Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Apparently not liking shitposting is anti-diversity. What?
Believing the Big Bang happened isn't faith. Believing in a god is faith because you are believing something is true without actual evidence. Nobody is asserting what or how the Big Bang happened, thus there can be no faith. If something didn't cause the Big Bang then the only alternative is that the universe has just always existed in this state, which we know isn't true.
A scientific theory is different from how the word theory is commonly used by people. A scientific theory actually means established fact, I really wish they'd quit calling it a theory so people would quit getting it messed up and using that as a really weak argument against established science.
At this point you're just going on about unrelated topics and shitposting more music videos.
With 7 billion people on the planet nobody is going to care what you believe.
That you stole it from Tomas Aquinas and plagiarized it to make yourself look smart is more telling about your own lack of ethics and lack of morality.
Q.E.D.
Mutations are real. Some help and some don't. If they hurt your species dies off. If it helps your kind thrives.
Mutations are real. Some help and some don't. If they hurt your species dies off. If it helps your kind thrives.
Well, we agree that mutations are real, but mutations are negative or neutral. Of course, atheists and their scientists will not admit it or else evolution ends up negative. Just now, I was reading atheists are programmed to die.
"Growing old is a fact of life. And there’s no mistaking it, given the increased fatigue, weakened bones, and ill health that generally accompany aging. Indeed, age is the number one risk factor for myriad diseases, including Alzheimer’s, cancer, cataracts, and macular degeneration. And while researchers are making progress in understanding and treating each of these ailments, huge gaps remain in our understanding of the aging process itself.
“We age so completely and in so many different ways,” says stem cell biologist Derrick Rossi of Harvard University. “We are programmed to die.”
AS TIME GOES BY: Aging is the outcome of diverse and complex changes in normal biological functions, from the accumulation of DNA damage to dysfunction of proteins and altered communication both within cells and among distant tissues in the body. Researchers are beginning to piece together how we age at the level of our genomes, our cells, and our whole bodies, in hopes of identifying strategies for slowing decline and extending healthy life span.
The aging process can be traced down to the level of cells, which themselves die or enter senescence as they age, and even to the genomic level. Accumulation of mutations and impairments in DNA repair processes are highly associated with symptoms of aging. In fact, disorders that cause premature aging are typically caused by mutations in genes involved in the maintenance of our DNA. And at the cellular level, decreases in stem cells’ proliferative abilities, impairments in mitochondrial function, and proneness to protein misfolding can all contribute to aging. As scientists continue to detail these various processes, says Paul Robbins of the Scripps Research Institute, “the big question is, ‘At what step along all these pathways is the best place to intervene to try to promote healthy aging?’”
While diverse strategies—from caloric restriction to genetic manipulation—have proven to extend life span in model organisms in the lab, these animals are not necessarily enjoying longer periods of health. (See “Quantity or Quality?”) In the end, researchers studying aging must learn not just how to extend life, but how to prevent age-related disease and physical decline."
Full article here
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/42280/title/How-We-Age/
Will you allow yourself to be mutated in order to live longer?
Speaking for Christians, no thank you. We'll extend our lives in other scientific ways.
Why not explode a firecracker and create a small model of a universe then? Ha ha.
The Big Bang is still a theory. Before that, atheist scientists thought the universe was eternal with no beginning and end. It was called the Steady State Theory and is now pseudoscience.
The Big Bang is closer to what Genesis stated (except replace the bang with a creator). It more closely backs up the Bible.
The Big Bang Theory is a fact, and it's not an explosion of smoke and fire, it's an expansion of the universe. And that's how Science works, we alter our ideas and theories based on new information to reflect reality as accurately as possible, it's called the Scientific method. And no, The Big Bang doesn't back up the Bible at all, lol. The Bible says the universe and the Earth was created in a few days, that has nothing to do with the Big Bang.
Why not explode a firecracker and create a small model of a universe then? Ha ha.
The Big Bang is still a theory. Before that, atheist scientists thought the universe was eternal with no beginning and end. It was called the Steady State Theory and is now pseudoscience.
The Big Bang is closer to what Genesis stated (except replace the bang with a creator). It more closely backs up the Bible.
The Big Bang Theory is a fact, and it's not an explosion of smoke and fire, it's an expansion of the universe. And that's how Science works, we alter our ideas and theories based on new information to reflect reality as accurately as possible, it's called the Scientific method. And no, The Big Bang doesn't back up the Bible at all, lol. The Bible says the universe and the Earth was created in a few days, that has nothing to do with the Big Bang.
If BBT is a fact, then we should all know it and be able to use it. It backs up Genesis just fine as shown in the video I posted. However, God created the universe instead of BBT. The evidence is there, but atheists will not admit it nor allow the God Theory as it destroys evolution.
