I think we should kill all the christians/theists and invent a kind of morality that is beneficial to everyone.
I think we should kill all the christians/theists and invent a kind of morality that is beneficial to everyone.
Its so hypocritical too. you atheists want church and state seperation but you still want your dogmatic and faith based "evolution" to be forced down the troats of our youth.
~ Hell awaits those who go against the LORD!!!!!!
What? The bible tells the whole story of why.
We can put together that if humans were originally to live forever and so quickly fill up the planet and have nothing to stop our intellectual pursuits then we can conclude something.
The universe is for mankind to have settled and manupulated our own planets and creatures from earth to make each family have their own spaceplace.
We are wayyy behind.
The universe is big for the reason it is. To allow development.
A Scientific Prediction from Genesis:
Besides myself, all other people that try to tell us what Genesis is saying do not understand the text, and are speaking from ignorance. I’m sorry to have to take this position, but there are too many false teachers and unqualified people talking about “creation\evolution debates” (when no such contest exists), and proclaiming false doctrines about Genesis, such as Creation Science, theistic evolution, progressive creation, and “gap” theories. There is even the fad of “Intelligent Design”, which is a big waste of time, and has almost nothing of value to offer.
I am now making this declaration, so that mankind may know that the words and events written in Genesis is true, and the humanist theories of our origins are false. I predict that secular science shall soon find, if they have not already, solid evidence of prehistoric mankind, which is earlier than 30 million years in age. The book “Moses Didn’t Write About Creation!”, states from Genesis that mankind has been in his present likeness for over 60 million years. Moses wrote about extinction and restoration.
And generally, who wants to hear another's hatreds anyway? Ever been buttonholed in the street by some darkie who wants to tell you in broken English (with pictures!) how awful is Dr Moses Fruitcake, perpetual president of Bongo-bongo (formerly British West Bongoland) and how everyone in that country is now living on one rice-crispie a day, and how he and all his friends have been tortured to death several times now? It may be true, but I have my own problems to deal with, not to mention my serious deficiency in the sympathy-for-others gland. Tell us of your enthusiasms, not your hatreds, that's what I say (or would if I wasn't pretending to be Albanian and ducking into MacDonalds to escape).
[Later in the thread]
I don't think that there is more for me to say, since my points have been born out to a quite extraordinary degree. Apparently no-one can answer my questions or discuss the subject rationally in any way! In the absence of rational response, I think you all have proved quite conclusively that for you atheism consists merely in conformity to societal values, and if that means lynching 'The Enemy' whom your masters designate -- for you have no rational reason to hate 'racists' -- then you are happy to do so. Well! If you say so...
I did enjoy all those little atheist faces twisted with hate and little atheist voices yelling "RACIST!! RACIST!! RACIST!!". [smiley]
All the best,
And then there was a bunch of nonsense that assumes Gallieo was the first to invent the telescope......
Neptune was known for thousands of years by many cultures
[YES FOLKS, IT'S EVERYONE'S FAVOURITE WOO MEISTER AGAIN!!!!]
Did you know that 100 million years ago there were unicorns on the earth? But you see, there were not that many of them. you'll never find a fossil or skeleton.
Well, some people claim you have "ape" DNA in you, it's not true. DNA corresponds to high level principles such as YHVH and the I Ching much more than it does to the contrived and man made theory of evolution.
Of coarse evolution and all historical sciences can't be testable in most or all aspects. This should be self evident.
Yes the past is open to deduction from clues like a crime scene however the scientific method can not be applied to the big conclusions.
All one needs to pay attention to is whether the scientific method can and is applied.
This is why it seems every graduating class turns over some previously solid idea in evolution . Like PE.
Its easy when the original ideas had no tests to back themselves up.
Origin subjects are always about interpretation and then accumulation of data.
Just read carefully the posts here in this thread and you will see all the tests are based on premises themselves. Like fossil sequence and DNA stuff.
In the end origin subjects unlike laws of gravity can not be directly, repeatably tested. Origin subjects are like crime scenes. Here you will find the evolutionists are intel;igent, hard working Scotland Yard detectives. The creationists are Sherlock Holmes. Correcting and correct.
[[If not a monkey than what was the "common ancestor of both chimps and humans"?]
It was an ape.]
yeah, and apes came from monkeys, animals, and eventually you even believe they came from bacteria
So my argument is not wrong
Now, evolutionists are losing sight of where the burden of proof really is. If you want to claim humans came from animals, you have to provide a lineage, period. If you can't show the lineage of animals to apes, to humans, you can't claim humans are animals.
[FSTDT Climate Science Award?]
Look, the law of gravity isn't so terribly important because it tells us that things fall to the ground. We already know that. What is important is that things fall to the ground at the rate of 32 ft./sec/sec. It is the quantitative precision of the law that makes it important.
Likewise, the greenhouse gas theory of little use to us if all it does is tell us that CO2 has a warming effect. We already know that. Just blow on your hands on cold day and you will see. Without any agreed quantifiable figure, the greenhouse gas theory is of no value. Yes, it will have a warming effect. But how much? Estimates vary from .02-03 degrees C. all the way up to 6 C. for a doubling of CO2.
This is pretty basic science. Why do you need it explained to you?
In the case of humans being supposedly related to animals, that's impossible and I know it isn't true. I know it isn't true more than an ordinary person can know anything with their human mind's.
The computers in front of our faces might just be an illusion, we don't know, I can't say for sure if this computer is real........but garunteed I know evolution is wrong through direct experience and revelation
I don't need to know everything about science to know that when it contradicts what is proven to be true that it is wrong in that specific point it contradicts.
DNA ideas are still just speculation in regards to relationships as Dr Watson
betrays to all.
Neaders are just Celts and kraults who first settled Europe etc and just show that a rigorus adaptation was needed.Then the edges were soften to the present glory.
The better idea is that researchers get their hands dirty in digging for more info on neanders lives. Perhaps one day a neader burial will have a Sumerian jewelly in it and end all this jazz about neaders in time and family tree.
