause" micro-evolution", but it was a creationist who broadly discussed this before that chump with chimp envy, Darwin. Edward Blyth wrote three major articles on natural selection that were published in The Magazine of Natural History from 1835 to 1837. Blyth correctly saw the concept of natural selection as a mechanism by which the sick, old and unfit were removed from a population; as a preserving factor of a created kind. Creationists like Edward Blyth (and also todays) see natural selection as a process of culling; that is, of choosing between several traits, all of which must first be in existence before they can be selected.

Charles Darwin in all his pride and vanity was aware of Blyth. Reportedly the University of Cambridge, has Darwins own copies of the issues containing the Blyth articles, with Charless handwritten notes in the margins. Loren C. Eiseley, a professor of anthropology, in the book Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1979), wrote “Blyth is more than a Darwinian precursor, he is, instead, a direct intellectual forebear. . . .Darwin made unacknowledged use of Blyth’s work.” Darwin apologists do try to cover for Charles, but the fact remains, much of Charles material came from others.  PATHETIC!

The point: Creationists before and after Darwin, do not disagree at all with natural selection or Mico- Evolution as some call it. All of the characteristics the information in the DNA for a variety of traits, appearances, etc., are already there. Natural selection just selects from what is available. At best, natural selection is a conservative force, picking the traits needed for survival in a fallen and changing world, but it is powerless to generate increasing complexity and to originate something new or novel totally unable to change one kind of animal into another whole new kind.

 

Macro-Evolution (also called Vertical Change): This is the ever increasing complexity of life, The natural development of simple cells, and then invertebrates, then fish, amphibians, and eventually humans. This is what most people think of when we use the basic term Evolution. The problem is that evolutionists simply extrapolate if micro-evolution is true then macro-evolution must be true. There is variation and change within a species, therefore the whole species must have evolved over time. Bait and switch. Bait and switch. Bait and switch. Bait and switch. Bait and switch. 

The problem is there is NO evidence for macro-evolution at all in the fossil record. And all of our discoveries and research into micro-biology and heredity, make this idea of macro-evolution not just unlikely, but impossible. DNA works against this happening. Mutations, or errors in DNA do not add new information and do not help, any more than  a growing ink blot resulting in writing a complete encyclopedia. 

Others have gone back and studied the finches on the Galapagos Islands for longer periods of time. But in the end its the same thing. The finches “inherited” traits are proving evolution! Yet they are still finches, and all that is happening is natural selection of existing information. This is still only micro-evolution, not macro-evolution, DUMBASS!. Additionally, after several generations and changes in weather patterns, the length of finch beaks actually goes back to the original lengths of many previous generations. Of course you have to actually study the data trends over time, and get past the bait and switch game: Look Beaks change! Evolution is true! lol  fucking slapnuts.

Many evolutionists have admitted they have no mechanism to advance from one species or phyla to another: This includes S.J. Gould (Harvard university) who wrote in Scientific American, (Oct 1994)

Natural selection is therefore a principle of local adaption, not of general advance or progress.

In a study on Parasites, four Ph.D.s wrote this:

Natural selection can act only on those biological properties that already exist; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs.

Elmer Noble, Ph.D. Zoology, Glenn Nobel,Ph.D. Biology, Gerhard Schad, Ph.D. Biology, Austin MacInnes, Ph.D. Biology, – Parasitology: The Biology of Animal Parasites, 1989, p. 516.

Pierre P. Grass, one of the most distinguished of all French scientists, published a book, LEvolution du Vivant -his conclusion was even stronger that biology is impotent in explaining the origin of species, and must yield to a supernatural explanation. Macro-evolution is simply not a proven concept. No, not even close. Grass admits it is more logical to accept that there is a creator God (a supernatural or mystical cause).

S¸ren L¸vtrup, a Swedish embryologist, wrote in his book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth – London: Croom Helm, p.422:

I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: … I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?

-----------------

You're either (a) supposing teleology which is question begging, or (b) equivocating between DNA and written language. Either way, this is fallacious.----------> lol no you are being a coward and you know it. you fail to demstrate evolution through science. you failed to meet my posted challenge because you are a fraud and irrelavent to your cause.
--------------

This is a false distinction put forth by creationist who have to concede something about evolution in light of evidence for evolution. Speciation has been shown to happened between species based upon the same mechanism that produces varieties within a species.-----------> again you failed to demonstrate it using the scientific method . I dont need another bait and switch brain washing attempt.  stop being a slapnut. show some common sense prove you are not just an atheist drone minion of a satanic movement right now you expose yourself as a closet pagan..   has been shown ? liar! are you proud? lies dont count in real science.

-----------------

First, then unless you have omnipresence and omniscience, your left with solipsism, such that you cannot know that anything is true, even the existence of a deity.---> you coward! you believe in evolution from nothing to matter to life as we know it through mother nature(evolution) your god is time( given enough time you will believe a fairy tale of origins.

Second, why does one need to posit supernatural intervention? I think you're bifurcating here. -->LOL oh that is pathetic.  Based on the atheist Wikipedia: the Scientific method "must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses". This is exactly what I mean! It must be observable, and testable to be scientific! Evolution is not!
       Where did the original matter come from? No one knows for sure, so you have to BELIEVE that evolution is true. I contend that evolution is a religion, not fact as it is portrayed in schools. No other religions are taught in schools, why is this one? . it does not really matter who is right. No one was there to see it happen. No one can show evolution to be 100% fact. Yet high school students have to learn all about the "evolution" of man in school. There are laws that require textbooks to be accurate, yet we teach our students that we evolved millions of years ago from single celled organisms. This is NOT observable or testable, therefore it does NOT follow the scientific method!  you are in fact invoking a deity in disguise with your time + chance +energy = life as we know it. it is called worshipping creation and not the creator and proping yourself up as YAHUWAH who is the true CREATOR of matter in space over time and it is through HIS LIFE  that all life continues and is sustained.  your problem is you deny your faith in a deity because it is pagan in origins.

 

--------------

 

Even so, given enough time, a chimpanzee with a typewriter could produce the works of Shakespeare on accident.------>> LOL LOL I believe you beleieve that stupid analogy as fact.   here you are preaching lies as fact with no basis in reality. you say given enough time (invoking your god) and then adding the word "COULD" implying your beliefe and imposing it according to your will.  have you seen A chimpanzee produce the works of shakespear? NO? oh that's right you are a bullshit artist with humanist pagan education. Have you ever applied your chump theory to reality? No ?  that is not how you atheist bitchnuggets operate.  you are a chump with chimp envy.  You assume a chimp is equal to Shakespear! so how many books have you read that were written by a fucking chimpanzee?  0?  yeah that is what I proved in my repeated posted challenge to all you mind bubbles who rely on intelligent design to try and prove no need of INTELLIGENT DESIGN.  that is a fools intellect.

----------------------------

 Understandings in cosmology suppose the existence of multiverses or an oscillating universe could exist, and so long as this is even a possibility (unproven or otherwise) there is no need to suppose a deity. The possibility of multiple iterations that contain billions and billions of stars and billions and billions of planets over billions and billions of years substantially increases the probability in favor of the conditions necessary for life to evolve as it has. ---------->> again you are useless to your atheist cause.  you want to talk about probability?

because you have no facts in science to back your faith in abio evolution of life as we know it!   you dont really trust your own statment and neither does any atheist because you would by your logic expect to play the biggest lottery out there every day for ten years and then expect to win every day in a row for ten years. that is the same dumb ass logic you subscribe to in your brainwashed faith.  the criteria for intelligent life in outer space has already been met right here on earth. yet you fail to grasp it with your delusional mind bubble filled with pockets of methane.  All of creation is evidence of a SUPER NATURAL intelligent  CREATOR from the non living matter which cannot be created by humans to life which cannot be created by humans and even at the smallest molecular scale we see information in the organic technology that fits the criteria of intelligent mind at work and thus intelligent life other than human and far superior. 

atheist terminology falling under the stupid invented term EVOLUTION:which is being preached in maistream media


Cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary, organic, macro and micro -------evolution. dont play stupid they are all connected under the scam of evolution even if you ignore most of them because you cannot grasp the big picture. that does NOT mean they are ALL not a part of your unoriginal pagan religion of origins.


Cosmic evolution involves the origin of the universe, time and matter itself. The Big Bang theory falls within this discipline of evolution.                                        NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD



Chemical evolution involves the origin of complex elements. This discipline also attempts to explain the process in which those elements formed. 

NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD


Stellar and planetary evolution is the discipline used to explain the origin of the stars and planets. This is distinct from cosmic evolution, yet, at times, overlaps it.  NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
 


Organic evolution attempts to explain the origin of living matter. Those in origin of life studies most often focus on this discipline of evolution.
NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD


The two final disciplines of evolution are also the most often confused by people. They are macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Micro-evolution states that all living organisms experience mutations and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations. The difference between this and macro-evolution is that micro-evolution only deals with mutations within a species.

Macro-evolution, on the other hand, states that such adaptations and mutations allow new species to form.

 NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

 

Also micro changes can be observed with the scientific method. While all the other terms OF EVOLUTION are imaginary and preached as religious fact without question or basis in science or common sense. ( PAGAN HUMANIST /ATHEIST/ CHUMPS WITH CHIMP ENVY/ ARE OF THE SPIRIT OF SATAN)

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
run along back to your atheist home base you fraud lover of lies

 

    

                                                                                                                                               Submitted by jcgadfly on August 27, 2010 - 9:17am.

 

 

By your own definition you are a pagan. You worship a created God instead of the people who created it. Thank you for saying so.--->> LOL no by your delusion you accuse me of being a pagan.  god is a pagan term adopted to refer to ELOAH  ALMIGHTY who is YAHUWAH. AHLELLU YAH  !-

 

Paul was converted to Judaism - yes. Then he threw that away to make Christianity and deify Yahuwshua and aggrandize himself. You should be offended at this. Your Yahuwshua would have been. Why do you defend the heretic Paul? Go home and learn.--->  you are ranting about paul? because you dont know anything about the original scriptures.  before you spew crap from the satanic king james version of scirptures you need to go home and learn  true history of real people places and events.  You obviously know nothing about paul vs. the roman empire vs. the WORD OF YAHUWAH .  PAUL is not on trial He was murdered for his faith in YAHUWSHUAH by assholes in the roman catholic empire who still worship satan in the form of the sun/moon deity hence the names sunday and moonday etc.... dumbass

 

All religions are man-made.---> no all flase relations to YAHUWAH are man made

 Evolution isn't a religion.---> YES IT IS! and you are the closet pagan in denial because you are  ashamed to admit your faith is a false man made dogma for atheist chumps with chimp envy.

 

 Your Yahuwah practiced abiogenesis according to your holy book - is abiogenesis only a bad thing when there isn't a magic man (created by humans) involved? ---------> you are so useless to your atheist cause you deserve a promotion.  YAHUWAH formed the first MAN from the non living matter.  so far that is not abiogenesis. after that he continued HIS plan of creation by breathing HIS life into the man and only then did he become a living soul. only after the life was given was the non living matter in the form of man now considered a living soul. and YAHUWAH also breathed the spirit of intellect into the man giving him a capacity to be intelligent and also the ability to procreate. We are made in the spiritual image of YAHUWAH  but we pro create  not create. only YAHUWAH can create matter in space of time. we can only use what is already created . 

a( non)  bio  ( life) genesis (the scriptural story /record of origins)  you are a drone! 

 

 

Oh, and the Miller-Urey experiment proved you wrong many years ago. Other experiments have continued to prove you wrong. If your Yahuwah is so powerful - why does he/she/it need you to defend it?---->LIAR!  that is a fraud experiment that did nothing relevent to prove evolution from non living evolution.  the experiment was nothing but a pathetic attempt to animate non living matter and then call it life. 

WHY didnt they just use any dead organism that contains all the  ingredients/ building blocks  for life (already assembled) as they claim? instead they used a can of campbells vomit soup.  threw electircity at it. and then cried wolf!  fucking slapnuts!  

No what you are doing is spewing the bullshit you ate and then being a petty I know you are but what am I drone.  attacking the credibality of YAHUWAH because I expose your satanic false religion of evolution.

 

 

Are you feeling the pain that the Israelites and Paul did when their creations were attacked? ---->YES truly I am sad for you because you are giving your life testimony as a goat. that is painful  for me to see. Alas, I am called to take up my tools and bear witness to you and every other slapnut atheist drone chump with chimp envy on this thread. I choose freely and so do you. I have only shared information and perspective on matter in space over time which defines the natural realm that is finite.  what you fail to grasp is that which you refuse to accept in the inifinite realm that is supernatural.

 

Ok, the laws of Yahuwah were set in stone (literally) before he was created by the early civilizations you should be worshipping, pagan.--> You are a failed rebel atheist drone.

I accept your defeat, pagan.------------------>>>>>>fact


Evolution is an ancient pagan concept (MAN MADE RELIGION)where people worship nature / creation instead of a CREATOR or they invent idols based on nature/creation
the theory of evolution has been with us for a very, very long time. It actually comes from ancient pagan religious beliefs that continue to be reflected in many religious traditions around the globe today. It has been documented that many ancient pagan teachers and philosophers believed that the universe spontaneously evolved by itself, that the universe is millions of years old, that humans once resembled fish, and that all living things continue to evolve.
 

ABIOGENESIS:nonliving origin belief      (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)


1. (noun) abiogenesis, autogenesis, autogeny, spontaneous generation


a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.

Abiogenesis is the idea of life originating from non-living material (non-life).   (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)

This concept has expanded a great deal as mankind’s understanding of science has grown, but

all forms of abiogenesis have one thing in common: they are all scientifically unsupportable. 

There have been no experiments demonstrating abiogenesis in action.

It has never been observed in a natural or artificial environment.    (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)

Conditions believed to have existed on earth are either incapable of producing the building blocks needed, or self-contradictory.

No evidence has been found suggesting where or when such life might have generated. In fact, everything we know of science today seems to indicate that abiogenesis could not have happened under any naturally possible conditions.


 

 

Go back and worship your man-made deities and leave the adults alone.----------> You failed to meet my posted challenge  and clearly you do not understand that a pagan is someone who worships creation and not the CREATOR YAHUWAH.  I DO NOT worship your bitch mother nature/evolution that is a false deity. you do not know the difference between true and false because you are satans bitch. the demonic spirit that hates you. you bow to in ignorance. evolution is a man made religion inspired through the humanist lie told by SHATAN in the beginning.

 

atheist terminology falling under the stupid invented term EVOLUTION:which is being preached in maistream media


Cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary, organic, macro and micro -------evolution. dont play stupid they are all connected under the scam of evolution even if you ignore most of them because you cannot grasp the big picture. that does NOT mean they are ALL not a part of your unoriginal pagan religion of origins.


Cosmic evolution involves the origin of the universe, time and matter itself. The Big Bang theory falls within this discipline of evolution.                                        NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD



Chemical evolution involves the origin of complex elements. This discipline also attempts to explain the process in which those elements formed. 

NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD


Stellar and planetary evolution is the discipline used to explain the origin of the stars and planets. This is distinct from cosmic evolution, yet, at times, overlaps it.  NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
 


Organic evolution attempts to explain the origin of living matter. Those in origin of life studies most often focus on this discipline of evolution.
NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD


The two final disciplines of evolution are also the most often confused by people. They are macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Micro-evolution states that all living organisms experience mutations and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations. The difference between this and macro-evolution is that micro-evolution only deals with mutations within a species.

Macro-evolution, on the other hand, states that such adaptations and mutations allow new species to form.

 NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

 

Also micro changes can be observed with the scientific method. While all the other terms OF EVOLUTION are imaginary and preached as religious fact without question or basis in science or common sense. ( PAGAN HUMANIST /ATHEIST/ CHUMPS WITH CHIMP ENVY/ ARE OF THE SPIRIT OF SATAN)

 

 

 

“Men become civilized not in proportion to their willingness to believe but in proportion to their readiness to doubt” - H.L. Mencken

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
mind over matter

mind over matter wrote:


Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science.

Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to modern Christianity (which is another issue), with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.



I think you're conflating evolution with naturalism....they aren't the same thing.

If you want to purport evolution as a religion, I think you need to define religion first.

mind over matter wrote:

belief in molecules-to-man evolution can and does cause people to become atheists as admitted by leading atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins, the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. In answer to the question “Is atheism the logical extension of believing evolution?” Dawkins replied, “My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism.”



Dawkins reaction to theism in light of evolution is an epistemic reaction. That is he rejects beleif in a deity and consequently a religion in light of that...But that does not mean he converted to another religion.

mind over matter wrote:

The problem is there is NO evidence for macro-evolution at all in the fossil record. And all of our discoveries and research into micro-biology and heredity, make this idea of macro-evolution not just unlikely, but impossible. DNA works against this happening. Mutations, or errors in DNA do not add new information and do not help, any more than  a growing ink blot resulting in writing a complete encyclopedia.