In fact, you even called Big Bang a theory in your first sentence, so atheists are wrong again. Ha ha.
The Big Bang Theory does involve and explosion and heat, so that would mean fire and smoke. We have the quantum particles all around us. Why can't I get a small universe from a firecracker?
All those pages and STILL nobody has proven the existence of a sky fairy? How does pasting music vids help prove something believed entirely on faith? Fear of death driven rubbish.
Facts are facts. I did notice there were some facts provided here, but not in your statements. I could just as easily stated no one has proven that the Creator (God) does not exist.
What is the death driven rubbish?
We do not know what happens after death in the sense that it cannot be proven scientifically. We do know that one is still conscious in the near-death state. From there, one can be clinically dead and still be conscious. That goes against what the atheists said about death and that it is the end of everything. That there is no final judgment. This short life of ours is it.
Your wiggle room about being brain dead and there is something going on is false when applying it to my standard that when the blood stops flowing to the brain the human being has a scant few seconds until the total end to any conscience and life. We need to stop giving people false hope that some sky fairy will give them an eternity of a future if they just conform to religions rules.
If you had included the whole sentence you probably wouldn't need to ask the question. The Christian and Muslim religions are driven to a major degree on the faith in a hear after. As an atheist I have no such delusion that there is some reward or punishment after the blood to my brain stops flowing.
The Mormans have even a more fantastic fantasy of owning one's own planet and other such RUBBISH. Your religions make promises you can't verify. This is the very essence of fraud.
Only you James can backtrack his statements, say lets stop talking and declare yourself the winner of the discussion. "Microevolution is natural selection." That's a ridiculous statement. One is the consequence of the other, and regardless it doesn't change 1 iota of the fact, that you can't admit to species changing a little bit but object to species changing a lot. And you have admitted to species changing a bunch of times. Genetics and common sense doesn't allow the process of changing to stop. And you can bluster, trying to change the focus to semantics of the definition of mutations and even want to stop talking. I all points to the same fact. You my dear James, have destroyed your own argument against evolution and that is that. And btw if you are a bacteria and you are able to withstand all antibiotics. I suspect that you will call the mutation that allows you to do that positive.So far you have given me that microevolution is a fact. You have also admitted to natural selection. What you do not seem to get, that there is no such thing as microevolution, evolution doesn't stop. Any organism is under continuus pressure from it's enviremont. So any organism has to adapt constantly. This results in minute changes but over millenia constant minute changes result in a completly different organism. The only way a person, who admits to evolution on a small scale and natural selection, can deny evolution on a large scale. Is if he would claim. There are 2 different types of DNA, 1 that changes and one that doesn't or if he would insist that for some reason at a certain point DNA would stop changing. That's my point. Btw I've found another very intresting mutation. Most people from European decent are lactose tolarant, this is a result because in aggrarian society with emphasis on herding being able to digest milk was a big advantage.I'll give you a positive mutation observed in man right now. The reason Micheal Pelps swims fast is because he's double jointed giving him extra trust. This mutation gives him an advantage in aquatic enviremont.The reason people have different skin colors is because coloring regulates the amount of ultraviolet radiation penetrating the skin, a mutation designed to make humans adaptable to different enviremonts. And the reason I didn't answer your thaught experiment is because firstly I haven't had time today and secondly I figured to answer the other post first because I did answer it before. Like I said then and I'll repeat now. I haven't really defended abiogenesis before because it is in the end uproven and defending it even though it is a hell of a lot more substanciated then your arguments is kind off intellectually dishonest. And if I insist on proof of everything you say ( not that you ever do but still), I am commited to te same thing.The reason I eventually did is because you kept bringing it up and I felt it neccesary to at least say that there is a decent hypothesis out. This is something you still don't seem to understand. The level of certainty for me to use something as an argument is way higher then what you are willing to use. Speaking of not answering I did notice that you didn't answer the premise of my argument. Can you think of another way the stopping of mutations would work, besides the 2 ways I described? And I've tried to start posting different, trying to use seperate posts in the hope that you would answer my seperate arguments. To no avail. So what you basicly do is try to answer what you think you can fight and ignore what you can't.I thought of a good experiment, forkup, since you have faith in evolution and how natural selection will take the positive mutations and make you faster, stronger, and healthier. Eat more GMO foods. Neil DeGrasse Tyson says they are perfectly safe for you and could be beneficial in having stronger bones, adding years to your life and allow you to be more productive with less sleep. That's much better than coming down with cancer, isn't it? Another would be Craig Venter. He deserves to be infected with his oil-eating molecules.
I talked about the following with a person who enjoys smoking marijuana. He told me that a man, forgot his name, crossbred marijuana seeds to make a more potent plant, i.e. one with more THC. Now, that is the natural way in producing a better plant and natural selection at work. Not to be outdone, evo scientists modified the DNA of a potent marijuana strain and created GMO marijuana and promoted it as being better. I'm not a marijuana user, but I would avoid the GMO version unless you enjoy dealing with cancer.
