I've Discovered the Mark of the Beast

[JohnDB]

That's because he's weird like me lol but what's even weirder is I sort of like pumpkin spice. *Looks up to the ceiling and whistles.*

Oh...how can you "like" pumpkin spice? How could you like the mark of the devil?

I'm so ashamed!

 

[Road Runner]

Oh...how can you "like" pumpkin spice? How could you like the mark of the devil?

I'm so ashamed!

Taking a HUGE risk here by making this joke,.. but it's because I am a little devil.

 

[surada]

The enemy is not seen. The mark, likewise, will not be seen. Satan gives the mark in the mind, doing the will that being, and the hand, doing the works of that being. Islamic people are bowing to the beast. The catholic church is bowing to the beast, wanting Muslims to be here, under the guise of unity, sounding good, being horrifically evil. Legal system is bowing to that beast too, imitating Gods throne on the earth. All want people to be like them acquiring the same mark. Be like Jesus to not get that mark, not being of the world.

In the Bible the mark of the beast isn't voluntary.

 

[Uncensored2008]

In the Bible the mark of the beast isn't voluntary.

Are you saying the Vaccines are the Mark of the Beast?

It's true that Xi's Biden Regime wants to make it illegal to buy or sell without the mark... Which is what the New Testament actually says (Your Koran may have a different spin...)

 

[Clyde 154]

religion is made up--man made--so you can make up anything about the mark of the beast

Yeah. You are taking about the dogmatic religion of human secularism....no? Magical self creating BIG BANG, Men evolved from fish..........one can spongebob about anything, but that does not make it truth. Fish growing legs........extinct 50 million years ago. Oops! turns out this little fishy with legs (wink, wink) caught in the middle of evolution still hasn't grown legs after 50 million years, its still alive and trying, just to stupid to evolve. Can we all spell Coelacanth?

 

[BlindBoo]

Magical self creating BIG BANG

A hypothesis discerned from observations over time. Certainly better than the steady state theory.

Men evolved from fish

Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution - Science and Creationism - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[Clyde 154]

A hypothesis discerned from observations over time. Certainly better than the steady state theory.

Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution - Science and Creationism - NCBI Bookshelf

Idea Instead of....now pay attention, instead of presenting nothing but ad hominem suggestions, speculations, assumptions void of actual facts that you just parroted from the web........why not, listen.........just present the Scientific Experiment that falsifies the creation model as explained in Genesis? And it will not require BILLIONS OF YEARS. Go parrot that scientific experiment.


As hard as I looked and read and re-read, "your link".......There is still no evidence of any type of life EVOLVING from one species into another completely different species such as a cold blooded animal evolving into a warm blooded animal. An asexual example of life (without gender) that reproduces with one sex....evolving into an example of life that requires different genders to reproduce, which begs to ask the question.......just how did the first of either of these 2 genders first evolve. Again.........adapting to one's environment is not EVOLUTION as taught to our children in our school systems. All life has the capacity to adapt to its environment.

They make a big deal of this "demonstrable fact of science" when no one is even arguing that its not a fact. Everyone knows that species can and does adapt into sub species Like wolves, dog, cayotes, fox....etc. all being of the same parent species........etc. But not once is there ever any evidence of a wolf evolving into feline...etc.

This is an old debate tactic of the pseudo science/philosophy of all Darwinian cult members. They attempt to lump vertical and horizontal into one and the same and declare.......if its possible to (wink, wink) to evolve within species and change according to the environment and natural surroundings along the same Species ancestral bloodline........this somehow (yet unexplained) proves that Life did evolve from dead matter, first in the oceans (fish) and then evolved into land creatures (warm blooded) and creatures that can fly (foul and birds)........

Its and old magicians trick. Pay no attention to my right hand where I have another ball or coin palmed, just look "very closely" at my left hand (Just like the the link presented a long winded self described as a product of evolution.....which in reality is nothing but an example of how horizontal evolution "COULD" and "MUST" equal and prove vertical evolution IN THEORY......a theory (a big deal is made) that existed even before Darwin. Really? You mean life has had this capacity to adapt since time immemorial reproducing always along a horizontal ancestral lineage, each after its own kind. Where have I heard that before. (Genesis 1:24-26) and confirmed by Louis Pasteur when he falsified ABIOGENSIS in the 19th century.

