Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Extra, you really need to watch it so you won't look any more stupid than you already look. And you came from this makes sense to you??

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

 

 So Best,

 How do you explain the fact that in a thousand years or so you will look exactly like that?

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

OK, since you're so set on looking stupid I'll leave you to it.

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

 

 I see what you mean. It's not good to be black in today's scientific world. According to those who wrote the books on evolution, if your black, your no better than a dog.

Originally Posted by Extra-260:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

OK, since you're so set on looking stupid I'll leave you to it.

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

 

 I see what you mean. It's not good to be black in today's scientific world. According to those who wrote the books on evolution, if your black, your no better than a dog.

That a really bad argument.  The fact that racism existed in the 1800's does not invalidate the science.  If we use that argument, then what do we make of the fact that many evangelical Christians of the antebellum south used the Bible to justify chattel slavery?  Does that invalidate the Bible?  No.  The Bible, just like the science of evolution is still valid despite the previous racist abuses of each.

Originally Posted by OldSalt:
Originally Posted by Extra-260:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

OK, since you're so set on looking stupid I'll leave you to it.

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

 

 I see what you mean. It's not good to be black in today's scientific world. According to those who wrote the books on evolution, if your black, your no better than a dog.

That a really bad argument.  The fact that racism existed in the 1800's does not invalidate the science.  If we use that argument, then what do we make of the fact that many evangelical Christians of the antebellum south used the Bible to justify chattel slavery?  Does that invalidate the Bible?  No.  The Bible, just like the science of evolution is still valid despite the previous racist abuses of each.

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

Old Salt,

 The Bible was not written for the purpose of imposing racism. Sadly, there are those who have twisted it to support racist views.

 Those who wrote the book on evolution were not only racist, but formulated their theories just for the purpose of justifying the British subjugation of India, Africa and Australia.  Evolution is without a doubt founded on racism, for the purpose of justifying racism. That ain't science.

Yes I viewed the youtube video, no I still remain fully convinced that Evolution is not the vehicle by which life inhabited the planet.  There are still so many unanswered questions and leaps of faith that evolution leaves us with.  Those who wish to believe in Evolution and are convinced that Evolution is fact and indis****ble I'm glad you are all fuzzy and warm having security about your beliefs.  I am equally comfortable and confident in my personal beliefs as well.   

 

One constant thing I've noticed though regarding Evolutionist when it comes to those, of us, whom do not believe or will not accept Evolution as fact.  Even though all of these (I.D. Creation, Evolution) are theories and although it (believed or not), cannot be indis****bly proven as fact, those who adhere to evolution always retort to attacks and demeaning the intelligence of anyone else.  Maybe I've missed it or haven't seen it as much but I don't see the same treatment of evolutionist, from creationist or I.D. adherents as I see in the opposite direction.  

 

One point in the video that I thought was interesting was where the speaker (speaking for evolution)  mentioned certain jaw bones of one species morphing or becoming the bones within the ear of another.  It seems to me this would generate some questions.  For instance knowing how complex the ear is and how everything works together in such an intricate way and must work together just right in order for sound to be understood and comprehended how these bones of a jaw could just happen to arrange in such a way to enable this miraclous conversion of sound to occur.  I mean are we to assume these bones just accidentally (non-directed) worked themselves into such a position that they facilitated the ability to receive, hear and decode sound.  Evolution, as taught and presented, is accidental and non-directed, it just happened.  That though is but just one question or point that I thought of while listening to the presentation.  Another was when a presentation, just as lengthy, is cited that is pro-ID or pro-Creation do those who critique it really listen to it or give it the time?  Could be I suppose but in most cases I wonder if that is the case.