I think you're trying to use hypermobility in a positive way and while it certainly can be useful in sports, it usually is a negative mutation as people born with it are destined to be affected with some form of disease. Hypermobile joints are common in those with Down's Syndrome. Does Michael Phelps have some problems with health or illness? I'm not going to get into skin color as I think that's a genetic trait and not a mutation. Very easy to get into racism and Darwin was racist in his beliefs and statements.
If you can't defend abiogenesis, then DNA and RNA did not start from chemicals. It is evidence for creation. Then, there is the huge problem of how energy and our universe was started by quantum particles in a system where energy is always conserved.
I am purposely not using more advanced science because you have not shown the background in your posts to be able to understand it. Otherwise, you would have told me about more complex discoveries and have used the scientific jargon.
You'll have to explain your use of the two ways some more. The two ways you are referring to are 1) Accidents during processes such as genetic replication, recombination or transposition and 2) Exposures to foreign mutagens, such as chemicals or ultra violet rays.
I answered the use of the two ways in microevolution. I thought we agreed on that and natural selection? What other context are you using it in?
I do not think we can stop mutations. That's just part of life. We can lessen it, but that means getting rid of atheist scientists and evolution. They have it in their heads that mutations can be positive and its part of evolution. Obviously, you missed this in all the things I mentioned with GMO foods and cells. Atheist scientist Neil DeGrasse Tyson is very supportive of GMO foods and cells. I hope he gets infected in the near future so he can understand GMO for himself first-hand. Does he practice what he preaches and eat many GMO foods because they're bigger and less expensive than organic?
I didn't answer your other two posts because we're really not getting very far. Give me one experiment like the one I made up to explain creation and complexity, and one to explain evolution and simplicity. Despite all the evidence, you're not changing any of your thinking. Just bringing up something else and claiming that I'm the one who fights what I can fight and ignoring what I can't.
As to your argument of me not defending abiogenesis is proof of God. Only a religious person would think that not being able to proof something is proof of something else. Religion through the ages has tried to give a supernatural explanation to everything. From the sun the moon and the stars, to rain, drought, thunder and lightning. They have been proven wrong by science every time. This is the exact reason why Creationism is not a science. It revels in the fact that science doesn't know everything and activly discourages to accept any other explanation as the divine. In short, it tries to kill curiosity, wich is the driving force behind science,
Microevolution is natural selection. Neither are facts. In fact, I have not given it to you as a fact. We conclude natural selection from the facts, such as the changes of a finch's beak. It is the best theory we have to explain what happens when life changes. It is the diversity of life. So, are you agreeing that it is not a mutation? Skin color is not a mutation because that is what is intended to happen. Mutation would be an organism that does not change by natural selection. Can you think of life that does not change? Even the most simplest of life has changed. Buddhists state life is change.
Let's stop with the discussion on mutation. You can not admit that I am right and you just move on to something else. We are not communicating and it's extremely boring. Moreover, you have not explained nor given an experiment where life is created from molecules as you stated (your experiment stated with a living organism and its DNA and RNA. You did not know the answer to what is a simple cell -- algae or bacteria.
Let's just stop with our discussion altogether. I never met anyone who is so stubborn in their beliefs that they will not admit when someone else has provided better points than them.
For those who are smart enough to understand mutation, if it is positive, then we should see some results such as more bone density, i.e. stronger bones, we can sleep less hours and be productive, our immune system will be able to better resist disease and infection and our mortality will be going up, our endurance will be better, our bodies will be stronger and we can demonstrate this by measuring our strength, and we will have better memories.
We are done
DNA copying and proof-reading machines are not perfect, so copying mistakes arise: mutations. Tyson says: “most mutations are harmless, some are deadly.” Actually, most mutations are bad–near-neutral: very slightly harmful mutations that will not be eliminated by natural selection.20 So like tiny rust spots on a car, they accumulate through the gene pool. This contrasts with major damage that can be noticed and repaired, such as a flat tyre, smashed headlights, worn brakepads, or natural selection removing the very bad mutants. Eventually, as rust can eventually build up till it causes structural damage, these mutations would have resulted in genetic meltdown after even hundreds of thousands of years.21
These mutations are accumulating much faster than previously thought. The lead researcher in human mutation rates, evolutionary geneticist Alexey Simonovich Kondrashov (Алексе́й Симо́нович Кондрашо́в, 1957– ), based on his belief that humans have been around for that long, asked, “Why aren’t we dead 100 times over?”22 He thinks that the mutation rate could be even higher, as much as 300 per person per generation,23 although a more recent “Icelandic study[24] found that on average, every newborn baby has 36 spontaneous new mutations, those not inherited from either parent.”25 This level, if confirmed, would still be a huge problem for the long-age viewpoint that Tyson dogmatically pontificates.