I'm surprised at how you feel you need to cling to the idea that all female animals (or some or any) have pain at birthing.
Perhaps you guys never knew this very pregnany aspect of human reproduction . Not even suspected it.
I insist that only female people have pain at childbirth.
Not apes or elephants.
If I'm wrong then a few references from the science sources you all tell me you haunt should PROVE ME WRONG.
All chips in boys.
The hyaena makes my case. If this is all you got then there must be a fundamental difference between our women and allll the kinds of animals that give live birth. (Unles you saying chickens egg laying isn't as fun as it seems).
I also insist the hyaena is not suffering pain giving birth in any way similiar in its process to the womenfolk. There may be a 2 second yelp for a first birth rip. This doesn't count and shows desperation on your part to say this is birth pains too.
Again I say all my knowledge on human birthpain exclusity is from evolutionist premised literature.
They explain away it by saying upright walking changed this and that. Not about a bigger head but thats a good point too I guess. Though I'd take a baby head over a rhino butt anyday.
Did I hit a embarrassing nerve??
[You'll all love this ... he's done it again!]
You might believe that science has something to do with all this foreign technolgy which is not of the earth's nature and that has been introduced in the last 100 years. It doesn't.
There hasn't been this kind of technology since 10,500 BC, and then all of a sudden it appears and is introduced in the last 100 years?
[responding to "For a project I'm working on I need to present recent evidence in support of Neanderthals being our distant cousins OR are they a direct ancestor?"]
I am a creationist.
The first thing that should be done is to determine if neander females had pain at childbirth. If so then they must be our relatives as only human females have pain. Not animals (including apes).
[Better known as Jake S from his Richard Dawkins forums days, he's changed one letter of his username, but hasn't changed anything else - he's still spamming boards with his I Ching and Atlantis woo ...]
It's an uneccessary theory, and the phenomena is proven to be possible without the theory evolutionists invented to explain it.
It also is not likely to ever be possible without damaging the cells and destroying them
As for why things would have different genomes? Likely their origin is from different dimensions and different vibrational levels of existence
There is no such thing as "fish" gene, or a "bird" chromosome, or a "primate" chromosome. There is no such thing as an "inverted", or an "inside out" chromosome. DNA and Genes simply are whole long strands, of many smaller parts which fit together acording to I Ching principles of Yin and Yang. They can fit together in the same way magnets can be attracted, and just how magnets can be repelled some genes cannot fit. That's all. You have superimposed, and force-fitted human and chimp chromosomes to match, and claimed that proves relation when it does not To say "primate" genes is dishonest. There is no genetic mechanism for evolution, or gene change. It can't happen
[Right...so, if all current types of terrestrial life on earth came from the ark, why didn't the more efficient placentals beat marsupials from Mt. Ararat to Australia and why did marsupials make it at all?]
Did it occur to anyone that cats hate water.And perhaps marsupials could have easily made the swim from Papua New Guinea to Austrailia.
(afdave is a Real Scientist)
The universe appears to be rather full of water? Please. You don't even have any hard evidence for very much water on any other planets in our solar system, much less in the entire universe. The best evidence for water in places OTHER than earth says that there is some in comets and asteroids. Not oceans on Europa and elsewhere.
(This posting speaks for itself)
[Wow! Now this is some serious creo-denial going on!
If the evidence for water on Mars, Europa, etc. is questionable, (!?) What makes you think the evidence for water on asteroids is beyond question???]
Yes, yes, I realize there is a little water ice in these places, but it's very small compared to what's on earth. And we have a mechanism for getting some of earth's massive water supply out into space ... so ... the most logical idea is ... the water came from earth.
Again I ask ... Where is the actual hard evidence that there is any water on any other planets?
No speculation allowed here. If I allow you to speculate, then we might as well say not only is there water on other planets, but also little green men and such.
If you don't have any real evidence for it, then it is most reasonable to say that water in asteroids probably came from earth.
I don't like the word evolve but rather adapt.
Yes I think adaptation takes place instantly. Dolphins would of gone from land to sea in say five years after the flood.
The evidence that creatures change from one state to another is excellent. Only the mechanism and time is a problem.
I believe that marsupials are just the same creatures as elsewhere on the planet. So important, if minor, change can take place quickly. As long as a creature stays within its kind. Whatever that is.
The verse in the bible is correctly interpretated as giants of the deep and not whales.
I think the idea that coal and oil formed gradually is without any support whatsoever ... Totally implausible to me. I think it is much more likely that it was all formed in a single catastrophe ... The Global Flood.
[This cropped up during a gigantic debate on Walt Brown's infamous Hydroplate Theory, a massive piecc of creo-tard that is undergoing a forensic evisceration at IIDB. Here's our resident creationist energiser bunny and part time FSTDT favourite with a retort that many at IIDB think is a classic. For the record, Walt Brown thinks the Asteroid Belt got where it is today because it was blasted into place off the Earth's surface during the biblical flood ...]
It strikes me as odd that YOU think the earth was blasted (indirectly of course) from the Big Bang and managed to land in a perfect orbit at just the perfect distance from a near perfect energy source and had just the perfect mix of elements to provide a perfect environment for life to evolve.
You think it's implausible that the asteroids got blasted into their present orbits because of a much smaller Big Bang here on earth.
You are the Professer. In your knowledge of the hand/biology/medicine what is a specific gain from an evolutionary premise that has progressed the hand medicine.
Of coarse I think there has been nothing and evolution has just hitched a ride on actual biologists achievments.
I am a creationist but I think its unlikely asteroids were propelled up into space. I believe the bible says a third of the stars fell to earth during a cosmic fight between satan the angle Michael. This would be soon after the fall. This explains, if accurate, where the choas we finf in space now comes from. Plus where all the great crators here and on other space bodies come from. The movement during the flood would of destroyed many craters or hidden them. Perhaps many meteors did not actually touch the earth but were destroyed as they entered.