Yet, this does not stop the pseudo from claiming that LIFE MUST HAVE EVOLVED RANDOMLY from non living matter with the capacity to reproduce outside of species, I just demonstrated that EVOLUTION is a fact.......all it takes is billions of years (which no one has no way of refuting)

According to Oxford: vertical evolution; a process where an ancestral species changes through time to become a completely DIFFERENT and DISCTINCTLY species of life. No where in this debate retort or within the provided link is there any objective evidence of such an example ever being demonstrated to be a FACT.

Horizontal Evolution: Even with this......the pseduo attempts to deflect and refuse to define evolution within species as being of a HORIZONTAL NATURE.....along a horizontal ancestral blood line all within the same species......they attempt to deflect by calling it horizontal GENE TRANSFER.........as if these genes have a choice not to transfer along the same ancestral species path and can MUTATE (how is never explained) into a totally new DNA chain. Its the PALMED ball in the right hand that is never shown.

Why is it never shown? It does not exist as the magic they claimed they just demonstrated.

 

[BlindBoo]

As hard as I looked and read and re-read, There is still no evidence of any type of life EVOLVING from one species intto another completely different species such as a cold blooded animal evolving into a warm blooded animal.

As long as you ignore the fossil record there is no evidence.

 

[harmonica]

Yeah. You are taking about the dogmatic religion of human secularism....no? Magical self creating BIG BANG, Men evolved from fish..........one can spongebob about anything, but that does not make it truth. Fish growing legs........extinct 50 million years ago. Oops! turns out this little fishy with legs (wink, wink) caught in the middle of evolution still hasn't grown legs after 50 million years, its still alive and trying, just to stupid to evolve. Can we all spell Coelacanth?

1. at least evolution is a theory based on science--what's outrageous is you people saying ''god did it''' HAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAH
2. you have not refuted that religion is man made---you can make up ANYTHING you want--and that's what you do ---HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH = fairy tales
3. STILL--you can't prove there is a god = plain-simple-end of story

 

[JohnDB]

You can't hardly buy anything anymore without it being pumpkin spice....

Oh God save me!

 

[Clyde 154]

1. at least evolution is a theory based on science--what's outrageous is you people saying ''god did it''' HAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAH
2. you have not refuted that religion is man made---you can make up ANYTHING you want--and that's what you do ---HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH = fairy tales
3. STILL--you can't prove there is a god = plain-simple-end of story

More ad hominem......emotionally based displays. Psych 101........humor masks anger. Why is this always the end result when the evidence can't be produced? Again.........its simple, just present the Scientific Experiment that falsifies the creation model presented in Genesis.

What science would that be? If its science its demonstrable through the "scientific method" of observation, reproduction, ending with consistent facts in evidence. Evolution is falsified by the very first tenet of Science...OBSERVATION. No one has observed any species evolving into a distinctly different species. Why? Because of an absurd claim.............it takes millions of years........

Proof of God? The existence of the Laws of Science logically demands the existence of God. In specific laws such as the Law of Cause and Effect, the Law of Biogenesis and the Laws of Thermodynamics. Truth does exist in the form of Prima Facie evidence.....and it stands as truth until you can Scientifically and Objectively disprove the Creation Model.

Because you can't see the forest for the trees does not indicate that the Forest does not exist. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see..........its called psychological blindness. And indeed........the religion of Secular Humanism is indeed a mental condition. Its not "I" that professes to be working with SCIENCE.....yet can't produce any scientific proof of that which is claimed by ad hominem rhetoric.

Again........IF its science.......allow science to work and falsify CREATION and VERIFY your chaos theory of random chance creating everything from NOTHING.

 

[harmonica]

More ad hominem......emotionally based displays. Psych 101........humor masks anger. Why is this always the end result when the evidence can't be produced? Again.........its simple, just present the Scientific Experiment that falsifies the creation model presented in Genesis.

What science would that be? If its science its demonstrable through the "scientific method" of observation, reproduction, ending with consistent facts in evidence. Evolution is falsified by the very first tenet of Science...OBSERVATION. No one has observed any species evolving into a distinctly different species. Why? Because of an absurd claim.............it takes millions of years........