Cosmos Neil deGrasse Tyson Episode 2 - creation.com
No he said most mutations are harmless, some are deadlyDNA copying and proof-reading machines are not perfect, so copying mistakes arise: mutations. Tyson says: “most mutations are harmless, some are deadly.” Actually, most mutations are bad–near-neutral: very slightly harmful mutations that will not be eliminated by natural selection.20 So like tiny rust spots on a car, they accumulate through the gene pool. This contrasts with major damage that can be noticed and repaired, such as a flat tyre, smashed headlights, worn brakepads, or natural selection removing the very bad mutants. Eventually, as rust can eventually build up till it causes structural damage, these mutations would have resulted in genetic meltdown after even hundreds of thousands of years.21
These mutations are accumulating much faster than previously thought. The lead researcher in human mutation rates, evolutionary geneticist Alexey Simonovich Kondrashov (Алексе́й Симо́нович Кондрашо́в, 1957– ), based on his belief that humans have been around for that long, asked, “Why aren’t we dead 100 times over?”22 He thinks that the mutation rate could be even higher, as much as 300 per person per generation,23 although a more recent “Icelandic study[24] found that on average, every newborn baby has 36 spontaneous new mutations, those not inherited from either parent.”25 This level, if confirmed, would still be a huge problem for the long-age viewpoint that Tyson dogmatically pontificates.
Cosmos Neil deGrasse Tyson Episode 2 - creation.com
DeGrasse states that mutations are deadly, so he is correct in that sense, but is wrong that slightly harmful mutations will be factored out by natural selection. Where does he give an actual experiment to show it? Instead he uses an analogy about rust and a car. Rust can spread very fast.
Creation scientists differ on mutations, and whether there is a loss or change in genetic information. Some believe that a true mutation is a loss of genetic information. Others believe the mutations could be changes in genetic information such as that with natural selection and diversification of life. My thinking is that it was set up for change from the beginning by God, so change of genetic information with no loss isn't a mutation. Else we should see more positive results from the change of genetic information. Aside from natural selection, I can't think of any change to genetic information that isn't a loss.
I can't argue with those who say a loss is also a change, but the results should be clear with a loss and many observations confirm this as negative or neutral. Can diversification be considered neutral?
What about a gain in genetic information? I do not think this happens although atheist scientists believe it can happen through evolution. I'll keep an open mind about it, but this has not been observed and I would think this is what God did.
All those pages and STILL nobody has proven the existence of a sky fairy? How does pasting music vids help prove something believed entirely on faith? Fear of death driven rubbish.
Facts are facts. I did notice there were some facts provided here, but not in your statements. I could just as easily stated no one has proven that the Creator (God) does not exist.
What is the death driven rubbish?
We do not know what happens after death in the sense that it cannot be proven scientifically. We do know that one is still conscious in the near-death state. From there, one can be clinically dead and still be conscious. That goes against what the atheists said about death and that it is the end of everything. That there is no final judgment. This short life of ours is it.
Your wiggle room about being brain dead and there is something going on is false when applying it to my standard that when the blood stops flowing to the brain the human being has a scant few seconds until the total end to any conscience and life. We need to stop giving people false hope that some sky fairy will give them an eternity of a future if they just conform to religions rules.
If you had included the whole sentence you probably wouldn't need to ask the question. The Christian and Muslim religions are driven to a major degree on the faith in a hear after. As an atheist I have no such delusion that there is some reward or punishment after the blood to my brain stops flowing.
The Mormans have even a more fantastic fantasy of owning one's own planet and other such RUBBISH. Your religions make promises you can't verify. This is the very essence of fraud.
Advancement in neurology is showing that there are electrical signals that occur in the brain even after clinical death. Thus, one is still conscious.
It isn't false hope when the evidence points to an eternal afterlife. Many religions believe in this and some kind judgment for one's life. Otherwise, the only punishment someone can receive for being a murderer, a false witness, or a liar, cheater and thief is in this life. More reason for the death penalty, but it is hardly adequate for true evil.
What do the Mormons believe? Christians cannot scientifically prove what happens when we die and cross over. No one can. God said he will keep the beginning and the end a secret from us. If something is unknown, then it does not mean that it is a falsehood. By your own definition of fraud, then evolution is fraud ha ha.
.All those pages and STILL nobody has proven the existence of a sky fairy? How does pasting music vids help prove something believed entirely on faith? Fear of death driven rubbish.
Facts are facts. I did notice there were some facts provided here, but not in your statements. I could just as easily stated no one has proven that the Creator (God) does not exist.
What is the death driven rubbish?
