The LION hath roared: GOOD NEWS for modern man
us4...@att.net
atheists I'm sure it is a subject of great importance. However the roaring of the LION was
heard by all of humanity...
And one of the elders saith unto me, "Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the
Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof".
(Revelation 5:5)
And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.
(Revelation 5:7)
And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down
before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which
are the prayers of saints. And they sung a new song, saying, "Thou art worthy to take the
book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by
thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto
our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth". (Revelation 5:8-10)
Yes, it is true that the God of Israel chose the ancient Hebrew nation alone in order to
make Himself known.... and from there expanded His acceptance to all humans of all races
and nations everywhere. This "acceptance" however has absolutely nothing to do with the
modern, misguided lies of "evolution".
However, it is clear that some men, having free-will choices... will end up making all the
wrong choices and will eventually fall under the ROD of IRON rule... from the KING:
"Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion." (Psalm 2:6)
"I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I
begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the
uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron;
thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel." Psalm 2:7-9)
Along with the misguided atheists, we have to consider another minority segment here in
these latter days, i.e. the neo-Sods who have for convenience and furtherance of
godlessness have enjoined with the atheists in order to try and from an "umbrella" of
protection so to speak.
Neo-Sods have been pre-ordained and granted their free-will choice of godlessness up until
the end. No need to fret over these things. These events have been foretold.
"For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the
other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day." - Jesus (Luke 17:24)
"Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they
sold, they planted, they builded"
"But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and
destroyed them all."
"Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed." - Jesus (Luke
17:28-30)
Bottom line: "Evolution" is actually a minor, almost insignificant issue which all
believers could easily ignore were it not for it's ties to the godless neo-Sod agenda of
the latter days.
Do what? Good news? What the hell am I talking about? Our children are forcibly subjected
to all these lies in the public education system. We are forcibly taxed and the earnings
of our labors are re-distributed to the locusts of the earth who only consume the greenery
as soon as it sprouts.
Yes. It is indeed "GOOD NEWS". These things have been foretold. No mystery.
"Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the
prophets. The lion hath roared, who will not fear? the Lord God hath spoken, who can but
prophesy?" (Amos 3:7-8)
US4Zion
Davej
> Let me be clear here. "Evolution" is really a non-issue among
> believers. To the 2 or 3% of atheists I'm sure it is a subject of
> great importance. However the roaring of the LION was heard
> by all of humanity...
Yeah, whatever. Lying and roaring is the basis of the religious thing.
AllSeeing-I
you mean shouting the truth from the mountain tops, right?
us4...@att.net
Followup....
Phi 2:10-11 "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and
things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that
Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father"
So you see that this is true equality.
All humans everywhere have perfectly equal access to the righteousness of God via Jesus.
The hell you say?
Yes, that is the only way. Not according to me but according to Jesus Himself:
"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." - Jesus
As it turns out, Jesus is the "Creator":
"And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning
of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ" (Ephesians 3:9)
"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible
and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all
things were created by him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning,
the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell" (Colossians 1:16-19)
Mystery yes. Hid from previous generations yes. Explained by prophets of God, yes.
Now. To you the unauthorized.... go ahead in continuing with your lies. Se where that gets
you.
US4Zion
bob
>
>Along with the misguided atheists, we have to consider another minority segment here in
>these latter days, i.e. the neo-Sods who have for convenience and furtherance of
>godlessness have enjoined with the atheists in order to try and from an "umbrella" of
>protection so to speak.
>
anybody have any idea what this creationist, who's taken time off from
callng arabs 'dune coons' and complaining about blacks...is babbling
about??
>Bottom line: "Evolution" is actually a minor, almost insignificant issue which all
>believers could easily ignore were it not for it's ties to the godless neo-Sod agenda of
>the latter days.
>
>Do what? Good news? What the hell am I talking about? Our children are forcibly subjected
>to all these lies in the public education system. We are forcibly taxed and the earnings
>of our labors are re-distributed to the locusts of the earth who only consume the greenery
>as soon as it sprouts.
>
he knows he' babbling. he admits it
then goes on to babble further
why are creationists such insane babblers?
>
>US4Zion
>
>
bob
more like baying at the moon
bob
>
>And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning,
>the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
so god gives good head??
and you cpmplain about gays....
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Conan the bacterium
<>
Actually, I believe he was referring to the fact that when
I pointed out that Christians who lie, libel, distort, and
deceive are doing their cause no favors, you replied,
and here I must quote:
"The end justifies the means".
conan
Andre Lieven
Nothing sane.
us4...@att.net
Thanks. I did not see davej's reply. Dozens of these idjuts are now filtered out by my
killfile filters.
US4Zion
Conan the bacterium
Ooooh! Oooh! Me! Me me me me me!!
Don't leave me out of your killfile, Sneezy.
conan
>
> US4Zion
Virgil
us4...@att.net wrote:
> Let me be clear here. "Evolution" is really a non-issue among believers. To
> the 2 or 3% of
> atheists I'm sure it is a subject of great importance. However the roaring of
> the LION was
> heard by all of humanity...