Others have gone back and studied the finches on the Galapagos Islands for longer periods of time. But in the end its the same thing. The finches “inherited” traits are proving evolution! Yet they are still finches, and all that is happening is natural selection of existing information. This is still only micro-evolution, not macro-evolution,



You're either (a) ignoring evidence, (b) misinterpretting evidence, or (c) you're in denial.) In any case, it seems you've got your head in the sand. I think you need to do a fact check on the examples used to show changes in a population (your "micro-evolution" ) and speciation (your "macro-evolution" ).  Since you like Wikipedia, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

mind over matter wrote:


lol no you are being a coward and you know it. you fail to demstrate evolution through science. you failed to meet my posted challenge because you are a fraud and irrelavent to your cause.

Either you're redefining science or you don't know what science is. What about the work that has been done in the realms of cosmology and biology is unscientific?

Likewise, even if evolution is false, this does not make theism as you know it true.
 

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
mind over matternewSubmitted

ubuntuAnyone's picture

mind over matter

new

Submitted by ubuntuAnyone on September 8, 2010 - 6:00am.

 

 

 

 

mind over matter wrote:


Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science.

Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to modern Christianity (which is another issue), with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.



I think you're conflating evolution with naturalism....they aren't the same thing.--------------->

you think? you think evolution is a natural process?

If you want to purport evolution as a religion, I think you need to define religion first.-->>>

religion is a form of relation to the CREATOR  in your case you consider creation and not the creator the object of your religious faith. you give credit to creation/nature whom you call mother.


Evolution is an ancient pagan concept (MAN MADE RELIGION)where people worship nature / creation instead of a CREATOR or they invent idols based on nature/creation
the theory of evolution has been with us for a very, very long time. It actually comes from ancient pagan religious beliefs that continue to be reflected in many religious traditions around the globe today. It has been documented that many ancient pagan teachers and philosophers believed that the universe spontaneously evolved by itself, that the universe is millions of years old, that humans once resembled fish, and that all living things continue to evolve.

 

mind over matter wrote:

belief in molecules-to-man evolution can and does cause people to become atheists as admitted by leading atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins, the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. In answer to the question “Is atheism the logical extension of believing evolution?” Dawkins replied, “My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism.”



Dawkins reaction to theism in light of evolution is an epistemic reaction. That is he rejects beleif in a deity and consequently a religion in light of that...But that does not mean he converted to another religion.------->

HE has no common sense . he contradicts himself in his books and he is a goof.  He is in on the scam that you fail to grasp.  there is no escaping theism as an atheist. that is just pure denial. you admit you believe something that you cannot verify through science. you believe nothing evolved into everything. and that is is reason for being which is what dawkins has led you to believe. he is a closet pagan just like you. you both pretend there is no deity but your whole theory relies on faith in time which you believe is your god that can do anything given enough time!

 

mind over matter wrote:

The problem is there is NO evidence for macro-evolution at all in the fossil record. And all of our discoveries and research into micro-biology and heredity, make this idea of macro-evolution not just unlikely, but impossible. DNA works against this happening. Mutations, or errors in DNA do not add new information and do not help, any more than  a growing ink blot resulting in writing a complete encyclopedia.

Others have gone back and studied the finches on the Galapagos Islands for longer periods of time. But in the end its the same thing. The finches “inherited” traits are proving evolution! Yet they are still finches, and all that is happening is natural selection of existing information. This is still only micro-evolution, not macro-evolution,



You're either (a) ignoring evidence,--------> all the evidence points to a supernatural intelligence that is responsible for the the finite realm of matter in space over time with life and information. SO no I see the evidence clearly in the light of day in plain sight. it is you who has eyes wide shut

 

(b) misinterpretting evidence,------------>I am able to observe that all life comes from life and that cells only process information and they do not write information. and life leaves quickly in the form of death and noone is able to use a dead organism which contains all the building block/ingredients found in living things and then add life to the non living matter.  I also observe the only act of creation that is possible by living things is PRO-CREATION. you cannot creat matter nor can you create life. this is a proven fact of science. I also observe that cells are made of matter and information is only imprinted on matter. therefore it is immaterial which is not natural. I observe facts in the present and I observe history of people places and events.

You and every slapnut like you does not use real science to gain knowledge. infact you invent lies to support your anti-CREATOR humanist worldview.

 

 

or (c) you're in denial.)------> LOL so far you I have denied nothing and you have ignored everything. you only focus on the illusions and not the slight of hand that is making a fool of you.  you deny your faith while I admit mine. you deny that you are unable to meet my posted challenge to demonstrate the evolution of everything from nothing which is what your whole religion preaches with no basis in reality. you refuse to present facts to support your delussions. you deny the fact that noone has yet to produce the link between nonliving matter with no information to acomplete complex single living that by todays standard of knowledge is cosidered more complex that a space shuttle built by hudreds of superintelligent geeks. etc... etc.... etc.... you are the fraud and you deny it!

 

In any case, it seems you've got your head in the sand. I think you need to do a fact check on the examples used to show changes in a population (your "micro-evolution" ) and speciation (your "macro-evolution" ).  Since you like Wikipedia, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation --->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

first of it is a known fact that wikipedia is  bullshit website and run by atheists. so if you want to retreat to wikipedia that is fine with me I only used their reference to prove a point that shows how stupid they are.  My head is on my shoulders  looking toward eternity with purpose and faith and optimisim. No it is not in the sand.  and once again you show how brainwashed you are.

you are so useless to your atheist cause you deserve a promotion!

I remind you the you have nothing but recycled lies that were indoctrinated into your mind bubble filled with methan pockets. 

micro-evolution was originally already common knowledge and refered to as variation within a kind ( many many many kinds with plenty of prewritten information to allow for all the differences you seem to fail to grasp) It is a proven observed fact.

your flaw is that you like calling a circle a square! because you are a fool!~

you take what is known and accepted and then your pervert it and use it to sell your macro-evolution scam. you say look  the bacteria has become resistent there fore instead of saying it is still bacteria you say look ! it has evolved into a new species like the dumbass you are.you have just bought into a bait and switch routine.  perverting variation within a kind into macro-evolution. and then your say this happens over millions of unseen years therefore you have to accept it without question on pure faith in the asshole who lied to you in public school/atheist college for chumps with chimp envy!

 



 

mind over matter wrote:


lol no you are being a coward and you know it. you fail to demstrate evolution through science. you failed to meet my posted challenge because you are a fraud and irrelavent to your cause.

arrogant pride setting up camp and

 

Either you're redefining science or you don't know what science is. What about the work that has been done in the realms of cosmology and biology is unscientific?--------------->

 

observing the cosmos from the perspective of a dot is not prove the unisverse is billions of years old nor does it prove evolution from nothing to everything with life as we know it. but you are free to believe on faith as your religion of origins. and the work done in biology prove that thesingle living cell requires information more advanced than human intelligence. and it has also proven how complex the single cell is that it did not result from non living matter on its own by chance over billions of unobserved years .it has proven that it did not come about through natural processes. it does confirm what is in scriptures of YAHUWAH about the origins of life and information and matter in space over time in a finite realm.

 where as what you understand is a farce not science. your workdview requires the faith that is required in a religion.         

Likewise, even if evolution is false, this does not make theism as you know it true.------->so now you after all your posturing as a so called atheist now you admit you are clueless and it is by choice not science that you reject the need for a CREATOR who gives and sustains life. that is because you deny your faith and you lack conviction is a lost cause that is intended for your downfall as a spirit being within a finite realm made manefest through matter in space over time. 

using words like if is what atheist scientists use when they state evolution is a fact in schools. if it is false means it was never proven a fact yet you believe it as fact without proof. and that is the religion in your closet.

we suppose, assume speculate theorize predict imagine imply impose presupose that if ,maybe perhaps by chance in a billions years nature suggests that it could have would have might have been possible plausible probable that we believe given enough time by chance anythings will happen evern if it doesnt and never does and even if it takes too long we still accept it as fact even though we have never observed it in the real world or in the present and we cannot reproduce it on any level etc.... we have to believe it it and never accept the alternative which is unthinkable to the atheist  trained blind.  etc.. 
 

 

 

 

 

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
MoM,Your god (whatever you

MoM,

Your god (whatever you want to call him) was created by people. The people who wrote what you claim to be the original scriptures (you know, the Greek ones).

You worship the creation instead of the creators.

Pagan.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
On a semantic note, learn to

On a semantic note, learn to use the quote function. If you surround what a say with something like [ quote=ubuntuAnyone ][ /quote ] without the spaces, it make your posts easier to read.

mind over matter wrote:

you think? you think evolution is a natural process?


