Lying Brainwashing Christians

[Powerman]

Oh, you can just shut your little rhetoric spewing mouth about this bullcrap. On 9/11, not a SINGLE Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Shintoist, Pagan, Wiccan, Taoist, Rastafarian, or Atheist flew a plane into a building or started dancing in the streets over the deaths of thousands of people. Who was it doing that? Bible-thumpers? Those horrible, conspiring, greedy Jews? No! Every single last one was a frickin' Muslim, and nearly all Arab Muslims would as soon slit your throat as look at you. Islam is one of the most violent threats we have ever faced, but you and your ilk would rather go beat Christians in the head for daring to take religion outside their own homes when most Christian institutions are charities, not armies.

Oh sure, beat up on the racist Christian. After all, anybody who works homeless shelters, gives generously to charity, and does relief work in foreign countries must be nothing but a dirty, evil racist. In the meantime, if an entire religion declares war on us, we should give all of them a free pass in the name of religious tolerance. Yeah, well where's the frickin' tolerance for Christians?

I seriously doubt he is trying to defend terrorism. And personally I don't care for Islam because most of it's followers are primitive. But this thread has nothing to do with Islam. I'm not sure what sort of drugs that Marx guy is on but he really goes off topic on different tangents that are literally irrelevant to the subject. Terrorists flying planes into buildings has literally nothing to do with whether or not we should teach lies to our kids in school. If anything it might be a perfect example of why we SHOULDN'T lie and brainwash people into thinking things that aren't true.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

We have a poster on this board who regularly spews white supremacy and anti-Semitism and not a peep out of you. Then, in defense of Christianity, I post a few facts about some of the things Moslems have done around the world, and now I'm Hitler lite.

I apologize for not wasting more of my time on this board. I'm unfamiliar with who you are talking about.

Oh yes, I forgot, anti-semitism has become the Left's new fashion statement. And, of course, Christian-bashing has never gone out of style, in fact, it's trés chic, mon ami!

If you could point out where I had said anything anti-semitic you might have a point. Otherwise you're just making prejudicial statements like a good bigot.

And if the "detainment" remark you made refers to those animals that we have down in Gitmo, let me remind you that many of them would slit your throat and your family's as soon as look at you.

"many of them" - OK, so what about the rest?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Oh, you can just shut your little rhetoric spewing mouth about this bullcrap. On 9/11, not a SINGLE Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Shintoist, Pagan, Wiccan, Taoist, Rastafarian, or Atheist flew a plane into a building or started dancing in the streets over the deaths of thousands of people. Who was it doing that? Bible-thumpers? Those horrible, conspiring, greedy Jews? No! Every single last one was a frickin' Muslim, and nearly all Arab Muslims would as soon slit your throat as look at you. Islam is one of the most violent threats we have ever faced, but you and your ilk would rather go beat Christians in the head for daring to take religion outside their own homes when most Christian institutions are charities, not armies.

More bigotry. How enlightening.

I used to live in a neighborhood with many Moslems. None of them ever tried to slit my throat, or dance in the streets when Americans died.

Certainly none of them willingly told blatant lies about my beliefs like you.

So I take it you have a problem with the President attempting to help the Moslems of Iraq by bestowing freedom on them?

 

[dmp]

More bigotry. How enlightening.

If you think Hobbit's post was bigoted, you are impossible to debate with. Seriously...that's a really dumb proclimation. Has no basis in reality. It's just one of those extremist-labels 'the left' loves to place upon those with whom they disagree.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

If you think Hobbit's post was bigoted, you are impossible to debate with. Seriously...that's a really dumb proclimation. Has no basis in reality. It's just one of those extremist-labels 'the left' loves to place upon those with whom they disagree.

Well, it wasn't bigotted at all, you know, except for the part where says that since the 9/11 hijackers identify as Moslems, nearly all Moslems must be dispicable people. Unless of course you don't find "wanting to slit your throat as soon as look at you" to be dispicable.


In fact, bigotry is entirely based on the act of hating an entire group of people because of the actions of a few of that group.

 

[dmp]

Well, it wasn't bigotted at all, you know, except for the part where says that since the 9/11 hijackers identify as Moslems, nearly all Moslems must be dispicable people. Unless of course you don't find "wanting to slit your throat as soon as look at you" to be dispicable.


In fact, bigotry is entirely based on the act of hating an entire group of people because of the actions of a few of that group.