To anyone for whom the developments of science are important, Evolution
rules and the creationist heresies are anathema.
--
Virgil
us4...@att.net wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 16:13:31 -0500, us4...@att.net wrote:
>
> >Let me be clear here. "Evolution" is really a non-issue among believers.
Only among believers in the myths and heresies of creationism.
Those who believe in the efficacy of science find Evolution much more
useful and valuable than creationism's junk.
--
Virgil
<925aa8b7-d02d-4c60...@d26g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
AllSeeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
WRONG! If you have to shout, it is because you are selling a pig in a
poke.
Science, including Evolution, does not have to shout.
--
Buddythunder
The lion roared? A cow just lowed.
Andy W
> Let me be clear here. "Evolution" is really a non-issue among believers.
Funny, your special friends from your one-trick pony club spend a hell
of a lot of time trying unsuccessfully to discredit evolution. As
usual you can't even agree on what you believe.
Not so long ago you made your own special thread where you could rant
and rave and froth to your heart's content, so the best thing for you
to do now is to sod off back there before you massively embarrass
yourself again... oops too late.
<meaningless drivel snipped unread>
Andy
us4...@att.net
Bye Buddyfarter. You can continue reading my stuff if you wish. However, your stuff will
be hereafter and for alltime be sent to killfile... never ever to be read by me again.
later,
US4Zion
us4...@att.net
>On Apr 15, 10:13 pm, us4z...@att.net wrote:
>> Let me be clear here. "Evolution" is really a non-issue among believers.
>
>Funny, your special friends from your one-trick pony club spend a hell
>of a lot of time trying unsuccessfully to discredit evolution. As
>usual you can't even agree on what you believe.
It's not funny. There is nothing to agree over concerning evolution.
We do not fall for your strawman arguments. You deserve every opportunity available to all
humans wrt escaping hellfire and eternal damnation.
US4Zion
Andy W
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 17:08:31 -0700 (PDT), Andy W <vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 15, 10:13 pm, us4z...@att.net wrote:
> >> Let me be clear here. "Evolution" is really a non-issue among believers.
>
> >Funny, your special friends from your one-trick pony club spend a hell
> >of a lot of time trying unsuccessfully to discredit evolution. As
> >usual you can't even agree on what you believe.
>
> It's not funny. There is nothing to agree over concerning evolution.
You don't even agree over whether it is important or not. Meanwhile,
anyone who knows anything about the matter agrees evolution happens.
The only reason anyone claims otherwise is because it contradicts
things they desperately want to be true from an old book they have
placed an unjustified degree of authority in.
>
> We do not fall for your strawman arguments.
Aw, that's so cute, he copied a phrase he heard somewhere and doesn't
know what it means. It's like he thinks he's people.
> You deserve every opportunity available to all
> humans wrt escaping hellfire and eternal damnation.
Hmm, opportunities to escape from things that don't exist. I've pretty
much got that covered thanks.
Andy
panam...@hotmail.com
snip
Get back on your fucking meds, loon.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
Colanth
>You deserve every opportunity available to all
>humans wrt escaping hellfire and eternal damnation.
And we've taken it. By being born we won't burn in your non-existent
hell. You, OTOH, are in a hell of your own making all your life.
--
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov
walksalone
left the following news:680bf5e4-c283-435e-ba95-f56b79275436
@hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 15, 6:24 pm, us4z...@att.net wrote:
>
> snip
>
> Get back on your fucking meds, loon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUMwu_gXK7Q
I thought he was. But then I looked at the headers and discovered you
were not talking to one of the same.
But sincerely, do you suspect there's any medication only sufficient
strength to let him return to sanity, without being a fatal dose?
walksalone who is glad he is not a medical type, so many trolls would
have been committed by now. Reagan would cry at that bill.
ABNORMAL, adj. Not conforming to standard. In matters of
thought and conduct, to be independent is to be abnormal, to
be abnormal is to be detested. Wherefore the lexicographer
adviseth a striving toward the straiter [sic] resemblance of
the Average Man than he hath to himself. Who so attaineth
thereto shall have peace, the prospect of death and the hope
of Hell.
Devils dictionary
Apostate
alt.atheism:
>"panam...@hotmail.com" <panam...@hotmail.com> scratched their head &
>left the following news:680bf5e4-c283-435e-ba95-f56b79275436
>@hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Apr 15, 6:24 pm, us4z...@att.net wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>> Get back on your fucking meds, loon.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUMwu_gXK7Q
>
>I thought he was. But then I looked at the headers and discovered you
>were not talking to one of the same.
>
>But sincerely, do you suspect there's any medication only sufficient
>strength to let him return to sanity, without being a fatal dose?
Nobody that I noticed demanded a perfect solution.
--
Apostate alt.atheist #1931 plonktheist #1
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer freelance Minion #'e'
EAC Deputy Director in Charge of Getting Paid,
Department of Redundancy Department
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure
and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell
"Mr. Worf, set phasers on "Fuck You" and fire at will."
