Stop Forcing Their Religion…

[alang1216]

9. “It is quite simply a lie to say that atheism is not a religious belief. It cannot be empirically documented that there is no God.

My atheism or agnosticism is not a religion. To my mind, it is obvious and empirically documented that there is no convincing evidence FOR a God or any other supernatural phenomenon.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. “It is quite simply a lie to say that atheism is not a religious belief. It cannot be empirically documented that there is no God.

My atheism or agnosticism is not a religion. To my mind, it is obvious and empirically documented that there is no convincing evidence FOR a God or any other supernatural phenomenon.

Of course there is.

“…a Creator of the universe…. nothing preexisted Genesis 1:1. … only God can create from nothing.



…everything—with the exception of God—has a beginning. Prior to God’s creating, there was nothing. That includes time. Thanks to Einstein, we know that time, too, had a beginning. God, therefore, also created time, which means God exists not only outside of nature but outside of time. God precedes time and will outlive time.

…unlike pre-Bible creation stories, there is complete silence regarding a birth of the deity. The God of Genesis 1:1, the God of the Bible, is not born….a god who is completely separate from nature—because God created nature. God, for the first time, is not part of nature.


So, if the basic description of God is that He is a creator….’the Creator’….it puts atheists at this disadvantage. None can deny that everything is here, has been created, and even atheistic science calls for a beginning, that Big Bang…..

…..then, what was there before the Big Bang?


At least religious folks have an explanation….
The Rational Bible: Genesis by Dennis Prager

 

[alang1216]

only God can create from nothing.

How do you know this? The truth is you don't, even assuming there is a God of the Bible. Everything we know about God comes from God, right? He could be completely wrong, intentionally or unintentionally. Maybe he is just the God of this universe and that is all he knows. Maybe he was created from nothing by an even greater God who keeps his presence secret from our God and judges him.

It cannot be empirically documented that there is no God of our God. Of course God' God may have his own God...

 

[PoliticalChic]

only God can create from nothing.

How do you know this? The truth is you don't, even assuming there is a God of the Bible. Everything we know about God comes from God, right? He could be completely wrong, intentionally or unintentionally. Maybe he is just the God of this universe and that is all he knows. Maybe he was created from nothing by an even greater God who keeps his presence secret from our God and judges him.

It cannot be empirically documented that there is no God of our God. Of course God' God may have his own God...

Those who are less able to think, leave government school with the idea that believing in God is irrational.
Raise your paw.

The very opposite is the case,….just look around and try to deny the existence of the entire universe and everything in it.

Taught in government school that there is no God, and to be amused that others adhere to such ….superstition….the graduated secularists turn from the clear and evident fact that they and everything around them, exists.



And no matter how one cuts it, the explanation that the question of origin provides is

a) everything always existed, or

b) things created themselves….or….

c) there must have been a Creator. This choice is most palatable, logically.




What is the secularist explanation for the reality of the universe?

 

[PoliticalChic]

12. Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America.
The same does not apply to militant secularism: for them, you must be silenced and punished if you profess traditional religion.



An example of their belief, their religion, that all must bend the neck and the knee in obeisance to…..

The Transgender Movement: forcing everyone to participate in some people's delusions.
Here's the problem for them: Male and Female are biological categories.
People lie; DNA doesn’t.


Gender dysphoria, a conflict between a person's physical or assigned gender and the gender with which he/she/ claims to identify, is a mental illness.

Demanding that other people participate in the delusion is not a right, it is totalitarian tyranny.

They deserve therapy, not credence; the same applies to those militant secularists.

 

[alang1216]

What is the secularist explanation for the reality of the universe?

I don't know how or when the universe came to be. But I do know that you don't know either.

 

[BlindBoo]

Taught in government school that there is no God,

Promoting atheism would be just as bad a promoting any particular brand of religion.

Religion in the Curriculum

Religion may be presented as part of a secular educational program. Programs that "teach about religion" are geared toward teaching students about the role of religion in the historical, cultural, literary and social development of the United States and other nations....."

"Teaching religion" amounts to religious indoctrination or practice and is clearly prohibited in public schools. A public school curriculum may not be devotional or doctrinal.3 Nor may it have the effect of promoting or inhibiting religion. A teacher must not promote or denigrate any particular religion, religion in general, or lack of religious belief.