I might speculate that all the devastating meteors is what turned much of the planet into a inhospitalable place and so particular kinds of animals did better then others. Dinos, lizards etc.
Just thought I throw my two sense in.
The Star of Bethlehem was likely the mobile throne of God in Eze 1, the famous sapphire throne. The Father looking down on the birth of His son. That is why the star charts likely won't have a record of it.
The Star of Bethlehem has long been a mystery. Science has not found any star that fits the bill, of the time, and place that it was supposed to shine.
I propose that the star was a flying saucer, based on some evidence from the bible. That would explain why it was not seen far away, and not a 'star' in the modern sense of the word.
I call the vessel, the 'Sceptre'
Gen 49:10 - The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes, And to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.
Ps 45:6 - Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
What about it??
The support to our ideas is our general model based on scripture and practical evidence in the field. We do no more or less speculation then your team in actual analysis.
Oil being fluid makes it more likely to have been made quickly like in a juicer because of analagy to other elements in nature.
I guess its nature as crushed life makes it more common sensical that it was created instantly then long processes.
First. We do come from Africa much less a black origin.
The bible says babel is where men separated to fill the earth.
The black colour and other black attributes is a extreme reaction of the human body to a hostile envirorment. Likewise white is a extreme reaction.
The colours in between are more close to the original.
I suspect skin in the beginning was more adaptable but after all the adapting it shuts down doing any more.
The whitw skin and hair is for one purpose. To allow the benifits of sunlight to be absorbed by the body. The cloudier . over the year, it is the whiter you are. Along with this is also that women are faired because they historically would of covered more of thier body for decency and perhaps more sheltered.
The people in the more cloudy area, very north Europe, had such a cloudy issue that thier bodies reduced almost all pigmentation to red spots and hair. Red headed men, despite being related to the hairist men in the world, shave very little and likewise redheaded women have the lowest hair count of europeon women who have the most hair of any women.
I believe also blue eyes are the result of pimentation issues.
White skin was a extreme reaction to problems met by the first settlers. Finns are white and yet a very asian people (by language) I believe.
The asian skin doesn't need protection from the sun but also didn't have lack of sun issues. Thier hair betrays this
The Asian head is made to deal with a strong dangerous wind. So the eyes, upper cheeks, and uncurling hair are all to withstand the forces of wind.
They were not in a wet world so little hair is needed and pigmentation loss was not needed. They bummped into the ice age about 1800 B.C and so God provided thier bodies with an ability to adapt quickly. Not by natural selection.
The bible is not making it up, it has been there long before you were born, or science was born. It does not at all at all at all have to comply with natural law, unless that law can be proved to apply in the future. (or past) It can't as we have seen on this board. Now, stop expecting us to believe that the entire universe, sun, and earth, and trillions of galaxies once fit in your rectum. Really. How natural is that??
For the record, I did say that evil is a perception of good not existing....since good is the nature of God, and God is omnipresent, good therefore exists everywhere at all times....even when perceived evil takes place. I submit to you that suffering is not evil. I also submit that hatred, violence, and other negative behavior are human created choices and of no responsibility of God's. God turns perceived evil events into beneficial outcomes.
For example the holocaust is a great crime against humanity perpetrated by the Nazi regime. Many wonder why God would allow such a calamity to happen? Are not the Hebrews/Jews His chosen people? Why didn't He forestall the holocaust or prevent it altogether? Why did He allow 6 million Jews and 4 million Slavs to perish in the concentration camps? The answer is God was procuring a Holy remnant to send onto the new nation of Israel He was planning on restoring as he prophesied He would do in Ezekiel 37:
[long Bible quote]
This is the prophesy of the restoration of Israel fulfilled in 1948. God did exactly the same thing when He led the Children of Israel out of Egypt. He procured a Holy Remnant out of their 40 years of wandering in the Wilderness. He purged out the rebellious generations until those who were left were worthy to go onto to Jerusalem (Zion). God is very consistent in how He deals with His chosen people. We will see the same thing again during the Great Tribulation when God procures another remnant to go onto the New Jerusalem (The Messianic Millennial Kingdom). My point is though the holocaust was a great calamity, it was really the birth pangs for the nation of Israel. Where evil was perceived, a great good was actually being contrived by God.
Adam was to live forever. Trees grew in a week. Light other than the sun existed, as there was no stars or sun. The serpent went on his belly soon as God commanded, according to the bible. No millions of years. The earth was not habitable. Man was created in a certain little area, at least we were moved there to live. We named all the animals. These are some of the differences documented in the bible.
Is there any science to say that these things could not have been?
(to move this thread is to close it.)
Your claims have to be supported first. You make the claims, you support them. Otherwise, withdraw them. I mean that. MY claims ARE supported by the bible. Where there IS NO science, that counts as a lot. If you have science, now would be a good time to bring it to bear. If not, the ancient records do counts for something. Better than your nothing. And I only say that because you can offer nothing in the way of proof or evidence for the basis of your deep past claims.
[After making racist comments that were pointed out as such]
Racism. I don't believe this exists or ever did in N America unless brought by immigrants but YOU do.
(Towards a poster recently emigrated from Britain to Canada)
Welcome to Canada. I'm actually opposed to any more immigration (after you) especially peoples unlikely to assimulate. That is third world peoples but also Europeons. Also generally the more different from true Canadians in colour, religion, heritage etc the worst. Most true Canadians would agree with me in Southern Ontario. Its quite bad now. Oakville is a very Canadian area and not ethnic at all.
John Tory said some creationism could be allowed is what I heard.
The search for truth should be allowed in schools. As a foreighner I hope you have full respect for the Canadian peoples desire. After all since you are inheriting our achievment and society you owe us.
We creationists don't know what kinds are but know there fixed kinds.
For example I believe marsupial wolves and placental wolves are from the same pair off the ark. The marsupial is just an adaptaion to a area or from stresses.
