Spirit of the Anti-Christ! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Tiassa, 'Spirit of the Anti-Christ'! Thou art a lie! You do not and can not understand that to which is 'above nature' as you could ever understand it! There is GOD in the Heavens! And the Bible does say that He sits in the Heavens and laughs at your prideful boast of His none existence and that of the Angels and 'Demons'! Demons are of the "supernatural" and can not be seen in the natural, but only in the 'spirit', and I can easily recognize some influence in you, but you still have time to be saved from your self-deception of the truth! The truth that there is more to physical universe then science alone could ever fathom!! We are moral, and you are soo materialistic that you have no understanding that this is NOT ALL THAT IS! Soon time itself shall be no more, and the likes of you shall stand before the GOD you and colleagues have said did not exist, but WOE unto you, beware the #Wrath to come! The #Wrath of GOD! "For it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the 'Living GOD'!" Your world is only temporal, it shall be all BURNED UP! But for the Word of GOD will FOREVER STAND! And soon the Word of GOD Himself shall descend from the Heavenly, in the person of JESUS -Christ Himself, the Word of GOD in the person of JESUS the Christ the one true MESSIAH! And He shall judge all, and all that love His appearing, and all that are shame, and hate His appearing, for He shall judge the whole Earth! That of the super-natural is not in the grasp of the unregenerate, knuckle-draggers mind,[that know not GOD, nor the truth of GOD's Holy Word] unless one is into sorcery, witchcraft! But all of them shall have their part in the "Lake of Fire" prepared for the Devil (real Devil) and his angels(demons)! As I and the Bible says that these are of an nature that is above physical nature as we understand, and is beyond science to study and understand! Beware! You will be before GOD Himself alone, alone if your with out JESUS on your side! Such as you, are the ones that are and will destroy this nation some day, USA!
Loone, welcome to it What cracks me up most about that blue-in-the-face diatribe of yours is that it has nothing to do with anything except you getting some more of your twisted preacher's pride out. I hope you feel better, Loone ... I really do. I mean, I'm quite sure you could have had that little screaming tantrum without dragging up posts that are two months old. Whatever, I suppose, gets your Chrsitian perversity off. Regarding the Lake of Fire: I'd love to see you and Tony1 have at it over a few of your theological differences, but we could be here until Jesus comes and between the two of you never actually witness a logical point of debate. So, yeah, it's probably a bad idea .... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Actually, Devildog ... I think I should be impressed; it occurred to me this morning that Sir Loone has transcended the Bible. Woo-hoo! Of course, he's shoveling Falwell now, so it's all the same, but he's styling himself after a human idiot this time. I'll note columnist Ellen Goodman, who wrote that Falwell and his ilk are the perfect spokesmen for the Taliban. After all, our fundamentalists agree with theirs. I should put on a "death-monkey" sign and stand on the streetcorner so Loone can get up on top of a car and remind Americans how six-thousand dead in New York is my fault. I'll call Cris and Cupric and have signs made up for them, too. You're welcome to join us. We can be the Catharsis Club; we can get in the back of a horsecart and go from village to village and Loone can excoriate us until he thinks he's made a difference. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You know, I understand that it's easier to feel better by blaming what you hate, but does Loone realize that the liberty he blames on me and others is the exact liberty that keeps him from, oh, say, being shot under some interpretation of sharia law because he's preaching Christianity? However, I don't think the Taliban would actually do anything to him. Maybe put him on the air as an example of Western corruption, but even the dog-and-pony clerics of totalitarian regimes are smart enough to know that what Loone preaches is illness, not Christianity. Amazing; I understand the notion of open mouth, insert foot. But it's kind of like a porno; Loone seems to be nibbling on Jerry Falwell's toes. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: Opinions vary, but yours doesn't *Originally posted by DEVILDOG ]If I followed my upbringing I would agree,(I was raised catholic), but I choose to think for myself. Therefore I cannot agree with that statement. Anything better to argue your point?* Well, you're still a pretty good Catholic. Evolution is acceptable Catholic doctrine, not Capital "D" Doctrine, yet, but getting there. *Originally posted by FA_Q2 The have the same truth, a flood that consumed 3 cultures. I admit they are wrong and I have evidence. Where is yours?* You have evidence of no flood? Even rabidly antichristian scientists wouldn't say that. My evidence is the evidence that everyone else has, namely traces of flooding and huge numbers of fossils. *Originally posted by tiassa between the two of you never actually witness a logical point of debate.* Don't be so hard on yourself! You don't provide any logic, either. *Originally posted by DEVILDOG Tiassa, I can think of the perfect pair of JACKASSES to pull the cart.* You and tiassa?