 

[alang1216]

12. Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America.
The same does not apply to militant secularism: for them, you must be silenced and punished if you profess traditional religion.



An example of their belief, their religion, that all must bend the neck and the knee in obeisance to…..

The Transgender Movement: forcing everyone to participate in some people's delusions.
Here's the problem for them: Male and Female are biological categories.
People lie; DNA doesn’t.


Gender dysphoria, a conflict between a person's physical or assigned gender and the gender with which he/she/ claims to identify, is a mental illness.

Demanding that other people participate in the delusion is not a right, it is totalitarian tyranny.

They deserve therapy, not credence; the same applies to those militant secularists.

What is your explanation for people who are biologically neither completely male or female?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What is the secularist explanation for the reality of the universe?

I don't know how or when the universe came to be. But I do know that you don't know either.

What do secular scientists say about the origin of the universe, and life?

In the last few decades, those very same secular, atheistic scientists have come around to accept the very order that the Old Testament claimed was the course of creation:

The idea of the miraculous confluence of the first chapter of Genesis and the sequence advanced by modern science is as follows:

1. The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.

1. The images in that writer’s mind of how our planet and life came to be must have seemed curious for the knowledge and experience of the time! Yet….he presented it as though it had been dictated to him, as though he had been spoken to by God.

1. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, …then the seas appeared on earth, …and that life forms were photosynthetic.
2. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today.
3. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.
4. The above largely from chapter nine of zoologist Andrew Parker’s “The Genesis Enigma.”

1. Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!

Or…an alternative explanation: divine intervention.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Taught in government school that there is no God,

Promoting atheism would be just as bad a promoting any particular brand of religion.

Religion in the Curriculum

Religion may be presented as part of a secular educational program. Programs that "teach about religion" are geared toward teaching students about the role of religion in the historical, cultural, literary and social development of the United States and other nations....."

"Teaching religion" amounts to religious indoctrination or practice and is clearly prohibited in public schools. A public school curriculum may not be devotional or doctrinal.3 Nor may it have the effect of promoting or inhibiting religion. A teacher must not promote or denigrate any particular religion, religion in general, or lack of religious belief.

Why 'promote' Darwin's theory, the basis of the religion of secularism, as though it were fact.....when there is no proof of it, and, in fact, proof that it is incorrect?

BTW....know who first championed Darwin's theory?

One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.

What a coincidence, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

12. Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America.
The same does not apply to militant secularism: for them, you must be silenced and punished if you profess traditional religion.



An example of their belief, their religion, that all must bend the neck and the knee in obeisance to…..

The Transgender Movement: forcing everyone to participate in some people's delusions.
Here's the problem for them: Male and Female are biological categories.
People lie; DNA doesn’t.


Gender dysphoria, a conflict between a person's physical or assigned gender and the gender with which he/she/ claims to identify, is a mental illness.

Demanding that other people participate in the delusion is not a right, it is totalitarian tyranny.

They deserve therapy, not credence; the same applies to those militant secularists.

What is your explanation for people who are biologically neither completely male or female?

What do secular scientists say about the origin of the universe, and life?

In the last few decades, those very same secular, atheistic scientists have come around to accept the very order that the Old Testament claimed was the course of creation:

 

[PoliticalChic]

Taught in government school that there is no God,

Promoting atheism would be just as bad a promoting any particular brand of religion.

Religion in the Curriculum

Religion may be presented as part of a secular educational program. Programs that "teach about religion" are geared toward teaching students about the role of religion in the historical, cultural, literary and social development of the United States and other nations....."

"Teaching religion" amounts to religious indoctrination or practice and is clearly prohibited in public schools. A public school curriculum may not be devotional or doctrinal.3 Nor may it have the effect of promoting or inhibiting religion. A teacher must not promote or denigrate any particular religion, religion in general, or lack of religious belief.

"Teaching religion" amounts to religious indoctrination or practice and is clearly prohibited in public schools."

Teaching Darwinism, the same.

 

[BlindBoo]

Taught in government school that there is no God,

Promoting atheism would be just as bad a promoting any particular brand of religion.