Thank you for giving us the Origin of Species, Oh Darwin,
which tells us everything we need to know;
Thank you for protecting me from the need
to think things out for myself,
[Thank you for protecting me from the need]
To find things out for myself,
[Thank you for protecting me from the need]
to ask questions which
I don?t know the answers to.
Thank you for making things simple.
And above all, Oh Darwin,
thank you for my ignorance,
for ignorance is bliss.
ALL viruses are good for human beings, but sad to say, the human being immune systems were wrecked/weakened by sin, then, these viruses are become dangerous.
Many non-theists are always saying that CHURCH and STATE should be separated. Well, if they are Christians, then, we can assume that their babblings are logical. BUT they don't believe the Bible.
The Bible was the one who had given us an idea that the CHURCH and STATE should be separated.
So if you don' t believe the Bible that it is true, then, you are simply saying that CHURCH/BELIEFS and STATE should be conjoined!
[Why "True Atheists" don't exist:]
Logically, my argument is that any alleged atheist that considers God possible, isn't truly an atheist. Considering possibility or not is the title of this thread is it not? Any alleged atheist that asks themselves whether or not God exists is being hypocritical. "The definition of a true atheist considering God is self-defeating. Before you can consider any gods' existence you have to have had granted the possibility that there was a god. If you grant the possibly of God and now deny it, that doesn't change the fact that you personally considered him a possibly."
Once a person gives something possibility to exist, it exists, that person gives whatever that something is meaning, definition, and recognition. The only possible way to be atheist, or as the person I originally responded to; "True atheist" is to not be introduced to the concept of God.
1. The term "Natural Selection" was not appropriate term in science for the changes that are being observed. Nature cannot select for herself. She is not human, she is blind, she has no mind, no will, no reason, no purpose. The best term that Darwin should be using was Species Interrelation.
By using that term NATURAL SELECTION, Darwin had made nature as it was the same with living things like dogs or cats that has the will to survive, therefore has will to select for themselves.
NATURE SELECTION is one of the worst term that he had used, Worst because he did not even think that it denotes supernatural meaning. Why? He had animated nature, like Aessop's who animated many animals in his fable story books.
So Darwin's science was a fable.
2. I also believed that Darwin was thinking like this when he wrote that book.
Species A had become Species B, then, become Species C...then so on. This is supernatural. This is what he meant NATURAL SELECTION.
The fact is that, Species A had become Species A001, then had become Species A00112, and had become Species A200, and had become Species A2111 in the long course oftime. This Species A did not become Species B!This is what I meant by INTERRELATION.
[So, basically, you haven't read On the Origin of Species, and therefore have assumed that a) Darwin was anthropomorphizing Nature and b) that you somehow know what he was thinking.
Perhaps, and, really, I'm just tossing this idea out, I know it's crazy, but...
read the book so you actually possess a small faint glimmer of a clue.]
I have read his book but I am not convince about his findings and conclusion.
a) Yes, indirectly speaking, without Darwin's knowing, he was anthropomorphizing nature. How? He thought to himself that he knew nature more than anyone else on earth. Maybe he had talked to nature (a rock in Galapagos, maybe) in his coffee break, or had received from nature ( a squid, maybe) a documents saying that the origin of all species were caused by nature. And Darwin maybe had these hard facts/evidences from nature that he just kept them before his death and before he die, he thrown them all away. Because if Darwin did not have these evidences from nature, he would simply say that ALL SPECIES are interrelating, the logical and reasonable natural explanation of nature if you observed it well.
b) He was thinking that he was an smart guy of saying that NATURAL SELECTION had caused these new species. But the reverse was true. He had quickly plunged into the pond of supernatural.
I think I have the point, the point that Evolution Theory is not reallly based on natural explanation but in supernatural explanation.
In science, we have OCCAM'S RAZOR and science is using it to choose the simplest and best and most fit explanation, BUt in science it doesn't have, I call it, SAMURAI'S RAZOR, distinguishing scientific explanation from naturalistic to supernatural.
If we have this SAMURAI'S RAZOR, we could help our science to maintain its goal to stay always in naturalistic explanation.
LOOK: Naturalistic science had already labeled humans as animals, why not ask every human if they really evolve or created or not? If both nature and species (except humans) can't talk, why bother to make them as standard in changes of species?! HUMANS can talk, can express themselves...then, ask them. If they all say that they had evolved from lower forms of animals, then, it is natural that humans are the product of evolution process! Then, Evolution is really natural.
Evolution Theory (ET) is not natural science. It is supernatural, fable, mythological, and pokemon-styled- science.
I can prove it.
Now, I am a Christian.
I think Lamarck is is going to make a come back. How was lamarckisim proved false in your opinion?
I don't have a problem looking like an idiot, I have a problem being one.
Delusion is believing in something in the face of contrary evidence...all the evidence shows us that what the current evidence shows is not the actual truth, it also shows us that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and that there are many things that are true that there is no evidence for....yet atheists do not believe these things anyway....
Coherent? What's coherent about believing that monkeys can breed human beings? Not a thing. ;)
And neither is it coherent to claim that humans are the product of life on Mars or volcanic debris as scientists on the discovery Science Channel have claimed. :D So sorry, but the imaginations of scientsts are far more irrational and incoherent than anything in the bible! So all they prove is how irrational they have to be to deny God. [waving smiley]
Atheism is born from ignorance...the argument from ignorance...the "evidence causes something to become true" argument...these foolish atheists...there is no point in debating with an atheist at the end of the debate the atheist admits they can careless about what the actual truth is, they only care about what the current evidence indicates...these fools when will they learn...
Atheism existed since ancient times....it comes from ignorance unlike other religions like Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc...
Originally Posted by Oolon Colluphid
Ah, speaking in tongues. Glossolalia. "Strings of meaningless syllables made up of sounds taken from those familiar to the speaker and put together more or less haphazardly".