-- Doc Smartass
"Nature has a dark sense of humor, but life is certainly
one of the things it laughs at."
-- Rinaldo of Capadoccia
e-mail to %mynick%periodaaperiod%myAA#%@gee!mail!dottedcommie
Buddythunder
panam...@hotmail.com
> "panamfl...@hotmail.com" <panamfl...@hotmail.com> scratched their head &
> left the following news:680bf5e4-c283-435e-ba95-f56b79275436
> @hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Apr 15, 6:24 pm, us4z...@att.net wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > Get back on your fucking meds, loon.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUMwu_gXK7Q
>
> I thought he was. But then I looked at the headers and discovered you
> were not talking to one of the same.
>
> But sincerely, do you suspect there's any medication only sufficient
> strength to let him return to sanity, without being a fatal dose?
As a humanist, it bothers me that his idiocy bothers me enough that I
really don't care whether he lives or not.
-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, KoBAAWA!
walksalone
left the following news:8008bdc1-bb77-42c8-b5fa-7662447c49b1
@p16g2000vbo.googlegroups.com:
A point on which we differ, but it complementary to you. It bothers you
that you don't care whether or not he lives. We'll raised differently, and
in my portion of the universe, he has forfeited the right to include into
my life. Of course the rules have changed protect people like him, because
they are defenseless and beloved of the not so great JC and company. The
hell they are.
It's a side effect of a society that nutures the insane and yet, won't
provide appropriate medical care for them. It is the mollycoddling of
individuals like the above that make me happy to understand I will not will
to a ripe old age of thousand years or so.
Yet, in spite of people like him, like basically is good. Weird is one way
of looking at it, and I know of no humane way to keep them from playing in
traffic and then crying when they get ran over.
Still, they had been permitted to be born. So they are entitled to their
own journey. It's a pity that they did not know how to keep their babbling
to themselves, or in the above case cannot.
walksalone who had not anticipated an answer to this little short missive,
but always welcomes it because it's one more chance to learn something that
might be worthwhile.
Never before have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded
perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church?
[Black Adder II]
Father Haskell
Devils Advocaat
> On Apr 15, 3:13 pm, us4z...@att.net wrote:
>
> > Let me be clear here. "Evolution" is really a non-issue among
> > believers. To the 2 or 3% of atheists I'm sure it is a subject of
> > great importance. However the roaring of the LION was heard
> > by all of humanity...
>
Methinks if he has been hearing the lion roar he has been reading too
much of the Narnia Chronicles. :)
Bob LeChevalier
>Let me be clear here.
You couldn't possibly.
>"Evolution" is really a non-issue among believers.
Then why do you keep blathering about it?
>To the 2 or 3% of
>atheists I'm sure it is a subject of great importance. However the roaring of the LION was
>heard by all of humanity...
Most of humanity has never seen nor heard any lions.
>And one of the elders saith unto me, "Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the
>Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof".
>(Revelation 5:5)
>
>And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.
>(Revelation 5:7)
Revelations isn't history. It *purports* to be a prophecy of the
future.
>Yes, it is true that the God of Israel chose the ancient Hebrew nation alone in order to
>make Himself known.... and from there expanded His acceptance to all humans of all races
>and nations everywhere. This "acceptance" however has absolutely nothing to do with the
>modern, misguided lies of "evolution".
There are no "modern, misguided lies of "evolution"", except for the
blatherings of your ilk.
>However, it is clear that some men, having free-will choices... will end up making all the
>wrong choices and will eventually fall under the ROD of IRON rule... from the KING:
>
>"Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion." (Psalm 2:6)
We don't have kings in this country.
>"I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I
>begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the
>uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron;
>thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel." Psalm 2:7-9)
No mention of any king there.
>Along with the misguided atheists, we have to consider another minority segment here in
>these latter days,
No we don't.
>Do what? Good news? What the hell am I talking about?
Being that you serve Satan, "hell" is all you are talking about.
>Our children are forcibly subjected to all these lies in the public education system.
Instead of being subjected to all your lies?
>We are forcibly taxed and the earnings
>of our labors are re-distributed to the locusts of the earth
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
us4...@att.net
>us4...@att.net wrote:
>>Let me be clear here.
>
>You couldn't possibly.
Says who?
US4Zion
us4...@att.net
>On Apr 16, 2:02 am, us4z...@att.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 17:08:31 -0700 (PDT), Andy W <vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>> >On Apr 15, 10:13 pm, us4z...@att.net wrote:
>> >> Let me be clear here. "Evolution" is really a non-issue among believers.
>>
>> >Funny, your special friends from your one-trick pony club spend a hell
>> >of a lot of time trying unsuccessfully to discredit evolution. As
>> >usual you can't even agree on what you believe.
>>
>> It's not funny. There is nothing to agree over concerning evolution.