Evolution is a process that describes how life changes. Naturalism is a philosophy. There are plenty of theists who oppose naturalism as a philosophy but accept evolution as science.

mind over matter wrote:

religion is a form of relation to the CREATOR  in your case you consider creation and not the creator the object of your religious faith. you give credit to creation/nature whom you call mother.


In that case, my "religion" should be focused primarily at my parents who brought me into existence. My mother carried me and birthed me and my father raised me. I love my parents dearly such that my "religion" is my relationship to my parents. Under your definition, I have no reason to credit an invisible, inaudible, intangible being for my existence, much less does he/she/it deserve any sort of affection or worship.

mind over matter wrote:

HE has no common sense . he contradicts himself in his books and he is a goof.  He is in on the scam that you fail to grasp.  there is no escaping theism as an atheist. that is just pure denial. you admit you believe something that you cannot verify through science. you believe nothing evolved into everything. and that is is reason for being which is what dawkins has led you to believe. he is a closet pagan just like you. you both pretend there is no deity but your whole theory relies on faith in time which you believe is your god that can do anything given enough time!


It's not mystery that I don't care to much for Dawkins, but I was showing you were making a category mistake. Railing against him such as this, is irrelevant to your point or cause.

mind over matter wrote:

You're either (a) ignoring evidence,--------> all the evidence points to a supernatural intelligence that is responsible for the the finite realm of matter in space over time with life and information. SO no I see the evidence clearly in the light of day in plain sight. it is you who has eyes wide shut


Since you're issuing challenges, I will: show me how "all the evidence points to a supernatural intelligence that is responsible for the the finite realm of matter in space over time with life and information." I think in your attempt you'll probably end up begging the question....

mind over matter wrote:

(b) misinterpretting evidence,------------>I am able to observe that all life comes from life and that cells only process information and they do not write information. and life leaves quickly in the form of death and noone is able to use a dead organism which contains all the building block/ingredients found in living things and then add life to the non living matter.  I also observe the only act of creation that is possible by living things is PRO-CREATION. you cannot creat matter nor can you create life. this is a proven fact of science. I also observe that cells are made of matter and information is only imprinted on matter. therefore it is immaterial which is not natural. I observe facts in the present and I observe history of people places and events.
You and every slapnut like you does not use real science to gain knowledge. infact you invent lies to support your anti-CREATOR humanist worldview.



Have you ever actually observed life being given to "non living matter"?


mind over matter wrote:

observing the cosmos from the perspective of a dot is not prove the unisverse is billions of years old nor does it prove evolution from nothing to everything with life as we know it.

Do you have a better way of observing the universe? If I am unable to make observations about "the cosmos from the perspective of a dot", why should I beleive you or anything else from anyone else making observations from the same dot?

You also failed to answer my question about what is unscientific about biologgy and cosmology as we know it.

mind over matter wrote:


so now you after all your posturing as a so called atheist now you admit you are clueless and it is by choice not science that you reject the need for a CREATOR who gives and sustains life. that is because you deny your faith and you lack conviction is a lost cause that is intended for your downfall as a spirit being within a finite realm made manefest through matter in space over time.

You're bifurcating. What do you say to theists who accept the findings in contemporary science?

[Edit: Fixed quote -mellestad]

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
bifurcating : what atheist do when asked to define origins

 

ubuntuAnyone's pictureSubmitted by ubuntuAnyone on September 9, 2010 - 12:53am.

Evolution is a process that describes how life changes. Naturalism is a philosophy. There are plenty of theists who oppose naturalism as a philosophy but accept evolution as science.-------------->the only theists that accept evolution are not theists who believe in YAHUWAH and believe in HIS WORD as it is written which does not state evolution in any way shape or form. HE clearly explains that HE created matter in space over time and that He formed the matter into a MAN and only then did HE breath life from HIMSELF in the the lifeless formed MAN. LIFE as we know it is a continuation of life not a evolution fron non life.

The creationist position says dogs, wolves, foxes and coyotes all share a common ancestor. This is supported by science. This is logical and rational.

The evolutionist position says dogs, wolves, foxes and coyotes also have fish, amphibian and reptile ancestors. This is unsupported by science. This is faith. The evolutionist has faith that wolves are the descendents of ancient salamanders.

The evolutionist has faith that human beings are distant cousins of dogs, wolves, foxes and coyotes, while sharing the same salamander ancestor that panda bears, elephants, birds and giraffes share. This is unsupported by science.

The evolutionist has faith that a magic salamander contained the trillions and trillions of genetic data necessary to give rise to all species of mammals, reptiles and birds on earth.

 

 


In that case, my "religion" should be focused primarily at my parents who brought me into existence. My mother carried me and birthed me and my father raised me. I love my parents dearly such that my "religion" is my relationship to my parents. Under your definition, I have no reason to credit an invisible, inaudible, intangible being for my existence, much less does he/she/it deserve any sort of affection or worship.,,------> LIFE as we know it is a continuation of life not a evolution fron non life. you admit that your life did not originate from scum! and that you observe is a testimony that your life could only come from a continuation of life pre existing. Life is not a natural thing that happens without life to begin with, there is a need for procreation where life is to continue.

It's not mystery that I don't care to much for Dawkins, but I was showing you were making a category mistake. Railing against him such as this, is irrelevant to your point or cause.------->dawkins like darwin are poster boys for their generations of fools like you who seek to justify the fiction of evolution of everything from nothing.

Since you're issuing challenges, I will: show me how "all the evidence points to a supernatural intelligence that is responsible for the the finite realm of matter in space over time with life and information." I think in your attempt you'll probably end up begging the question....->

 The existence of YAHUWAH is taken for granted in the modern translations of the WORD OF YAHUWAH in what you think is the Bible.

There is nowhere any argument to prove it. He who disbelieves this truth is spoken of as one devoid of understanding (Psalm 14:1).

The arguments generally adduced by theologians in proof of YAHUWAHs existence are:

  • The a priori argument, which is the testimony afforded by reason.

  • The a posteriori argument, by which we proceed logically from the facts of experience to causes. These arguments are:

    1. The cosmological, by which it is proved that there must be a First Cause of all things, for every effect must have a cause.

    2. The teleological, or the argument from design. We see everywhere the operations of an intelligent Cause in nature.

    3. The moral argument, called also the anthropological argument, based on the moral consciousness and the history of mankind, which exhibits a moral order and purpose which can only be explained on the supposition of the existence of YAHUWAH. Conscience and human history testify that “verily there is a YAHUWAH that judgeth in the earth.”

      Some fools still try to insist that the machinery of the first cell could have arisen by pure chance. For instance, they say, by randomly drawing alphabet letters in sequence from a hat, sometimes you will get a simple word like 'BAT'. So given long time periods, why couldn't even more complex information arise by chance?

      However, what would the word 'BAT' mean to a German or Chinese speaker? The point is that an order of letters is meaningless unless there is a language convention and a translation system in place which makes it meaningful!

      In a cell, there is such a system (other molecules) that makes the order on the DNA meaningful. DNA without the language/translation system is meaningless, and these systems without the DNA wouldn't work either.

      The other complication is that the translation machinery which reads the order of the 'letters' in the DNA is itself specified by the DNA! This is another one of those 'machines' that needs to be fully-formed or life won't work.

      Dr. Werner Gitt, Director and Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, makes it clear that one of the things we know absolutely for sure from science, is that information cannot arise from disorder by chance. It always takes (greater) information to produce information, and ultimately information is the result of intelligence:

      'A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) . . . It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.' 'There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.'

      We can therefore deduce that the huge amount of information in living things must originally have come from an intelligence, which had to have been far superior to ours, as scientists are revealing every day. But then, some will say that such a source would have to be caused by something with even greater information/intelligence.

      However, if they reason like this, one could ask where this greater information/intelligence came from? And then where did that one come from . one could extrapolate to infinity, for ever, unless .

      Unless there was a source of infinite intelligence, beyond our finite understanding. But isn't this what the Bible indicates when we read, 'In the beginning YAHUWAH .'? The YAHUWAH of the original scriptures of YAHUWAH is an infinite being not bound by limitations of time, space, knowledge, or anything else.

       which is the logically defensible position?—that matter eternally existed (or came into existence by itself for no reason), and then by itself arranged itself into information systems against everything observed in real science?

      Or that a being with infinite intelligence, created information systems for life to exist, agreeing with real science?