We do not know what happens after death in the sense that it cannot be proven scientifically. We do know that one is still conscious in the near-death state. From there, one can be clinically dead and still be conscious. That goes against what the atheists said about death and that it is the end of everything. That there is no final judgment. This short life of ours is it.
Your wiggle room about being brain dead and there is something going on is false when applying it to my standard that when the blood stops flowing to the brain the human being has a scant few seconds until the total end to any conscience and life. We need to stop giving people false hope that some sky fairy will give them an eternity of a future if they just conform to religions rules.
If you had included the whole sentence you probably wouldn't need to ask the question. The Christian and Muslim religions are driven to a major degree on the faith in a hear after. As an atheist I have no such delusion that there is some reward or punishment after the blood to my brain stops flowing.
The Mormans have even a more fantastic fantasy of owning one's own planet and other such RUBBISH. Your religions make promises you can't verify. This is the very essence of fraud.
Advancement in neurology is showing that there are electrical signals that occur in the brain even after clinical death. Thus, one is still conscious.
It isn't false hope when the evidence points to an eternal afterlife. Many religions believe in this and some kind judgment for one's life. Otherwise, the only punishment someone can receive for being a murderer, a false witness, or a liar, cheater and thief is in this life. More reason for the death penalty, but it is hardly adequate for true evil.
What do the Mormons believe? Christians cannot scientifically prove what happens when we die and cross over. No one can. God said he will keep the beginning and the end a secret from us. If something is unknown, then it does not mean that it is a falsehood. By your own definition of fraud, then evolution is fraud ha ha.
That last bit is funny. Calculate the dollars given to the various religions supposedly paving the way to heaven which certainly is in the hundreds of trillions over the ages compared with what you might think society has been paying to study the evidence involved with the various endeavors following the history of species.
I'm sure that in the investigation of "evolution" there have been a few blind alleys and incorrect theories. Over all the science has been honest. That is a far cry from religion. The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.
That is a far cry from religion. The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.
Christianity and Medicine - Bad News About Christianity
Illness was indisputably caused by sin. The Bible said so, and so did Church Councils.
The Church developed the view that real practical medicine savoured of black magic. In any case it was wrong to try to subvert God's holy will by interfering with the natural course of events. It was God who caused illness. He was responsible for cures just as he was responsible for death. Even church law mentioned, in passing, that diseases were attributable to God, for example ....
No he said most mutations are harmless, some are deadlyDNA copying and proof-reading machines are not perfect, so copying mistakes arise: mutations. Tyson says: “most mutations are harmless, some are deadly.” Actually, most mutations are bad–near-neutral: very slightly harmful mutations that will not be eliminated by natural selection.20 So like tiny rust spots on a car, they accumulate through the gene pool. This contrasts with major damage that can be noticed and repaired, such as a flat tyre, smashed headlights, worn brakepads, or natural selection removing the very bad mutants. Eventually, as rust can eventually build up till it causes structural damage, these mutations would have resulted in genetic meltdown after even hundreds of thousands of years.21
These mutations are accumulating much faster than previously thought. The lead researcher in human mutation rates, evolutionary geneticist Alexey Simonovich Kondrashov (Алексе́й Симо́нович Кондрашо́в, 1957– ), based on his belief that humans have been around for that long, asked, “Why aren’t we dead 100 times over?”22 He thinks that the mutation rate could be even higher, as much as 300 per person per generation,23 although a more recent “Icelandic study[24] found that on average, every newborn baby has 36 spontaneous new mutations, those not inherited from either parent.”25 This level, if confirmed, would still be a huge problem for the long-age viewpoint that Tyson dogmatically pontificates.
Cosmos Neil deGrasse Tyson Episode 2 - creation.com
DeGrasse states that mutations are deadly, so he is correct in that sense, but is wrong that slightly harmful mutations will be factored out by natural selection. Where does he give an actual experiment to show it? Instead he uses an analogy about rust and a car. Rust can spread very fast.
Creation scientists differ on mutations, and whether there is a loss or change in genetic information. Some believe that a true mutation is a loss of genetic information. Others believe the mutations could be changes in genetic information such as that with natural selection and diversification of life. My thinking is that it was set up for change from the beginning by God, so change of genetic information with no loss isn't a mutation. Else we should see more positive results from the change of genetic information. Aside from natural selection, I can't think of any change to genetic information that isn't a loss.
I can't argue with those who say a loss is also a change, but the results should be clear with a loss and many observations confirm this as negative or neutral. Can diversification be considered neutral?
What about a gain in genetic information? I do not think this happens although atheist scientists believe it can happen through evolution. I'll keep an open mind about it, but this has not been observed and I would think this is what God did.
All those pages and STILL nobody has proven the existence of a sky fairy? How does pasting music vids help prove something believed entirely on faith? Fear of death driven rubbish.