 

My objection to Evolution again does not rest upon my Religious beliefs or come from a basis of religion but come form the many inadequacies that I believe evolution leaves us with.  Accepting creation or Intelligent Design can also be called a cop out but it essentially is an admission that we don't know the exact process by which all life species became to be life.  It is an admission that we are not superior to our creator and that we believe we have an creator/source that has intelligence and power beyond that which we are capable of reproducing or even understanding and comprehending.  To accept evolution is to accept and believe that life is but an accident.  It is accepting that from this chance accident that from the most simplistic we proceed to an intelligence that is capable of creation of though itself and yet throughout this process, even though the most simplistic forms are still there and here with us, extinction is a mandatory requirement due to the fact that there are no transitionary, incremental, living beings/sources present to verify and point to. That is just one of many many problems I see evolution presenting us with.  As I said though If you are confident, secure, and happy that you have answered all the questions and have it right then good for you feel warm and fuzzy but just because I choose not to believe do not make judgments about me for I have as many good and justifiable reasons to support my beliefs as you do yours.

 

I could be wrong, and simplifying it far beyond what I should attempt, but as I see it, when it comes down to it settling on a source for life or a source of existence (life and non-life entities) the decision, by the listener, student or person, comes down to simply a very few choices.   Do we place our belief and faith that the answer and all answers come back to a singular accidental event from some singularity or point of origin between materials we cannot define, identify, or understand.   Or do we place our belief and faith that the answer and all answers come from something greater than ourselves, something directed and intelligent that with purpose created what is although we have to in doing so make the admission we neither understand or comprehend the source and process by which it happened.  Evolution as generally taught and accepted restricts us, by it's very definition, to the first non-directed, non-intelligent, accidental choice.  The single exception is that there are some subsets that do believe an Intelligent Source (God) created by using the process of evolution but those who chose this I actually include in the ID or Creation category by virtue of it being a directed process all along.  The latter (religious or apart from religion) could also mean that the source is even outside the realm of understanding, science, and anything material or physical but could be a realm that is hence undefined and potentially undefinable which also could insert a philosophical  argument in the mix.  What is really unfortunate is that so many wish to now restrict the teaching and what is offered to students to evolution alone even though they have no basis or way to disprove that other prominent views and theories are not true.   Classifying it as "Separation of Church and State" is but a scapegoat or strawman or just a way or method of exclusion of other theories.  They want to eliminate the general theory itself rather than allowing it within certain confines and boundaries.  By doing so they want to dictate that what is taught to students be and remain an unintelligent, undirected process or an accidental happening.    

 

Regardless of which theory one subscribes to the exposure to other major competing theories should be something that one would encourage rather than discourage.  If one is so overwhelmingly demonstrative and absolute then what dangers are there to allowing competition and allowing individual choice as anything so undeniable and sure would be so evident as there would be no danger or a competing theory being accepted.

 

 

 
Originally Posted by Extra-260:
Originally Posted by OldSalt:
Originally Posted by Extra-260:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

OK, since you're so set on looking stupid I'll leave you to it.

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

 

 I see what you mean. It's not good to be black in today's scientific world. According to those who wrote the books on evolution, if your black, your no better than a dog.

That a really bad argument.  The fact that racism existed in the 1800's does not invalidate the science.  If we use that argument, then what do we make of the fact that many evangelical Christians of the antebellum south used the Bible to justify chattel slavery?  Does that invalidate the Bible?  No.  The Bible, just like the science of evolution is still valid despite the previous racist abuses of each.

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

Old Salt,

 The Bible was not written for the purpose of imposing racism. Sadly, there are those who have twisted it to support racist views.

 Those who wrote the book on evolution were not only racist, but formulated their theories just for the purpose of justifying the British subjugation of India, Africa and Australia.  Evolution is without a doubt founded on racism, for the purpose of justifying racism. That ain't science.

Although yes the Bible does record acts of Slavery, for those who read, understand, and comprehend what the Bible is teaching, what GOD is imparting unto mankind is that all mankind is equal and no better than the next person.  That man/woman of any race is but a physical, fleshly, creation, that contains a soul/spirit that has no color, nationality, or sex that is created by God created in God's image (soul/spirit not the flesh/body).   The slavery that God is most concerned about is mankind's slavery to sin which He gives freedom from through Grace and Faith in Jesus Christ and His shed Blood.  Freedom from the bondage and yoke of sin.  Bias, prejudice and racism is a part of that sinfulness.  Looking at a person as different is essentially looking at that person as either superior or inferior to yourself therefore God wishes for us (my own belief) for us to look at each other as He sees us rather than as we do.  Look at life or the person as something special with a  specialness endowed by the Creator/God to make us not only different from other life and creation in who we are but different in our future and eternal state.  That is my opinion.

