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 4)
12 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last
on Nov 08, 2012

Yeah, but Lula, without God's word to say so, how can we prove that macro-evolution doesn't exist?

on Nov 08, 2012

You wrote: I count 22 religions that are considered 'major ones' but the offshoots number in the hundreds.

lulapilgrim
Just to be clear, there are no offshoots of Christ's Christian religion...known as Christianity. There are no offshoots of the Church Christ established. Christ set up one Church, the one He placed under the jurisdiction of St.Peter, to whom His "key", His delegated authority, was given. That Church is recorded as "one body", "one faith" of "one Lord" and the "gates of Hell" were never to succeed in prevailing against it. 

There are, however, thousands of offshoots (sects) within Protestantism, a term applied to a religion that originated in Germany as a protest against granting Catholics religious liberty. Protestantism owes its existence to 2 degenerate personages, Martin Luther and King Henry VIII.  

Protestantism is not an offshoot of Catholic Christianity. That is as wrong as it would be to say that the United States remained an offshoot (branch) of the British Empire, after the 13 colonies broke away from the government of King George III. 

GirlFriendTess
I don’t know why you continue to spread the hypocritical dogma of the RCC as if that is all that is important to everyone else too but particularly for me.

Well, You know you should get used to being corrected when you are mistaken about something.

Hypocritical dogma of the CC!  Ha, ha, you want to defend that?

GirlFriendTess
Christianity (from the Ancient Greek: Χριστιανός Christianos and the Latin suffix -itas) is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in canonical gospels and other NT writings.

Yes, Christianity is the religion given and practiced by Christ's one Church founded upon St. Peter. See St.Matt. 16:18-19. The Church is the one who gave the world the canonical Gospels and other NT writings.

GirlFriendTess
Adherents of the Christian faith are known as Christians.   The RCC is just one flavor and I am quite sure most other Christians understand this dogmatic difference too.

More correctly, adherents of the Christian Faith are known as Catholics. Christianity and the Christian Faith is practiced at every Catholic Mass where the "clean oblation" is offered as per the prophecy of Malachais 1:11.

There is no such thing as the Protestant faith..that's why I said they are not offshoots of the true Christian religion. 

GirlFriendTess
Christians won’t pay you any more serious attention, but you are armed to the teeth for laying all the blame on me and my ‘kind’ even though we only comprise ~9% of the American population. I have asked you before how 9% of the population could be in control of anything

C'mon. get with it....those who practice Secular and Atheistic Humanism number way more than only 9 percent of the American population. ..and they are in control of academia and the media which controls the culture.

 

on Nov 08, 2012

Jythier
Yeah, but Lula, without God's word to say so, how can we prove that macro-evolution doesn't exist?

No problem.  The Bible cannot clash with Science for God is both the principal Author of the Bible and the Creator of the universe, including space, time and matter. 

We have God's word and science is proving it.

Science is proving macro-evolution cannot occur. Reptiles can't possibly have given rise to birds and apes didn't evolve into man.  Even though there are cellular similiarity, the overwhelming objective finding of modern science is that DNA has been designed so that only variety within kind can occur. Macro-evolution or Darwinism beyond kind is impossible. 

 

on Nov 08, 2012

lulapilgrim
If you want to continue asserting that there is science behind Evolution according to these definitions, then provide the scientific evidence that demonstrates Macroevolution.
An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from tetrapod dinosaurs.

The evolutionary course of Equidae (wide family including all horses and related animals) is often viewed as a typical example of macroevolution. The earliest known genus, Hyracotherium (now reclassified as a palaeothere), was an herbivore animal resembling a dog that lived in the early Cenozoic. As its habitat transformed into open arid grassland, selective pressure required that the animal become a fast grazer. Thus elongation of legs and head as well as reduction of toes gradually occurred, producing the only extant genus of Equidae, Equus

Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. We have been through this before Lula. Lastly I don’t see any conflict in your definitions I suppose because I understand them and am not out to try and ‘make’ them say something else.

on Nov 08, 2012

lulapilgrim
Hypocritical dogma of the CC! Ha, ha, you want to defend that?
OK if I must. How about we start with your refusal to allow others their own gods to play with because you have the only 'real' one regardless of the fact that you cannot prove their gods don't exist and it goes without saying that you cannot prove the existence of your own god. Then of course there is the fact that only Roman Catholics can even get to paradise (based on you and your church) because nobody else knows how to do that properly without your infallible guidance. Then there are the homosexuals you constantly trash because you don't like them. You know how little your book has to say about them and what it does say, you take out of context. Then there are the people your church has elevated to 'near' god status with all the appropriate statues and paraphernalia the bible actually scorns and denounces. How about your insistence that other Christians aren’t Christians at all just because you think they aren’t, I would say that is quite duplicitous.