Facts are facts. I did notice there were some facts provided here, but not in your statements. I could just as easily stated no one has proven that the Creator (God) does not exist.
What is the death driven rubbish?
We do not know what happens after death in the sense that it cannot be proven scientifically. We do know that one is still conscious in the near-death state. From there, one can be clinically dead and still be conscious. That goes against what the atheists said about death and that it is the end of everything. That there is no final judgment. This short life of ours is it.
Your wiggle room about being brain dead and there is something going on is false when applying it to my standard that when the blood stops flowing to the brain the human being has a scant few seconds until the total end to any conscience and life. We need to stop giving people false hope that some sky fairy will give them an eternity of a future if they just conform to religions rules.
If you had included the whole sentence you probably wouldn't need to ask the question. The Christian and Muslim religions are driven to a major degree on the faith in a hear after. As an atheist I have no such delusion that there is some reward or punishment after the blood to my brain stops flowing.
The Mormans have even a more fantastic fantasy of owning one's own planet and other such RUBBISH. Your religions make promises you can't verify. This is the very essence of fraud.
Advancement in neurology is showing that there are electrical signals that occur in the brain even after clinical death. Thus, one is still conscious.
It isn't false hope when the evidence points to an eternal afterlife. Many religions believe in this and some kind judgment for one's life. Otherwise, the only punishment someone can receive for being a murderer, a false witness, or a liar, cheater and thief is in this life. More reason for the death penalty, but it is hardly adequate for true evil.
What do the Mormons believe? Christians cannot scientifically prove what happens when we die and cross over. No one can. God said he will keep the beginning and the end a secret from us. If something is unknown, then it does not mean that it is a falsehood. By your own definition of fraud, then evolution is fraud ha ha.
That last bit is funny. Calculate the dollars given to the various religions supposedly paving the way to heaven which certainly is in the hundreds of trillions over the ages compared with what you might think society has been paying to study the evidence involved with the various endeavors following the history of species.
I'm sure that in the investigation of "evolution" there have been a few blind alleys and incorrect theories. Over all the science has been honest. That is a far cry from religion. The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.
.All those pages and STILL nobody has proven the existence of a sky fairy? How does pasting music vids help prove something believed entirely on faith? Fear of death driven rubbish.
Facts are facts. I did notice there were some facts provided here, but not in your statements. I could just as easily stated no one has proven that the Creator (God) does not exist.
What is the death driven rubbish?
We do not know what happens after death in the sense that it cannot be proven scientifically. We do know that one is still conscious in the near-death state. From there, one can be clinically dead and still be conscious. That goes against what the atheists said about death and that it is the end of everything. That there is no final judgment. This short life of ours is it.
Your wiggle room about being brain dead and there is something going on is false when applying it to my standard that when the blood stops flowing to the brain the human being has a scant few seconds until the total end to any conscience and life. We need to stop giving people false hope that some sky fairy will give them an eternity of a future if they just conform to religions rules.
If you had included the whole sentence you probably wouldn't need to ask the question. The Christian and Muslim religions are driven to a major degree on the faith in a hear after. As an atheist I have no such delusion that there is some reward or punishment after the blood to my brain stops flowing.
The Mormans have even a more fantastic fantasy of owning one's own planet and other such RUBBISH. Your religions make promises you can't verify. This is the very essence of fraud.
Advancement in neurology is showing that there are electrical signals that occur in the brain even after clinical death. Thus, one is still conscious.
It isn't false hope when the evidence points to an eternal afterlife. Many religions believe in this and some kind judgment for one's life. Otherwise, the only punishment someone can receive for being a murderer, a false witness, or a liar, cheater and thief is in this life. More reason for the death penalty, but it is hardly adequate for true evil.
What do the Mormons believe? Christians cannot scientifically prove what happens when we die and cross over. No one can. God said he will keep the beginning and the end a secret from us. If something is unknown, then it does not mean that it is a falsehood. By your own definition of fraud, then evolution is fraud ha ha.
That last bit is funny. Calculate the dollars given to the various religions supposedly paving the way to heaven which certainly is in the hundreds of trillions over the ages compared with what you might think society has been paying to study the evidence involved with the various endeavors following the history of species.
I'm sure that in the investigation of "evolution" there have been a few blind alleys and incorrect theories. Over all the science has been honest. That is a far cry from religion. The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.
That is a far cry from religion. The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.
Christianity and Medicine - Bad News About Christianity
Illness was indisputably caused by sin. The Bible said so, and so did Church Councils.
The Church developed the view that real practical medicine savoured of black magic. In any case it was wrong to try to subvert God's holy will by interfering with the natural course of events. It was God who caused illness. He was responsible for cures just as he was responsible for death. Even church law mentioned, in passing, that diseases were attributable to God, for example ....