>
>You don't even agree over whether it is important or not. Meanwhile,
>anyone who knows anything about the matter agrees evolution happens.
But you don't know anything about the matter. You are talking about speciation... not
evolution.
It has never been proven that humans "evolved" from a primordial slime which having been
repeatedly struck by lightening until amino acids appeared... eventually caused an amoeba
to come into being, which in turn after millions of years of more random accidents finally
became an amphibian, which eventually became a squirrel which eventually became the common
ancestor to both apes and mankind.
But you do have one hell of a religion there my friend. And more "faith" than I myself
have.
US4Zion
Budikka
> you mean shouting the truth from the mountain tops, right?
When do you plan on shouting the truth from the mountain tops about
hox gene clusters, All Flee & Hide? Since you're *so* into truth, are
you now ready to retract your LIE that humans and chimpanzees have
their hox gene clusters on different chromosomes?
And then you could add to that the truth that the Moon does indeed
rotate about its axis contrary to the LIE you told otherwise, and add
that there is indeed gravity in space contrary to the LIE you told
otherwise, and that according to all available *scientific*
measurements, the whale is a mammal contrary to the LIE you told
otherwise, and that according to all available *scientific* evidence,
the whale evolved from a terrestrial mammalian ancestor contrary to
the LIE you told otherwise, and that according to all available
*scientific* evidence, the whale, shares a common ancestor with the
hippopotamus, it did not *evolve* from the hippopotamus contrary to
the LIE you told otherwise?
Here's the exposure of your LIE about hox gene clusters, again:
HOXA cluster is on human chromosome 7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxa1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXA cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxA1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXB cluster is on human chromosome 17
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxB1%20homo%20sapiens
HOXB cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 17
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HOXB1%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXC cluster is on human chromosome 12
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXC cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 12
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=HoxC13%20pan%20troglodytes
HOXD cluster is on human chromosome 2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=Hoxd13%20homo%20sapiens
HOXD cluster is on chimpanzee chromosome 2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=%20hoxd1%20pan%20troglodytes
In short, you've been proven a stinking LIAR for creationism YET AGAIN
Budikka
Mitchell Holman
news:2cepq618mp57etcn9...@4ax.com:
>
>
> It has never been proven that humans "evolved" from a primordial slime
> which having been repeatedly struck by lightening until amino acids
> appeared... eventually caused an amoeba to come into being, which in
> turn after millions of years of more random accidents finally became
> an amphibian, which eventually became a squirrel which eventually
> became the common ancestor to both apes and mankind.
And your "proven" alternative is.........?
Andy W
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 12:16:00 -0700 (PDT), Andy W <vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 16, 2:02 am, us4z...@att.net wrote:
> >> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 17:08:31 -0700 (PDT), Andy W <vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> >> >On Apr 15, 10:13 pm, us4z...@att.net wrote:
> >> >> Let me be clear here. "Evolution" is really a non-issue among believers.
>
> >> >Funny, your special friends from your one-trick pony club spend a hell
> >> >of a lot of time trying unsuccessfully to discredit evolution. As
> >> >usual you can't even agree on what you believe.
>
> >> It's not funny. There is nothing to agree over concerning evolution.
>
> >You don't even agree over whether it is important or not. Meanwhile,
> >anyone who knows anything about the matter agrees evolution happens.
>
> But you don't know anything about the matter. You are talking about speciation... not
> evolution.
No, I'm talking about evolution, and at least I know what they mean
and what the difference is. You are in no position to accuse anyone of
not knowing about the matter. I have a tin of baked beans in my
cupboard that knows more about evolution than you.
>
> It has never been proven that humans "evolved" from a primordial slime which having been
> repeatedly struck by lightening until amino acids appeared... eventually caused an amoeba
> to come into being, which in turn after millions of years of more random accidents finally
> became an amphibian, which eventually became a squirrel which eventually became the common
> ancestor to both apes and mankind.
>
It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that organisms change over
time. It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that organisms share
common ancestors. Evolution. It happens. Get used to it. Meanwhile,
you have yet to provide proof of any of the guff you've been spouting
of late, or even sensible reasons. What makes you think you're exempt?
> But you do have one hell of a religion there my friend.
And once again I must note how much it amuses me that you use the term
religion as an insult.
Andy
us4...@att.net
Do what? It's atheists who promote an unproven alternative.
Idjut.
US4Zion
us4...@att.net
> I have a tin of baked beans in my
>cupboard that knows more about evolution than you.
Hmmm... I have a dog that eats my baked beans and other leftovers that knows more about
evolution than you.
US4Zion
Mitchell Holman
news:rkmpq69fuv14hsi05...@4ax.com:
Evasion noted. What is the proven alternative you prefer?
Andre Lieven
> >news:2cepq618mp57etcn9...@4ax.com:
>
> >> It has never been proven that humans "evolved" from a primordial slime
> >> which having been repeatedly struck by lightening until amino acids
> >> appeared... eventually caused an amoeba to come into being, which in
> >> turn after millions of years of more random accidents finally became
> >> an amphibian, which eventually became a squirrel which eventually
> >> became the common ancestor to both apes and mankind.