" You have evidence of no flood? Even rabidly antichristian scientists wouldn't say that. My evidence is the evidence that everyone else has, namely traces of flooding and huge numbers of fossils. " You can point that evidence out anytime tony. Don't try to point to a rock on a mountain that says it was under water and call that evidence either. It needs to be evidence of the entire world being under water at the same time. Not to mention where all the water is. So tell me what this evidence is.
*Originally posted by FA_Q2 You can point that evidence out anytime tony. Don't try to point to a rock on a mountain that says it was under water and call that evidence either. It needs to be evidence of the entire world being under water at the same time. Not to mention where all the water is. So tell me what this evidence is. * Luckily, the evolutionary scientists have named all the layers of sediment left by the flood. You know, "Jurassic," "Triassic," "Pre-Cambrian," "Cambrian," etc. That way I don't have to point to a rock on top of a mountain. The water is in the oceans and in the sky (clouds, rain, you know). The fossil record is the main evidence, though. Normally, dead animals get eaten by various scavengers. The fact that there are billions of fossils indicates that there was an occurrence of an event where the scavengers didn't have time to eat the dead animals. Interestingly enough, those fossils are all found in those named layers of sediment. Of course, that is the simplest explanation. There is an alternate theory floating around, I believe it is called "the theory of evolution." It's too far-fetched and fanciful for sane minds, but it has much attraction for the more weak-minded among us.
"The water is in the oceans and in the sky (clouds, rain, you know)." Not enough. "The fossil record is the main evidence, though. Normally, dead animals get eaten by various scavengers. The fact that there are billions of fossils indicates that there was an occurrence of an event where the scavengers didn't have time to eat the dead animals. " Fossils are not that common. They are also generally located in the same layers, a definite indication that there was no catastrophic event. Scavengers also tend to eat the animal and leave the bones. That would leave them to fossilize.
*Originally posted by FA_Q2 Not enough.* Riight. 75% of the earth's surface is covered with water two miles deep and that's not enough. Riiiiight. *Fossils are not that common.* They are not common at all in classrooms, except for the guy up front. In real life, you can find fossil beds that go for miles. *They are also generally located in the same layers, a definite indication that there was no catastrophic event.* Even though sediment layers are miles deep in places, you figure that is normal? I realize your IQ is only 150, but why not try to use some of it. Finding similar animals in similar layers would stand to reason, if you used any. Animals that are poor swimmers would tend to end up in approximately the same layers. Animals that are good swimmers, likewise. Animals that can't swim at all would tend to end up at the bottom. Birds would tend to end up near the top. Of course, that is too obvious for a thinker such as yourself. *Scavengers also tend to eat the animal and leave the bones. That would leave them to fossilize. * You are proposing very neat scavengers who can't pull carcasses apart. Plus, you're proposing non-existent scavengers. Even ordinary dogs eat bones and all. I've watched dogs eat moose skulls that are thick enough to bounce bullets off. But, in the distant past, in the theory of evolution, scavengers were very dainty, delicate little creatures.
WTF tony1 I know your bible prevented you from paying attention in science but how the hell would we pull the cart if we get IN the back of the cart? FA_Q2...The great flood was real, it happened when the ICE AGE melted and filled the canyons to make the oceans. The christians invented the story of noah when someone who was a fish was reincarnated as a writer. Ants don't eat the bone. There's also a beetle that is a carnivore. Never saw a buzzard eat bone. Hell, maggots don't eat bones either. What's up with that? Wrong theory again tony1?
We are discovered... Damn it! Foiled again. How do you do it Caleb? You have single handedly overturned hundreds of years of scientific research by presenting this forum with just a few irrefutable photographs of ancient art. We have tried so hard to disguise the field of "science" so that no one could recognize it as a vast conspiricy to undermine the Christian faith. Yet you have toppled the fundamentals of science and evil reason with just an ingenious few clicks of a mouse. Will science ever be safe from the harsh light of truth? Not as long as you remain vigil Caleb. Damn you!
--- How do we know that the effects of Down Syndrome are not an evolutionary mutation. --- Any mutation is evolutionary, really. However, Down's Syndrome is maladaptive, the duplication or deletion of chromozones is a large scale mutation that will almost invariably be harmful and will likely not proliferate well.