Proof of God? The existence of the Laws of Science logically demands the existence of God. In specific laws such as the Law of Cause and Effect, the Law of Biogenesis and the Laws of Thermodynamics. Truth does exist in the form of Prima Facie evidence.....and it stands as truth until you can Scientifically and Objectively disprove the Creation Model.

Because you can't see the forest for the trees does not indicate that the Forest does not exist. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see..........its called psychological blindness. And indeed........the religion of Secular Humanism is indeed a mental condition. Its not "I" that professes to be working with SCIENCE.....yet can't produce any scientific proof of that which is claimed by ad hominem rhetoric.

Again........IF its science.......allow science to work and falsify CREATION and VERIFY your chaos theory of random chance creating everything from NOTHING.

every one of you double talk babble crap---you can't prove there is a god.....by double talking crap that there is. you look double foolish

 

[Clyde 154]

every one of you double talk babble crap---you can't prove there is a god.....by double talking crap that there is. you look double foolish

Expected.........its a pattern demonstrated by all the smart people who are just to smart for God. Yet.......they never seem capable of articulating that genius. Personally........I think that genius is simply hate laced in emotional outbursts of anger.

"Jesus wept." And I can see why. "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before the swine, lest haply they trample them under their feet, and turn and rend you." -- Matthew 7:6 The Christ had characters such as you pegged.

Why do I even bother? A Christian is to admonish the professional scoffer and their misery in order to "........be ready to give a defense as to why Faith rests within your heart in defending the truth" (1 Peter 3:15)

Fools are encountered. But far from being mentally handicapped, he/she is a person who is morally deficient because he/she rejects the advise in approaching life as advocated by God.

Just a couple of TRUTHS? 1. He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself from the scoffer. 2. And he who reproves/rebukes the wicked gets insults for themselves. 3. Do not reprove a scoffer.....he will hate you for exposing their ignorance. 4. Reprove a wise man (show him his mistakes in not rightly dividing the word of truth) and he will show you love.

I simply defend the truth when its attacked. I have no choice, my duty is not to judge and sentence, "For we know Him that said, Vengeance belongeth unto Me, I will recompense, And again, the Lord shall judge His people. IT IS A FEARFUL THING TO FALL INTO THE HANDS OF THE LIVING GOD." (Heb. 10:30-31).

If I fail to reprove when the truth is attacked and do not attempt to correct the sinning soul could be lain upon me for not warning the individual.......If I present the truth and its rejected.......I have accomplished presenting the truth and the sinning soul in question belongs to the willful ignorant to be judged by the very word they have rejected. (John 12:48)

 

[harmonica]

Expected.........its a pattern demonstrated by all the smart people who are just to smart for God. Yet.......they never seem capable of articulating that genius. Personally........I think that genius is simply hate laced in emotional outbursts of anger.

"Jesus wept." And I can see why. "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before the swine, lest haply they trample them under their feet, and turn and rend you." -- Matthew 7:6 The Christ had characters such as you pegged.

Why do I even bother? A Christian is to admonish the professional scoffer and their misery in order to "........be ready to give a defense as to why Faith rests within your heart in defending the truth" (1 Peter 3:15)

Fools are encountered. But far from being mentally handicapped, he/she is a person who is morally deficient because he/she rejects the advise in approaching life as advocated by God.

Just a couple of TRUTHS? 1. He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself from the scoffer. 2. And he who reproves/rebukes the wicked gets insults for themselves. 3. Do not reprove a scoffer.....he will hate you for exposing their ignorance. 4. Reprove a wise man (show him his mistakes in not rightly dividing the word of truth) and he will show you love.

I simply defend the truth when its attacked. I have no choice, my duty is not to judge and sentence, "For we know Him that said, Vengeance belongeth unto Me, I will recompense, And again, the Lord shall judge His people. IT IS A FEARFUL THING TO FALL INTO THE HANDS OF THE LIVING GOD." (Heb. 10:30-31).

