At least bring common sense to the table
Opinion of a non believer
Published on November 5, 2011 By BoobzTwo In Religion

Actual History is chockfull of the rise and fall of religions for millennia … many Ages. And they all have the following in common. Whenever they became week enough to lose control of the majority of the sheeple, they are replaced with a new Messiah and a new message just as the Christians have done with the ‘old Jewish’ religion when that too lost its strangle hold on the world of Man due to its barbarism as perceived by man in a new Age. Anyone who lives in a future time views almost everything from previous times to be barbaric (except for those that thrive in barbarism) and in this Christianity is no exception. It is my belief that the purpose of religion has always been nothing but a methodology to control the masses. The Bible (OT and NT) are replete with plagiarisms from the actual real world of the past. The NT is in itself a plagiarism from much of the OT. The stories of the Bible are impossible in the real world in which we all exist. I agree that many names and places were real, but this is just another plagiarism from the actual history of man. If you can place your hand on a Bible and swear that the Earth is what ~12,000 years old, then you are a fool. If you deny the evidence of science and technology, then you are doubly a fool. If you deny the evidence of early man or prehistoric man and can find no logic or truth in evolution you are a damned fool. And if you are so foolish as to allow the leadership of some rascals who lived thousands of years ago during the ‘glorious’ days when all this stuff was concocted … to control virtually every aspect of your life today, you are doomed. But all you have to do is ‘have faith’ and ignore your own perceptions of reality … and all will be yours, just bring your pocket book and come often … because we have castles and churches and armies to build to prove they are right, yea right. The all-powerful all-knowing one God would never vanquish the devil (certainly within reason for the all-powerful mindful of His sheep) because He would be destroying Himself … as there can be no light without the dark? What better ploy could man devise than to make the light and the dark impervious to the perceptions of man, the sheeple? The complete history of the universe and that insignificant little planet Earth with its complete compliment of well ‘everything’ … all described between the covers of a book written thousands of years ago by smart (-ass) people with nothing benign in mind whatsoever who championed a flat Earth for a thousand years for naught than to promote the new religion of the Age of Pisces … the two fish. It took man and a simple invention called a telescope to start the downward spiral of Religion (Christianity this time) and it cannot be stopped.


Comments (Page 12)
12 PagesFirst 10 11 12 
on Jan 02, 2013

 

Define Darwinian evolution and state where and why it is dysfunctional.

Here are the definitions of Darwin Evolution I gave earlier in the discussion.

Here is the World Book Dictionary definition of "Evolution" on page 737. "Evolution" is n. 1. any process of formation or growth; gradual development. 2 something evolved; product of development; not a sudden discovery or creation. 3 the theory that all living things developed from a few simple forms of life through a series of physical changes. According to evolution, the first mammal developed from a type of reptile, and ultimately all forms are traced back to a simple single-celled organism. ... Philosophy....the theory that a process or progressive change, with the development of more complex entities, characterizes all force and matter in the universe. Evolution is advance from the simple to the complex.

The photo I supplied of "man evolving from an ape" fits the dictionary definition of "Evolution" and it fits what school children are being taught as fact in their science classes...which is "something evolved; product of development; not a sudden creation. The theory that all living things developed from a few simple forms of life through a series of physical changes. According to evolution, the first mammal developed from a type of reptile and ultimately all forms are traced back to a simple perhaps, single cell organism." Evolution posits progressive changes over long periods of time from a single cell to fish to amphibians, to reptiles to mammals to man.

Evolutionary theory and the Evolutionary "from ape to mankind" icon comes from Charles Darwin's, "The Descent of Man," 2nd ed. Collier & Son. 1905. "In forming a judgment on the head with reference to man, we must glance at the classification of the Simiadae. This family is divided by almost all naturalists into the Catarrhine group, or Old World monkeys...and into the Platyrhine group or New World monkeys... Now man unquestioningly belongs in his dentition, in the structure of his nostrils, and some other respects, to the Catarrhine or Old World division. ....There can, consequenstly, hardly be a doubt that man is an offshoot from the Old World Simian stem; and that, he must be classed with the Catarrhine division. (Vol.I, pg. 205. "The early progenitors of man must have been once covered with hiar, both sexes having beards; their ears were probably pointed, and capable of movement; and their bodies were provided with a tail, having the proper muscles.... The foot was then prehensile, judging from the condition of the great toe in the foetus; and our progenitors no doubt, were arboreal in their habits, and frequented some warm, forest-clad land" page 214. "The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World monkey and the Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the universe, proceeded. (pg. 220). "Man, as I have attempted to show, is certainly descended from some ape-like creature."pg.759. "The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely, that man is descended from some lowly organized form, will, I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many...." pg. 796.

