Creationists

[Hollie]

Here you go again, cutting and pasting things you know not the history nor the meaning of, and there is your lackey, weak-minded impressionable NP thanking you for your fallacious post!!! Adams, as a good protestant, rejected all the Catholic doctrines, including the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which teaches the bread and wine become the REAL body and blood of Christ. This is heresy to a protestant!!!!

Sorry, but you have for the hundredth time revealed your ignorance of things. You have not proven Adams was atheist. You have just proven your own stupidity.

Jefferson, an admitted Deist, who believed in God but rejected the Divinity of Christ, is all you got. So quote away!!!

As usual, you are limited to cutting and pasting what you are ignorant of.

In almost all of their writings, it is evident that many of the founding fathers were Deists -- they believed in a creator, but not such that Christianity or the bible offered. Instead, they needed a "supreme author" of existence but not one who necessarily was involved in the day to day requirements or needs of humanity.

Deism was very popular at the time, and waned when Darwin's Origin's of Life made it clear that a creator was not neccessarily required. For example, Thomas Jefferson's Bible ends with Jesus crucified and nothing more. He does not return from the dead, which is quite essential from a Christian perspective. Jefferson "believed in Jesus Christ" as a philospher, but not as a god incarnate. Thomas Paine, of whom it was said, "Without Paine's pen, Washington's sword would never have been wielded", was a thorough-going Deist who's "Age of Reason" deconstructed the bible completely. Notice Franklin also uses very deist terminology, although Franklin did waver back and forth and his autobiography clearly depicts this.

I find it not strange at all that a fundie takes it upon himself to force his religious beliefs on others.

It is you who is attempting to force your Darwinistic, materialist religious beliefs on the traditions of American by your rabid revisionism.

The FEW founders that were Deist were not Deist in the modern sense. They believed in providence even if they didn't believe in the deity of Christ.

Like I said, all you got is Thomas Jefferson so cut and paste to your little evil hearts content!!!

Really, fundie zealot? Your frantic, saliva-slinging tirades are nothing more than goofy cliches' you copy and paste from fundie websites.

Your rabid hate, self-hate seems to mirror that of so many fundie Christians. When Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ came out, I watched it with revulsion and felt it to be deeply hateful and anti-Semitic. But I could not honestly say that it was not an accurate rendition of the New Testament Christian attitude towards the Jews. Christian anti-Semitism has what is (to them) a solid "scriptural" basis. Even Saint Augustine eventually penned a diatribe against the Jews. As a result, much of humanity finds the gawds actions in the OT to be an abomination (that's some great gawd to believe in, by the way!) This list goes on and on. Gawds are not fair, in the OT they're ruthless and makes a sane, rational person reel in horror just reading about their atrocities (don't forget -- I don't believe any of this is god, I know this is all legend-- these things may have happened, but they were man being cruel to other men and in spite of god's viciousness, we've slowly overcome it. Why? Because we use our reason to recognize such behavior is ultimately harmful to all of us.)

Effectively, your observations and value system regarding morality are skewed and immoral. Your self-hate, which derives from your view that all of humanity is base and evil, is a prescription for a maladjusted personality. Your willingness to believe in those "gawds of love" humanity wiping floods or virgin slaughters, or one of those long nights accompanied with the sacrificial lamb's blood being painted on the door thingys was to be visited upon humanity.

You're free to believe in any of that, but when you attempt to inflict that hateful and retrograde ideology on others, you should expect others will reject your hate.

While hate placates your emotional need to further your politico-religious ideology without the intellectual baggage of conscience or a moral compass, you dismiss the blatant double standards inherent in all of this without a hint of the dishonesty associated with doing so. I've pointed this out to you but you blithely proceed on as though they don't understand the concept of a double standard.

Certainly, you can continue to try to dictate morality to others but that is a fools errand. I think there's only one miracle available in the world, and that would be for religious people to truly live the so-called extolling of fairness and commitment they claim their religions preach. But humans are not like that, and the human created religions create a false sense of superiority. The majority focus of these religions is on what happens after you die, meanwhile, the world trembles in misery brought about specifically by the dogmas of these religions.

 

[emilynghiem]

As usual, you are limited to cutting and pasting what you are ignorant of.

In almost all of their writings, it is evident that many of the founding fathers were Deists -- they believed in a creator, but not such that Christianity or the bible offered. Instead, they needed a "supreme author" of existence but not one who necessarily was involved in the day to day requirements or needs of humanity.

Deism was very popular at the time, and waned when Darwin's Origin's of Life made it clear that a creator was not neccessarily required. For example, Thomas Jefferson's Bible ends with Jesus crucified and nothing more. He does not return from the dead, which is quite essential from a Christian perspective. Jefferson "believed in Jesus Christ" as a philospher, but not as a god incarnate. Thomas Paine, of whom it was said, "Without Paine's pen, Washington's sword would never have been wielded", was a thorough-going Deist who's "Age of Reason" deconstructed the bible completely. Notice Franklin also uses very deist terminology, although Franklin did waver back and forth and his autobiography clearly depicts this.

I find it not strange at all that a fundie takes it upon himself to force his religious beliefs on others.

Dear Hollie:
For the Gentiles like Jefferson who believed in God of Nature and Natural Laws,
Jesus said in the Bible if you are not against me then you are with me. Jesus said
he governs the Gentiles as a separate fold of the same flock; while clearly the
Gentiles are under natural laws that are distinct (in Romans: the Gentiles "having not the law"
but by conscience "do the things contained in the law" become a "law unto themselves.")
Both the natural laws and sacred laws are governed by the same God/Christ,
and you can see by Jefferson's positions he takes the Natural law path, as I also am inclined.
(My boyfriend is even more like Jefferson's Deist view than I am, because I at least
learned to speak other languages like Christian terms and Buddhist terms to explain to different people
the same concepts that are universal and do not depend on any one religious approach more than another,
they are all necessary for teaching certain ideas and for reaching certain people that the others would otherwise miss)

Please see my msg to Underhill where you may be under Constitutional laws
or secular/civil laws instead of Biblic Scripture or sacred laws, and STILL
be following and embodying the spirit of Christ Jesus by taking the laws
to heart by conscience as Jefferson and the Founding Fathers surely did.