For the millions of other Christians babbeling nonsense and deceiving themselves - yes. But I claim to be perhaps the only Christian who can speak a proper language I don't understand. Listen to it at http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker
[And so far, all the evidence collected fits the ToE very well indeed.]
But what is the theory then? Why don't we have a single page say on Wikipedia that formally defines what evolution is and what it isn't.
Because for Evolution to be something we must obviously know what it is not. Presently every person has his own adhoc defenition and that person can't tell me how he got his particular version.
Your whole quote is according to you. You say so. There are other atheists and scientists who differs from your view. You are stateing it with some sort of authority. I am not looking for Arguments from Authority. I want to know who has formally established The Theory of Evolution, Theory of Change or Theory of Everything on the same level that Kepler established his laws via Astronomia Nova 400 years ago, without which we would not have http://www.youtube.com today.
I also thing you misunderstood separation between church and state. If the very mention of God was wrong then why is God the Author of the Constitution?
[A dozen or so posts to the tune of "No, he isn't"]
You are ignorant of this. Not me. The Author of the constitution of the United states of America, the Author, why do you think Author is capitalized? It is a pronoun. Who do you think the Author according to our founders was? You are so wrong about this. Look it up.
England has 800,000 UK citizens of Pakistani descent, and 400,000 of them visit Pakistan on a regular basis. Furthermore, a nontrivial percentage of them receive weapons training in Pakistan. Furthermore, England has a Visa waiver program with the US. How should we keep this group from entering the US?
Even if we assume that only 10% of those who visit Pakistan annually train in their terrorist camps, that is 40,000 trained terrorists that can potentially enter the US for the cost of a plane ticket to the US from England. That's fuckin' scary.
How should we keep these people from entering the US? We can't monitor those who train in the camps. At best, we can keep track of those who went to Pakistan, but this might not be enough.
I say we give em' all a nice side of pork ribs topped with bacon and a pint of Wisconsin Belgian Red, and anyone who refuses to eat and drink gets deported. And, I think the loyalty test restaurant should have a few cute dogs running around to sniff out potential terrorists.
Does receiving attention from a cute dog count as torture?
You don't understand. You were already a victim of violence. Satan killed you in your mother's womb. You were aborted before you had a chance for life.
In order to save you, there has to be some pain and suffering and eventual death. That is, to SAVE Adam's children, they have to be born even though they will die and will have to come back after all of them are born over time, short of 6000 years. But rather than have not not go through this temporary pain and death, including the pain of your loved ones dying, you never would have been born. God decided you MUST BE BORN so you had a fighting chance for life Satan stole from you. You're blaming God for that incidental pain in your life that is the basis for you to be able to live.
Now some people "complain" and whimper because God isn't in the kitchen washing their dishes for them while they sit around and watch TV and order more microwave popcorn. Others, are extremely grateful for this wonderful second chance.
I, being the Christ, for my part, have requested that the lake of fire be heated up 100 times hotter so these poor, miserable people can be put out of their misery even sooner when I throw them to their "second death."
12 Kiss the son, that He may not become incensed
And YOU may not perish [from] the way,
For his anger flares up easily.
Happy are all those taking refuge in him.
Not that I'd tell anybody to "Kiss my ASSets, or die!" but, I'm versatile and if that's what the crowd wants, I can work it into the plan. No problem.
God knows who is wicked and who is not. He knows whose faking it. But of course, he is all-powerful so people naturally to save their own necks will conform or try to impress the deity. So to get past that facade he does like we do, the unannounced "spot check." That's the story of the Good Samaritan. The rabbi and priest walk past this person on the street they don't want to deal with. But little do they know it's the king! Had they known it was the king or recognized him, they would have been sooooo exited for this opportunity to gain his favor, right? They would have bent over backwards. But because he was just a common-looking man, they ignore him. But the Good Samaritan, with truer values, helps this man out. In the end: Suprise! He turns out to be the Messiah, the King! The Good Samaritan gets the kings blessing, and the priest and rabbi who claim to be the king's servants get their walking papers.
So yes, in the end God did trick Satan. Satan was a murderous bitch (called "the woman" at Gen 3:15) from the beginning and the temptation to kill billions of potential innocent humans was just too much to resist. But God turns the tables on him/her by making it possible for those who were killed to be adopted by Christ, who dies without children and thus entitled to adopt, and thus they get saved. That is, their death is not permanent. So in the end, it's not about dying, everybody dies. God makes it a new requirement. It's becoming eligible to come back that makes all the difference.
(It is quite refreshing to see a Christian who is willing to admit that they believe in a God who plays favorites. As an added bonus, you were also willing to come right out and say that you believe in "might makes right".
Do you ever feel bad for choosing to worship an evil creature like this?)
You know what? You are SOOO perceptive! Because in the end, the psychological and legal battle between Satan and God does boil down to those fundamentals, interestingly. Those who like this God accord him respect, honor, goodness and find him deserving of love and worship. But that's not everybody. Those not seeing those qualities in God understand him through the legal and policing issues. That is, that God has a legal right to have the universe the way he wants to, because he created it in the first place. AND, if someone doesn't like it, he has the ability to enforce those rules with absolute power. Naysayers can't come in and ruin the pic-nic.
So yes, for those who understand little else, in the very end, the Might-makes-right high card always wins, especially when played with the My-way-or-Highway card.
From God's point of view, the clay doesn't dictate to the molder. Excuse me?!!! Not this week!
So if "might makes right" is what you need for your "reality check"?; then it's definitely there for you. Absolutely.
God is VENGEFUL. Haven't you read that? "It's a FEARFUL thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
So for those who turn their nose up at him? He doesn't just feel sad and rejected and let you walk away. He blinds you, leads you to the edge of a cliff, and then Jesus comes up from behind and pushes you over the precipice.
"Burdens of proof" are creatures of the legal world, and the strawman fantasies of the lower orders of the atheist sub-culture, and has nothing to do with legitimate science or philosophy.