This definition is dysfunctional and is false because it posits species change beyond kind. Through Microbiology and Genetics we now know with complete certainty that the message sequences of DNA is designed to allow only change within kind. In other words, reptiles could never evolve into birds or fish into amphibians or ape into man. Darwin didn't know it at the time of the 1800s when the theory was formulated, but we know now that change beyond kind is genetically impossible to occur.

................

Define stellar evolution so I can play too.

I've also seen Stellar Evolution described as Cosmic Evolution or Cosmic maturation. It's the theory of the origin of the universe based on the premise that nothing exploded into 2 elements hydrogen and helium and over billions of years produced a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, including the earth, and moons all orbiting in perfect balance and order.

...............

State the age of the earth in numbers please. Until there is time for evolution, don't you think you are being disingenuous (as usual) by trying to disprove something that cannot be true IYO?

Based on Scripture and Science that I have already described until I'm blue in the face, I think the Earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old.

Just listen to you....."Until there is time for evolution"...is the oddest thing to say. Long ages even into trillions of years cannot produce Stellar or Darwin Evolution. Time can't change elements into rocks or invent organisms or cause the moon to orbit the earth. The truth is the longer the time, the greater the decay.   

Real time versus theory time. This millions and billions of years talk just doesn't fit with the scientific facts. C'mon..think this through...if humans have been here for millions of years, as theorized by evolutionists, then we should have thousands of fossils and written records that go back at least half of that time and yet, our history only goes back several thousand years.

 

on Jan 02, 2013

lulapilgrim
Reply #165lulapilgrim
Make all the points you want to Lula, but this is going nowhere so I probably will and soon. What a crock of malarkey this is … all you have is an antiquated book that you do not know who even wrote the first four (Jesus) gospels. And your kind has been bastardizing it for 2,000 years and it is still a blithering mess. Maybe this will help you then:  Evolution by natural selection is the theoretical part as we do not have all the details worked out yet. But biological evolution (what you should be discussing) is a fact and is not arguable, at least not with me or any competent scientist. If you prefer to believe there was some magic way back then more power to you. But it is not necessary except for those who would try and make the world biblically unsound. You need to start finding another way to recreate your original sin to burden everyone with … but know that when you cannot; well Jesus washes down the drain as well. I didn’t tie him to genesis; you folks did that all by your lonesome selves … so live with your mess and be angry as usual oh and blame me for it all if it makes you feel better … I can take it. Surely you didn't intend for me to respond to this nonsense did you?

on Jan 02, 2013

 

 

GirlFriendTess
Evolution by natural selection is the theoretical part as we do not have all the details worked out yet.

And you never will have all the details worked out because natural selection is not evolution. New, higher genetic information is not gained but instead tends to be lost at best. Natural selection only conserves existing genetic information in life forms. Darwin did his famous study on bird beaks and true he found that different birds had different beaks, but they were all still birds in the end, none of them evolved into a different species.

Natural selection was first thought to be the mechanism for Darwin Evolution (change beyond kind) to occur, but it isn't and honest scientists know and will admit that. That's why the Darwin Evolution theorists keep postulating evidence and failing to find it, move on to other postulates such as mutations, etc.). This is not Science. This is parading a materialist philosophical myth. 

GirlFriendTess
But biological evolution (what you should be discussing) is a fact and is not arguable, at least not with me or any competent scientist.

If by "biological evolution" you mean microevolution or small change within kind, then I agree 100%. In truth, small change over time within kind isn't evolution but simply variety within kind.

But I've seen "biological evolution" described as macroevolution or Darwin Evolution (change beyond kind) and that is not a fact and not Science.

GirlFriendTess
What a crock of malarkey

Hey, GFTess, got a bit of Irish in you?

on Jan 03, 2013

lulapilgrim
Reply #166lulapilgrim
I didn't ask you to define "evolution" (I still can read), I asked what your definition is for "Darwinian evolution" (the science you talk about) because that is the term the hate mail you quote uses so often, so I was curious if you or they actually had a definition or if it was an undefined term for you to attack with impunity?  State Prove the age of the earth in numbers please (it is really quite simple to do – SEE NEXT PARAGRAPH). "True scientists" being so smart they ALL (each and every one of them) can disprove "DE" being the super scientific sleuths they are ... but they cannot measure the age of anything??? Bet their ‘science papers’ are dull as can be then, glad I don’t have to review them.