Example:
They prayed together in agreement before convening to author the Constitution,
calling on Divine providence and wisdom to guide the future of the nation.

So this IS a Christian concept to join in prayer in agreement in the SPIRIT of
Christ which is to unite by CONSCIENCE.

Just because someone uses Constitutional laws instead of Biblical laws
does not preclude the same God/Christ from governing by the spirit of the laws.

Jesus pointed to the Samaritan when giving an example of who
is your neighbor: the one who ACTS in the spirit of CHARITY which is
the spirit of CHRISTIANITY. That is one of Jesus, who is your neighbor in Christ.

With the Constitutional laws, whoever teaches self-governance and responsibility
by consent of the governed, and equal protection of interests, due process and
represenation, that is the equivalent of following the laws by the spirit of truth and justice.

So the SPIRIT of God/Jesus is one and the same
whether this is expressed using Constitutional/natural laws
or Scriptural/Biblical laws.

If you are enforcing, embracing and embodying the laws
by CONSCIENCE for love of truth and justice, that is the same as following God/Jesus.

I share a lot of the same beliefs and perspectives as Jefferson
as a secular Gentile and Constitutionalist who believes in one God/Christ,
and this is the best way I can explain it to fellow secular Gentiles
who, like me, don't necessarily depend on or require Biblical laws.

I am more concerned that people agree in Spirit, what the
universal principles and concepts are, and then from there
we might understand how these are expressed DIFFERENTLY
through either Constitutional or Christian laws or even Buddhism or Islam
where followers use different teachings to express similar values or principles.

We can have this diversity, without having conflicting values,
and maintain unity. it is like we can have one law of the land under
the Constitution but separate State laws that only govern those local populations,
and still have one Union. Same with religions.

Thanks and I hope some of this helps!

 

[emilynghiem]

Well said Hollie! In short what is missing is forgiveness and compassion/charity toward
others, which is indeed the very message and gift of Christ. it is forgiveness/mercy
that ultimately opens the door to man's salvation. Every Christian knows this, and
it is just as hard to practice it whether we are Christian or nontheist or what.

it is hard not to hate the injustice we see in the world,
and not let that affect our perception and ability to forgive the people we most blame.

this is indeed the challenge facing not only Christians but all humanity.
And this is precisely why Christians pray in private and in public, seeking
the grace and strength to receive forgiveness on a higher divine level
that far supercedes any of our weak human will which cannot always forgive.

What you state below is EXACTLY why Christians turn to God and the
sacrifice of Christ as representing that divine ability to take injustice and
spiritually transform and redeem all the wrongs of the world
to make things right. Only the highest grace and divine forgiveness
attributed to God through Christ can open hearts and minds to this level of change.

May the love of God be yours as I see you are
calling out for mercy and justice, to stop these same injustices
that all people suffer in the world. Thank you and may you be richly blessed for asking.

As usual, you are limited to cutting and pasting what you are ignorant of.

In almost all of their writings, it is evident that many of the founding fathers were Deists -- they believed in a creator, but not such that Christianity or the bible offered. Instead, they needed a "supreme author" of existence but not one who necessarily was involved in the day to day requirements or needs of humanity.

Deism was very popular at the time, and waned when Darwin's Origin's of Life made it clear that a creator was not neccessarily required. For example, Thomas Jefferson's Bible ends with Jesus crucified and nothing more. He does not return from the dead, which is quite essential from a Christian perspective. Jefferson "believed in Jesus Christ" as a philospher, but not as a god incarnate. Thomas Paine, of whom it was said, "Without Paine's pen, Washington's sword would never have been wielded", was a thorough-going Deist who's "Age of Reason" deconstructed the bible completely. Notice Franklin also uses very deist terminology, although Franklin did waver back and forth and his autobiography clearly depicts this.

I find it not strange at all that a fundie takes it upon himself to force his religious beliefs on others.

It is you who is attempting to force your Darwinistic, materialist religious beliefs on the traditions of American by your rabid revisionism.

The FEW founders that were Deist were not Deist in the modern sense. They believed in providence even if they didn't believe in the deity of Christ.

Like I said, all you got is Thomas Jefferson so cut and paste to your little evil hearts content!!!

Really, fundie zealot? Your frantic, saliva-slinging tirades are nothing more than goofy cliches' you copy and paste from fundie websites.

Your rabid hate, self-hate seems to mirror that of so many fundie Christians. When Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ came out, I watched it with revulsion and felt it to be deeply hateful and anti-Semitic. But I could not honestly say that it was not an accurate rendition of the New Testament Christian attitude towards the Jews. Christian anti-Semitism has what is (to them) a solid "scriptural" basis. Even Saint Augustine eventually penned a diatribe against the Jews. As a result, much of humanity finds the gawds actions in the OT to be an abomination (that's some great gawd to believe in, by the way!) This list goes on and on. Gawds are not fair, in the OT they're ruthless and makes a sane, rational person reel in horror just reading about their atrocities (don't forget -- I don't believe any of this is god, I know this is all legend-- these things may have happened, but they were man being cruel to other men and in spite of god's viciousness, we've slowly overcome it. Why? Because we use our reason to recognize such behavior is ultimately harmful to all of us.)

Effectively, your observations and value system regarding morality are skewed and immoral. Your self-hate, which derives from your view that all of humanity is base and evil, is a prescription for a maladjusted personality. Your willingness to believe in those "gawds of love" humanity wiping floods or virgin slaughters, or one of those long nights accompanied with the sacrificial lamb's blood being painted on the door thingys was to be visited upon humanity.

You're free to believe in any of that, but when you attempt to inflict that hateful and retrograde ideology on others, you should expect others will reject your hate.