Religion in the Curriculum

Religion may be presented as part of a secular educational program. Programs that "teach about religion" are geared toward teaching students about the role of religion in the historical, cultural, literary and social development of the United States and other nations....."

"Teaching religion" amounts to religious indoctrination or practice and is clearly prohibited in public schools. A public school curriculum may not be devotional or doctrinal.3 Nor may it have the effect of promoting or inhibiting religion. A teacher must not promote or denigrate any particular religion, religion in general, or lack of religious belief.

Why 'promote' Darwin's theory, the basis of the religion of secularism, as though it were fact.....when there is no proof of it, and, in fact, proof that it is incorrect?

BTW....know who first championed Darwin's theory?

One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.

What a coincidence, huh?

The Theory of Evolution belongs in a science class, far away from the courses teaching Religion and Mythology.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Taught in government school that there is no God,

Promoting atheism would be just as bad a promoting any particular brand of religion.

Religion in the Curriculum

Religion may be presented as part of a secular educational program. Programs that "teach about religion" are geared toward teaching students about the role of religion in the historical, cultural, literary and social development of the United States and other nations....."

"Teaching religion" amounts to religious indoctrination or practice and is clearly prohibited in public schools. A public school curriculum may not be devotional or doctrinal.3 Nor may it have the effect of promoting or inhibiting religion. A teacher must not promote or denigrate any particular religion, religion in general, or lack of religious belief.

Why 'promote' Darwin's theory, the basis of the religion of secularism, as though it were fact.....when there is no proof of it, and, in fact, proof that it is incorrect?

BTW....know who first championed Darwin's theory?

One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.

What a coincidence, huh?

The Theory of Evolution belongs in a science class, far away from the courses teaching Religion and Mythology.

You just proved how ignorant and indoctrinated you are.




The Cambrian Explosion destroys Darwin's theory, and exposes your ignorance.
But.....that's what makes you useful to the Left.


There is no doubt that Darwin's theory is elegant, but if one wishes to move beyond philosophy, into empirical science, i.e., ideas backed up by actual physical evidence, Darwinism falls short. Here is the source of the problem: 'Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies.... The Cambrian explosion, or Cambrian radiation, was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia

a. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



Darwin posited evolution based on a gradual series of small changes, many of which would result in doom for the organism, but some which would make same better equipped to survive, and be passed on. But early on, contemporary paleontologists and geologists found contrary fossil evidence: the Cambrian explosion revealed "geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as any found in the gaudiest science fiction." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Ibid.

Clearly, there is no proven 'fact' called evolution.

Or..... devise an experiment to verify evolution. Keep trying. There must be one.

 

[alang1216]

What is the secularist explanation for the reality of the universe?

I don't know how or when the universe came to be. But I do know that you don't know either.

What do secular scientists say about the origin of the universe, and life?

In the last few decades, those very same secular, atheistic scientists have come around to accept the very order that the Old Testament claimed was the course of creation:

The idea of the miraculous confluence of the first chapter of Genesis and the sequence advanced by modern science is as follows:

1. The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.

1. The images in that writer’s mind of how our planet and life came to be must have seemed curious for the knowledge and experience of the time! Yet….he presented it as though it had been dictated to him, as though he had been spoken to by God.

1. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, …then the seas appeared on earth, …and that life forms were photosynthetic.
2. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today.
3. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.
4. The above largely from chapter nine of zoologist Andrew Parker’s “The Genesis Enigma.”

1. Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!

Or…an alternative explanation: divine intervention.

Remarkable confluence! At least up until Day 1:

First day
3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.[48]​

Somehow God created light before He created the Sun and then he created night and day before he created the revolving Earth. Uncanny.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What is the secularist explanation for the reality of the universe?

I don't know how or when the universe came to be. But I do know that you don't know either.

What do secular scientists say about the origin of the universe, and life?

In the last few decades, those very same secular, atheistic scientists have come around to accept the very order that the Old Testament claimed was the course of creation:

The idea of the miraculous confluence of the first chapter of Genesis and the sequence advanced by modern science is as follows:

1. The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.

1. The images in that writer’s mind of how our planet and life came to be must have seemed curious for the knowledge and experience of the time! Yet….he presented it as though it had been dictated to him, as though he had been spoken to by God.

1. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, …then the seas appeared on earth, …and that life forms were photosynthetic.
2. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today.
3. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.
4. The above largely from chapter nine of zoologist Andrew Parker’s “The Genesis Enigma.”

1. Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!

Or…an alternative explanation: divine intervention.

Remarkable confluence! At least up until Day 1:

First day
3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.[48]​

Somehow God created light before He created the Sun and then he created night and day before he created the revolving Earth. Uncanny.

Actually.....totally accurate, point for point.
Now...about the origin of the universe.....and the fact that modern science now accepts the very same order of events as Genesis.....

1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis. Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.



2. Modern science has largely revealed the earth’s history with respect to the land and the seas. Coincidently, the first chapter of the Bible relates a formation, a creation narrative, strangely similar to scientific understanding.


a. Genesis 1: 6-10…”And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dryland appear: and it was so. And God called the dry landEarth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it wasgood.


b. “The formation of the sea as well as the land is chosen as the second stage in the creation on the Bible’s first page. Modern science reveals that land and sea certainly were in place before the next stage in the scientific account of the history of the universe.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p.54. What a coincidence….or confluence.


Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….



3. The opening page of Genesis asserts that plant life appeared after the seas were formed, and names specifically, grass, herbs and fruit trees. According to the author of Genesis, this is the stage where life actually begins: this is the first mention life of any kind. Plant life. Yet, the simple forms of life that are considered plant life were not discovered until a couple of millennia after Genesis was completed. So…how come Genesis mentions grass, herbs, and fruit trees at precisely this moment on the creation narrative? Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter four.


a. Genesis 1: 11-12 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


b. “ From about 400 million years back to 600 million years, all kinds of complex multicellular life would have been confined to the waters of the earth….Our world's ecosystems depend upon photosynthesis to construct the fuel that all life runs on; in an ancient world with conditions similar to today's, you would need plants (as organisms that can make complex "fuel" molecules using simple building blocks and energy available from the environment, plants are known as one type of autotrophs, or "self-feeders") to evolve first, or there would be no bottom link to the food chain.” Biology of Animals & Plants - Origins & History of Life on Earth



4. Track the events in the creation account of Genesis and it’s amazing how closely the events conform to the current view of modern science. An explosion- the universe – oceans/land - plants- …And next, in verse 20, we find: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


Kind of unusual…since the author of Genesis, and, if we are to believe that the first one to speak those words, Moses, didn’t really live in a habitat that one might call ‘sea side.’


Would have been understandable if this space in the Bible had, instead, have focused on the numbers of land mammals, birds, or insects found in ancient Israel, wouldn’t it? But, instead, marine organisms are specifically named: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,…’


Wouldn’t it be interesting if science find lots and lots of marine organisms extant at this point? Imagine if Genesis actually parallels the history of life on earth as expounded by science. Be a heck of a coincidence.

a. A truly important development took place some 521 million years ago, in the geological period known as the Cambrian. “The most abundant and diverse animals of Cambrian time were the trilobites. Trilobites had long antennae, compound eyes, many jointed legs, and a hard exoskeleton like many of their modern arthropod relatives, such as lobsters, crabs, and insects. The Cambrian is sometimes called the "Age of Trilobites"…” Redirect


b. No earlier fossils were found during Darwin’s lifetime: “If the theory [evolution] be true it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited ... the world swarmed with living creatures. [Yet] to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these earliest periods. . . I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable.” http://www.paleosoc.org/Oldest_Fossil.pdf

....life at this stage, about 500 million years ago, was entirely marine.

How could the Genesis writer have gotten this right?

That writer…he’s landlocked, knows little of diversity….what are the odds that ‘chance’ is the answer?


What are the odds?