 
Regarding evolution and Natural Selection as a process of evolution, how does that not naturally equate or lead to racism?   The Strongest survive while weaker, lesser reduces and fades away?   One is always going to be considered superior to the other.  That's a reasonable assumption.  That process, weaker/stronger, always would lead to conflict of some kind where one would seek to overwhelm or feel superior in their state. The other that is made to feel inferior would also seek to become the superior.  Maybe I have Natural Selection all wrong but I can sure see where someone could derive racism from that.
 
 
 
Last edited by gbrk
Originally Posted by Extra-260:
Originally Posted by OldSalt:
Originally Posted by Extra-260:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

OK, since you're so set on looking stupid I'll leave you to it.

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

 

 I see what you mean. It's not good to be black in today's scientific world. According to those who wrote the books on evolution, if your black, your no better than a dog.

That a really bad argument.  The fact that racism existed in the 1800's does not invalidate the science.  If we use that argument, then what do we make of the fact that many evangelical Christians of the antebellum south used the Bible to justify chattel slavery?  Does that invalidate the Bible?  No.  The Bible, just like the science of evolution is still valid despite the previous racist abuses of each.

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

Old Salt,

 The Bible was not written for the purpose of imposing racism. Sadly, there are those who have twisted it to support racist views.

 Those who wrote the book on evolution were not only racist, but formulated their theories just for the purpose of justifying the British subjugation of India, Africa and Australia.  Evolution is without a doubt founded on racism, for the purpose of justifying racism. That ain't science.

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

Yet the fact is the Bible was used to justify the continuation of racial slavery. 

 

My argument remains valid.  Despite any previous abuses of both the Bible and evolution, the Bible, as interpreted by our current standards, is still valid as a religious text just as evolution, as interpreted in modern scientists, is valid science.

Regarding evolution and Natural Selection as a process of evolution, how does that not naturally equate or lead to racism?   The Strongest survive while weaker, lesser reduces and fades away?   One is always going to be considered superior to the other.  That's a reasonable assumption.  That process, weaker/stronger, always would lead to conflict of some kind where one would seek to overwhelm or feel superior in their state. The other that is made to feel inferior would also seek to become the superior.  Maybe I have Natural Selection all wrong but I can sure see where someone could derive racism from that.


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

It might help if you and extra actually read and understood what was meant by "natural selection".






   Classifying it as "Separation of Church and State" is but a scapegoat or strawman or just a way or method of exclusion of other theories.  They want to eliminate the general theory itself rather than allowing it within certain confines and boundaries.  By doing so they want to dictate that what is taught to students be and remain an unintelligent, undirected process or an accidental happening.

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

There is NO reason people who want creation taught to their children can't teach it to them at home/church/church schools. I'll ask you, why do you want it required to be taught to other's children in schools? Creation by a god is biblical, and as bad as you hate it, separation of church and state is real. It is not an excuse.

Why do I want it taught ...   For one because no theory has been proven as absolutely factual and valid as the true way.  Second by not teaching alternate prevailing plausible and popular theories you add undue emphasis and credence  to the one you do teach.  Third because you allow the student to make the choice and decision rather than someone making the choice for them regarding which unverified theory is accepted.  Fourth, very much akin to the third, this is a FREE Nation and there should be no penalty for teaching prevailing prominent theories.  

 

Regarding Creation there should be no problem with teaching it and religion for it should be taught as a theory that life was created by a deity which various people worship as their creator.  I have no problem with teaching that in the past various peoples worshiped various Gods such as Zeus etc as long as no one deity receives emphasis.  There is certainly a way that creation can be taught without indoctrination into one Religion over another and still present Creation by a powerful intelligent deity being and intelligent, directed process that is, in past and at present, beyond our capacity to understand, test, or comprehend.  Also Intelligent Design being a third source as potentially from within or without our Galaxy or Universe.  