While hate placates your emotional need to further your politico-religious ideology without the intellectual baggage of conscience or a moral compass, you dismiss the blatant double standards inherent in all of this without a hint of the dishonesty associated with doing so. I've pointed this out to you but you blithely proceed on as though they don't understand the concept of a double standard.

Certainly, you can continue to try to dictate morality to others but that is a fools errand. I think there's only one miracle available in the world, and that would be for religious people to truly live the so-called extolling of fairness and commitment they claim their religions preach. But humans are not like that, and the human created religions create a false sense of superiority. The majority focus of these religions is on what happens after you die, meanwhile, the world trembles in misery brought about specifically by the dogmas of these religions.

I am in agreement that all this hypocrisy be removed and replaced with
true love and charity, wisdom and compassion, and unifying truth
that brings all people and nations together in greater ways
than we have ever been divided against each other by fear
and selfish ignorance and unforgiven conflicts from the past.
May all these be taken out to be corrected in the spirit of
forgiveness, redemption and healing of all human relations.
In Christ Jesus name, may all justice be restored for all we have affected by our
words, thoughts and actions, Amen.

 

[UltimateReality]

Where did I say any of that? But if it will happen, it will be by demonizing the opposition. Something you are guilty of with your bullshit claims that we want violence.

Hitler did not kill the jews by telling them they were wrong. He didn't bother talking to them about their faults.

He did it by claiming they were conspiring against the german people. By making up lies about them. By demonizing them and then destroying them.

As you are doing here with us...

So if I sound like a Jew, it's because you sound like a Nazi.

You need to take a long hard look in the mirror. It is you who is the Christian-hating Bigot. Might I remind you that you are in the Creationist thread making attacks. Hawly has made it clear she believes all Christians should be persecuted and wiped out. So if your comments here aren't persecuting me for my religious beliefs, then what is your motivation for being here? You, my friend, are the Nazi. Your hate has blinded you and you just can't see it.

My parents are christian missionaries. My best man at my wedding is a pastor. I discuss these issues with them on a weekly basis, sometimes more. And no, I do not hate them.

I think they are deluding themselves. That is not hatred.

If I have any angst it is toward the religion itself. The hatred it all too often espouses. And yes, I have a serious problem with anyone who calls themselves a christian but believes being rich is a good thing and the poor are a drag on society.

I can respect someone who believes and teaches the words of jesus. Even if he didn't exist (debatable), the words professed to come from him are generally wholesome. But an awful lot of what comes out of churches is old testament style hatred and bigotry.

Typical atheist socialist. Yeah, we saw how that worked out in the Soviet Union. Good luck with that.

 

[UltimateReality]

As usual, you are limited to cutting and pasting what you are ignorant of.

In almost all of their writings, it is evident that many of the founding fathers were Deists -- they believed in a creator, but not such that Christianity or the bible offered. Instead, they needed a "supreme author" of existence but not one who necessarily was involved in the day to day requirements or needs of humanity.

Deism was very popular at the time, and waned when Darwin's Origin's of Life made it clear that a creator was not neccessarily required. For example, Thomas Jefferson's Bible ends with Jesus crucified and nothing more. He does not return from the dead, which is quite essential from a Christian perspective. Jefferson "believed in Jesus Christ" as a philospher, but not as a god incarnate. Thomas Paine, of whom it was said, "Without Paine's pen, Washington's sword would never have been wielded", was a thorough-going Deist who's "Age of Reason" deconstructed the bible completely. Notice Franklin also uses very deist terminology, although Franklin did waver back and forth and his autobiography clearly depicts this.

I find it not strange at all that a fundie takes it upon himself to force his religious beliefs on others.

It is you who is attempting to force your Darwinistic, materialist religious beliefs on the traditions of American by your rabid revisionism.

The FEW founders that were Deist were not Deist in the modern sense. They believed in providence even if they didn't believe in the deity of Christ.

Like I said, all you got is Thomas Jefferson so cut and paste to your little evil hearts content!!!

Really, fundie zealot? Your frantic, saliva-slinging tirades are nothing more than goofy cliches' you copy and paste from fundie websites.

Your rabid hate, self-hate seems to mirror that of so many fundie Christians. When Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ came out, I watched it with revulsion and felt it to be deeply hateful and anti-Semitic. But I could not honestly say that it was not an accurate rendition of the New Testament Christian attitude towards the Jews. Christian anti-Semitism has what is (to them) a solid "scriptural" basis. Even Saint Augustine eventually penned a diatribe against the Jews. As a result, much of humanity finds the gawds actions in the OT to be an abomination (that's some great gawd to believe in, by the way!) This list goes on and on. Gawds are not fair, in the OT they're ruthless and makes a sane, rational person reel in horror just reading about their atrocities (don't forget -- I don't believe any of this is god, I know this is all legend-- these things may have happened, but they were man being cruel to other men and in spite of god's viciousness, we've slowly overcome it. Why? Because we use our reason to recognize such behavior is ultimately harmful to all of us.)

Effectively, your observations and value system regarding morality are skewed and immoral. Your self-hate, which derives from your view that all of humanity is base and evil, is a prescription for a maladjusted personality. Your willingness to believe in those "gawds of love" humanity wiping floods or virgin slaughters, or one of those long nights accompanied with the sacrificial lamb's blood being painted on the door thingys was to be visited upon humanity.

You're free to believe in any of that, but when you attempt to inflict that hateful and retrograde ideology on others, you should expect others will reject your hate.

While hate placates your emotional need to further your politico-religious ideology without the intellectual baggage of conscience or a moral compass, you dismiss the blatant double standards inherent in all of this without a hint of the dishonesty associated with doing so. I've pointed this out to you but you blithely proceed on as though they don't understand the concept of a double standard.