Illness was indisputably caused by sin ...
sound familiar ...
.
In the end we'll end up just like you. What happens to a frogs soul when it dies? How about a crows? Or an elephant. Where does an elephants soul go? Same place yours goes.All those pages and STILL nobody has proven the existence of a sky fairy? How does pasting music vids help prove something believed entirely on faith? Fear of death driven rubbish.
Facts are facts. I did notice there were some facts provided here, but not in your statements. I could just as easily stated no one has proven that the Creator (God) does not exist.
What is the death driven rubbish?
We do not know what happens after death in the sense that it cannot be proven scientifically. We do know that one is still conscious in the near-death state. From there, one can be clinically dead and still be conscious. That goes against what the atheists said about death and that it is the end of everything. That there is no final judgment. This short life of ours is it.
Your wiggle room about being brain dead and there is something going on is false when applying it to my standard that when the blood stops flowing to the brain the human being has a scant few seconds until the total end to any conscience and life. We need to stop giving people false hope that some sky fairy will give them an eternity of a future if they just conform to religions rules.
If you had included the whole sentence you probably wouldn't need to ask the question. The Christian and Muslim religions are driven to a major degree on the faith in a hear after. As an atheist I have no such delusion that there is some reward or punishment after the blood to my brain stops flowing.
The Mormans have even a more fantastic fantasy of owning one's own planet and other such RUBBISH. Your religions make promises you can't verify. This is the very essence of fraud.
Advancement in neurology is showing that there are electrical signals that occur in the brain even after clinical death. Thus, one is still conscious.
It isn't false hope when the evidence points to an eternal afterlife. Many religions believe in this and some kind judgment for one's life. Otherwise, the only punishment someone can receive for being a murderer, a false witness, or a liar, cheater and thief is in this life. More reason for the death penalty, but it is hardly adequate for true evil.
What do the Mormons believe? Christians cannot scientifically prove what happens when we die and cross over. No one can. God said he will keep the beginning and the end a secret from us. If something is unknown, then it does not mean that it is a falsehood. By your own definition of fraud, then evolution is fraud ha ha.
That last bit is funny. Calculate the dollars given to the various religions supposedly paving the way to heaven which certainly is in the hundreds of trillions over the ages compared with what you might think society has been paying to study the evidence involved with the various endeavors following the history of species.
I'm sure that in the investigation of "evolution" there have been a few blind alleys and incorrect theories. Over all the science has been honest. That is a far cry from religion. The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.
It takes money to make money and to fight the atheist scientists and to fight for the teaching of creation in schools. Most of these donations are from individuals instead of corporations who stand to make profit by patenting their genetic modifications. Churches today have to teach creation using science, as well. Back to evolution, who better to foist on a public that has swallowed evolution "science" hook, like and sinker? Monsanto's slogan used to be "Better Living through Chemistry." It appears you have been brainwashed by their advertising and media articles just the same.
So what do the Mormons believe as you claimed? In the end, atheists and their scientists will realize that they'll just get what they have been spewing their entire lives and it won't get them anywhere.
No ones taking you seriously. Adam is a fictitious character.Facts are facts. I did notice there were some facts provided here, but not in your statements. I could just as easily stated no one has proven that the Creator (God) does not exist.
What is the death driven rubbish?
We do not know what happens after death in the sense that it cannot be proven scientifically. We do know that one is still conscious in the near-death state. From there, one can be clinically dead and still be conscious. That goes against what the atheists said about death and that it is the end of everything. That there is no final judgment. This short life of ours is it.
Your wiggle room about being brain dead and there is something going on is false when applying it to my standard that when the blood stops flowing to the brain the human being has a scant few seconds until the total end to any conscience and life. We need to stop giving people false hope that some sky fairy will give them an eternity of a future if they just conform to religions rules.
If you had included the whole sentence you probably wouldn't need to ask the question. The Christian and Muslim religions are driven to a major degree on the faith in a hear after. As an atheist I have no such delusion that there is some reward or punishment after the blood to my brain stops flowing.
The Mormans have even a more fantastic fantasy of owning one's own planet and other such RUBBISH. Your religions make promises you can't verify. This is the very essence of fraud.
Advancement in neurology is showing that there are electrical signals that occur in the brain even after clinical death. Thus, one is still conscious.
It isn't false hope when the evidence points to an eternal afterlife. Many religions believe in this and some kind judgment for one's life. Otherwise, the only punishment someone can receive for being a murderer, a false witness, or a liar, cheater and thief is in this life. More reason for the death penalty, but it is hardly adequate for true evil.
What do the Mormons believe? Christians cannot scientifically prove what happens when we die and cross over. No one can. God said he will keep the beginning and the end a secret from us. If something is unknown, then it does not mean that it is a falsehood. By your own definition of fraud, then evolution is fraud ha ha.