*Arab Moslems. I believe there are Moslems who aren't into their faith enough to care - but for those who really care about their faith, yeah, they'd just as soon slit your neck as anything.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

*Arab Moslems. I believe there are Moslems who aren't into their faith enough to care - but for those who really care about their faith, yeah, they'd just as soon slit your neck as anything.

That's what we call an ignorant bigotted lie. I used to live 2 blocks from a Mosque. You don't even know what you're talking about. But of course, bigots rarely realize they are bigots.

 

[dmp]

That's what we call an ignorant bigotted lie. I used to live 2 blocks from a Mosque. You don't even know what you're talking about. But of course, bigots rarely realize they are bigots.

I guess I'm sorry you are blind to truth.

Blacks committ more crimes than whites.
More women have abortions than men.
Homosexuality is a behaviour choice.
Those who strictly follow Islam want to kill you.

Call me a bigot - doesn't make me any less right.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I guess I'm sorry you are blind to truth.

Blacks committ more crimes than whites.

Well, obviously this must mean most blacks want to slit your throat.

More women have abortions than men.

Obviously this must mean women are bad people.

Homosexuality is a behaviour choice.

Are we playing "which one of these is not like the others"? THe above isn't a generalization of a group of people, its a statement of the cause of sexual orientation. Do I win a prize for getting the right answer?

Those who strictly follow Islam want to kill you.

Define "strictly follow Islam".

The guy I used to buy lunch from every other day sure missed a lot of opportunities. I'm sure when he closed down his store for a few hours every Friday to have a Moslem community meeting they were all plotting on how to kill me. Am I getting close to developing your level of fear and ignorance?

 

[Powerman]

I guess I'm sorry you are blind to truth.

Blacks committ more crimes than whites.
More women have abortions than men.
Homosexuality is a behaviour choice.
Those who strictly follow Islam want to kill you.

Call me a bigot - doesn't make me any less right.

OK can we get off of this bigotry stuff and get back on topic.

I propose a question to you

Do you understand what this irrecucible complexity means? I mean that in the most sincere way because I don't understand what it means. Everyone throws out the term and says that it disproves evolution but I haven't seen anyone say HOW it does.

This is the definition from the link you posted in the closed topic

A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"

What does that even mean and what does that have to do with evolution. Like I said I've had my appendix and my tonsils and adenoinds removed and I'm still here so maybe I'm not getting the idea.

 

[KarlMarx]

But of course, bigots rarely realize they are bigots.

The implication being that you aren't a bigot....
Well, whether you are or aren't is moot... you're definitely a troll and on my "ignore" list....

 

[KarlMarx]

OK can we get off of this bigotry stuff and get back on topic.

I propose a question to you

Do you understand what this irrecucible complexity means? I mean that in the most sincere way because I don't understand what it means. Everyone throws out the term and says that it disproves evolution but I haven't seen anyone say HOW it does.

This is the definition from the link you posted in the closed topic

A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"

What does that even mean and what does that have to do with evolution. Like I said I've had my appendix and my tonsils and adenoinds removed and I'm still here so maybe I'm not getting the idea.

Sorry that I derailed the topic... I was trying to make a point, but I guess it got lost in the translation... to try and make up for it, here's a link to Wikipedia on "irreducible complexity"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Karl

 

[Powerman]

The implication being that you aren't a bigot....
Well, whether you are or aren't is moot... you're definitely a troll and on my "ignore" list....

That kid in your avatar from the movie really creeps me out for some reason.

 

[Powerman]

Sorry that I derailed the topic... I was trying to make a point, but I guess it got lost in the translation... to try and make up for it, here's a link to Wikipedia on "irreducible complexity"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Karl

Karl I've read the link and Wikipedia claims that mainstream science has strongly disproven a lot of this. It seems that in some cases it might apply however.

But I want to point this out. This irreducible complexity isn't any law of science. It's a hypothesis. So you can't say that you can disprove evolution by irreducible complexity if it's not something that's even close to being generally accepted by mainstream science. I'd need to see more support before I'd give much credibility to such an idea.

 

[KarlMarx]

Karl I've read the link and Wikipedia claims that mainstream science has strongly disproven a lot of this. It seems that in some cases it might apply however.

But I want to point this out. This irreducible complexity isn't any law of science. It's a hypothesis. So you can't say that you can disprove evolution by irreducible complexity if it's not something that's even close to being generally accepted by mainstream science. I'd need to see more support before I'd give much credibility to such an idea.

As I may have said before.... I'm not sure whether evolution occurred or not. I believe that the Bible creation account is true .... if you take into account that the Hebrew word for "day" is also the same as "age"... in which case, the idea of a a very old universe is not inconsistent with the Bible....