      The crux of the matter is this: If one accepts there is an ELOAH ALMIGHTY  who created us, then that ELOAH YAH AM also owns us. He thus has a right to set the rules by which we must live. In the original scriptures of YAHUWAH, He has revealed to us that we are in rebellion against our Creator. Because of this rebellion called sin, our physical bodies are sentenced to death—but we will live on,  with YAHUWAH, or  not without Him in a place of judgment.

      Can you believe in the existence of something that you cannot see?

      Have you ever seen your own brain? We all believe in many things that we have never seen. Have you ever seen the wind? Have you seen history? We see the effects of the wind, but the wind is invisible. We have records of history, but it is by faith we believe that certain historical events happened. Television waves are invisible, but an antenna and a receiver can detect their presence.

      Do you know that you have a receiver? Prior to becoming a child of God, your 'receiver' (your RUWACH) is dead because of sin (see Ephesians 2:1). You need to be plugged into the life of YAHUWAH, and then you will come alive and be aware of the invisible spiritual realm.

      Scientists have found that within the cell, there are thousands of what can be called 'biochemical machines'. All of their parts have to be in place simultaneously or the cell can't function. Things which were thought to be simple mechanisms, such as being able to sense light and turn it into electrical impulses, are in fact highly complicated.

      Since life is built on these 'machines', the idea that natural processes could have made a living system is untenable. Biochemist Dr. Michael Behe uses the term 'irreducible complexity' in describing such biochemical 'machines'.

      '…systems of horrendous, irreducible complexity inhabit the cell. The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century who have gotten used to thinking of life as the result of simple natural laws. But other centuries have had their shocks, and there is no reason to suppose that we should escape them.

      'For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse' (Romans 1:20). var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));

      var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-1914339-1");
      pageTracker._initData();
      pageTracker._trackPageview();

      var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
      document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));

      var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-1914339-1");
      pageTracker._initData();
      pageTracker._trackPageview();

 

Have you ever actually observed life being given to "non living matter"->?NO! and I know that you have not either. the state of life is sustained through procreation.

Do you have a better way of observing the universe? -->making false assumptions has nothing to do with observation.

If I am unable to make observations about "the cosmos from the perspective of a dot", why should I beleive you or anything else from anyone else making observations from the same dot?---> you are free to believe lies that men have told you or you can do your own research and test the things that are said only the truth is visable in the light of day. observing distance does not mean you are observing time in the same context. light  does not travel at a constant rate of speed. so being a dot in the universe does not give you the authority to dictate false presuppositions about billions of unseen unobserved years. of course if you want to push the lie of evolution then you need every unscientific quote you can inmagine.

life leaves in an instant in the form of death and does not take millions of years to spontaniously occur yet your theory depends on unseen amounts of time for life to occur by natural causes.

You also failed to answer my question about what is unscientific about biologgy and cosmology as we know it.
---->we do not know the same things if we did you would not be deaf dumb and blind to reality

everything as you define biology and cosmology is unscientific yet you believe it as gospel.

 

What do you say to theists who accept the findings in contemporary science? --->I say if you accept evolution just as the satanic pope does then your are a damned fool and are without excuse and you were never of YAHUWAH but instead you are of SHATAN.

 

your religion of evolution is a man made false god

Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!

Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.

Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his “missing link&rdquoEye-wink. (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)

Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: “Skull fragment may not be human”, Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)

Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: “Upgrading Neanderthal Man”, Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I agree

jcgadfly wrote:

MoM,

Your god (whatever you want to call him) was created by people. The people who wrote what you claim to be the original scriptures (you know, the Greek ones).

You worship the creation instead of the creators.

Pagan.

 

MOM is a pagan and he is in love with a god invented by people. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm pretty sure MoM is

I'm pretty sure MoM is Jewish, thus there are no "Greek ones"

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:I'm pretty sure

Kapkao wrote:

I'm pretty sure MoM is Jewish, thus there are no "Greek ones"

"Greek ones" = Septuagint

MoM believes those to be the "real" Scriptures

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
mind over matter wrote:the

mind over matter wrote:

the only theists that accept evolution are not theists who believe in YAHUWAH and believe in HIS WORD as it is written which does not state evolution in any way shape or form. HE clearly explains that HE created matter in space over time and that He formed the matter into a MAN and only then did HE breath life from HIMSELF in the the lifeless formed MAN. LIFE as we know it is a continuation of life not a evolution fron non life.

The creationist position says dogs, wolves, foxes and coyotes all share a common ancestor. This is supported by science. This is logical and rational.

So...MOM has just said he that he accepts evolution, so he's not the theist he says he is...

mind over matter wrote:

The evolutionist position says dogs, wolves, foxes and coyotes also have fish, amphibian and reptile ancestors. This is unsupported by science. This is faith. The evolutionist has faith that wolves are the descendents of ancient salamanders.

The evolutionist has faith that human beings are distant cousins of dogs, wolves, foxes and coyotes, while sharing the same salamander ancestor that panda bears, elephants, birds and giraffes share. This is unsupported by science.

The evolutionist has faith that a magic salamander contained the trillions and trillions of genetic data necessary to give rise to all species of mammals, reptiles and birds on earth.

Such things are supported by science...I'm not sure where  you're getting your facts from, but it sounds like you are reading science books edited and published by YEC's

 

mind over matter wrote:

NO! and I know that you have not either. the state of life is sustained through procreation.

You believe that man was created from dust by an invisible, inaudible, intangible being, that you've never sseen before over just believing that man came from dust alone... That's not scientific at all, rather it sounds quite a bit more fanciful than some form of abiogenesis.

mind over matter wrote:

you are free to believe lies that men have told you or you can do your own research and test the things that are said only the truth is visable in the light of day. observing distance does not mean you are observing time in the same context. light  does not travel at a constant rate of speed. so being a dot in the universe does not give you the authority to dictate false presuppositions about billions of unseen unobserved years. of course if you want to push the lie of evolution then you need every unscientific quote you can inmagine.

That doesn't tell why I should believe you. Why is your observation from this same rock in space any better than mine?

mind over matter wrote:

Shatanic Pope...

...the only theists that accept evolution are not theists who believe in YAHUWAH and believe in HIS WORD as it is written which does not state evolution in any way shape or form...

The No-True-Scotsman fallacy at work....geez.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
              

 

 

 

 

  

 

  Submitted by ubuntuAnyone on September 27, 2010 - 12:06am.     You believe that man was created from dust by an invisible, inaudible, intangible being, that you've never sseen before over just believing that man came from dust alone... That's not scientific at all, rather it sounds quite a bit more fanciful than some form of abiogenesis.      

 

 response--> I understand the facts  that support what was already known and recorded thoudands of years ago. I still admit that anything stated to have happened requires faith not science.  the scientific facts state that life comes from life. therefore life is a something that has no natural origin. The fact that no life has ever been discovered anywhere other than Earth does not disprove that life on our planet exists only because life adapted to our environment, but it has to raise the question. If it doesn’t science is dishonest with itself. If life happened and exists on this planet because it adapted to the environment over time, why would it not do the same with other environments, such as the environment on Mars or Venus or? Anything that even suggests that only the Earth is suited to support life also must suggest that the elements that support life here exist because of Earth’s position. For example, the Earth is a specific distance from the sun and the moon a specific distance from the Earth. If the Earth were any closer to the sun, it would be too hot for life too exist as we know it now. If the moon were any closer to the Earth, it would cause massive tidal waves and be unsafe to live near the shoreline. If it were any farther away, the moon would not have enough pull on the oceans and life in the oceans (as we know it) would die off. Evolution argues that life adapted to this environment, evolving to support itself in the temperature we live in, etc. If this were true, why wouldn’t such a theory suggest that there should also be life on other planets, especially those near to us? Why wouldn’t life adapt there as well? What makes our environment less harsh than another? It is not less harsh than Neptune, just different. If life evolved to survive in frozen nitrogen rather than 70 degree gaseous oxygen, Earth would be the harsh environment and Pluto might be more sufficient, correct? The FACT that the Earth is where it is and there is life on it, and the FACT that the moon is in the exact location it needs to be to keep the oceans clean on the Earth, and the FACT that the 23 1/2 degree tilt of the earth in relationship to the revolution of the Earth around the sun creates the perfection of the seasons and climates for the northern and southern hemispheres on the Earth SHOULD suffice a scientific theory that there is an intelligence to why Earth supports life and nothing else does. That the Earth supports life while no other celestial body does is scientific theory ever as much as evolution and gravity are, which should therefore also at least SUGGEST that there is intelligent design to life on Earth. To believe that it all just happened this way by accident is not only scientifically ridiculous but any scientist with a working brain would have to lie to himself to ignore the facts that our system is the only one that has the ability to support life.

you are free to believe lies that men have told you or you can do your own research and test the things that are said only the truth is visable in the light of day. observing distance does not mean you are observing time in the same context. light  does not travel at a constant rate of speed. so being a dot in the universe does not give you the authority to dictate false presuppositions about billions of unseen unobserved years. of course if you want to push the lie of evolution then you need every unscientific quote you can inmagine.