This is pointless Lula, we are talking the RCC here so the easiest way is just to pick out all the things you grant yourselves as true without proof, that you deny to all others who believe in their own gods, regardless of the fact that they have no proof either. Then there is the scientific community which could care less about yours or anyone else’s gods. Science land is a nice neutral place to work within which the gods hold no sway (and offer no enlightenment) and where the betterment of the human condition takes place. I am not going to play your Christian word games because I don’t have the patience for semantically driven games any more. Look at a dictionary if you want to see what the world thinks a Christian is.

lulapilgrim
C'mon. get with it....those who practice Secular and Atheistic Humanism number way more than only 9 percent of the American population ... and they are in control of academia and the media which controls the culture.
I got my figures from the US Census report, where did your lack of a number come from?  According to that same report, Christians comprise ~80% of America so Obama couldn’t have gotten re-elected without the Christian vote. As long as you folks persist in your social engineering based on theology alone, you are going to lose more and more because even most levelheaded Christians know this is just wrong. The dogmatic Christian right has for all practical purposes destroyed the Republican Party and I do not think it will recover this time unless more libertarian views are taken up in earnest. What laws and whatnot are implemented by the scientists or the media?

 

on Nov 08, 2012

 

lulapilgrim
If you want to continue asserting that there is science behind Evolution according to these definitions, then provide the scientific evidence that demonstrates Macroevolution. 

GirlFriendTess
An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from tetrapod dinosaurs.

This is what the confirmed evolutionists claim, but where is the evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs?  

Yes, they found fossils of birds with feathers and fossils of dinosaurs, but nothing in the fossil record to show the transition from reptiles to birds. Don't give Archaeopteryx, for the science community has declared long ago that Archae fossil is only a bird and not a reptile or half-bird/half reptile...that was after mounting evidence was produced to prove it was a carefully contrived fake.  

Btw, Wells has a chapter in his book on this very topic. It would do you well to read it.  

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

GirlFriendTess
The evolutionary course of Equidae (wide family including all horses and related animals) is often viewed as a typical example of macroevolution. The earliest known genus, Hyracotherium (now reclassified as a palaeothere), was an herbivore animal resembling a dog that lived in the early Cenozoic. As its habitat transformed into open arid grassland, selective pressure required that the animal become a fast grazer. Thus elongation of legs and head as well as reduction of toes gradually occurred, producing the only extant genus of Equidae, Equus

Yup, most science textbooks have the supposed horse series charts as proof of macro-evolution. But here's what we know..

Bones of modern horses were found right alongside Eohippus which is supposed to be the first horse.  This should have happened if Eohippus had gradually changed into a horse..for he should have died out millions of years before horses showed up! nope, Eohippus was not the ancestor of horses. Many think Eohippus was a Coney or a Hyrax. 

The evolution of the horse is a myth in the guise of science, but hey what do unwary, uncritical, gullible students know...or their teachers for that matter!  

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

GirlFriendTess
Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.

I bet it is, only problem is there are no compounded effects of microevolution because there is no change beyond species occurring. Not then, not now, not ever. This is clear from the insufficiency of the evidence. 

GirlFriendTess
Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale.

Actually, the difference between micro and macro is most fundamental.... micro-evolution is true and can be scientifically proven while macroevolution is a philosophical dream of evolutionists..to the point it's become a world-view rather than empirical science. 

 

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

PS. I'm looking forward to reply to your #50, but am having trouble with my computer, so if I'm not responding for a few days, you know why! 