*Originally posted by DEVILDOG how the hell would we pull the cart if we get IN the back of the cart?* If you can believe the theory of evolution, then pulling a cart while sitting in it should be a piece of cake. *Ants don't eat the bone. There's also a beetle that is a carnivore. Never saw a buzzard eat bone. Hell, maggots don't eat bones either. What's up with that? * So, ants, buzzards and maggots are the only scavengers?
Sitting in a cart. Yes Tony1, It is actually very easy for me to visualize myself sitting in a cart and pulling it using a a very simple setup consisting of nothing more than a pulley and a rope. No need for mystical powers or the futility of trying to comprehend the "impossible".
Re: Sitting in a cart. *Originally posted by machaon It is actually very easy for me to visualize myself sitting in a cart and pulling it using a a very simple setup consisting of nothing more than a pulley and a rope.* LOL! I am amazed at the propensity of evolutionists to shoot themselves in the foot every chance they get. That's great when you need to move your cart twelve feet. What about traveling from NY to LA? Don't forget the theory of evolution was created to explain all of life, along with the entire universe. It's not enough to explain some minor difference between two members of the same species. It has to explain EVERYTHING. *No need for mystical powers or the futility of trying to comprehend the "impossible". * You'll need mystical powers to comprehend the futility of using evolution as the explanation for everything.
Something you just don't seem to understand, Tony1 Okay, Tony1, I'm getting sick of this. I want you and every Creationist to get a simple idea through your damn skulls ... It's your turn to figure out a fundamental difference that you have thus far failed to notice when comparing science and your religion. It's really damn easy. Tell me, Tony1 ... in your opinion, when was the last time someone wrote something new about God that modified your faith? In other words, what new truths are included in your faith that weren't available to the Catholics of 500 years ago, or even the Puritans of American colonial history? Or any other of the too-Catholic, or the demonic, or the otherwise false Christians you've identified? Now, I don't actually expect you to understand the question; your history at Sciforums indicates that we'll all cheer if you do. Because it's a comparison. Scientific knowledge is a growing body of knowledge. Again, we can look at the pre-microscope days of "humors & biles", of diseases caused by demons, &c. We can measure things a lot more precisely than we could then; we can observe more than we could then ... Do you see what I'm getting at? Science is a continually growing and continually refining--a continually evolving--body of knowledge. By and large, the Christian faith base is fairly set. When was the last time your Christian faith compelled you to realign a moral obligation to the opposite of what you believed the day before? How much revision of faith takes place based on the available, limited data set (e.g. the Bible)? The fundamental difference that the Creationists seem to fail to note is simply that science isn't finished growing. Religion had to grow and figure things out in its own time, but certain principles are pretty much understood and all the faithful argue about is how to enact those things selfishly. Consider the biblical "evidence" cited in any moral consideration: Christians have certain verses which advise them of certain things and this is largely how the specifics of the faith are justified. When was the last time new "evidence" changed the conventional meaning of a verse and changed the moral concept it advised? It's what I mean when I ask if someone is born knowing everything they need to know in the Universe. The body of knowledge compiled by science is yet incomplete. Refinement of obsevational capabilities makes all the difference in the world sometimes. Why the Creationists don't spend their time devising testable means of refining the scientific acquisition of knowledge of God's Universe is beyond me. It seems spiteful to me that someone would rather complain about science than contribute to its method of understanding God's Universe. So why waste time asserting untestable theses like Intelligent Design? Why must Creationists miss the actual accurate portion of Biblical creation in quest for the refutation of science? Why, in other words, complain because science isn't finished learning? If you're so smart, help it learn. But to do that, you're going to have to make your assertions testable. To prove Intelligent Design, you cannot show the incompleteness of science as evidence; it's not as if the scientists have run out of things to measure and learn from. You must, instead, show evidence of the Intelligent Designer. That must be a testable hypothesis, a practical experiment to provide that evidence: a conflict of possibilities does not serve as evidence. (Oh, digression: Tony1 ... you fail to realize that you're writing about a horsecart. Evolution aside, if we rigged it to pull ourselves along, it would no longer be a horsecart! Or perhaps not aside, but rather as the point. It's a horsecart. You know, a horse-cart, horse cart or rather a cart pulled by horses? It's how you're supposed to do it when you're hauling women half-naked from whipping to whipping in the snow, which is what the Puritans did and apparently what you and Loone and your Christian cohorts should be doing to scientists and infidels since, after all, we're destroying the United States of America. And, you know, like Falwell said, it's our fault this whole thing is happening. God is