People with a low quality of life, who cannot look after themselves should not be kept alive. The majority of people with Alzheimer's should be terminated - just keep a few alive for research.
Etc etc etc.
That's what was being said in the early 90s.
'Doctors should decide when a patient should die - without reference to the patient's wishes, the wishes of the family, the opinion of other doctors, or any interference from the law'
'Young schizophrenics who are in good physical health should be terminated and their organs used for transplants'
Those were crazy times ...
On May 9th 1994 the Lords Select Committee On Medical Ethics came out TOTALLY against any form of euthanasia in the UK ... and that's how things should be.
Under NO circumstances should anyone in the medical profession be involved in actively ending the lives of patients.
People who do not wish to experience the unpleasantness of advanced old age, extreme disability, etc., should not demand that other people who are in such states be terminated by the medical profession ... or be given the right to kill themselves with medical assistance.
[Larsguy47 fancies himself to be Christ]
Government and politics are in the mind of the people. A government is founded in its capital buildings and parliaments. So it will be just like Egypt. The firstborn males of the world, (i.e. world leaders and their followers both male and female) will simply not wake up over a day or two. There will be lots of bodies to bury, or at least bones after they have been picked clean by birds. Those who don't have the mindset to accept Christ, and in particular, this particular Christ (me) will simply die one day. There will be no one left to protest. And the survivors will have the spoils and riches of the world they leave behind. Those without the mark, will simply drop dead or die in their sleep and that will be it. Then Christ and the 1,440,000 anointed will take over the world and start restoring things the way they should be per God's own rules and design. A perfect world of love and equality.
If man has been on the Earth for over a million years or whatever Evolution says...IF, as evolutionists claim, the earth is billions of years old, and mankind has evolved from a lower and simpler form of life, then why has mankind gone from writing upon stones to laser printers in just the past 3,500 years? When God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, they were written upon stone. It is abundantly clear that the Egyptians carved messages into stone (hieroglyphics). So why is it that mankind has only discovered better inventions in the past few thousand years? If mankind had evolved, as evolutionists claim, then why didn't man discover ink a million years ago? Think about it. This is an astonishing thought--There were NO planes, cars, computers, refrigerators, electricity, lights, gas, powered-equipment, telephones, recording devices, CD players, MP3 players, electric razors, televisions, record players, movie cameras, or a million other modern technological inventions--just a mere 170 years ago. Civilization has advanced from utter primitiveness to incredible mind-boggling achievements in just a little over 100 years. So why didn't mankind discover any of this stuff 100,000,000 years ago, or 100,000 years ago for that matter?
[If you were out walking and on the ground somewhere you found a flat, roundish sort of thing with hard shiny skin and a large bit of hard, transparent skin on one side and behind the transparent skin you saw two in-axis flagella turning about the center of the transparent skin at different but clearly related rates and regularly crossing over some markings in a roughly circular pattern on the tissue backing the transparent skin and on one side of the transparent skin there was another shorter flagellum spinning quite quickly in a stuttering motion and the thing was making a regular clucking sound, what would you conclude?]
I'd probably conclude that the object was designed by an intelligent designer.
Why is it so hard for you to accept that demons exist? Just because you don't comprehend their existence doesn't mean others can't. I guess it's easier for you to just attribute it to something else than accept that maybe it's real. Less responsibility that way.
The same can be said for evolutionist scientists, who believing by faith, for there is no evidence of macroevolution, expecting to see that evolution has cause concludes that it does without empirical evidence. Evolutionist scientists already believe that evolution is true before they graduate college. They are indoctrinated in school to the faith. Then they go about seeking the cause of what they already believe in.
The difference between them is conviction. A creationist scientist is bound by religious conviction to be honest with himself and others about the evidences of science. For a creationist scientist, lying about or intentionally misrepresenting evidence for or against evolution would be a serious sin. However, there is no such safeguard for evolutionist scientists. Without religious conviction, they are left with only intellectual conviction, which the world demonstrates is often weak when passions come into play.
[...] A creationist scientist is bound by religious conviction to be honest with himself and others about the evidences of science. For a creationist scientist, lying about or intentionally misrepresenting evidence for or against evolution would be a serious sin. However, there is no such safeguard for evolutionist scientists. Without religious conviction, they are left with only intellectual conviction, which the world demonstrates is often weak when passions come into play.
[...] We have seen a number of haxes generated by non-believer evolutionists. There has not been to my knowledge a hoax generated by a creationist scientist.
Well I'll tell you what I personally think, I don't really subscribe the implication of God or a designer, just an intelligent cause...this intelligent cause is the soul-mind. The DNA directly correlates to the soul-mind....the DNA changes are based chiefly on this energy....this is how evolution happened...I've been experimenting with this thought-energy for a while so I bet if I had a microscope and some equipment I could really prove it...but biology is not my major I'm not really that interested in biology as much as other things
That psychedelic plants and mushrooms is passive evidence of an Omniscient creator. (only a higher being or an higher mind would create psychedelic mushrooms) apart from ToE.
Because life is divided by kind. This concept arose long before modern man. A horse, a zebra, and a mule are all of the horse kind. They are capable of interbreeding. African, Caucasian, and Oriental persons are variety of one kind - the human kind, and are capable of reproduction. Animals of one kind can interbreed. But not even all varieties within a kind are capable of rinterbreding. This is especially true of fish. However, no two animals of differnt kind are capable of interbreeding. A horse cannot mate with an alpaka and yield a new kind. Kinds can be specified into speices if you like. Many species could be said to be of one kind. A fish cannot interbreed with a lizard. A mouse cannot interbreed with a gerble, even though they are of the same kind - rodent kind! What is never found however, are two of different kinds capable of interbreeding. Life is divided by kind. This is in fact why it was possible for the first man to name all of the kinds in a day as God presented them to him. Adam did not have to name the individual species, only the kinds. This cuts the task down al;most immesurably.