 

 

 

 

on Nov 09, 2012

lulapilgrim
Reply #51 ulapilgrim
Well, what a nice change for a change but we have played this your way up until now.  We both know how you feel (and I) about evolution so let’s not pretend otherwise. Let us start this out by coming to some understandings first. You didn’t write the bible and I didn’t write evolutionary theory so neither of us is responsible there. Then let us agree (if possible) that none of the sciences are interested in the concept of a god (scientifically) one way or the other because there is no scientific way to prove it one way or the other, so they don’t even try and you shouldn’t either. I am not a biologist, paleontologist, geologist, chemist or botanist. Cannot delve too deep into astrophysics, string theory or alternate universes because my interests lay elsewhere, I am not a walking encyclopedia. Every time you casually throw ‘this’ science and ‘that’ science at me, I have to actually go and do some research which can become time consuming. I don’t have a book of prepared rebuttals; I research the subject and make my own. Then you pick out another ‘Wells’ one liner, pretend to understand the science and there I go off to figure out more about things that are not very high on my priority list. I am tired of this process so it has to change. If you have something in particular to discuss about evolution that you feel is relevant then let me know before I research it please. I don’t have to convince myself and I know I can’t convince you so I am just making my arguments here and trying to answer your questions (which you don't believe anyway). I have nothing to gain by this besides more extraneous information that I will soon forget about till next time … because it is not important to me now. I have specialized since I graduated HS in 1969 but have kept up with the sciences as time permitted.

Jonathan Wells graduated from the seminary of the Unification church and is a follower of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon who considers himself a messiah no less. Wells made this statement which tells me everything I need to know about him: Fathers (Sun Myung Moon) creator of the Unification church: “my studies and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying ‘Darwinism’ just as many of my fellow Unificationists have already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism . When father chose me along with about a dozen other seminary graduates to enter a PhD program in 1978 I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle”. I don’t care how many PhD’s this man has but under this pretext I am not even interested. I don’t know why (yes I do) a person would dedicate his life to destroying the very field he was PhD’ing for based only on his religious predications before he even studied the material. I don’t think he learned any real science in that seminary do you? I wondered why you always referenced Darwin and Darwinism and now I know (you forced me to look into Wells) … it is all Wells argues about in his book imagine that. Besides he is a card carrying member of the Discovery institute the bastion such as it is for ID.

Wonder how that messiah thing played out in prison where he spent 13 months for what else, income tax evasion and conspiracy. I thought this lesson was amply taught through other gangsters since the 20’s and 30’s … don’t deny the Government what it considers its ‘fair’ share or you will be made to understand the real world implications of your folly. The Unification church is now a multi-billion-dollar empire with branches throughout the world.

PS – what’s wrong with your computer, plenty of help available here?

on Nov 11, 2012

lulapilgrim
I bet it is, only problem is there are no compounded effects of microevolution because there is no change beyond species occurring. Not then, not now, not ever. This is clear from the insufficiency of the evidence.
You have bigger ‘nads’ than I do (hahaha) or maybe it is because I do not have enough contempt for anything to prompt me to utter these six words all in one sentence. Do you have any scientific credentials at all or even a scientific hobby that could have enlightened you enough to empower you to say such foolish things? Personally, I wouldn't use that sentence even concerning your deities or anyone else’s.   

All my arguments stem from my personal determination that the bible was a work of fiction, an internal church document at best. And because I do not believe it has one word from any deity in it, I don’t rely on it for anything … not as advertised. If you could become less hostile there are a few things you need to at least understand. I have nothing besides the evidence presented to me through the various sciences to work with, nothing at all so don’t seem surprised when I defend my argument in that way. There is nothing I could possible add or subtract from our knowledge base because I am not qualified to do so, I am only allowed an opinion just like you. I am not required to accept / reject anything I don’t want to any more than you, I just seem to understand things better probably because I am not trying to break anything, just trying to understand things better.

Your battle is with the age of the earth so you can try and justify ‘original sin’ which doesn’t allow for evolution at all, that same evolution you are arguing about??? What is the point of your arguments if everything is less than 5,903 years old ... or is that the point of your arguments?

PS - Creation of Adam (+ 1,556 y) to Noah’s Son Shem (+ 390 y) to Abraham (1945 y) to birth of Jesus = 3891 years since creation. Add in this year +2012 and the earth is biblically 5,903 years old … the hell with evolution girl!