If I fail to reprove when the truth is attacked and do not attempt to correct the sinning soul could be lain upon me for not warning the individual.......If I present the truth and its rejected.......I have accomplished presenting the truth and the sinning soul in question belongs to the willful ignorant to be judged by the very word they have rejected. (John 12:48)

you have given no proof of god--you CAN'T ..everyone knows it

 

[surada]

More ad hominem......emotionally based displays. Psych 101........humor masks anger. Why is this always the end result when the evidence can't be produced? Again.........its simple, just present the Scientific Experiment that falsifies the creation model presented in Genesis.

What science would that be? If its science its demonstrable through the "scientific method" of observation, reproduction, ending with consistent facts in evidence. Evolution is falsified by the very first tenet of Science...OBSERVATION. No one has observed any species evolving into a distinctly different species. Why? Because of an absurd claim.............it takes millions of years........

Proof of God? The existence of the Laws of Science logically demands the existence of God. In specific laws such as the Law of Cause and Effect, the Law of Biogenesis and the Laws of Thermodynamics. Truth does exist in the form of Prima Facie evidence.....and it stands as truth until you can Scientifically and Objectively disprove the Creation Model.

Because you can't see the forest for the trees does not indicate that the Forest does not exist. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see..........its called psychological blindness. And indeed........the religion of Secular Humanism is indeed a mental condition. Its not "I" that professes to be working with SCIENCE.....yet can't produce any scientific proof of that which is claimed by ad hominem rhetoric.

Again........IF its science.......allow science to work and falsify CREATION and VERIFY your chaos theory of random chance creating everything from NOTHING.

Evolution isn't about a frog becoming a squirrel. Is that your understanding of evolution?

 

[Clyde 154]

Evolution isn't about a frog becoming a squirrel. Is that your understanding of evolution?

I presented you the OXFORD DICTIONARY description of the type of evolution that is taught in our schools. Do you have comprehension problems? Quote: The process whereby an ancestral species changes through time (without splitting) to become a distinctly different, and therefore recognized as a totally new species.

There is nothing within this Darwinian Evolution theory that can be verified by the scientific method. Evolutionists teach that life came about randomly from non living matter......aka as ABIOGENESIS anyway you wish to define it. Pasteur falsified this theory in the 19th century and demonstrated that life can only be reproduced via preexisting life within the same species.

Again......just how think do you stupid people to be? You present examples of HORZONIAL EVOLUTION.........change within species via preexisting life and attempt to lump it together with Darwin's theory as defined by OXFORD.......changes into a distinctly different species.

Again......its a fact of science that ALL LIFE has the capacity to adapt and change to its environment......within species. K9s will always be K9s regardless of adaptions.......Felines will always be feline......birds will always be birds.......some flightless, some that can even swim in order to survive .......but still they are BIRDS. There has never been an example of a dinosaur changing into a bird as is now being taught in our schools. They can't even explain how soft tissue has been found in T-TEX fossil finds, how it survived for (wink,wink) over 60 million years.....they are now presenting a theory that THE DIRT must have special properties......once that theory flopped.......now THE T-REX had a special IRON RICH diet that preserved the soft tissue for (cough, cough) 65 million years. And do they know this........They tested the blood of an Ostrich blood which they now claim is the descendants of T-Rex. LMAO I for one would like to see the 65 million year old standard that calibrated these tests.

They and you present nothing but SPECULATION, CONJECTURE, and ASSUMPTIONS void of any method of applying the scientific method.......as its first tenet is OBSERVATION. Thus you observe facts today and attempt to apply them in a static method over a 65 million year period........when the entire universe and our earth, its atmosphere, its oceans, its lakes, its land mass and topography is in a constant state of change. All that any theory can calibrate factually is limited to millennium not millions or billions as claimed.

They taught as truth for years that Dionsaurs were of a Reptilian lineage..........now they have morphed from cold blooded to warm blooded in order to explain 65 million year old soft tissue? Again..........LMAO

 

[surada]

I presented you the OXFORD DICTIONARY description of the type of evolution that is taught in our schools. Do you have comprehension problems? Quote: The process whereby an ancestral species changes through time (without splitting) to become a distinctly different, and therefore recognized as a totally new species.

There is nothing within this Darwinian Evolution theory that can be verified by the scientific method. Evolutionists teach that life came about randomly from non living matter......aka as ABIOGENESIS anyway you wish to define it. Pasteur falsified this theory in the 19th century and demonstrated that life can only be reproduced via preexisting life within the same species.