Certainly, you can continue to try to dictate morality to others but that is a fools errand. I think there's only one miracle available in the world, and that would be for religious people to truly live the so-called extolling of fairness and commitment they claim their religions preach. But humans are not like that, and the human created religions create a false sense of superiority. The majority focus of these religions is on what happens after you die, meanwhile, the world trembles in misery brought about specifically by the dogmas of these religions.

Wait, you are talking about yourself right? You're projecting again.

 

[daws101]

You need to take a long hard look in the mirror. It is you who is the Christian-hating Bigot. Might I remind you that you are in the Creationist thread making attacks. Hawly has made it clear she believes all Christians should be persecuted and wiped out. So if your comments here aren't persecuting me for my religious beliefs, then what is your motivation for being here? You, my friend, are the Nazi. Your hate has blinded you and you just can't see it.

My parents are christian missionaries. My best man at my wedding is a pastor. I discuss these issues with them on a weekly basis, sometimes more. And no, I do not hate them.

I think they are deluding themselves. That is not hatred.

If I have any angst it is toward the religion itself. The hatred it all too often espouses. And yes, I have a serious problem with anyone who calls themselves a christian but believes being rich is a good thing and the poor are a drag on society.

I can respect someone who believes and teaches the words of jesus. Even if he didn't exist (debatable), the words professed to come from him are generally wholesome. But an awful lot of what comes out of churches is old testament style hatred and bigotry.

Typical atheist socialist. Yeah, we saw how that worked out in the Soviet Union. Good luck with that.

this is not the USSR, although you would like it to be so you could play at being a Christian martyr... here you just get laughed at.

 

[newpolitics]

Its undeniable falsehood what you just stated. The actual truth, is that Most of the biomass on this planet are made up of single-called bacteria who are asexual.

Now if they could only demonstrate that a bacterium could evolve in to something other then a bacterium

The planet is covered with bacterium how do you account for them in your evolutionary tree ?

another ignorant post by ywc

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab
22:00 09 June 2008 by Bob Holmes
For similar stories, visit the Evolution Topic Guide




A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.

The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.

Profound change

Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.

Rare mutation?

By this time, Lenski calculated, enough bacterial cells had lived and died that all simple mutations must already have occurred several times over.

That meant the "citrate-plus" trait must have been something special - either it was a single mutation of an unusually improbable sort, a rare chromosome inversion, say, or else gaining the ability to use citrate required the accumulation of several mutations in sequence.

To find out which, Lenski turned to his freezer, where he had saved samples of each population every 500 generations. These allowed him to replay history from any starting point he chose, by reviving the bacteria and letting evolution "replay" again.

Would the same population evolve Cit+ again, he wondered, or would any of the 12 be equally likely to hit the jackpot?

Evidence of evolution

The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+ - and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve.

Lenski and his colleagues are now working to identify just what that earlier change was, and how it made the Cit+ mutation possible more than 10,000 generations later.

In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.

Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."

Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803151105)http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

bacterium evolve into better bacteria... just as humans are a better form of ape.

Very interesting. Nice find.

 

[Hollie]

It is you who is attempting to force your Darwinistic, materialist religious beliefs on the traditions of American by your rabid revisionism.

The FEW founders that were Deist were not Deist in the modern sense. They believed in providence even if they didn't believe in the deity of Christ.

Like I said, all you got is Thomas Jefferson so cut and paste to your little evil hearts content!!!

Really, fundie zealot? Your frantic, saliva-slinging tirades are nothing more than goofy cliches' you copy and paste from fundie websites.

Your rabid hate, self-hate seems to mirror that of so many fundie Christians. When Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ came out, I watched it with revulsion and felt it to be deeply hateful and anti-Semitic. But I could not honestly say that it was not an accurate rendition of the New Testament Christian attitude towards the Jews. Christian anti-Semitism has what is (to them) a solid "scriptural" basis. Even Saint Augustine eventually penned a diatribe against the Jews. As a result, much of humanity finds the gawds actions in the OT to be an abomination (that's some great gawd to believe in, by the way!) This list goes on and on. Gawds are not fair, in the OT they're ruthless and makes a sane, rational person reel in horror just reading about their atrocities (don't forget -- I don't believe any of this is god, I know this is all legend-- these things may have happened, but they were man being cruel to other men and in spite of god's viciousness, we've slowly overcome it. Why? Because we use our reason to recognize such behavior is ultimately harmful to all of us.)

Effectively, your observations and value system regarding morality are skewed and immoral. Your self-hate, which derives from your view that all of humanity is base and evil, is a prescription for a maladjusted personality. Your willingness to believe in those "gawds of love" humanity wiping floods or virgin slaughters, or one of those long nights accompanied with the sacrificial lamb's blood being painted on the door thingys was to be visited upon humanity.

You're free to believe in any of that, but when you attempt to inflict that hateful and retrograde ideology on others, you should expect others will reject your hate.

While hate placates your emotional need to further your politico-religious ideology without the intellectual baggage of conscience or a moral compass, you dismiss the blatant double standards inherent in all of this without a hint of the dishonesty associated with doing so. I've pointed this out to you but you blithely proceed on as though they don't understand the concept of a double standard.

Certainly, you can continue to try to dictate morality to others but that is a fools errand. I think there's only one miracle available in the world, and that would be for religious people to truly live the so-called extolling of fairness and commitment they claim their religions preach. But humans are not like that, and the human created religions create a false sense of superiority. The majority focus of these religions is on what happens after you die, meanwhile, the world trembles in misery brought about specifically by the dogmas of these religions.[/QUOT
Wait, you are talking about yourself right? You're projecting again.

I anticipated that you would be unable to respond.

I see a lot of hate emanating from religious institutions, I carry money that informs me I trust gods I actually don't believe in, and in general I see a lot of religious belief and theism tossed about in a comfortable way. Across the globe, I see a lot of religious belief used as an instrument of self-serving elitism, objects of repression and a means to an end for oppression. Fortunately, in my part of the world, there were men who understood religious bigotry who fashioned a framework of law that prevented the majority religious bigots from forcing their religion on the minority. In fact, oftentimes strangers do ring my doorbell to tell me that not only does god exist, but I'm going to burn forever if I don't accept them at their word. So who, really, are the bigots?