 

on Nov 13, 2012

lulapilgrim
Reply #51lulapilgrim
I would call your attention to the 390 year time span where the world was made devoid of life and then repopulated (fauna and flora) from one point in the world all with four couples and some pairs of animals. If each couple had a baby a year, that would provide a world population of 1568 people assuming no deaths at all. Of course there are those that may have more than one child at a time but that is mitigated by the fact that the human body could not live beyond a certain number of birthings (certainly well under 390 of them). People just do not multiply like rabbits. As you will note here Lula, none of this has anything to do with science … only your bible. I know these numbers are wrong, but the point is well made. You cannot just say we got from one point in history to another just 390 years in the future … without providing a reasonable explanation for getting there. My question here would be why didn’t god repopulate the earth again by speaking it so? Maybe he can only make things from nothing but cannot make nothing of something real. But you are left to try and explain how this could occur naturally (and without evolution of some kind) because it seems god didn’t tell anyone. Go forth and multiply just doesn’t cut it. Didn’t god say he wouldn’t destroy the world again, but that is what you are waiting for, right?

on Nov 13, 2012

Check your source.  He promised not to destroy the world again by flood.

on Nov 13, 2012

Jythier
Check your source. He promised not to destroy the world again by flood.
Not really relevant but I thought it was so, so thanks for the correction. I am just tired of looking up religious dogma anymore because none of it makes sense to me. I was just trying to spur Lula into making a comment because she at least tries to justify herself. I assume her computer is still giving her problems so I am just getting ahead a bit to make it easier for her to lambast me.

on Nov 13, 2012

GirlFriendTess
Quoting Jythier, reply 55Check your source. He promised not to destroy the world again by flood.Not really relevant but I thought it was so, so thanks for the correction. I am just tired of looking up religious dogma anymore because none of it makes sense to me. I was just trying to spur Lula into making a comment because she at least tries to justify herself. I assume her computer is still giving her problems so I am just getting ahead a bit to make it easier for her to lambast me.

She says a lot more than I do, that's for sure.

Arguing with you hasn't helped either of us so I stopped.

If you ever have any actual questions about what the Bible means, feel free to ask me.  This is as opposed to you making up a nonsensical meaning to laugh at Christians about.

on Nov 13, 2012

Jythier
If you ever have any actual questions about what the Bible means, feel free to ask me.
Thanks for the offer but I do not need biblical help having learned to read and write and to actually comprehend things when I was a child. Everything you 'rant' about comes from that book of yours and I do not accept it as anything besides the will of the people at the time. You do not try and defend the bible seemingly in any other manner than to use the bible to justify itself … and you prefer to pick and choose what you think is important. I don’t read a scientific book without accepting the whole thing. There are usually things I may not personally agree with, but I take the whole thing or I reject the whole thing. This is why I reject the bible as a source of knowledge … all of it because too many things in there are ridiculously ignorant of the real world, the one I live in. I don’t know what kind of conversation you are looking for when you say nonsensical things like ‘forward looking science is good but backwards looking science is nothing but a ruse to discredit the bible’ as if outside help was needed. All science is backwards looking simply because we haven’t learned how to look into the future yet so it all must be bad by your definition. The ONLY way to prove your case against macroevolution because you do not understand the science, is to prove there wasn’t enough time for it and thus this little segment in my conversations with Lula. A simple question would be ‘what would convince you of macroevolution’ … but the simple answer is that there is nothing at all you would accept, just because you don’t want to. You can claim that you understand the bible if you like, but I think it is just a testament of your credulity factor.

on Nov 13, 2012

Haven't we actually seen new species develop through macroevolution?

I accept the entire Bible as true.

on Nov 13, 2012

Jythier
Haven't we actually seen new species develop through macroevolution?
Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature (just in case you were serious).

Jythier
I accept the entire Bible as true.
That is the point Jythier, you accept it as true but you cannot prove any of it to be so. If this is your idea of communicating and justifying what you unquestionably believe true then we don't at all have anything to discuss. You do not seem to understand that a conversation involves more than one person demanding their view (like the RCC for instance) of whatever they think is right is so just because they believe it is. You do not offer any proof, you don't offer any explanations and you don't offer or accept any common sense considering it camouflage or just wishful thinking. Your complete disregard for the sciences is unforgivable, which you think is all just balderdash. Please don't respond unless you can bring something to the table from another source. I am not going to just do 'The bible' anymore because I have made myself perfectly clear in that regard. I have plenty of time to await someone who can write more than a couple of quips at a time in support of your complete knowledge of everything.

PS - If you cannot give me something to actually work with besides your short opinions, I cannot even tell if you are trying to be serious or just lofty as usual.

12 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last