>
> > And your "proven" alternative is.........?
>
> Do what? It's atheists who promote an unproven alternative.
-That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed
without evidence.-
> Idjut.
Yes, you are. IDiots are extra stoopid.
Andre
Steve Hayes
WHAT wasn't roaring?
You mean (snip) wasn't roaring?
Why would anyone think that (snip) WAS roaring?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Bob LeChevalier
>On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 12:16:00 -0700 (PDT), Andy W <vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
>>On Apr 16, 2:02 am, us4z...@att.net wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 17:08:31 -0700 (PDT), Andy W <vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>> >On Apr 15, 10:13 pm, us4z...@att.net wrote:
>>> >> Let me be clear here. "Evolution" is really a non-issue among believers.
>>>
>>> >Funny, your special friends from your one-trick pony club spend a hell
>>> >of a lot of time trying unsuccessfully to discredit evolution. As
>>> >usual you can't even agree on what you believe.
>>>
>>> It's not funny. There is nothing to agree over concerning evolution.
>>
>>You don't even agree over whether it is important or not. Meanwhile,
>>anyone who knows anything about the matter agrees evolution happens.
>
>But you don't know anything about the matter. You are talking about speciation... not
>evolution.
Speciation IS evolution.
>It has never been proven that humans "evolved" from a primordial slime which having been
>repeatedly struck by lightening until amino acids appeared... eventually caused an amoeba
>to come into being, which in turn after millions of years of more random accidents finally
>became an amphibian, which eventually became a squirrel which eventually became the common
>ancestor to both apes and mankind.
Your strawman is neither evolution nor the Theory of Evolution.
Bob LeChevalier
us4...@att.net
>us4...@att.net wrote:
>>On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 12:16:00 -0700 (PDT), Andy W <vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 16, 2:02 am, us4z...@att.net wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 17:08:31 -0700 (PDT), Andy W <vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>>> >On Apr 15, 10:13 pm, us4z...@att.net wrote:
>>>> >> Let me be clear here. "Evolution" is really a non-issue among believers.
>>>>
>>>> >Funny, your special friends from your one-trick pony club spend a hell
>>>> >of a lot of time trying unsuccessfully to discredit evolution. As
>>>> >usual you can't even agree on what you believe.
>>>>
>>>> It's not funny. There is nothing to agree over concerning evolution.
>>>
>>>You don't even agree over whether it is important or not. Meanwhile,
>>>anyone who knows anything about the matter agrees evolution happens.
>>
>>But you don't know anything about the matter. You are talking about speciation... not
>>evolution.
>
>Speciation IS evolution.
It "was" evolution. But they vetoed Darwin.
"Some naturalists have lately employed the term "sub-species" to designate forms which
possess many of the characteristics of true species, but which hardly deserve so high a
rank. Now if we reflect on the weighty arguments above given, for raising the races of man
to the dignity of species, and the insuperable difficulties on the other side in defining
them, it seems that the term "sub-species" might here be used with propriety. But from
long habit the term "race" will perhaps always be employed. The choice of terms is only so
far important in that it is desirable to use, as far as possible, the same terms for the
same degrees of difference." (Charles Darwin; Descent or Man, Chapter Seven: On the Races
of Man: Sub-species)
"In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now
exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term "man" ought to
be used. But this is a matter of very little importance. So again, it is almost a matter
of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated, or are ranked as
species or sub-species; but the latter term appears the more appropriate." (Charles
Darwin; Descent of Man, Chapter Seven: On the Races of Man, pp.343)
>>It has never been proven that humans "evolved" from a primordial slime which having been
>>repeatedly struck by lightening until amino acids appeared... eventually caused an amoeba
>>to come into being, which in turn after millions of years of more random accidents finally
>>became an amphibian, which eventually became a squirrel which eventually became the common
>>ancestor to both apes and mankind.
>
>Your strawman is neither evolution nor the Theory of Evolution.
>
>lojbab
You have made my point. Thanks.
Humanists over-rode science and demanded that various human species (or sub-species) not
be mentioned but that they simply be defined as "races".
OTOH perhaps it was Christians who over-rode Darwin and his gang based on the truth that
"all men are created equal".
Bob..... how many "races" of monkeys are there?
US4Zion
us4...@att.net
>us4...@att.net wrote in
>news:rkmpq69fuv14hsi05...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:01:45 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>> <nom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>us4...@att.net wrote in
>>>news:2cepq618mp57etcn9...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It has never been proven that humans "evolved" from a primordial
>>>> slime which having been repeatedly struck by lightening until amino
>>>> acids appeared... eventually caused an amoeba to come into being,
>>>> which in turn after millions of years of more random accidents
>>>> finally became an amphibian, which eventually became a squirrel
>>>> which eventually became the common ancestor to both apes and
>>>> mankind.
>>>
>>>
>>> And your "proven" alternative is.........?