 

[Underhill]

You need to take a long hard look in the mirror. It is you who is the Christian-hating Bigot. Might I remind you that you are in the Creationist thread making attacks. Hawly has made it clear she believes all Christians should be persecuted and wiped out. So if your comments here aren't persecuting me for my religious beliefs, then what is your motivation for being here? You, my friend, are the Nazi. Your hate has blinded you and you just can't see it.

My parents are christian missionaries. My best man at my wedding is a pastor. I discuss these issues with them on a weekly basis, sometimes more. And no, I do not hate them.

I think they are deluding themselves. That is not hatred.

If I have any angst it is toward the religion itself. The hatred it all too often espouses. And yes, I have a serious problem with anyone who calls themselves a christian but believes being rich is a good thing and the poor are a drag on society.

I can respect someone who believes and teaches the words of jesus. Even if he didn't exist (debatable), the words professed to come from him are generally wholesome. But an awful lot of what comes out of churches is old testament style hatred and bigotry.

Typical atheist socialist. Yeah, we saw how that worked out in the Soviet Union. Good luck with that.

From Jesus, in the bible.

Luke 6:20-21 Then he looked up at his disciples and said: 'Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

'Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. 'Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.'

Matthew 25:34-36 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, "Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me."

Mark 10:21-22 Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

Luke 14:13 &14 "But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed,
because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just."

Matthew 19:23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

If that makes Jesus a socialist, so be it...

 

[Youwerecreated]

And as much as you would like to force the xtian gawds on others, the Constitution is quite clear you cannot.

As usual, you miss the point. The Constitution embraces the free will teachings of the Christian religion and also reflects the Pilgrims initial reason for fleeing England, so that the government could not have an official Church. This doesn't change the fact the nation was found by Christian men, on Christian principles, for a largely Christian populace. And as long as the websites like the Library of Congress and the National Archives don't succumb to the rabid revisionism that you continually preach, any one who searches will still be able to find the truth. My fear is that the actual documents will be lost, and eventually the bits and bytes will be corrupted, and evil people like you Hawly will have their way at erasing what really happened, to serve their own miserable, self-loathing, Christ-hating agendas. People like you are dangerous like Hitler was, because evil and violence against a certain group is your goal. Just one of the tools of your hate and bigotry is revisionism. The other is repeating lies over and over enough that you first believe the lie yourself and then you convince other weak-minded and impressionable people like NP and Daws to believe your lies.

Violence? Really?

I see christianity as a myth. A fraud. A means of control. I grew up in it. Know the book cover to cover and think Jesus teachings, while good, are among the most ignored in the whole bible.

I see christians as judgmental, hateful, spiteful people who bath in ignorance.

But violence? Come on...

Jesus spoke of these which you describe providing strength to his words.

Is this not what we see of many so called Christians leaders of the poast and presence ?

Mat 23:13 But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of Heaven against men. For you neither go in, nor do you allow those entering to go in.
Mat 23:14 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and pray at length as a pretense. Therefore you shall receive the greater condemnation.
Mat 23:15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you compass sea and the dry land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, you make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Mat 23:16 Woe to you, blind guides, saying, Whoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor.
Mat 23:17 Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifies the gold?
Mat 23:18 And, Whoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is a debtor!
Mat 23:19 Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifies the gift?
Mat 23:20 Therefore whoever shall swear by the altar swears by it, and by all things on it.
Mat 23:21 And whoever shall swear by the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells in it.
Mat 23:22 And he who shall swear by Heaven swears by the throne of God, and by Him who sits on it.
Mat 23:23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and you have left undone the weightier matters of the Law, judgment, mercy, and faith. You ought to have done these and not to leave the other undone.
Mat 23:24 Blind guides who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
Mat 23:25 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of extortion and excess.
Mat 23:26 Blind Pharisee! First cleanse the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of them may be clean also.
Mat 23:27 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which indeed appear beautiful outside, but inside they are full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
Mat 23:28 Even so you also appear righteous to men outwardly, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
Mat 23:29 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets, and decorate the tombs of the righteous,
Mat 23:30 and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
Mat 23:31 Therefore you are witnesses to yourselves, that you are the sons of those who killed the prophets;
Mat 23:32 and you fill up the measure of your fathers.
Mat 23:33 Serpents! Offspring of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?
Mat 23:34 Therefore, behold, I send prophets and wise men and scribes to you. And you will kill and crucify some of them. And some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city;
Mat 23:35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Berachiah, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.
Mat 23:36 Truly I say to you, All these things shall come on this generation.
Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to her, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not!
Mat 23:38 Behold, your house is left to you desolate.
Mat 23:39 For I say to you, You shall not see Me from now on until you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord."

Mat 15:7 Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,
Mat 15:8 "This people draws near to Me with their mouth, and honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."


Mat 6:5 And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, They have their reward.
Mat 6:6 But you, when you pray, enter into your room. And shutting your door, pray to your Father in secret; and your Father who sees in secret shall reward you openly.

Hypocrites and blind guides are gonna pay a price and have brought disrespect to the true God but cannot allow these to mislead them.

 

[Youwerecreated]

As usual, you miss the point. The Constitution embraces the free will teachings of the Christian religion and also reflects the Pilgrims initial reason for fleeing England, so that the government could not have an official Church. This doesn't change the fact the nation was found by Christian men, on Christian principles, for a largely Christian populace. And as long as the websites like the Library of Congress and the National Archives don't succumb to the rabid revisionism that you continually preach, any one who searches will still be able to find the truth. My fear is that the actual documents will be lost, and eventually the bits and bytes will be corrupted, and evil people like you Hawly will have their way at erasing what really happened, to serve their own miserable, self-loathing, Christ-hating agendas. People like you are dangerous like Hitler was, because evil and violence against a certain group is your goal. Just one of the tools of your hate and bigotry is revisionism. The other is repeating lies over and over enough that you first believe the lie yourself and then you convince other weak-minded and impressionable people like NP and Daws to believe your lies.