punishing the United States with warfare because we have strayed from the path and tried to learn about the Universe ..... You use a horsecart when you do that, though, Tony1. Thank you for your evolutionary suggestion, but why evolve this method when it's not worth it to evolve a medieval superstition?) But really: science continues to learn; why can the Creationists either understand that or else show that their faith can learn, too? It's pretty stupid to see a static, dead idea criticize a growing, unfinished idea. So I would ask that the Creationists either get over their old superstitions and start proposing testable hypotheses that don't depend on faith assumptions that happen to be what the hypotheses are supposed to show. In other words, practice proper science before criticizing the scientific method. And it wouldn't help to jumpstart the learning process in general as relates to your faith. When you clean out the crap left over from darker, more superstitious times, you might be surprised at what parts of your faith still glitter. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
*Originally posted by tiassa when was the last time someone wrote something new about God that modified your faith? In other words, what new truths are included in your faith that weren't available to the Catholics of 500 years ago, or even the Puritans of American colonial history? Or any other of the too-Catholic, or the demonic, or the otherwise false Christians you've identified?* What new could be written about God? SInce when is the truth calendar- or clock-dependent? Now, I don't actually expect you to understand the question; your history at Sciforums indicates that we'll all cheer if you do. Because it's a comparison. *Scientific knowledge is a growing body of knowledge. ... Science is a continually growing and continually refining--a continually evolving--body of knowledge.* Scientific knowledge is a growing body of data. *When was the last time your Christian faith compelled you to realign a moral obligation to the opposite of what you believed the day before?* Today. *How much revision of faith takes place based on the available, limited data set (e.g. the Bible)?* A fair bit from what I can gather. *science isn't finished growing* That's for sure. And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. (Ecclesiastes 12:12, KJV). *When was the last time new "evidence" changed the conventional meaning of a verse and changed the moral concept it advised?* At times, it is a daily process. *Why the Creationists don't spend their time devising testable means of refining the scientific acquisition of knowledge of God's Universe is beyond me.* We're leaving it to the scientists. They're more inclined to want to deal with the tedium. And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if that thou hearken unto the commandments of the LORD thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them: (Deuteronomy 28:13, KJV). *should be doing to scientists and infidels since, after all, we're destroying the United States of America.* Oh no, you guys are doing all the work, so we can sit back and enjoy it. *But really: science continues to learn; why can the Creationists either understand that or else show that their faith can learn, too? It's pretty stupid to see a static, dead idea * I have yet to see any evidence of scientists as a group actually learning anything. To all intents and purposes, they are creating far more imaginative, far-fetched theories. It's when they actually do something, that we benefit. *When you clean out the crap* When you clean out the crap left over from darker, more superstitious times, you might be surprised at what parts of your science still look like sorcery. Scientists have merely changed hats and colors from the days they pored over alchemy texts.
Please confirm. tony1, can you please produce any text written by Charles Darwin or his peers that mirrored his views, that attempts to explain the entire universe? I would be surprised if you could, considering that Charles Darwin was a scientist and based his theories on conclusions that he made by careful observation, not conjecture on unobservable ideas based on faith as some people do in an effort to avoid the inconvenience of thinking and forming ideas that are independant of what others tell them that they should believe. I have not read all of Darwins works. And I am willing to bet that you have not even CONSIDERED reading any of them, as his works are obviously false and do not warrant an examination that surely could not provide any information that would not require a great deal of effort to rationalize away using the tools of faith that are based on the requirement that all mental effort be used to maintain the belief that you are right.
How can we know what will happen I may stand corrected later, but if I remember correctly it is against the law for down syndrome people to reproduce offspring, both between them or with a "normal" person. With that in mind, how can you say either way what would happen to the mutation. Using your own words, "large scale mutation", many creationist believe it would take just that to produce the changes from neanderthal-to-homoerectus. The need for rapid change was discussed as proof that evolution is a myth. The D.S. child's emotions are extreme in all aspects, love, hate, fear, and especially anger. That in itself may prove useful in the future we don't claim to know this as christians do. All in all you have to admit the D.S. child is a drastic enough change in our genes to warrant a deeper study of why it happened, and they are easily distinguished from others just as the neanderthal was from the homo erectus.