5. The sequence of events from the creation of the universe, to the present, begin with great explosion that produces the universe, including the earth. The earth cools enough for oceans to form. The first life is plant life, able to photosynthesize, and add oxygen to the atmosphere. All sorts of simple non-plants fill the seas, most wormlike, with soft bodies. Along come the trilobites, hugely advanced, with hard bodies…and most amazingly, with true eyes! This makes them the primary predators….but, imposes enormous evolutionary pressure on the other organisms. The result is the Cambrian explosion, lots of small organisms with defensive armor and hard exoskeletons, some 521 million years ago. So says modern science.


a. “…Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey. Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….Genesis seems to have picked out all the events of the highest order of importance, and put them in the right order….I don’t know the odds against such a parallel- against making a successful guess at the scientific orthodoxy of three thousand year into the future from a knowledge base of nothing- but they must be extraordinarily long.” Parker, Op. Cit., p.163-164.


b. An interesting sidelight is the ‘evolution of the Bible’ itself. Christians have incorporated a great deal of science’s process. Early in the 20th century, the Scofield Reference Bible was published. This was a new version of the King James Bible with which added a note to Genesis, suggesting what is called the “gap theory.’ It allows that millions of years could have passed between God’s creation of the heavens and the earth, thereby freeing Genesis from the literal six-day process. “What it left was a series- the same series- of timeless events; and it is these that match the scientific account of life’s history.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.


6. Unavoidable is the recognition that, once the restrictions due to the ‘six-day’ view are removed, the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis, written millennia earlier: light from an explosion (the Big Bang), universe/earth formed, the seas from the cooling earth, plants as the first life forms; abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion), the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today. Neat, eh?

Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?


7. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.


The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.

 

[BlindBoo]

Taught in government school that there is no God,

Promoting atheism would be just as bad a promoting any particular brand of religion.

Religion in the Curriculum

Religion may be presented as part of a secular educational program. Programs that "teach about religion" are geared toward teaching students about the role of religion in the historical, cultural, literary and social development of the United States and other nations....."

"Teaching religion" amounts to religious indoctrination or practice and is clearly prohibited in public schools. A public school curriculum may not be devotional or doctrinal.3 Nor may it have the effect of promoting or inhibiting religion. A teacher must not promote or denigrate any particular religion, religion in general, or lack of religious belief.

Why 'promote' Darwin's theory, the basis of the religion of secularism, as though it were fact.....when there is no proof of it, and, in fact, proof that it is incorrect?

BTW....know who first championed Darwin's theory?

One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.

What a coincidence, huh?

The Theory of Evolution belongs in a science class, far away from the courses teaching Religion and Mythology.

You just proved how ignorant and indoctrinated you are.




The Cambrian Explosion destroys Darwin's theory, and exposes your ignorance.
But.....that's what makes you useful to the Left.


There is no doubt that Darwin's theory is elegant, but if one wishes to move beyond philosophy, into empirical science, i.e., ideas backed up by actual physical evidence, Darwinism falls short. Here is the source of the problem: 'Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies.... The Cambrian explosion, or Cambrian radiation, was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia

a. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



Darwin posited evolution based on a gradual series of small changes, many of which would result in doom for the organism, but some which would make same better equipped to survive, and be passed on. But early on, contemporary paleontologists and geologists found contrary fossil evidence: the Cambrian explosion revealed "geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as any found in the gaudiest science fiction." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Ibid.

Clearly, there is no proven 'fact' called evolution.

Or..... devise an experiment to verify evolution. Keep trying. There must be one.

The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of challenging and important questions because it represents the time during which the main branches of the animal tree of life became established. It does not create a challenge to the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution, the descent of all living species from a common ancestor. This important period in the history of life extended over millions of years, plenty of time for the evolution of these new body plans (phyla) to occur. Furthermore, the fossil record provides numerous examples of organisms that appear transitional between living phyla and their common ancestors. The ongoing research about the Cambrian period is an exciting opportunity to advance our understanding of how evolutionary processes work, and the environmental factors shaping them.

Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution? - Common-questions

 

[PoliticalChic]

Taught in government school that there is no God,

Promoting atheism would be just as bad a promoting any particular brand of religion.

Religion in the Curriculum

Religion may be presented as part of a secular educational program. Programs that "teach about religion" are geared toward teaching students about the role of religion in the historical, cultural, literary and social development of the United States and other nations....."