What you're missing, dear, is that the Constitution actually protects me and other americans from religious fundamentalists such as you and others who, given the chance, would seek to turn this nation into an Iranian style theocracy.

How interesting that the Christian men who framed the constitution knew precisely how religious fundamentalism (Christian) tends to propagate and thus chose to protect the free exercise of religious freedom (freedom FROM religion).

Obviously, they knew quite well the dangers of a majority religion imposing its views on the populace.

I think the religion of the founders is nothing like that of modern christians. Perhaps there were those people around in their day. But these men were often men of education. Some even men of science, limited as it was in that day.

They didn't use the government models of imposing a godly king. (Washington would have been the ideal choice.) Instead they looked to the heathen Greeks and early Romans for inspiration. These were not fundamentalist who believed man inherently evil. They believed that mankind could make the right decisions if only they were educated (a truly liberal and humanist position if ever there was one).

So they may have believed in a god. But I've seen nothing in my extensive reading to suggest they were anything like the christians of today.

So are you suggesting creationist today are not men of science ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Its undeniable falsehood what you just stated. The actual truth, is that Most of the biomass on this planet are made up of single-called bacteria who are asexual.

Now if they could only demonstrate that a bacterium could evolve in to something other then a bacterium

The planet is covered with bacterium how do you account for them in your evolutionary tree ?

another ignorant post by ywc

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab
22:00 09 June 2008 by Bob Holmes
For similar stories, visit the Evolution Topic Guide




A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.

The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.

Profound change

Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.

Rare mutation?

By this time, Lenski calculated, enough bacterial cells had lived and died that all simple mutations must already have occurred several times over.

That meant the "citrate-plus" trait must have been something special - either it was a single mutation of an unusually improbable sort, a rare chromosome inversion, say, or else gaining the ability to use citrate required the accumulation of several mutations in sequence.

To find out which, Lenski turned to his freezer, where he had saved samples of each population every 500 generations. These allowed him to replay history from any starting point he chose, by reviving the bacteria and letting evolution "replay" again.

Would the same population evolve Cit+ again, he wondered, or would any of the 12 be equally likely to hit the jackpot?

Evidence of evolution

The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+ - and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve.

Lenski and his colleagues are now working to identify just what that earlier change was, and how it made the Cit+ mutation possible more than 10,000 generations later.

In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.

Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."

Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803151105)Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist

bacterium evolve into better bacteria... just as humans are a better form of ape.

Hello Daws you have yet to understand the difference between microadaptations and macro-evolution I even made my point clear by saying a "non-bacterium".


You really don't understand your own theory now do you. If humans are just a better form of the ape what did the ape come from ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Now if they could only demonstrate that a bacterium could evolve in to something other then a bacterium

The planet is covered with bacterium how do you account for them in your evolutionary tree ?

another ignorant post by ywc

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab
22:00 09 June 2008 by Bob Holmes
For similar stories, visit the Evolution Topic Guide




A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.

The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.

Profound change

Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.

Rare mutation?

By this time, Lenski calculated, enough bacterial cells had lived and died that all simple mutations must already have occurred several times over.

That meant the "citrate-plus" trait must have been something special - either it was a single mutation of an unusually improbable sort, a rare chromosome inversion, say, or else gaining the ability to use citrate required the accumulation of several mutations in sequence.

To find out which, Lenski turned to his freezer, where he had saved samples of each population every 500 generations. These allowed him to replay history from any starting point he chose, by reviving the bacteria and letting evolution "replay" again.

Would the same population evolve Cit+ again, he wondered, or would any of the 12 be equally likely to hit the jackpot?

Evidence of evolution

The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+ - and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve.

Lenski and his colleagues are now working to identify just what that earlier change was, and how it made the Cit+ mutation possible more than 10,000 generations later.

In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.

Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."

Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803151105)Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist

bacterium evolve into better bacteria... just as humans are a better form of ape.

Very interesting. Nice find.

Showing your ignorance as well.

 

[Underhill]

What you're missing, dear, is that the Constitution actually protects me and other americans from religious fundamentalists such as you and others who, given the chance, would seek to turn this nation into an Iranian style theocracy.

How interesting that the Christian men who framed the constitution knew precisely how religious fundamentalism (Christian) tends to propagate and thus chose to protect the free exercise of religious freedom (freedom FROM religion).

Obviously, they knew quite well the dangers of a majority religion imposing its views on the populace.

I think the religion of the founders is nothing like that of modern christians. Perhaps there were those people around in their day. But these men were often men of education. Some even men of science, limited as it was in that day.

They didn't use the government models of imposing a godly king. (Washington would have been the ideal choice.) Instead they looked to the heathen Greeks and early Romans for inspiration. These were not fundamentalist who believed man inherently evil. They believed that mankind could make the right decisions if only they were educated (a truly liberal and humanist position if ever there was one).

So they may have believed in a god. But I've seen nothing in my extensive reading to suggest they were anything like the christians of today.

So are you suggesting creationist today are not men of science ?

Of course many aren't. But I'm suggesting a bit more than that. I think at least some of the founders were intellectuals first and held religion as a cultural nicety.

I spent a lot of time reading the writings of Jefferson and Franklin. Both rarely talked about god as anything more than a curiosity.

So I suspect they (and probably others) were christians as many people today are christians. They played the game, talked the talk as needed, but really didn't bother with it all that much.

This is why I don't buy the premise that they were a "godly bunch of men" in the strictest sense. Even Adams didn't really focus much on religion until later in life.

 

[daws101]

Really, fundie zealot? Your frantic, saliva-slinging tirades are nothing more than goofy cliches' you copy and paste from fundie websites.