 

Now a disclaimer.  Even though most Christians would like to see Creation taught as a competing theory the danger and problem is that it would be taught in a very prejudiced biased  way that would be very negative toward Creation.  I doubt that it could be taught in any objective manner because most times it would be taught by an instructor or teacher who didn't believe it as a competing theory.

 

Regarding Creation there should be no problem with teaching it and religion for it should be taught as a theory that life was created by a deity which various people worship as their creator.


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

Teach it anywhere you like except TAX SUPPORTED institutions. Then get ready to teach ALL of religions. You only want your flavor of religion taught, that can't happen. And get ready for the churches to finally pay their fair share of taxes.

Originally Posted by OldSalt:
Originally Posted by Extra-260:
Originally Posted by OldSalt:
Originally Posted by Extra-260:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

OK, since you're so set on looking stupid I'll leave you to it.

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

 

 I see what you mean. It's not good to be black in today's scientific world. According to those who wrote the books on evolution, if your black, your no better than a dog.

That a really bad argument.  The fact that racism existed in the 1800's does not invalidate the science.  If we use that argument, then what do we make of the fact that many evangelical Christians of the antebellum south used the Bible to justify chattel slavery?  Does that invalidate the Bible?  No.  The Bible, just like the science of evolution is still valid despite the previous racist abuses of each.

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

Old Salt,

 The Bible was not written for the purpose of imposing racism. Sadly, there are those who have twisted it to support racist views.

 Those who wrote the book on evolution were not only racist, but formulated their theories just for the purpose of justifying the British subjugation of India, Africa and Australia.  Evolution is without a doubt founded on racism, for the purpose of justifying racism. That ain't science.

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

Yet the fact is the Bible was used to justify the continuation of racial slavery. 

 

My argument remains valid.  Despite any previous abuses of both the Bible and evolution, the Bible, as interpreted by our current standards, is still valid as a religious text just as evolution, as interpreted in modern scientists, is valid science.

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

 

 Evolution is a THEORY that is based on fraud, supposition, guess work, divination, hocus pocus and anything else that cannot be proven. Evolution cannot even get out of the Primordial Swamp without rewriting the laws of physics into a favorable condition, and even at that it failed.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:
  1.  
    Evolution is without a doubt founded on racism, for the purpose of justifying racism. That ain't science.

    ----------------------------------
    Are you SERIOUS? A baby knows better than that!!

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

A picture of Best when she realized that God really is real and the universe don't revolve around her.

 

 


 

bestcrying

Attachments

Images (1)
  • bestcrying
Originally Posted by DarkAngel:

The ignorance is knee deep here. Extra and GB you have obviously not evolved far enough yet to understand the real science behind evolution. Don't worry the rest of us will carry on fine without you. YOU ARE THE WEAKEST LINK! LOL

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

The TVT forum atheists after they lose another debate on evolution.

 


 

kids-crying

Attachments

Images (1)
  • kids-crying

Extra and GB you have obviously not evolved far enough yet to understand the real science behind evolution

 

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

 

 That's the problem, you cannot produce any real science. You have Ernst Heckels fraudulent  charts, all kind of skull frauds,  shaved hogs teeth, dremel tooled hip bones, and rewriting the laws of physics. When you can get out of the primordial swamp, then you will have something to brag about.

quote:   Originally Posted by Jennifer Bestworking:
There is NO reason people who want creation taught to their children can't teach it to them at home/church/church schools.  I'll ask you, why do you want it required to be taught to other's children in schools?  Creation by a god is biblical, and as bad as you hate it, separation of church and state is real.  It is not an excuse.

Hi Jennifer,

 

And, by the same measure, for those people who want their children taught Darwinian Evolution -- there is no reason this cannot be done at home by their non-believing parents.   Then, children in schools can be taught an overview of both Creation and Darwinian Evolution -- and, let the students decide which they believe.

 

Darwinian Evolution is a religion.  Therefore, it should not be taught in schools.