 

 

 

 

"That doesn't tell why I should believe you. Why is your observation from this same rock in space any better than mine?

-------------------->

typical atheist bias and lack of depth in understanding:

1) Life arose on Earth thanks to the conditions of the planet. Why didn’t life arise in any of the other planets? Because the conditions wouldn’t allow it. You must first understand what is needed to create life as we know it.

2) There is no reason to believe that life on earth was the product of an intelligence. The origin of life on earth can be explained through natural means alone. It’s just chemistry. It was in a sense an accident as much as raining is an accident. It is a natural process bound to happen when certain conditions are met.

3) The theory of Evolution (which is a fact, scientific theories all are) makes no attempt to explain how life began nor why life appears exclusive to Earth. That is abiogenesis and it’s a complete scientific realm on its own. All evolution explains is the ‘diversity’ of life once it already happened. First life occurs THEN evolution can start doing its thing.

4) The ‘appearance’ of design does not warrant a designer. Besides, if you are going to claim an intelligence is behind life, it begs the question; how would life look like if there was NO intelligence behind it?

5) Religion can’t hold up to the same standards as evolution. To begin with, religious belief can not be falsified. Evolution can. Evolution presents evidence you can test and which help make predictions about the world that surrounds us. Religion does not. Evolution has been proven true time and again. Religion has always been and will always be based on blind faith.

Answer:

1)Once again based on assumption. Assuming that the only condition for life is the conditions found on earth.

2)IF it is just chemistry, where did the information come from. IE where did the single cell amoeba get the DNA information to produce an eye, etc.

3)The theory of evolution is not fact, it cannot be proven. You cant test theories presented in evolution. First problem, dating mechanisms are flawed. Second. There is no control. Third there is no direct observance.

5 Evolution has been proven false time and time again. Don’t give one side of the story and then preach it as scienctific. you deny that you believe evolution because you want to, not because you know it is true.

 

 

 quick  reminder for your mind bubble

Science means "to know" and "systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc." It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, suppose, etc. but they don't "know." Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. They have watched their colleagues rushing to protect Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests.

 remember  there are many incredible mistakes made by evolutionists because of their faith: Haeckel's recapitulation theory that only third-rate scientists believe; also the vestigial organ error; the failure of the fossil record (that no informed evolutionist uses to prove his position), etc.

 

Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change." I assume that all college professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact. (I also assume they know that Darwin was not trained as a scientist but for the ministry, so evolutionists are worshipping at the feet of an apostate preacher!)

 

 atheist hypocrites list of logical fallacies        

 

1. Ad hominem An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter anothers claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself. True believers will often commit this fallacy by countering the arguments of skeptics by stating that skeptics are closed minded. Skeptics, on the other hand, may fall into the trap of dismissing the claims of UFO believers, for example, by stating that people who believe in UFO’s are crazy or stupid.
2. Ad ignorantiam The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true. Defenders of extrasensory perception, for example, will often overemphasize how much we do not know about the human brain. UFO proponents will often argue that an object sighted in the sky is unknown, and therefore it is an alien spacecraft.
3. Argument from authority Stating that a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. It is reasonable to give more credence to the claims of those with the proper background, education, and credentials, or to be suspicious of the claims of someone making authoritative statements in an area for which they cannot demonstrate expertise. But the truth of a claim should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of the person promoting it.
4. Argument from final Consequences Such arguments (also called teleological) are based on a reversal of cause and effect, because they argue that something is caused by the ultimate effect that it has, or purpose that is serves. For example: God must exist, because otherwise life would have no meaning.
5. Argument from Personal Incredulity I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true. Creationists are fond of arguing that they cannot imagine the complexity of life resulting from blind evolution, but that does not mean life did not evolve.
6. Confusing association with causation This is similar to the post-hoc fallacy in that it assumes cause and effect for two variables simply because they are correlated, although the relationship here is not strictly that of one variable following the other in time. This fallacy is often used to give a statistical correlation a causal interpretation. For example, during the 1990’s both religious attendance and illegal drug use have been on the rise. It would be a fallacy to conclude that therefore, religious attendance causes illegal drug use. It is also possible that drug use leads to an increase in religious attendance, or that both drug use and religious attendance are increased by a third variable, such as an increase in societal unrest. It is also possible that both variables are independent of one another, and it is mere coincidence that they are both increasing at the same time. A corollary to this is the invocation of this logical fallacy to argue that an association does not represent causation, rather it is more accurate to say that correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but it can. Also, multiple independent correlations can point reliably to a causation, and is a reasonable line of argument.
7. Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable Because we do not currently have an adequate explanation for a phenomenon does not mean that it is forever unexplainable, or that it therefore defies the laws of nature or requires a paranormal explanation. An example of this is the “God of the Gapsâ” strategy of creationists that whatever we cannot currently explain is unexplainable and was therefore an act of god.
8. False Continuum The idea that because there is no definitive demarcation line between two extremes, that the distinction between the extremes is not real or meaningful: There is a fuzzy line between cults and religion, therefore they are really the same thing.
9. False Dichotomy Arbitrarily reducing a set of many possibilities to only two. For example, evolution is not possible, therefore we must have been created (assumes these are the only two possibilities). This fallacy can also be used to oversimplify a continuum of variation to two black and white choices. For example, science and pseudoscience are not two discrete entities, but rather the methods and claims of all those who attempt to explain reality fall along a continuum from one extreme to the other.
10. Inconsistency Applying criteria or rules to one belief, claim, argument, or position but not to others. For example, some consumer advocates argue that we need stronger regulation of prescription drugs to ensure their safety and effectiveness, but at the same time argue that medicinal herbs should be sold with no regulation for either safety or effectiveness.
11. The Moving Goalpost A method of denial arbitrarily moving the criteria for “proof” or acceptance out of range of whatever evidence currently exists.
12. Non-Sequitur In Latin this term translates to “doesn’t follow”. This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.
13. Post-hoc ergo propter hoc This fallacy follows the basic format of: A preceded B, therefore A caused B, and therefore assumes cause and effect for two events just because they are temporally related (the latin translates to “after this, therefore because of this&rdquoEye-wink.
14. Reductio ad absurdum In formal logic, the reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate argument. It follows the form that if the premises are assumed to be true it necessarily leads to an absurd (false) conclusion and therefore one or more premises must be false. The term is now often used to refer to the abuse of this style of argument, by stretching the logic in order to force an absurd conclusion. For example a UFO enthusiast once argued that if I am skeptical about the existence of alien visitors, I must also be skeptical of the existence of the Great Wall of China, since I have not personally seen either. This is a false reductio ad absurdum because he is ignoring evidence other than personal eyewitness evidence, and also logical inference. In short, being skeptical of UFO’s does not require rejecting the existence of the Great Wall.
15. Slippery Slope This logical fallacy is the argument that a position is not consistent or tenable because accepting the position means that the extreme of the position must also be accepted. But moderate positions do not necessarily lead down the slippery slope to the extreme.
16. Straw Man Arguing against a position which you create specifically to be easy to argue against, rather than the position actually held by those who oppose your point of view.
17. Special pleading, or ad-hoc reasoning This is a subtle fallacy which is often difficult to recognize. In essence, it is the arbitrary introduction of new elements into an argument in order to fix them so that they appear valid. A good example of this is the ad-hoc dismissal of negative test results. For example, one might point out that ESP has never been demonstrated under adequate test conditions, therefore ESP is not a genuine phenomenon. Defenders of ESP have attempted to counter this argument by introducing the arbitrary premise that ESP does not work in the presence of skeptics. This fallacy is often taken to ridiculous extremes, and more and more bizarre ad hoc elements are added to explain experimental failures or logical inconsistencies.
18. Tautology A tautology is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise. The structure of such arguments is A=B therefore A=B, although the premise and conclusion might be formulated differently so it is not immediately apparent as such. For example, saying that therapeutic touch works because it manipulates the life force is a tautology because the definition of therapeutic touch is the alleged manipulation (without touching) of the life force.
19. Tu quoque Literally, you too. This is an attempt to justify wrong action because someone else also does it. “My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours.”
20. Unstated Major Premise This fallacy occurs when one makes an argument which assumes a premise which is not explicitly stated. For example, arguing that we should label food products with their cholesterol content because Americans have high cholesterol assumes that: 1) cholesterol in food causes high serum cholesterol; 2) labeling will reduce consumption of cholesterol; and 3) that having a high serum cholesterol is unhealthy. This fallacy is also sometimes called begging the question.
 