That last bit is funny. Calculate the dollars given to the various religions supposedly paving the way to heaven which certainly is in the hundreds of trillions over the ages compared with what you might think society has been paying to study the evidence involved with the various endeavors following the history of species.
I'm sure that in the investigation of "evolution" there have been a few blind alleys and incorrect theories. Over all the science has been honest. That is a far cry from religion. The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.
That is a far cry from religion. The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.
Christianity and Medicine - Bad News About Christianity
Illness was indisputably caused by sin. The Bible said so, and so did Church Councils.
The Church developed the view that real practical medicine savoured of black magic. In any case it was wrong to try to subvert God's holy will by interfering with the natural course of events. It was God who caused illness. He was responsible for cures just as he was responsible for death. Even church law mentioned, in passing, that diseases were attributable to God, for example ....
Illness was indisputably caused by sin ...
sound familiar ...
.
Yes your comment does sound familiar. Very familiar. Atheist familiar.
It just goes to show you were not paying attention, while spouting your nonsense about Moses, Judaism, Mormons or what not. Do you not remember what the Christians here were talking about? It was already mentioned in this thread several times. Is it too hard to believe it came from Adam's sin? He did not know what perfection was until it was gone. Why else do we admire and seek perfection? You swallow that all of this came from "invisible" particles when conservation of thermodynamics prove otherwise.
No ones taking you seriously. Adam is a fictitious character
..Facts are facts. I did notice there were some facts provided here, but not in your statements. I could just as easily stated no one has proven that the Creator (God) does not exist.
What is the death driven rubbish?
We do not know what happens after death in the sense that it cannot be proven scientifically. We do know that one is still conscious in the near-death state. From there, one can be clinically dead and still be conscious. That goes against what the atheists said about death and that it is the end of everything. That there is no final judgment. This short life of ours is it.
Your wiggle room about being brain dead and there is something going on is false when applying it to my standard that when the blood stops flowing to the brain the human being has a scant few seconds until the total end to any conscience and life. We need to stop giving people false hope that some sky fairy will give them an eternity of a future if they just conform to religions rules.
If you had included the whole sentence you probably wouldn't need to ask the question. The Christian and Muslim religions are driven to a major degree on the faith in a hear after. As an atheist I have no such delusion that there is some reward or punishment after the blood to my brain stops flowing.
The Mormans have even a more fantastic fantasy of owning one's own planet and other such RUBBISH. Your religions make promises you can't verify. This is the very essence of fraud.
Advancement in neurology is showing that there are electrical signals that occur in the brain even after clinical death. Thus, one is still conscious.
It isn't false hope when the evidence points to an eternal afterlife. Many religions believe in this and some kind judgment for one's life. Otherwise, the only punishment someone can receive for being a murderer, a false witness, or a liar, cheater and thief is in this life. More reason for the death penalty, but it is hardly adequate for true evil.
What do the Mormons believe? Christians cannot scientifically prove what happens when we die and cross over. No one can. God said he will keep the beginning and the end a secret from us. If something is unknown, then it does not mean that it is a falsehood. By your own definition of fraud, then evolution is fraud ha ha.
That last bit is funny. Calculate the dollars given to the various religions supposedly paving the way to heaven which certainly is in the hundreds of trillions over the ages compared with what you might think society has been paying to study the evidence involved with the various endeavors following the history of species.
I'm sure that in the investigation of "evolution" there have been a few blind alleys and incorrect theories. Over all the science has been honest. That is a far cry from religion. The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.
That is a far cry from religion. The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.
Christianity and Medicine - Bad News About Christianity
Illness was indisputably caused by sin. The Bible said so, and so did Church Councils.
The Church developed the view that real practical medicine savoured of black magic. In any case it was wrong to try to subvert God's holy will by interfering with the natural course of events. It was God who caused illness. He was responsible for cures just as he was responsible for death. Even church law mentioned, in passing, that diseases were attributable to God, for example ....
Illness was indisputably caused by sin ...
sound familiar ...
.
Yes your comment does sound familiar. Very familiar. Atheist familiar.
It just goes to show you were not paying attention, while spouting your nonsense about Moses, Judaism, Mormons or what not. Do you not remember what the Christians here were talking about? It was already mentioned in this thread several times. Is it too hard to believe it came from Adam's sin? He did not know what perfection was until it was gone. Why else do we admire and seek perfection? You swallow that all of this came from "invisible" particles when conservation of thermodynamics prove otherwise.
He did not know what perfection was until it was gone.
People like Tyson, atheist scientists and atheist university professors ...
In the end we'll end up just like you. What happens to a frogs soul when it dies? How about a crows? Or an elephant. Where does an elephants soul go? Same place yours goes.
Remember what it was like for you ten years before you were born? That's what things will be like for you the minute you die. Lights out