>>
>> Do what? It's atheists who promote an unproven alternative.
>>
>
>
> Evasion noted. What is the proven alternative you prefer?
Evasion noted. Atheists being only about 2% of the population have obviously
chosen an alternative path.
US4Zion
Andy W
Wow, picked the most trivial part of my post and mimicked it, then
snipped the rest because you couldn't deal with it. Aren't you smart.
If you really work at it you might get to be nearly as smart as that
dog of yours. No, that's too ambitious. Maybe you could be as smart as
the tin of beans. If you really try hard.
Mitchell Holman
news:rm2sq61fhp1mvduie...@4ax.com:
What do YOU think is the proper alternative?
Bob LeChevalier
>>>>You don't even agree over whether it is important or not. Meanwhile,
>>>>anyone who knows anything about the matter agrees evolution happens.
>>>
>>>But you don't know anything about the matter. You are talking about speciation... not
>>>evolution.
>>
>>Speciation IS evolution.
>
>It "was" evolution.
It still is.
>But they vetoed Darwin.
No.
>>Your strawman is neither evolution nor the Theory of Evolution.
>
>You have made my point. Thanks.
You have no point.
>Humanists
are irrelevant.
>over-rode science and demanded that various human species (or sub-species) not
>be mentioned but that they simply be defined as "races".
There is no scientific evidence or races. We are all one race - the
human race.
>OTOH perhaps it was Christians who over-rode Darwin
No. It is not within their power.
>and his gang based on the truth
religious "truth" cannot override science.
>that "all men are created equal".
That is not a Christian doctrine. That is an enlightenment doctrine.
Christian doctrine (of most sects) says that some were chosen before
creation, which means that men were NOT created equal.
>Bob..... how many "races" of monkeys are there?
zero.
us4...@att.net
Alternative to what?
The only alternative to authority is chaos.
"Science" which atheists worship in various ways has no real authority.
Science is a good thing overall, but atheists have by default, chosen the path of chaos
and seek to turn science into some sort of pre-EXODUS sorcery.
I suggest that you get those marbles outa your mouth and least attempt to make some sort
of point wrt your view. That will be difficult I know. Having chosen the path of chaos it
is far easier for you to simply sit back and add fuel to the fog machine for the WIZARDS
of OZ.
You guys fail in the realm of religion. You guys fail in the realm of philosophy. You guys
fail in the realm of creativity and inspiration concerning things and ideas which speak to
the heart of men. You guys rely on chaos and corruption, thuggery, political correctness
and intimidation... and all other sorts of things Darwin and his pals would admit belong
to the supreme race of "civilized men" known today as "metro-sexuals".
Yes, Darwin finally ended up becoming an atheistic semi-scientist. He considered his
newfound non-belief so important that he went out of his way to focus on it in his own
autobiography:
"...that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the
events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me
to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses;—by such reflections as these,
which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I
gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation" - Charles Darwin
(Autobiography of Charles Darwin)
Enter CHAOS (and your general position). BTW there is no need for you to thank me for
explaining your post ion here for you. I realize that your only heroes are those who have
made their "last will and testament" a denial of the divine in some fashion or another. To
the contrary... I thank you for replying. I have added so many of these idjuts here to my
killfilter that things are becoming quite slow. Back to the storyline:
Socialists, Marxists, Communists, along with other assorted pagans (like leftist Democrats
and even RHINOs here in the U.S.A. body politics) feed off of chaos in hopes of taking the
reigns of authority ....
"Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in
natural science for the historical class struggle." (Karl Marx- 1861)
"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." (Fredrick Engels -1859)
"But throughout their lives (Marx & Engels) they insisted on the importance of Darwin’s
work. Teleology, meaning a divine purpose which was working itself out in nature, had been
demolished."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/dar1-j17.shtml
Enter the ROD of God.
"O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation. I
will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I
give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like
the mire of the streets." (Isaiah 10:5-6)
A note here to believers. Do not let CHAOS obfuscate your view of governmental
authorities, all of which fall under the authority of God. And do not let CHAOS obfuscate
your view of the entirety of divine authority which includes the angelic host. Especially
when the judgment of God is at hand.....
"The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, "Thou art a priest for ever after the order of
Melchizedek". The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his
wrath." (Psalm 110:4-5)
US4Zion
Mitchell Holman
news:o2a1r6tf2b4tvit29...@4ax.com:
You claimed the majority have chosen that
alternative, you tell us.
>
> The only alternative to authority is chaos.
>
> "Science" which atheists worship in various ways has no real
> authority.
Until you get sick or your TV goes on the
blink, then you demand that science fix it, right?
> A note here to believers. Do not let CHAOS obfuscate your view of
> governmental authorities, all of which fall under the authority of
> God.
Really. So rebellion against kings (George III,
for example) is a defiance of God?
Do explain.
us4...@att.net
You're confused. Atheists are a teeny minority.
The Holy Writ is the #1 all time best selling book and America was founded on belief in
Creator God... yet we allow you to have alternative views.