 Evolution is a guess, a speculation, an hypothesis, a theory, a faith. Yes, evolution is a religion!And, since it is a faith, it should not be taught in public schools. At least, any thinking, honest person would agree that if it is, then scientific creationism should be taught along with it. After all, we do believe in balance and fairness, don't we? Or do we? obviously in your case you are satans pawn.

It's interesting that the hypocrites at the ACLU (who helped fund the Scopes Trial) whined in Dayton that only one theory of origins can legally be taught in Tennessee and that's unfair. Well, now they are on the inside, and demand to keep the same monopoly that they argued against.

 Surprise, surprise, surprise. I thought various ideas should be presented to students so they could make up their own minds. Could it be that evolutionists are not as sure of their faith as they pretend to be? I think so. They are like a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat – that isn't there.

Too bad atheist professors, evolution is NOT a fact. It is a fraud, a fake, a farce and a faith, and taxpayers should demand that the religion of evolution be kept out of public schools unless the truth of scientific creationism is also taught.

why don't you apply your common atheist  sense and put your faith in evolution on trial.   evolution fits all the criteria of a religion not science. yet you lie when claiming evolution is founded in science.

I admit my faith in a SUPERNATURAL infinite BEING whom you fail grasp intellectully. while you deny your pagan based faith whereas  You believe that man was created from dust by an invisible, inaudible, intangible nothing, that you've never seen before over just believing that man came from dust alone... That's not scientific at all, rather it sounds quite a bit more fanciful than some form of biogenesis.

bio meaning life and genesis meaning record of origins
  The five books of Moses were collectively called the Pentateuch,
  a word of Greek origin meaning "the five-fold book." The YAHSRAELITES
  called them the Torah, i.e., "the law." It is probable that the
  division of the Torah into five books proceeded from the Greek
  translators of the Old Testament. The names by which these
  several books are generally known are Greek.

The first book of the Pentateuch (q.v.) is called by the  YAHSRAELITES
 Bereshith, i.e., "in the beginning", because this is the first
  word of the book. It is generally known among Christians(YAHUWAHns) by the
  name of Genesis, i.e., "creation" or "generation," being the
  name given to it in the LXX. as designating its character,
  because it gives an account of the origin of all things. It
  contains, according to the usual computation, the history of
  about two thousand three hundred and sixty-nine years.
 
    Genesis is divided into two principal parts. The first part
  (1-11) gives a general history of mankind down to the time of
  the Dispersion. The second part presents the early history of
  Israel down to the death and burial of Joseph (12-50).
 
    There are five principal persons brought in succession under
  our notice in this book, and around these persons the history of
  the successive periods is grouped, viz., Adam (1-3), Noah (4-9),
  Abraham (10-25:18), Isaac (25:19-35:29), and Jacob (36-50).
 
    In this book we have several prophecies concerning

ChristUW (HA MAHSHIACH/MESSIAH) (3:15; 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; 49:10). The scribes of
  this book 10 including  Moses(MOSHA) to whom the documents were passed down through to present day despite the currupt translations to english and the many false pagan names infused into them by the pagan ROMAM sun and moon etc.. worshipping empire.

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


ifywar
ifywar's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2008-09-25
User is offlineOffline
prediction verified by experiment

one possible scientific experiment is to attempt to falsify or strengthen the theory by making a prediction using the theory, and following it.

in this case, i would point to tiktaalik, which was found by neil shubin in 2004. the prediction was something along the lines of;

since we only find fish in rocks 380 million years old, and amphibians in rock 360 million years old, then we should find a missing link somewhere in between.

after searching in rocks of that age, in the area where the advent of the species would have taken place, tiktaalik was found.

tiktaalik is literally a half fish, half amphibian. it has scales on its back, and fins, yet it has a flat lizard head, shoulders, and looking under the fin we find the beginings of the arm, with the shoulder leading to an arm leading to an elbow, and miraculously, a wrist.

so, my counter question is, why do all predictions sway to evolution? if creationism is correct, we should find that dinosaurs lived, and therefore died at the same time as modern animals and even humans. why do all of the fossils convieniently line up to make a perfect progressive model of species throughout the ages?

 

on top of that, your references to "cosmsic, chemical, micro and macro evolution" makes me think that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution, or no oubt even the word theory means.

There is no hard line between idea, hypothesis, theory, and fact, but a scale by which one can measure by degrees of certainty one can say that something is so. A fact is merely something that is so supported by such a volume of evidence, that it would not make sense to doubt it. Evolution is a fact, natural selection is the theory through which it acts, and it is this colloquial misconception which causes much doubt to be cast on evolution by creationists.

there is no chemical, cosmic, micro, or macro evolution. evolution merely states that a specimen with a beneficial mutation (slightly longer giraffe neck, slightly brighter peacock colours) will live longer, and pass on the mutation, and its genes more than a specimen which died due to lack of this mutation. the compounding of these mutations over a very long amount of time (several million years) would result in a species looking completely different. if you agree micro evolution (or whatever you try to call it) happens, you must admit that over millions of years, these small mutations would add up to change the species entirely, also, dont give me any of that "never seen data added" shit, that has been exhausted already.

 

as for cosmic? i must assume you are asking how we know how old the universe is, well, we have many ways, which i am not a specialist in, but if you do want to learn (Which you claim to) then google WMAP, or radiometric dating.

 

chemical dating? ask doctor manhattan, im sure he would love to tell you how gold can only be made in supernovas.

 

 

i still look for bunnies in the cambrian.

all hail the great and powerful sluffywinks.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
science-fiction describes atheist religion of origins

ifywar's picture DRONE who admits faith in science fiction which is an oxymoron for fools

prediction verified by experiment

Submitted by ifywar on December 5, 2010 - 11:44am.

 

one possible scientific experiment is to attempt to falsify or strengthen the theory by making a prediction using the theory, and following it.

in this case, i would point to tiktaalik, which was found by neil shubin in 2004. the prediction was something along the lines of;

since we only find fish in rocks 380 million years old, and amphibians in rock 360 million years old, then we should find a missing link somewhere in between.

after searching in rocks of that age, in the area where the advent of the species would have taken place, tiktaalik was found.

tiktaalik is literally a half fish, half amphibian. it has scales on its back, and fins, yet it has a flat lizard head, shoulders, and looking under the fin we find the beginings of the arm, with the shoulder leading to an arm leading to an elbow, and miraculously, a wrist.

so, my counter question is, why do all predictions sway to evolution? ----------->first you need to understand that you are using fiction to base you delusion of a question which has no foundation in reality. you started telling nonsense about only finding fish in rocks and that those rocks are 380million years old etc... with the other eg.'s. your socalled predictions are not relevant because they are not based in reality. Too bad Soo sad!

Tiktaalik, a species of extinct sarcopterygian fish, is classified as having lived during the late Devonian period. Using evolutionary dating methods, it is dated to have lived around 375 million years ago. It is assumed by evolutionists to be the missing link between fish and tetrapods; it was even dubbed "fishapod" by one of its discoverers, Neil Shubin. The Tiktaalik was discovered on Ellesmere Island on April 6, 2006.

Characteristics

The specimen found consisted of a skull and several bone fragments, namely, the shoulder, wrist, and fin, among others. According to evolutionists, the Tiktaalik was an intermediate form between sea and land animals. This conclusion was reached because of Tiktaalik's similarities to both fish and tetrapods. For instance, it is assumed to have had the scales and gills of a fish and yet also to have had tetrapod limbs and lungs, as well as a mobile neck. Its alleged half-fish and half-tetrapod characteristics included limb bones and joints which resembled those of a tetrapod but had fins rather than toes on the "feet".

For all these features, however, it is clear that Tiktaalik was simply a fish; its lobed fins appear better suited for swimming in water rather than crawling on land, and other fish, such as the Coelacanth, were also thought to be "missing links" until they were discovered to be some form of fish. It has been placed by evolutionists alongside Archaeopteryx, but they fail to see that neither animal was a transitional form; archaeopteryx was a full bird, tiktaalik was a full fish.

 

if creationism is correct, we should find that dinosaurs lived, and therefore died at the same time as modern animals and even humans. why do all of the fossils convieniently line up to make a perfect progressive model of species throughout the ages?