You seem to not understand evolution theory at all, or you are attempting to change it's meaning to support the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. This is a typical evolutionist game. [...]
Losing bones and regaining them, as depicted in the bogus example provided by evolutionists, is perposterous. It suggests that a group of bones suddenly appreaded in one new form, then dissapeared in another, then reapeared again. This is contrary to evolution the9ry because it represents a step bacward, not to mention the perposterous mutation causing numerous bones to appear suddenly in specific locations twice in the same animal line.
Furthermore, since mathematical theses has shown that not only is evolution mathematically next to impossible, the time required, according to researched frequency of mutations, means that this dissapearing and reapearing of bones is impossible.
For instance, how am I to take you atheists seriously when you post something like this after I ask for PROOF, yes, that's right, MPC, proof and what does SPIN give me? An unsubstantiated statement such as this:
"There was no universal flood 5000 years ago. Archaeology has frequently proved this claim inaccurate."
How do you expect me to take you Atheists seriously? If this were a court of law and a man was on trial because someone just said he murdered someone and in court the accusor was asked: ''What proof do you have that my client killed so and so?" And the accusor said: Well I heard it from someone who was told it from someone who was told it from someone.
And the judge said: Well that's all we need for proof! Hang him high!
I'm sure you atheists would say that's O.K. especially if it were you who were wrongly accused!
[A response to a post about children's inability to give informed consent to sex with an adult]
A child, like any adult who is on the road to sexual self - actualisation does not need to be informed. We become informed through learning and we learn best as children.
Nor does a child have any innate need to consent. Without these morally complicating ideas that surround what is in fact a very simple and innately driven act at all levels, the notion of robotic contractual consent becomes as ludicrous as asking someone you know very well whether you can invade their 'personal space' to embrace them, or requiring a solid social contract before you bathe a child.
One of [the amoebas] gets the bright idea of wanting to exit this primordial soup. It tells other amoebas that it wants to grow legs to walk out of the soup. The other amoebas say: Wait, what's a leg? Well, a leg is made up of stuff; flesh, bones, blood vessels, tissue, and it has to have a nervous system for electricity to make those muscles work. Wait! What's a nervous system? But this amoeba is so smart it just tells them all to play along with it cause he is sick and tired of living in this soup. He tells all the amoebas to just WILL it to be so! Will it to be so! Will it to be so! Will it to be so! he screams at the top of his voice that hasn't even formed yet.
Tell me, you all knowing atheist non creationists, how did the primordial soup decide what an eye would look like or how it should function or an ear or a nose?
How did the primordial soup determine that there should be millions of different species of fish, fowl and mammal etc? and what they should look like, act, behave, build nests etc. etc. etc.?
How did just two microscopic thingamajigs get together and say, Hey, we need to make an elephant! Yes, and this is how it should look. Let's give it huge ears, eyes, a trunk for a nose, tusks etc.? Then two other microscopic thingamajigs also got together and decided that there needs to be monkeys. Then to more and this went of until there were millions of pairings of two thingamajigs that each decided to make an entirely separate animal.
What you in fact are doing is deifying the primordial soup. Maybe you atheists should worship pond skum?
Well, if humans came from apes then we should be backward compatible. You can made a dog with a wolf and a wolf with a dog. You can't mate a human with an ape or any of their genus i.e., monkies, chimps, orangutans, etc.
Mankind did not evolve from monkeys or apes.
>If your god gave me free will, then get the fuck out of my >life and don't try to convert me......Your god will hate you >for an eternity for trying to remove my free will. My free >will is to not believe in fairytales.
But, dear Earl, God did not give you free will. Free will is a fairy tale.
That's good you don't believe in fairy tales. So you should believe in God and Him sending His Son to save you.
[It does not matter how old adam and eve were when god instructed them not to eat from the tree of knowledge. They were unable to comprehend the ramifications of their actions.
Second, how do you know adam was intelligent? Where is that written?]
He was very intelligent for he named all the animals. To do so takes intelligence for one must first study the given animal and then name it as to its specific characteristics.
(on his Rejection of Evolution)
I also rejected it because even at the age of 14, and having had evolution brainwashed into me in school and nothing about creation, I nevertheless had a nose for when I was being fed a line.
>What makes you think that Darwin was lying?
I have no reason to think that Darwin was insincere in the presentation of his thinking and his observations.
He was mistaken, because he allowed sight and the thirst for evidence to take over from faith and what he has heard and read.
Slavery is not wrong. Bad slavery is wrong. Many slaves in America before the civil war and after it did not want freed. They knew they had it nice; food, clothing, a roof over their heads, a good master. Likewise in the Bible good slaver is condogned but not bad.
Atheists, the scenario is you have a week to live.
What is keeping you from engaging in your baser instincts: Raping, pillaging, stealing and all those sorts of things? What's stopping you? I mean, you can get away with anything you want, so why not?
This is a different from asking you this if you had thirty years to live, I think. You don't have the risk of spending thirty years in prison for murder. A life sentence might only be a couple of days! Besides, it'll never have enough time to go to trial.
Many black slaves have very nice, loving slave owners and those blacks did not want set free. Is that so hard to understand? I do detest BAD slavery! But if bad slaver must be, and obviously there is lots of it even today, one day these people will be liberated and they will be ever so thankful to God for liberating them (in spite of what you think.)
Furthermore, you cannot speak for my righteousness or lack thereof. Did God ever slaughter thousands (as you suggest) just to do it? It begs the question: Why do humans murder other humans? It goes back to Adam sinning and causing death to enter the human race. We sin because we are dying. It is true that this was all planned by God. He planted the tree. He put the serpent in the garden. He made the woman weak. Just because people murder one another does not mean we should approve of the act. We do have courts to put people behind bars for doing that. Yet this is of God too. But if someone came up to me and stabbed me a thousand times I would still thank God knowing it was for my best. God is working all together for good.
Old Isaac [Asimov] was SO scientific he feared flying in airplanes. Always took a bus.