Nevertheless I have attempted to explain your minority views elsewhere.
Sorry bud, but if you're unable to keep up I will have no choice but to put you in
killfilter with all the other idjuts.
I have much to say and have no time for those of you who adhere to chaos, randomness, and
other games.
I'll grant you 2 more replies before I put you into killfile.
US4Zion
Mitchell Holman
news:3sk1r6tani05q4d2j...@4ax.com:
So were Christians at one time. Did that make them wrong?
>
> The Holy Writ is the #1 all time best selling book and America was
> founded on belief in Creator God... yet we allow you to have
> alternative views.
>
"The Government of the United States is not in
any sense founded on the Christian religion."
-- John Adams, second US president, Treaty of Tripoli
> Nevertheless I have attempted to explain your minority views
> elsewhere.
It is YOUR views that need explaining. Start by
telling us how all governments - communist, Islamic,
dictatorship, royalty - are "the authority of God"
>> A note here to believers. Do not let CHAOS obfuscate your view of
>> governmental authorities, all of which fall under the authority of
>> God.
>
>
> Really. So rebellion against kings (George III,
>for example) is a defiance of God?
>
> Do explain.
<crickets>
AllSeeing-I
> us4z...@att.net wrote innews:3sk1r6tani05q4d2j...@4ax.com:> >>us4z...@att.net wrote in
> >>news:o2a1r6tf2b4tvit29...@4ax.com:
>
> >>> The Lion hath roared.
>
> >>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 19:02:54 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> >>> <nom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>news:rm2sq61fhp1mvduie...@4ax.com:
>
> >>>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:48:44 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> >>>>> <nom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>news:rkmpq69fuv14hsi05...@4ax.com:
>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:01:45 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> >>>>>>> <nom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
The bible does say God will install a leader when and where he wants
them. It does not say he has, or will, install all of them throughout
history.
From what I have read about old King George, well.. I doubt King G was
on God's short list for promotion.
Wouldn't you agree?
Mitchell Holman
9e123a...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 21, 8:52 pm, Mitchell Holman <nom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> us4z...@att.net wrote innews:3sk1r6tani05q4d2jijjqp5g314mfo7hhi@
Wrong.
Romans 13
1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for
there is no authority except that which God has established.
The authorities that exist have been established by God.
2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is
rebelling against what God has instituted"
Bob LeChevalier
>> The bible does say God will install a leader when and where he wants
>> them. It does not say he has, or will, install all of them throughout
>> history.
>>
>
> Wrong.
>
>Romans 13
>
>1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for
>there is no authority except that which God has established.
>The authorities that exist have been established by God.
>2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is
>rebelling against what God has instituted"
And it doesn't matter whether that authority is King George III, or
Adolf Hitler, or Saddam Hussein ("regime change" is anti-Biblical) or
Joseph Stalin.
Personally, I think that Saul of Tarsus was full of shit if and when
he allegedly wrote that. But those biblical idolaters who think that
the words of men have somehow become the inerrant Word of God through
some kind of supernatural magic are stuck with the logical
consequences of their belief (or are hypocrites, which Jesus condemned
most strongly among sinners).
Colanth
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>Mitchell Holman <nom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> The bible does say God will install a leader when and where he wants
>>> them. It does not say he has, or will, install all of them throughout
>>> history.
>> Wrong.
>>Romans 13
>>
>>1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for
>>there is no authority except that which God has established.
>>The authorities that exist have been established by God.
>>2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is
>>rebelling against what God has instituted"
>
>And it doesn't matter whether that authority is King George III, or
>Adolf Hitler, or Saddam Hussein ("regime change" is anti-Biblical) or
>Joseph Stalin.
>
>Personally, I think that Saul of Tarsus was full of shit if and when
>he allegedly wrote that.
He was full of CYA. Let the Romans hear "obey God regardless of Roman
law" and your life expectancy will be shorter than they had means to
measure back then. Romans 13, Matthew 22:21 - the same thing. The
words of cowards.
--
'' ' ''' ' '' ' ''' <-- random quotes
Kermit
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:45:34 -0400, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> >us4z...@att.net wrote:
> >>On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 12:16:00 -0700 (PDT), Andy W <vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On Apr 16, 2:02 am, us4z...@att.net wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 17:08:31 -0700 (PDT), Andy W <vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> >>>> >On Apr 15, 10:13 pm, us4z...@att.net wrote:
> >>>> >> Let me be clear here. "Evolution" is really a non-issue among believers.
>
> >>>> >Funny, your special friends from your one-trick pony club spend a hell
> >>>> >of a lot of time trying unsuccessfully to discredit evolution. As
> >>>> >usual you can't even agree on what you believe.
>
> >>>> It's not funny. There is nothing to agree over concerning evolution.
>
> >>>You don't even agree over whether it is important or not. Meanwhile,
> >>>anyone who knows anything about the matter agrees evolution happens.