The age of the Earth is 4.45 ± 0.05 billion years (± 1%). This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. What do you offer to this discussion besides it just cannot be true?

PS – don’t waste your time with your scripture mumbo-jumbo, you have much bigger problems to contend with.

on Jan 03, 2013

lulapilgrim
Hey, GFTess, got a bit of Irish in you?
Not really, just getting tired of trying to make you see just a little reason can exist in the real world outside the bounds of that impenetrable wall of ignorance you have barricaded yourself with. What in the world does believing in any god have to do with requiring anyone to deny themselves an education just because it interferes with those absolutes you like to bandy about. There isn’t anything I find appealing that the RCC (thus you) has to offer. I was born an atheist just like you were … and I for one intend on keeping it that way thank you very much. I don’t need all the pieces to the puzzle because neither science nor I GAS about absolutes. We don’t care about origins, gods, religions (or their dogma) and we do not care from whence we came beyond the obvious. We are much more interested on where we are or should be going than where we came from (we know that already).  

on Jan 03, 2013

Lula offered several scientific evidences of a young earth.  Why are you still asking her to do so as if she didn't?

on Jan 03, 2013

 

Jythier
I didn't ask you to define "evolution" (I still can read), I asked what your definition is for "Darwinian evolution" (the science you talk about)

The definitions are for Darwin Evolution....I usually shorten it to "change beyond kind" because that's what DE is.  "Kind" in the science world is species. So for your benefit Darwin Evolution would be defined as "change beyond species over long periods of time". But what's the use? Why keep up the masquerade as though this was true science? We know now with all certainty that DE, "Change beyond kind", has never occurred, is not occurring and can never occur. We know that DE never occurred, is not occurring, and can never occur through the discoveries of Science, namely the message sequencing of our DNA which is designed to allow only change within species. In other words, in nature man is a kind and apes are a different kind. In nature, the two will never mate and be able to produce offspring and create a new species as in ape-man that all science textbooks like to depict to trick children into believing they evolved from apes. Why is there not ever been an ape-man?  Because DNA is a barrier which prohibits it.

We call change beyond kind Darwin Evolution for a reason..from his own words from his book "The Descent of Man," 2nd ed. Collier & Son. 1905. ....There can, consequently, hardly be a doubt that man is an offshoot from the Old World Simian stem; and that, he must be classed with the Catarrhine division. (Vol.I, pg. 205. "The early progenitors of man must have been once covered with hiar, both sexes having beards; their ears were probably pointed, and capable of movement; and their bodies were provided with a tail, having the proper muscles.... The foot was then prehensile, judging from the condition of the great toe in the foetus; and our progenitors no doubt, were arboreal in their habits, and frequented some warm, forest-clad land" page 214. "The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World monkey and the Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the universe, proceeded. (pg. 220). "Man, as I have attempted to show, is certainly descended from some ape-like creature."pg.759.

Well, this is the lie, the big lie Evolutionists are selling "as fact", when it is now certainly empirically scientifically known through DNA that no such thing ever happened, is happening or could ever happen.

GirlFriendTess
What in the world does believing in any god have to do with requiring anyone to deny themselves an education just because it interferes with those absolutes you like to bandy about.

Earlier you spoke of us believing in right and wrong and this is a sure case of an educational wrong, and a big wrong being perpetuated upon innocent unwary, uncritical school children. Their textbooks teach this lie as though it was a proven scientific fact. 

You are an adult and if you want to continue to believe the Darwin Evolution lie is scientific fact, then that's one thing; but, it's time school children are taught only scientific truth, not materialistic philosophical lies masqueraded as fact. A whole age of scientific endeavor was wasted chasing a phantom and teaching DE as fact is tantamount to child abuse.

Simply put: the science of Molecular Genetics proves Darwin and his followers are wrong on all counts....and subsequently Evolution Theory should be thrown in the dustbin. Even if they were up the time to trillions  of years, there are no progressive changes from fish to amphibians, reptiles to mammals to man. Man never ever evolved from apes..DNA is what tells us so and that is why the closer one looks for evidence of Darwin Evolution, the less one finds of substance.

on Jan 03, 2013

Jythier
Lula offered several scientific evidences of a young earth. Why are you still asking her to do so as if she didn't?
Put up or shut up pal. I am not going to argue Lula's misguided and unsubstantiated prattling ... through you. If you want to discuss something with me, then you make your own mess instead of touting your one liners as intelligence, you do have opinions right? Unless if you think the catholic is correct the way she does at all times, then I could treat you like a catholic too and that makes things so much easier for me. Besides you are no more capable of dating the earth (universe) than she is … and so neither of you even try. Young is not an age it is a concept as in the earth at 4.45 billion years old and is young compared to the age of the universe … but it is still 4.45 billion years ‘old.