---->the simple answer to your drone brainwashed question is that they do not. never did and never will in the real world. However in your science fiction books they can exist to appear any way you want them to.  you obviously did not go to reality school nor did you  consider thinking for yourself and researching the invention/origin  of the  imaginary geo-ilogical  collumn  bycharles lyel  (lawyer/asshole/atheist/satanic bitch mentor of Darwin.)

regarding terrible lizards/dinosaurs as you call them, they are represented throughout human records of history. that means real eye witness accounts proving that humans and dinos lived at the same time. SURPRISE!  it's called history. go learn!

 

on top of that, your references to "cosmsic, chemical, micro and macro evolution" makes me think that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution, or no oubt even the word theory means.----------->> Really? you think? Misunderstanding of evolution and theory? OH, you mean the atheist religion of  human origins based in speculation and paganism! Right that science fiction thing you admire so much like Dr.manhatten.

 

 

There is no hard line between idea, hypothesis, theory, and fact, but a scale by which one can measure by degrees of certainty one can say that something is so. A fact is merely something that is so supported by such a volume of evidence, that it would not make sense to doubt it. Evolution is a fact, natural selection is the theory through which it acts, and it is this colloquial misconception which causes much doubt to be cast on evolution by creationists.

there is no chemical, cosmic, micro, or macro evolution. evolution merely states that a specimen with a beneficial mutation (slightly longer giraffe neck, slightly brighter peacock colours) will live longer, and pass on the mutation, and its genes more than a specimen which died due to lack of this mutation. the compounding of these mutations over a very long amount of time (several million years) would result in a species looking completely different. if you agree micro evolution (or whatever you try to call it) happens, you must admit that over millions of years, these small mutations would add up to change the species entirely, also, dont give me any of that "never seen data added" shit, that has been exhausted already.

----------->first you need a lesson in facts  not science fiction which is an invented term for idiots by satanists.

I shall provide you what you lack in education about the real world in real time

 

 

as for cosmic? i must assume you are asking how we know how old the universe is, well, we have many ways, which i am not a specialist in, but if you do want to learn (Which you claim to) then google WMAP, or radiometric dating.

 

chemical dating? ask doctor manhattan, im sure he would love to tell you how gold can only be made in supernovas.

-> yes I am sure in your atheist dream world I might consider asking dr.manhatten to meet my posted challenge since you clearly failed most adriably for a chump with chimp envy!

------------->you education begins here starting with foundations that support  a sound sytem of belief that is considered knowledge.

 

first for evolution to happen you need life to exist  and since you cannot use science to show how life existed befor it evolved you are a still atheist drone slapnut  

since by your stupid branwashed religion of origins there is no life to evolve in the first place. evolution is not relevant.

I do not need to invent stupid theories for idiots to hide behind. nor would I say it takes too long  to see happening in realtime. I do not need mutations and natural selection and fossils to prove a fact that supports a worldview that is a majority in the worlds population even if we people of are not on the same page as to the truth identity of the ALMIGHTY CREATOR. the fact remains that  the need for communion with our CREATOR ALMIGHTY is relevent becuase there is a issue of life and death for us all.   HE WHO IS ETERNAL /self existent ->  YAHUWAH and He manifests HIMSELF  in so many many ways beyond your atheist capacity to grasp.

since there was by your foolish beliefe no life to evolve all you have is death/nonliving matter/materials that can be found today in living matter.

I  can show through repeatable science that life only comes from life fully funtional with no need to evolve. It happens every day.

A man by the name of Louis Pasture had just finished a set of experiments that proved that micro organisms lived in the air. This was a finding that everyone was waiting for. The reason was there had been a scientific fight between two theories. One was called spontaneous generation and the other theory dictated that life comes from life. The spontaneous generation camp would quickly point out that maggots appeared from meat, that mosquitoes came from a pond or the mice would appear from warm moist soil. How could a maggot appear where there were no other maggots present? How could mold appear on bread where no mold was present? They concluded that matter contained the vital material and energy that would cause life to spontaneously generate if combined with other chemicals or conditions that were right. in 1862 we see that Louis Pasture indeed published the proofs that bacteria is in the air and that is were the "new life" comes from and effectively demolished the theory of spontaneous generation once and for all. In fact, the Law of Biogenesis, that life only comes from life, was formed in part thanks to Pasture's work. We call curing milk pasteurization in honor of Louis's work in bacteria. Pasture had once and for all killed the silly notion that life can come from matter or did he?
 

scientists of all persuasions have missed a critical issue when discussing the validity of evolution. And that is evolution has a pillar, that is a support beam to the theory as a whole, which is based on an assumption that has been disproved centuries ago. This fact is repeatable, demonstrative, and very predicable. In fact, the assumption that life only comes from life, and not inorganic matter, is given the highest level that any assumption is given in science and that is the level of a Law. If there is anything that science knows to be true it is Laws. Laws trump theory. If you take out the idea of spontaneous generation from evolution, I cannot see how the house of evolution can stand. If indeed spontaneous generation is that critical to evolution, then the Law of Bio Genesis trumps the theory of evolution.

present day, one might be mystified to see many great scientists still peddling the evolution myth which is based on a retired old idea. Not only that, we are forcing teachers to teach our kids this myth. One side says that life comes from life and this is observed 100% of the time with not one observable inconsistency, the other side being satanic dumbass monkey wannabe bitchnugget drones says life comes from inorganic matter at some time in the past, which has never been observed or duplicated in labs once ever! Yes, that means no repeatable facts of science.  I am not sure about you as you will have to make up your own immaterial mind, but I think I would place my bets on something that is right 100% of the time and not rely on something that is right 0% of the time as in your case according to your false manmade religion for drones.

So why do so called scientists claim to posses so much evidence of evolution, to the point that the establishment agrees with them?

Simply because these asshole scientists had an assumption where they then went out to find the proofs to support the assumption.

However, if your foundational assumption is wrong, the house of evidence you build on that foundation becomes very suspect. The idea that life can erupt from nonliving matter has been soundly dismissed by the strongest demonstrative methods known to science and as such, the evidence that support that assumption become very suspect. It does not matter how eloquently and skilfully the evidence is built, if the foundation is falling apart the building must be condemned. evolution cannot occur in the first place because it has no foundation in science.

This is also a repeatable fact. you are mentaly deaf dumb and blind .

 

 Science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method ..... the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding



So we see by the above definition, that true science should be defined as facts, backed up by tests using the scientific method. So, what is the scientific method? It is defined below.

Scientific Method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
Theory: Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&ampEye-winkr-E
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
Date: 1592
The analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another : abstract thought :SPECULATION: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b :an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE.


 

definition of religion is:
Main Entry: religion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith <-atheists pay attention to your hypocrisy (you are just closet pagans who worships a manmade entity called mother nature) You are for pro choice which is really pro murder of unborn humans. pity no atheists were aborted through that mentality.



 

Another dictionary explains "religion" in these terms:
Religion: a belief in, recognition of or an awakened sense of, a higher, unseen controlling power or powers with the emotion or morality connected therewith: rites or worship: any system of such belief or worship: devoted fidelity: monastic life.
faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
You will notice that the Webster's definition of "faith" is the same as the Biblical definition. I think that we can, in simple terms, explain the faithful of a religion as those who have become an institution by their faith, which is belief in something in which there is no scientific proof. If you can't see it, and no one has ever seen it, and there is no proof that it happened then to believe it is certainly faith and when it is instituted with a group of others, it is a religion.

 

Evolution Is The Religion:
look at ways in which those who believe in evolution are faithful in their religious beliefs.



1. Belief in a "Big Bang," that they have no proof of.

2. Belief in life which resulted from chemical processes, of which they have no proof.

 

 

 

   

 

 

3. Belief in an old Earth, for which no convincing proof has ever been found.
4. Belief in macro-evolution without producing any transitionary forms.
5. Belief in uniformitarianism, that all environmental processes have always been the same on Earth, with no proof of that hypothesis.
First, since evolution is a religion, it should not be subsidized by the government. To me this seems like what the ACLU terms a violation to the separation of Church and State, as accorded in the Constitution. Billions of dollars of government grants are given each year for the furtherment of evolutional study.
Secondly, evolution should not be taught as a theory or fact in public schools. This is another clear violation of the constitution. I have proved that evolution is a faith, and if one looks at it clearly, it takes more faith to believe in it than other faiths do. So, lets get it out of our schools.

 

 I accept  your failure to meet my posted challenge. now run along back to your atheist home base and bring more chumps with chimp envy.

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.