Your rabid hate, self-hate seems to mirror that of so many fundie Christians. When Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ came out, I watched it with revulsion and felt it to be deeply hateful and anti-Semitic. But I could not honestly say that it was not an accurate rendition of the New Testament Christian attitude towards the Jews. Christian anti-Semitism has what is (to them) a solid "scriptural" basis. Even Saint Augustine eventually penned a diatribe against the Jews. As a result, much of humanity finds the gawds actions in the OT to be an abomination (that's some great gawd to believe in, by the way!) This list goes on and on. Gawds are not fair, in the OT they're ruthless and makes a sane, rational person reel in horror just reading about their atrocities (don't forget -- I don't believe any of this is god, I know this is all legend-- these things may have happened, but they were man being cruel to other men and in spite of god's viciousness, we've slowly overcome it. Why? Because we use our reason to recognize such behavior is ultimately harmful to all of us.)

Effectively, your observations and value system regarding morality are skewed and immoral. Your self-hate, which derives from your view that all of humanity is base and evil, is a prescription for a maladjusted personality. Your willingness to believe in those "gawds of love" humanity wiping floods or virgin slaughters, or one of those long nights accompanied with the sacrificial lamb's blood being painted on the door thingys was to be visited upon humanity.

You're free to believe in any of that, but when you attempt to inflict that hateful and retrograde ideology on others, you should expect others will reject your hate.

While hate placates your emotional need to further your politico-religious ideology without the intellectual baggage of conscience or a moral compass, you dismiss the blatant double standards inherent in all of this without a hint of the dishonesty associated with doing so. I've pointed this out to you but you blithely proceed on as though they don't understand the concept of a double standard.

Certainly, you can continue to try to dictate morality to others but that is a fools errand. I think there's only one miracle available in the world, and that would be for religious people to truly live the so-called extolling of fairness and commitment they claim their religions preach. But humans are not like that, and the human created religions create a false sense of superiority. The majority focus of these religions is on what happens after you die, meanwhile, the world trembles in misery brought about specifically by the dogmas of these religions.[/QUOT
Wait, you are talking about yourself right? You're projecting again.

I anticipated that you would be unable to respond.

I see a lot of hate emanating from religious institutions, I carry money that informs me I trust gods I actually don't believe in, and in general I see a lot of religious belief and theism tossed about in a comfortable way. Across the globe, I see a lot of religious belief used as an instrument of self-serving elitism, objects of repression and a means to an end for oppression. Fortunately, in my part of the world, there were men who understood religious bigotry who fashioned a framework of law that prevented the majority religious bigots from forcing their religion on the minority. In fact, oftentimes strangers do ring my doorbell to tell me that not only does god exist, but I'm going to burn forever if I don't accept them at their word. So who, really, are the bigots?

that's about twice a week at my house .

 

[daws101]

As usual, you miss the point. The Constitution embraces the free will teachings of the Christian religion and also reflects the Pilgrims initial reason for fleeing England, so that the government could not have an official Church. This doesn't change the fact the nation was found by Christian men, on Christian principles, for a largely Christian populace. And as long as the websites like the Library of Congress and the National Archives don't succumb to the rabid revisionism that you continually preach, any one who searches will still be able to find the truth. My fear is that the actual documents will be lost, and eventually the bits and bytes will be corrupted, and evil people like you Hawly will have their way at erasing what really happened, to serve their own miserable, self-loathing, Christ-hating agendas. People like you are dangerous like Hitler was, because evil and violence against a certain group is your goal. Just one of the tools of your hate and bigotry is revisionism. The other is repeating lies over and over enough that you first believe the lie yourself and then you convince other weak-minded and impressionable people like NP and Daws to believe your lies.

Violence? Really?

I see christianity as a myth. A fraud. A means of control. I grew up in it. Know the book cover to cover and think Jesus teachings, while good, are among the most ignored in the whole bible.

I see christians as judgmental, hateful, spiteful people who bath in ignorance.

But violence? Come on...

Jesus spoke of these which you describe providing strength to his words.

Is this not what we see of many so called Christians leaders of the poast and presence ?

Mat 23:13 But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of Heaven against men. For you neither go in, nor do you allow those entering to go in.
Mat 23:14 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and pray at length as a pretense. Therefore you shall receive the greater condemnation.
Mat 23:15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you compass sea and the dry land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, you make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Mat 23:16 Woe to you, blind guides, saying, Whoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor.
Mat 23:17 Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifies the gold?
Mat 23:18 And, Whoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is a debtor!
Mat 23:19 Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifies the gift?
Mat 23:20 Therefore whoever shall swear by the altar swears by it, and by all things on it.
Mat 23:21 And whoever shall swear by the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells in it.
Mat 23:22 And he who shall swear by Heaven swears by the throne of God, and by Him who sits on it.
Mat 23:23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and you have left undone the weightier matters of the Law, judgment, mercy, and faith. You ought to have done these and not to leave the other undone.
Mat 23:24 Blind guides who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
Mat 23:25 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of extortion and excess.
Mat 23:26 Blind Pharisee! First cleanse the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of them may be clean also.
Mat 23:27 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which indeed appear beautiful outside, but inside they are full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
Mat 23:28 Even so you also appear righteous to men outwardly, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
Mat 23:29 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets, and decorate the tombs of the righteous,
Mat 23:30 and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
Mat 23:31 Therefore you are witnesses to yourselves, that you are the sons of those who killed the prophets;
Mat 23:32 and you fill up the measure of your fathers.
Mat 23:33 Serpents! Offspring of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?
Mat 23:34 Therefore, behold, I send prophets and wise men and scribes to you. And you will kill and crucify some of them. And some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city;
Mat 23:35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Berachiah, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.
Mat 23:36 Truly I say to you, All these things shall come on this generation.
Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to her, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not!
Mat 23:38 Behold, your house is left to you desolate.
Mat 23:39 For I say to you, You shall not see Me from now on until you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord."

Mat 15:7 Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,
Mat 15:8 "This people draws near to Me with their mouth, and honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."