 

Sounds like a win-win solution to me.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Monkey-Man

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Monkey-Man

Ex,

 

Your responses are pitiful.  Please keep up the good work, however.  Attitudes like yours are my best weapon in the fight for truth.

 

As has been pointed out, a child can see through your pathetic arguments.  And they do.  And they will, more and more.  I will see to it.

 

Hit me with your best shot, if you haven't done so already.  So far, you've only demonstrated the paucity and deficiencies of your Creatard outlook.  Every honest thought broker who compares your arguments with those of the video I posted disagrees with you.  Every person capable of independent, objective analysis disagrees with you and your Medieval outlook.  No thinking person can possibly reject the scientific, objective, demonstrable truth  unless he stands to gain from manipulating the minds of innocent ignoramuses.

 

Please, don't stop.  I'm begging you.

 

DF

Originally Posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:

Ex,

 

Your responses are pitiful.  Please keep up the good work, however.  Attitudes like yours are my best weapon in the fight for truth.

 

As has been pointed out, a child can see through your pathetic arguments.  And they do.  And they will, more and more.  I will see to it.

 

Hit me with your best shot, if you haven't done so already.  So far, you've only demonstrated the paucity and deficiencies of your Creatard outlook.  Every honest thought broker who compares your arguments with those of the video I posted disagrees with you.  Every person capable of independent, objective analysis disagrees with you and your Medieval outlook.  No thinking person can possibly reject the scientific, objective, demonstrable truth  unless he stands to gain from manipulating the minds of innocent ignoramuses.

 

Please, don't stop.  I'm begging you.

 

DF

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

 

 So Deep,

 When you plan on getting out of the swamp?

 It's funny that you don't want attention to the fact that the founders of your sect were indeed all racist. If people are foolish enough to believe a bunch of racists, trying to validate their racism, actually stumbled onto scientific truth, send them my way. i have some ocean front property for sale...............

Originally Posted by gbrk:

Why do I want it taught ...   For one because no theory has been proven as absolutely factual and valid as the true way.  
========================= 

GBR, evolution is as "proven" as the gravitational and atomic and germ theory. My profession as a physician would make absolutely no sense without evolution as the basis of the diversity of life. Your problem is that you refuse to study how it works and insert "god did it" in the massive gaps of your ignorance. Ear evolution? Still lots of gaps in our knowledge but the basic points are fairly well understood. Take a look and wipe away your ignorance of this point then go on to the next: http://www.scientificamerican....-evolution-in-action

Extra, citing examples of Darwin's racism is akin to calling the sky blue.  Of course he was "racist." Nearly everyone at the time was. However, Darwin was the first one to theorize that all the races of man had a common origin in Africa. That wasn't proven until the mid-1900's. His views were quite controversial (the white folks didn't want to admit a relationship to Africans) but he stuck to the evidence and was vindicated nearly a century later. So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Darwin's theory proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that we all came from black African ancestors.

Originally Posted by Frankly:
Originally Posted by gbrk:

Why do I want it taught ...   For one because no theory has been proven as absolutely factual and valid as the true way.  
========================= 

GBR, evolution is as "proven" as the gravitational and atomic and germ theory. My profession as a physician would make absolutely no sense without evolution as the basis of the diversity of life. Your problem is that you refuse to study how it works and insert "god did it" in the massive gaps of your ignorance. Ear evolution? Still lots of gaps in our knowledge but the basic points are fairly well understood. Take a look and wipe away your ignorance of this point then go on to the next: http://www.scientificamerican....-evolution-in-action

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

 

 Not so fast. You cannot even tell me what causes gravity or how it's created.  Atomic theory is based on real science, not evolution. Atomic theory does not pre suppose that atoms evolve.  Mutations in germs is not the same thing as evolution. Flu viruses mutate, but they are always flu viruses, they don't become some other virus without the help of man in a laboratory. Most of the dangerous viruses today have their origin in labs, not nature.

 

And the ear didn't evolve. By the laws of the theory of evolution, since the compnents of the ear would serve no purpose until it was in perfect working order, evolution would have removed the ear long before it would have been functional.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×