"Teaching religion" amounts to religious indoctrination or practice and is clearly prohibited in public schools. A public school curriculum may not be devotional or doctrinal.3 Nor may it have the effect of promoting or inhibiting religion. A teacher must not promote or denigrate any particular religion, religion in general, or lack of religious belief.

Why 'promote' Darwin's theory, the basis of the religion of secularism, as though it were fact.....when there is no proof of it, and, in fact, proof that it is incorrect?

BTW....know who first championed Darwin's theory?

One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.

What a coincidence, huh?

The Theory of Evolution belongs in a science class, far away from the courses teaching Religion and Mythology.

You just proved how ignorant and indoctrinated you are.




The Cambrian Explosion destroys Darwin's theory, and exposes your ignorance.
But.....that's what makes you useful to the Left.


There is no doubt that Darwin's theory is elegant, but if one wishes to move beyond philosophy, into empirical science, i.e., ideas backed up by actual physical evidence, Darwinism falls short. Here is the source of the problem: 'Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies.... The Cambrian explosion, or Cambrian radiation, was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia

a. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



Darwin posited evolution based on a gradual series of small changes, many of which would result in doom for the organism, but some which would make same better equipped to survive, and be passed on. But early on, contemporary paleontologists and geologists found contrary fossil evidence: the Cambrian explosion revealed "geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as any found in the gaudiest science fiction." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Ibid.

Clearly, there is no proven 'fact' called evolution.

Or..... devise an experiment to verify evolution. Keep trying. There must be one.

The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of challenging and important questions because it represents the time during which the main branches of the animal tree of life became established. It does not create a challenge to the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution, the descent of all living species from a common ancestor. This important period in the history of life extended over millions of years, plenty of time for the evolution of these new body plans (phyla) to occur. Furthermore, the fossil record provides numerous examples of organisms that appear transitional between living phyla and their common ancestors. The ongoing research about the Cambrian period is an exciting opportunity to advance our understanding of how evolutionary processes work, and the environmental factors shaping them.

Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution? - Common-questions

Glad you are looking into the sham called 'Darwinian theory.'

Not only did the Cambrian Explosion explode the theory, but latest developments show the very opposite .....THE OPPOSITE...of what Darwin predicted: entire, complex, complete phyla before simpler organisms.



Here:

. "The Chengjiang fauna makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74

The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.


" The Lower Cambrian sediments near Chengjiang have preserved fossils of such
excellent quality that soft tissues and organs, such as eyes, intestines, stomachs, digestive
glands, sensory organs, epidermis, bristles, mouths and nerves can be observed in detail.
Even fossilized embryos of sponges are present in the Precambrian strata near Chengjiang."
J.Y. Chen, C.W. Li, Paul Chien, G.Q. Zhou and Feng Gao, “Weng’an Biota—A Light Casting on the Precambrian World,” presented to: The Origin of Animal Body Plans and Their Fossil Records conference (Kunming, China, June 20-26, 1999). Sponsored by the Early Life Research Center and The Chinese Academy of Sciences.




So.....do we agree? Darwin is buried by Chengjiang!




And here is why you've been lied to about Darwin's accuracy:

"Just because any religious idea, any idea of any god at all, any flirtation even with a god, is the most inexpressible foulness, particularly tolerantly (and often even favourably) accepted by the democratic bourgeoisie—for that very reason it is the most dangerous foulness, the most shameful “infection.” A million physical sins, dirty tricks, acts of violence and infections are much more easily discovered by the crowd, and therefore are much less dangerous, than the nubile, spiritual idea of god, dressed up in the most attractive “ideological” costumes." Letter from Lenin to Maxim Gorky, Written on November 13 or 14, 1913 Lenin 55. TO MAXIM GORKY



Too bad you swallowed the lies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Taught in government school that there is no God,

Promoting atheism would be just as bad a promoting any particular brand of religion.

Religion in the Curriculum

Religion may be presented as part of a secular educational program. Programs that "teach about religion" are geared toward teaching students about the role of religion in the historical, cultural, literary and social development of the United States and other nations....."

"Teaching religion" amounts to religious indoctrination or practice and is clearly prohibited in public schools. A public school curriculum may not be devotional or doctrinal.3 Nor may it have the effect of promoting or inhibiting religion. A teacher must not promote or denigrate any particular religion, religion in general, or lack of religious belief.