Mat 6:5 And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, They have their reward.
Mat 6:6 But you, when you pray, enter into your room. And shutting your door, pray to your Father in secret; and your Father who sees in secret shall reward you openly.

Hypocrites and blind guides are gonna pay a price and have brought disrespect to the true God but cannot allow these to mislead them.

of the poast and presence ?

 

[daws101]

What you're missing, dear, is that the Constitution actually protects me and other americans from religious fundamentalists such as you and others who, given the chance, would seek to turn this nation into an Iranian style theocracy.

How interesting that the Christian men who framed the constitution knew precisely how religious fundamentalism (Christian) tends to propagate and thus chose to protect the free exercise of religious freedom (freedom FROM religion).

Obviously, they knew quite well the dangers of a majority religion imposing its views on the populace.

I think the religion of the founders is nothing like that of modern christians. Perhaps there were those people around in their day. But these men were often men of education. Some even men of science, limited as it was in that day.

They didn't use the government models of imposing a godly king. (Washington would have been the ideal choice.) Instead they looked to the heathen Greeks and early Romans for inspiration. These were not fundamentalist who believed man inherently evil. They believed that mankind could make the right decisions if only they were educated (a truly liberal and humanist position if ever there was one).

So they may have believed in a god. But I've seen nothing in my extensive reading to suggest they were anything like the christians of today.

So are you suggesting creationist today are not men of science ?

no that's not what Underhill was saying.. Underhill was however pointing out the huge differences between you bigoted, bible thumping, ignorant propagandists and the founding fathers.
to answer your provocation, no creationists are not men or women of science.

 

[daws101]

Now if they could only demonstrate that a bacterium could evolve in to something other then a bacterium

The planet is covered with bacterium how do you account for them in your evolutionary tree ?

another ignorant post by ywc

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab
22:00 09 June 2008 by Bob Holmes
For similar stories, visit the Evolution Topic Guide




A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.

The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.

Profound change

Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.

Rare mutation?

By this time, Lenski calculated, enough bacterial cells had lived and died that all simple mutations must already have occurred several times over.

That meant the "citrate-plus" trait must have been something special - either it was a single mutation of an unusually improbable sort, a rare chromosome inversion, say, or else gaining the ability to use citrate required the accumulation of several mutations in sequence.

To find out which, Lenski turned to his freezer, where he had saved samples of each population every 500 generations. These allowed him to replay history from any starting point he chose, by reviving the bacteria and letting evolution "replay" again.

Would the same population evolve Cit+ again, he wondered, or would any of the 12 be equally likely to hit the jackpot?

Evidence of evolution

The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+ - and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve.

Lenski and his colleagues are now working to identify just what that earlier change was, and how it made the Cit+ mutation possible more than 10,000 generations later.

In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.

Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."

Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803151105)Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist

bacterium evolve into better bacteria... just as humans are a better form of ape.

Hello Daws you have yet to understand the difference between microadaptations and macro-evolution I even made my point clear by saying a "non-bacterium".


You really don't understand your own theory now do you. If humans are just a better form of the ape what did the ape come from ?

really slapdick? what you fail epically and constantly to understand is your false comparisons are meaningless so instead of answering that inane question,"Now if they could only demonstrate that a bacterium could evolve in to something other then a bacterium"- ywc (btw other than is not the same as non! ) I presented actually proof that bacteria do evolve.

also micro adaptations and macro-evolution are bullshit creationist pseudoscience AND are not actual scientific terms .
apes and men had a common ancestor that's WHERE.

 

[newpolitics]

another ignorant post by ywc

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab
22:00 09 June 2008 by Bob Holmes
For similar stories, visit the Evolution Topic Guide




A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.

The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.

Profound change

Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.

Rare mutation?

By this time, Lenski calculated, enough bacterial cells had lived and died that all simple mutations must already have occurred several times over.

That meant the "citrate-plus" trait must have been something special - either it was a single mutation of an unusually improbable sort, a rare chromosome inversion, say, or else gaining the ability to use citrate required the accumulation of several mutations in sequence.

To find out which, Lenski turned to his freezer, where he had saved samples of each population every 500 generations. These allowed him to replay history from any starting point he chose, by reviving the bacteria and letting evolution "replay" again.

Would the same population evolve Cit+ again, he wondered, or would any of the 12 be equally likely to hit the jackpot?

Evidence of evolution

The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+ - and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve.

Lenski and his colleagues are now working to identify just what that earlier change was, and how it made the Cit+ mutation possible more than 10,000 generations later.

In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.

Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."

Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803151105)Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist

bacterium evolve into better bacteria... just as humans are a better form of ape.

Very interesting. Nice find.

Showing your ignorance as well.

As usual, you call demonstrable truth that negates your own existential claims "ignorant." In reality, it is reality, and you are living in fantasy dream world for denying it.

 

[newpolitics]

What you're missing, dear, is that the Constitution actually protects me and other americans from religious fundamentalists such as you and others who, given the chance, would seek to turn this nation into an Iranian style theocracy.

How interesting that the Christian men who framed the constitution knew precisely how religious fundamentalism (Christian) tends to propagate and thus chose to protect the free exercise of religious freedom (freedom FROM religion).

Obviously, they knew quite well the dangers of a majority religion imposing its views on the populace.

I think the religion of the founders is nothing like that of modern christians. Perhaps there were those people around in their day. But these men were often men of education. Some even men of science, limited as it was in that day.

They didn't use the government models of imposing a godly king. (Washington would have been the ideal choice.) Instead they looked to the heathen Greeks and early Romans for inspiration. These were not fundamentalist who believed man inherently evil. They believed that mankind could make the right decisions if only they were educated (a truly liberal and humanist position if ever there was one).

So they may have believed in a god. But I've seen nothing in my extensive reading to suggest they were anything like the christians of today.

So are you suggesting creationist today are not men of science ?

Now you're starting to get it.