on Jan 03, 2013

lulapilgrim
Reply #172lulapilgrim
Molecular Genetics it is then Mrs. Catholic creation ‘scientist’. Seeing that you are not going to stop using the work of other people as gospel also, then let us delve into it in a little more detail. First I will offer you some reading to prepare you (or not hahaha) for understanding the terminology and the science beforehand. Maybe you could point me at your ‘true science’ datum’s? Here is some choice topics so pick your poison and let’s rock and roll. Not being a geneticist myself, I will need to know your pet peeves so I know what to study. Forward genetics, Reverse genetics, Gene therapy, Classical gene therapy, Non-classical gene therapy, In vivo gene transfer, Ex vivo gene transfer, Principles for gene transfer, Techniques in molecular genetics, Amplification, Polymerase chain reaction, Cloning DNA in bacteria, Separation and detection, Cell cultures, DNA isolation, mRNA isolation or my favorite one … The fifteen years in the making of The Human Genome Project.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_genetics

PS – I am not going to go out and buy any books for this waste of time, so point me to something online at least.

on Jan 03, 2013

GirlFriendTess
PS – I am not going to go out and buy any books for this waste of time, so point me to something online at least.

It is from the field of Molecular Genetics that we have learned much about DNA that totally spoils Darwin Evolution, change beyond kind. Here is a site that explains DNA and it's complexity. The last part of it pretty much explains what I've been saying here. The intricate design of DNA code barrier allows dog-kind to only produce dog-kind or ape-kind to only produce ape-kind, etc. etc. etc.

http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V2/2evlch10a.htm

PS. If you care to pursue your study further, no need to buy books, just go to your local library and if they don't have the book, they'll find it via interlibrary loan.

......................

In 173, You highlighted "scientific evidences" as if Jythier doesn't know them when they are clearly pointed out and fluffed them off as my "misguided and unsubstantiated prattling".  This only goes to show it is you, my dear, who does not to know scientific evidences when they are presented.

The decay and reversal of the Earth's magnetic field, the low concentration of Helium in the atmosphere, the existence of Polonium radiohalos are scientific evidences that totally refute the Evolutionist's false claim the earth is 4.5 billion years old. And the existence of DNA in every living organism refutes Darwin's follower' claim of Evolution, change beyond kind. 

Jythier asked you a simple question that is germane to the discussion.  Of course I realize this is your blog and it is up to you as to how you will respond. I think it is useful to discuss differences and for that reason I've enjoyed participating. But, for some reason you keep ratcheting up your incivility and this latest reply to him goes too far.

It's clear that instead of personally attacking us and our religion, you would be wise to pursue studying those scientific evidences that show Darwin Evolution theory to be the lie that it is.  

Sadly, I doubt that you will because Stellar and Darwin Evolution is now an official dogma of Atheism, is loved and needed so much because its adherents think it disproves the existence of God, and gives them a weapon to purposefully deceive many children into thinking God didn't create them, that they are no more than animals and evolved from apes.   

I've said just about all I plan to here.

 

on Jan 03, 2013

lulapilgrim
Reply #175lulapilgrim
Lula your source is as flawed as all creation hit-pieces are. I couldn’t get through the setup to fail prerequisites listed, some of which follow. Nothing but the honest pursuit of science scholarship in practice here, geez but you are blind.

“We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life “, “The overriding supremacy of the myth (evolution not creationism???)”, “The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology”, “… Evolutionary scientists”, “Yet random actions are the only kind of occurrences which evolutionists tell us have ever been used to accomplish the work of evolution”, “omnipotent chance (evolution of course)”, “the discovery of the DNA molecule … has also brought quandary and confusion to evolutionary scientists”, “so utterly complicated as to defy any possibility that they could have been produced by chance events” etc. Oh and this duzzie – “Because of the barrier of the multi-billion DNA code, not only was it impossible for life to form by accident,—it could never thereafter evolve into new and different species either! Each successive speciation change would require a totally new and different—but highly exacting code to be in place on its very first day of its existence as a unique new species.” All bollox

lulapilgrim
I've said just about all I plan to here.
Excellent decision because you are just being rediculous, but you have my vote too! I am sure you intended to speak in detail but couldn't figure out how to. I hazzard you never read the article yourself but that is to be expected. If you do find some courage knowhow come on back and let us go over the details in some, yea right.

