mind over matter

Submitted by Tapey on January 2, 2011 - 8:02am.

 

 

mind over matter wrote:

 

---------> lol you chump with chimp envy!  wikipedia is an atheist bullshit webbsite.   and only an atheist would refer to a blind watchmaker out of stupidity. ie.richard dawkins a high priest of the fools religion for closet pagans who call themselves atheists for non musement.

so by your stupid analogy of random chance you expect great things? tell me chump with your faith in such stupidity would yould play the lottery everyday for ten years and expect to win everyday for ten years straight?  why is mutation your answer when life has to exist first in order to as you  dogmatically say evolved. you   refer to mutations because you are deluded to believe evolution is possible in the first place.  you should learn to think for yourself.

think about your story of origins, how there is no life to begin with thus nothing to evolve .  People get cancer  and people survive to live and have children so your stupid mutations analogy is retarded. survival of the fittest is not a factor that supports your pagan religion for cretards.

 

you are more likely to fail  waste your time with fairy tales than represent the atheist drones on this thread.

speaking of fairy tales I noticed you did not refer to the frog that evolved into an atheist fairy tale. How did the frog evolve into a an atheist dumbass like you?

 

 

 

I assure you, the ugly duckling ad snow white prove evolution and everything you want proof of. Show how my reasoning is incorrect.

 

Level 5 Laser Lotus
of
Reformed Neo-Buddhism

 

-->your reasoning is incorrect  starting with your delusion about fairy tales and how they nothing to do with the origin of matter in space over time .

your satanic worldview is pathetic and demands you to look into the mirror mirror on the wall and see who is the biggest fraud lover of lies of them all. YOu YOU ! says the man in the mirror looking at you in disgust.  your ugly dickling is unable to grasp reality and immature and prone to peer pressure just like you.

You continue to expose your self as a goof calling yourself a high ranking pagan for satan.  level 5 laser dumbass of the reformed neo humanist cult that worships nature based in babylonian crunchbutter.

you need to wake up and go learn yourself you overratted chump with chimp envy!

deuche bags apprentice

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(-&ampr-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 neo buddist babylonian campfire

 

 

Why should I prove your position for you? Something coming from nothing is your view not mine.

Or do you forget that Yahuwah created life from non-life according to your holy book?

I didn't evolve from nothing. I came from my parents and other ancestors. Just like you.

Poor baby. You know nothing, are incapable of learning anything and are proud of it.

mind over matter

Submitted by jcgadfly on January 2, 2011 - 11:18am.

 

 

mind over matter wrote:

 

Submitted by jcgadfly on January 1, 2011 - 8:39pm.

so he is a sadistic prick and you are happy about it - good to know.

Why are you quoting from the Roman pagan Paul? Or is he a "true Israelite" like the Greeks who made the LXX?

 

->  why don't you prove you are not a chump with chimp envy? explain how you evolved from nothing?

stop being a gadfly on a horses ass

 

 

Why should I prove your position for you? Something coming from nothing is your view not mine.you believe evolution over billions of years so you believe  something from nothing by nothing and noone, DUMB ASS

Or do you forget that Yahuwah created life from non-life according to your holy book?You didnt read the text, dumbass  .  YAHUWAH formed the human body and then breathed life into it from HIM SELF.  not from non life.  you are a ty[ical liar.

I didn't evolve from nothing. I came from my parents and other ancestors. Just like you. You didnt evolve from anything period. evolution is a man made religion. EVOLUTION bever happend!  learn it!

Poor baby. You know nothing, are incapable of learning anything and are proud of it. I have a huge problem learning lies preached as knowledge gained through the method of science.  Preaching evolution is not teaching anything worth knowing in the real world.  Anything you call knowledge is a getto slang semantics and babble.

 

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

 

 I AM

dispelling the two most popular myths perpetuated by most advocates of evolutionism, namely:

1.	The myth that the Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution belief system—as heavily popularized by today’s self-appointed “science experts,” the popular media, academia, and certain government agencies—finds “overwhelming” or even merely unequivocal support in the data of empirical science
2.	The myth that the alternative—biblical creation—somehow fails to find any compelling, corroborative support in the same data

The question of origins is plainly a matter of science history—not the domain of applied science.  Contrary to the unilateral denials of many evolutionists, one’s worldview does indeed play heavily on one’s interpretation of scientific data, a phenomenon that is magnified in matters concerning origins, where neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurement—the three immutable elements of the scientific method—may be employed.  Many proponents of evolutionism nevertheless persist in claiming exclusive “scientific” status for their popularized beliefs, while heaping out-of-hand dismissal and derision upon all doubters, spurning the very advice of Darwin himself.

this MoM is crazy

I can't help but notice that you have actually 2794 posts, and are on rrs from about... 16 months?
With a fast calculation this gives about 6 messages/day. Impressive.

Also from what I've heard about this yahuwah I can't tell if it's a joke or it's a religion.

What's so great??? In how many threads you post, everyone?! It's a very big number for me.

Well I can go in internet max once a day, I have a very limited possibility to use it. I have to download all the messages before reading them and such. But still the point was that I don't even know where you could post so much messages, you like should be in a lot of threads, that's all.

Has anyone brought up this site? Just wondering.