Why 'promote' Darwin's theory, the basis of the religion of secularism, as though it were fact.....when there is no proof of it, and, in fact, proof that it is incorrect?

BTW....know who first championed Darwin's theory?

One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.

What a coincidence, huh?

The Theory of Evolution belongs in a science class, far away from the courses teaching Religion and Mythology.

You just proved how ignorant and indoctrinated you are.




The Cambrian Explosion destroys Darwin's theory, and exposes your ignorance.
But.....that's what makes you useful to the Left.


There is no doubt that Darwin's theory is elegant, but if one wishes to move beyond philosophy, into empirical science, i.e., ideas backed up by actual physical evidence, Darwinism falls short. Here is the source of the problem: 'Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies.... The Cambrian explosion, or Cambrian radiation, was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia

a. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



Darwin posited evolution based on a gradual series of small changes, many of which would result in doom for the organism, but some which would make same better equipped to survive, and be passed on. But early on, contemporary paleontologists and geologists found contrary fossil evidence: the Cambrian explosion revealed "geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as any found in the gaudiest science fiction." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Ibid.

Clearly, there is no proven 'fact' called evolution.

Or..... devise an experiment to verify evolution. Keep trying. There must be one.

The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of challenging and important questions because it represents the time during which the main branches of the animal tree of life became established. It does not create a challenge to the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution, the descent of all living species from a common ancestor. This important period in the history of life extended over millions of years, plenty of time for the evolution of these new body plans (phyla) to occur. Furthermore, the fossil record provides numerous examples of organisms that appear transitional between living phyla and their common ancestors. The ongoing research about the Cambrian period is an exciting opportunity to advance our understanding of how evolutionary processes work, and the environmental factors shaping them.

Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution? - Common-questions

"Furthermore, the fossil record provides numerous examples of organisms that appear transitional between living phyla and their common ancestors."


Another lie.




There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.






b. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.”
The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution | Biology Direct | Full Text
Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.



a. Darwin himself commented on the importance of such links:

“The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.”

b. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).


c. Alan H. Linton, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology
University of Bristol (UK), said in a 2001 article,

"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another "¦ Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution "¦ throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms." Alan H. Linton (Signee of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism)

d. "It is totally wrong. It's wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before Pasteur. It's wrong like phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is wrong," said the outspoken biologist Lynn Margulis about her latest target: the dogma of Darwinian evolution. [With her theses], Margulis was . . . denouncing the modern framework of the century-old theory of Darwinism, which holds that new species build up from an unbroken line of gradual, independent, random variations. Margulis is not alone in challenging the stronghold of Darwinian theory, but few have been so blunt. As cited in Kevin Kelly's book, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems and the Economic World12 Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, London: Fourth Estate, 1995, pp. 470-471

e. Even the fossil record definitively rejects the concept of speciation. There is absolutely no sign in the record of the countless intermediate species that should have once lived according to Darwinism. It has now been acknowledged that Darwin's claim that these fossils would be found in the future is definitely incorrect. http://www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com/regarding_speciation.php

f. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)



Wise up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

13. “…long convenient for secularists to insist that it is possible for government to be neutral about religion by imposing their religion on everyone.

But this is a falsehood, and its falsity is ever more obvious in today’s culture wars, which are increasingly divided according to whether one believes in a deity — and, by extension, an objective standard outside oneself — or not.

The culture war is in fact a religious war between relativism and orthodoxy, between the belief that truth is subjective and the belief that truth is objective, knowable, independent of one’s opinions about it, and merits reverence.”
Barr: The People Trying To 'Impose Their Values' Are 'Militant Secularists'





What happens when one doesn’t toe the transgender line?


“Actress shares photo of vagina cupcakes to ‘honor’ International Women’s Day. Then she’s forced to apologize. You already know why.

As a result, Messing faced heavy backlash on social media because she didn't include transgender women without a vagina in her tribute to women.” Actress shares photo of vagina cupcakes to ‘honor’ International Women’s Day. Then she’s forced to apologize. You already know why.




The secularist mafia will destroy you if you don't accept their indoctrination.