Again......just how think do you stupid people to be? You present examples of HORZONIAL EVOLUTION.........change within species via preexisting life and attempt to lump it together with Darwin's theory as defined by OXFORD.......changes into a distinctly different species.

Again......its a fact of science that ALL LIFE has the capacity to adapt and change to its environment......within species. K9s will always be K9s regardless of adaptions.......Felines will always be feline......birds will always be birds.......some flightless, some that can even swim in order to survive .......but still they are BIRDS. There has never been an example of a dinosaur changing into a bird as is now being taught in our schools. They can't even explain how soft tissue has been found in T-TEX fossil finds, how it survived for (wink,wink) over 60 million years.....they are now presenting a theory that THE DIRT must have special properties......once that theory flopped.......now THE T-REX had a special IRON RICH diet that preserved the soft tissue for (cough, cough) 65 million years. And do they know this........They tested the blood of an Ostrich blood which they now claim is the descendants of T-Rex. LMAO I for one would like to see the 65 million year old standard that calibrated these tests.

They taught as truth for years that Dionsaurs were of a Reptilian lineage..........now they have morphed from cold blooded to warm blooded in order to explain 65 million year old soft tissue? Again..........LMAO

There were many different sizes of dinosaurs.. Most scientists think birds are descended from dinosaurs. They think the large dinos had feaathers.

I never thought ABIOGENESIS was the same as evolution.

Why do you think you are an expert on soft tissue in ancient specimens.. Do you work in that field?

 

[Clyde 154]

There were many different sizes of dinosaurs.. Most scientists think birds are descended from dinosaurs. They think the large dinos had feaathers.

I never thought ABIOGENESIS was the same as evolution.

Why do you think you are an expert on soft tissue in ancient specimens.. Do you work in that field?

I consider myself an expert on LOGIC and REASON. I have a lifetime experience in doing as much, I survived over 2 decades in the US Military. I do have a BS in APPLIED SCIENCE.......the practical and potential application of quantifiable processes and materials that are governed by the Laws of Science in several fields of technology. No theories, just application of known quantities within known limits and tolerances.

When Did I profess to be an expert on Soft Tissue......I simply know that its scientifically impossible for soft tissue to survive for over 65 million years and there is no method under the sun to calibrate and connect the theory that T-REX and an Ostrich are of the same ancestral lineage as suggested in order to provide an idiotic hypothesis concerning the survival of soft tissue for 65 million years. Dinosaurs were first presented as examples of extinct LIZARDS (cold blooded animal)............now once soft tissue samples have been found the Cold Blooded suddenly morphed into warm blooded bird like animals.

Theoretical Evolutionists to do not search for facts to find truth.........they search for targeted dates that fit in their narrative in order to maintain the philosophy that "evolution" outside of species takes millions and or billions of years, they refuse to accept as a scientific possibility that the fossil in question is not millions but thousands of years old.

Yeah.......exactly, Most, They "THINK", you "THINK" you "DO NOT THINK". Simple question? Just how do "YOU THINK" life came into existence without suggesting that it evolved from non living matter/material? aka Abiogenesis. That's the problem.......you just demonstrated that the discipline that you are THINKING ABOUT.....is not based upon SCIENCE, its a dogmatic philosophy.

OXFORD DICTIONARY. PHILOSOPHY: A particular set of systems or BELIEFS resulting from a search for knowledge about life and the universe.

In other words evolution as instructed to our youth today is a BELIEF SYSTEM........as thinking takes place only in one place........the human mind.

 

[Clyde 154]

Again.........Humor masks anger. Basic Psych 101. What choice does one have when the truth can't be refuted.? Its like the final buzzer at a sporting event, meaning ITS OVER.

 

[BlindBoo]

Again.........Humor masks anger. Basic Psych 101. What choice does one have when the truth can't be refuted.? Its like the final buzzer at a sporting event, meaning ITS OVER.

That's funny. As if you have presented the truth by proclaiming your belief that the theory of evolution is "not based upon SCIENCE, its a dogmatic philosophy" "a BELIEF SYSTEM".