Lula your problem is that all you do is try to break everything unbiblical ... you never try to make anything work but you do have your flawless book. With the technology that we do have, biology is a splendorous thing and explains both flora and fauna. Just because the bible doesn't work doesn't mean that everything else doesn't either. We know so much more than you will even let yourself imagine about but that is your loss.

The Central Dogma of Biology   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kOGOY7vthk

on Jan 03, 2013

Lula, on second thought, watch this vid and see what you do not believe possible simply explained. I know you don’t want to have to read anything constructive or anything that makes sense (preferring the bible instead), but please stop playing biblical games and at least modernize your arguments and terminology. This might also let you know the difference between what a paleontologist, a geologist and a biologist find important. If you are interested the information we actually have as opposed to what you and other apologist’s say we have not … then watch or remain ignorant. This whole series is quite informative … and enlightening.

 

Molecular Genetics I   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dRXA1_e30o

PS - Thanks for irritating me enough to find this Stanford University series, it is really pretty good.

1. Introduction to Human Behavioral Biology   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA

on Feb 05, 2013

lulapilgrim
I've said just about all I plan to here.
I am sure you have quoted as much as you can on the subject, no more knowledge available to copy would be my guess. Jythier is a grown up (I think) and he can take care of himself if he would pursue his own arguments instead of your catholic ones, he is just a lowly lost Baptist type semi-Christian as you know. One defends their opinions with words of meaning, not little pointless jabs. But that is his problem so back to you then. I don't argue against your pitiful examples simply because all those ridiculous arguments (that you copy and paste from said YEC 'experts') has been soundly rebuked time and time again by competent scientists against whom I don’t even measure up to their exacting standards. A few of your YEC idols actually did present scientific like papers, but virtually none presented them in scientific publications preferring Christian apologists for their ‘PEER” reviewers (think of your own scientific prowess and you will get my meaning) and creation myth sites as their preferred source for posting. Honestly, you don’t see anything conspiratorial with this setup and dispersal of false information to the already blind??? The following is an example of creation nonsense in the face of science:

Question Evolution: Question 5   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wfgdqSUNCQ

on Mar 08, 2014

Jumping in as a new user, and without reading the whole discussion, sorry.... I'd like to add my view and hopefully (optimistically) include points that haven't had much discussion.

There was a time, the 1960s for example, when Christians thought that the science was 'settled' regarding the Old Earth hypothesis. So they had to twist what the Bible said in an attempt to match this new 'scientific' paradigm. I recall reading a small book by the astronomer Peter Stoner, who tried matching the six day creation account in Genesis to the formation of the universe and emergence of life on earth.

Today (and for many decades now) I and many others who have studied the evidence for both sides (old earth & young earth) have come to the conclusion that we have a modern day parallel to the children's story of the emperor with no clothes. It is intellectually respectable to laugh at young earth creationists, and cling faithfully to the atheistic evolutionary paradigm, no matter what challenges it faces. It really is not a case of faith vs science - it is a case of faith vs faith.

While one would hope scientists to be objective, it is largely impossible over the long run. With money, careers, and peer acceptance at stake, all embarrassing difficulties quickly find themselves swept under the carpet. So sad.

There is no truly scientific case that proves the earth is more than 10,000 years old. We are dealing with history, not science, as these things can't be repeated in the lab. There are many assumptions and projections used to posit that the earth is billions of years old, but these could easily be invalid, and often are invalidated by scientists. See "how old is the earth" for example. For some reason these discoveries don't make the news, because of course, we "cannot allow a divine foot in the door".
- if only science was a search for truth rather than a search for naturalism only.

on Mar 11, 2014

What parameters would you suggest the scientific community establish to objectively research whatever it is you call "the truth"? What in the world hasn’t been repeatedly tried in the last couple of millennia attempting to verify something/anything biblically meaningful and failing, any suggestions? Do you really expect this failing to change somehow now that we have Wikipedia? Mentally envision the environment and living conditions of those unknown scriptural writers, then snap back to the real world and tell me science doesn’t work. It is really this simple: Nothing works if you just don’t want it to however with that being said, there is nothing complicated or difficult about learning the basic sciences; you just have to want to. We have trees older than ten thousand years so what in the world are you talking about, oh, a biblical creation, how quaint? What in the world would prompt an old atheist like me to go to “Creation.com” to try and ‘discover’ anything useful let alone the age of the earth? The only ‘nudes’ here are those who envision a meaningful eternity and devote their entire lives to the unknown and improvable in spite of all natural explanations to the contrary.

12 PagesFirst 10 11 12