Isaac's son was arrested when thousands of kiddie porn pictures were found on his computer in for repairs.
Lovely the ethics and integrity of these atheists....
More like the immaculate deception by the Catholics. I used to be one. Mary did not have to be without sin for Christ to be without sin. We sin due to death being passed on to us at conception. The death gene is carried by the male. Jesus was begotten by holy spirit and so the death gene from Adam did not get passed through to Him. It is only by having death operating in us that we sin (Romans 5:12). Jesus was sinless. Therefore death was not operating in Him.
So, you see nothing wrong with homosexuality.
Let me also ask you then if you see anything immoral or wrong with predators approaching minors for sex?
This applies to evolutionists: and for that matter, anyone who believes something with which others disagree:
"There's good reason to believe he fits the description of delusional. He is utterly fixated on a singularly perverted form of reality, an form of reality that is logically refutable and factually refuted by a large number of highly respected and unquestionably qualified experts and an even larger body of physical evidence. "
[In reference to cited articles offering scientific arguments against Biblical flood]
I also read the two bits about the flood. As I stated before, when a person draws a conclusion that directly contradicts the Bible account I do not believe that individual in that subject. Both of the articles had as their conclusion the idea that no universal flood existed, that it was a myth. God is no liar, thus their entire framework etc. is off base. I readly agree that if one doesn't believe in God or the Scriptures to begin with that this is not to them 'proof.' But it is enough for me.
You sound like the evolutionists. They laugh at the creationists who demand that evolution be subject to empirical tests to determine its validity. They laugh because they cannot prove evolution using empirical experiments and all they can do is laugh. I suspect that you are laughing at Berggy because you have no means to disprove that which he says.
My aunt said that she felt a pressence in the room and very audible voice whisper in her ear. This has happened to her agian recently about 2-3 weeks ago. It was more of a message than an answer to a prayer. She was awake in her bed and she heard an audible voice tell that "she could be better than what she is now" then she heard the sound of a bell ringing and the pressence travel up and out through the ceiling. I almost always feel a pressence when I reply on message boards like this in fact It just happened this second and it feels good so I'm guessing its and angel. I have goose bumps, I'm tingeling all over and I fell what can only be described as a pressure? I don't know I just hope I don't see anything.
[After tallying up the number of civilizations or societies that I am aware of that has crumbled due to same-sex marriage, I'm inclined to think it does not (harm society).]
I disagree. Rome and Greece accepted homosexuality we all know what happened to them.
[A very young child does not understand the difference between a lie and the truth when they are told something, because the child has not yet experienced enough to be able to do so. A very young child will trust almost anyone. If someone older (read, in possesion of more knowledge regarding the reality of the world) told a very young child to do something wrong, and I KNEW that an adult had done this, I would gently explain that some people are not to be trusted, and probably slap the adult.
You apparently would hit the child and ignore the situation.
NOW do you get the point?]
Yep. Parents who do not tell their children about Christ are pretty evil.
I understand that it was the scientific establishment in the universities that opposed Galileo. Galileo was being funded by the Catholic church, so was the church fighting against itself? Unfortunately, yes. The scientists opposed Galileo and had the ear of the pope, so Galileo was threatened with death.
At the age of thirteen I was thrown into another world by a fateful accident. Clinically pronounced dead, I returned from the afterlife with knowledge rarely glimpsed by the average person. This experience has defined my life as a person with each foot in a different world. Explaining the afterlife to those who have not had a near death experience requires breaking down the illusions that most people hold of what they call "reality". I hope that my experiences can enlighten others while allowing me to share my insights with my fellow humans.
I have received the seal of the beast in afterlife world 20-22 years ago. Main information - the first who meets us in afterlife world is the BEAST which is described in Bible, but not God as many think!
BEAST - this creature has size about 12 meters in height. This creature is able to stay on two legs and has very long tail (so it also 30 meters long including the tail).
IMAGE OF BEAST is any creature which has seal of beast with spirit of beast inside and without man's status!
MARK OF BEAST. After sealing up appears imprint! This imprint has name - mark. It looks like black tattoo which is putted on spirit (not on body) therefore can not be cutted out. It contains the head of dog with iron slam on head.
SEAL OF BEAST. The beast has the seal. It is like iron seal on a long pole. Any host is able to mark by seal of beast.
666 is number of men who will be marked by beast but will be saved!!! (i.e. common number of saved from all who will be marked by beast).
FOREHEAD whole forehead bone from brows up to top of head! The seal of beast is fatal when it putted on forehead or on any hand.
NAME OF THE BEAST. The beast has name, same as any creature which was created by Creator.
NUMBER OF NAME OF THE BEAST it's number of people which will call themselves by name of the beast. I.e. 666 it's number of people which will be saved from the lake of fire with seal of beast on any place. But the number of name of the beast it's number of people which will call themselves same as the beast.
HOST is creature (man or angel) who received the seal of beast!!!
ROD OF IRON is spirit of beast which is inserted into us horizontally.
The Biblical writers stated that they were speaking for God. Since you have no evidence that they were lying, we can take them to be telling us the truth.
[Replying to a lesbian, 'I sleep with other women rhutchin, do you think I should be stoned to death? What about my little girl?']
You have sex with your little girl???
I think stoning is to good for you.
I see no reason to punish your little girl for your immorality.
(DavidfromTexas continues to accuse anyone who disagrees with him of being Nazis and ushering in the "next Hitler")
(Now I believe everything Rush Limbaugh ever said about California. I hope you're happy. Ohio just turned a little more red.)
Rush is an evil man, who deserves a slow and painful death. People like him are the lowest of the low. His supports aren't much better and their death like the death of all theist would be a good thing.
If a person does not take the Bible to be inerrant, how could he understand what it said?
Think of all the babies aborted in the last 30 years. Anyone can be a monster when the circumstances are right. Think of (Previous Poster) who would rather have his own children go to hell than ask God to save them.