Another hypothesis that I have is that animals that survived the big those cataclysms from the past (e.g. asteroids hitting the earth) may have mutated... which may explain why there is no "in between" species in the fossil records....

Darwin assumed a steady state earth, i.e. no cataclysms took place, the north pole didn't shift, the magnetic field of the Earth didn't collapse... we know that isn't true. So I think that although evolution may have a lot of evidence to back it up, it still has problems, and perhaps, may eventually be found to not be true. I think that the jury is still out on that one...

 

[Powerman]

True but you also have to realize that the theory of evolution today isn't necessarily the same as it was when it was first proposed.

I personally believe that continental drift is a great supporter of evolution. It would make sense if both were true.

 

[KarlMarx]

True but you also have to realize that the theory of evolution today isn't necessarily the same as it was when it was first proposed.

I personally believe that continental drift is a great supporter of evolution. It would make sense if both were true.

I did have another thought.... and, if you know me, you won't be surprised that it involves Ancient Egypt..... but here goes....

We all know that the Egyptians embalmed their dead... many mummies did not survive, but many have.... now consider how old they are.... in some cases, almost 4,000 years old.... we have mummified remains from other cultures ... the one that comes to mind are the Inca.... although they did not deliberately embalm their dead, the extremely arid conditions caused their corpses to mummify naturally... There is also the case of the "Ice Man"... the remains of a man who was trapped in an avalanche in the Swiss Alps thousands of years ago.

If Evolution, at least the way I was taught it, is correct, then we should expect to see at least some minor differences between those remains and us. My guess is that you probably won't find any. Does that mean that evolution didn't happen? Perhaps and perhaps not, but I think that it at least helps the arguement that the gradual changes in organisms over time that most people associate with evolution did not happen.

 

[Powerman]

I did have another thought.... and, if you know me, you won't be surprised that it involves Ancient Egypt..... but here goes....

We all know that the Egyptians embalmed their dead... many mummies did not survive, but many have.... now consider how old they are.... in some cases, almost 4,000 years old.... we have mummified remains from other cultures ... the one that comes to mind are the Inca.... although they did not deliberately embalm their dead, the extremely arid conditions caused their corpses to mummify naturally... There is also the case of the "Ice Man"... the remains of a man who was trapped in an avalanche in the Swiss Alps thousands of years ago.

If Evolution, at least the way I was taught it, is correct, then we should expect to see at least some minor differences between those remains and us. My guess is that you probably won't find any. Does that mean that evolution didn't happen? Perhaps and perhaps not, but I think that it at least helps the arguement that the gradual changes in organisms over time that most people associate with evolution did not happen.

If in fact that was the way that you were taught evolution then you were in fact taught wrong. It takes much longer than several thousand years for noticable changes to occur. And I may be in the minority but I don't think that changes are as gradual as people think. I think they are punctuated. But that's just my guess. But I don't believe that evolution says that we should expect noticable differences in a few thousand years.

But anyways check out this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_timeline

Go to 60 thousand years ago. That is the oldest human remains we have found. So if humans still existed 60 thousand years ago I don't think that you would expect to find any major differences 4000 years ago. There is a chance that you may see someone being shorter or something but the basics are all still there.

 

[KarlMarx]

If in fact that was the way that you were taught evolution then you were in fact taught wrong. It takes much longer than several thousand years for noticable changes to occur. And I may be in the minority but I don't think that changes are as gradual as people think. I think they are punctuated. But that's just my guess. But I don't believe that evolution says that we should expect noticable differences in a few thousand years.

But anyways check out this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_timeline

Go to 60 thousand years ago. That is the oldest human remains we have found. So if humans still existed 60 thousand years ago I don't think that you would expect to find any major differences 4000 years ago. There is a chance that you may see someone being shorter or something but the basics are all still there.

That's what I'm driving at... if evolution is punctuated, could it be that the evolution occured as a result of say, collapses in the Earth's magnetic field, which would have caused more mutations to occur rather than as a result of natural selection? If so, what's the difference between mutation and evolution?

 

[Powerman]

That's what I'm driving at... if evolution is punctuated, could it be that the evolution occured as a result of say, collapses in the Earth's magnetic field, which would have caused more mutations to occur rather than as a result of natural selection? If so, what's the difference between mutation and evolution?

Well I'm not sure exactly what caused evolution or whether or not it is actually punctuated. But it would appear to be beneficial with respect to the natural selection idea. As far as what the difference is between mutation and evolution I would say that evolution is just beneficial mutations.