>
> >>But you don't know anything about the matter. You are talking about speciation... not
> >>evolution.
>
> >Speciation IS evolution.
>
> It "was" evolution. But they vetoed Darwin.
If you mean scientists did, no. Evolution is the change in alleles
over time in a breeding population. Our understanding of it has grown
deeper, of course, as all sciences do in time. Darwin got some things
wrong, but his main ideas were correct. Why do you care about Darwin,
anyway? You should be discussing contemporary evolutionary biology,
not a person who died 130 years ago.
If you had fresh ideas about chemistry, folks would think it quite
strange for you to argue about Lavoisier, instead of the contemporary
body of knowledge.
>
> "Some naturalists have lately employed the term "sub-species" to designate forms which
> possess many of the characteristics of true species, but which hardly deserve so high a
> rank. Now if we reflect on the weighty arguments above given, for raising the races of man
> to the dignity of species, and the insuperable difficulties on the other side in defining
> them, it seems that the term "sub-species" might here be used with propriety. But from
> long habit the term "race" will perhaps always be employed. The choice of terms is only so
> far important in that it is desirable to use, as far as possible, the same terms for the
> same degrees of difference." (Charles Darwin; Descent or Man, Chapter Seven: On the Races
> of Man: Sub-species)
Yes. Why did you post this?
>
> "In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now
> exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term "man" ought to
> be used. But this is a matter of very little importance. So again, it is almost a matter
> of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated, or are ranked as
> species or sub-species; but the latter term appears the more appropriate." (Charles
> Darwin; Descent of Man, Chapter Seven: On the Races of Man, pp.343)
Yes. Does this confuse you?
>
> >>It has never been proven that humans "evolved" from a primordial slime which having been
> >>repeatedly struck by lightening until amino acids appeared... eventually caused an amoeba
> >>to come into being, which in turn after millions of years of more random accidents finally
> >>became an amphibian, which eventually became a squirrel which eventually became the common
> >>ancestor to both apes and mankind.
>
> >Your strawman is neither evolution nor the Theory of Evolution.
>
> >lojbab
>
> You have made my point. Thanks.
Actually, you seem to be too confused to have a point, let alone a
correct one.
Imagine a village in Southern Gaul at the time of the collapse of
Rome. The people there speak Latin of course, but as time goes on,
their pronunciation and vocabulary and even grammar drift away from
their more distant neighbors. 1500 years later they are speaking
French. On what day did they stop speaking Latin? Well, of course
there was no single day you could point to. You could divide the
language up that they spoke into a dozen, if you like, spread over
time. That's all that Darwin was saying here. The dividing lines are
largely arbitrary when discussing such gradual change over time. But
however you do that, it doesn't change the facts of the matter.
>
> Humanists over-rode science and demanded that various human species (or sub-species) not
> be mentioned but that they simply be defined as "races".
No, it's not six! It's half-a-dozen, dammit!
Race was a term that English-speaking breeders used for what we call
"breeds" now. Words change over time.
>
> OTOH perhaps it was Christians who over-rode Darwin and his gang based on the truth that
> "all men are created equal".
>
When the founding fathers of the US used that phrase they were of
course discussing legal and moral rights. Some Christians also have a
similar concept, as do Buddhists and other folks. Does this mean that
nobody is smarter than another, or faster, or sings better, or handles
the flu better?
I have noticed a tendency for anti-science activists to prefer the
most ambiguous language possible - it suits their fuzzy arguments
better. Conflation and obfuscation may help you win some arguments,
but they help nobody to understand.
> Bob..... how many "races" of monkeys are there?
>
How many do you want there to be?
In sexually dimorphic animals, there are usually distinct species (but
even they can be blurred). But discernible sub-groups? As many as you
care to distinguish, really. This is what you would expect from
evolution, where circumstance (mostly natural selection) favor certain
mutations of gene combinations over others. There are often no clear
boundaries.
> US4Zion
Kermit
AllSeeing-I
[\]
>
> Imagine a village in Southern Gaul at the time of the collapse of
> Rome. The people there speak Latin of course, but as time goes on,
> their pronunciation and vocabulary and even grammar drift away from
> their more distant neighbors. 1500 years later they are speaking
> French. On what day did they stop speaking Latin? Well, of course
> there was no single day you could point to. You could divide the
> language up that they spoke into a dozen, if you like, spread over
> time. That's all that Darwin was saying here. The dividing lines are
> largely arbitrary when discussing such gradual change over time. But
> however you do that, it doesn't change the facts of the matter.
Language is something that actually does change slowly over time. We
know this through observation, which is a key element.
I'm sorry to inform you of something K. There is no real evidence
showing something like that can actually happen to a biological
creature. Wishful thinking is all divergence is. You should know this
after all of the discussions we have had in the past.
Life was instructed to fill the earth "each after his own kind" and
that is exactly what we observe taking place. The observation matches
the bible's explanation.
This of course trumps a man-made explanation because it is a direct
observation, not just an inference made from data. Need I remind you
that scientific data can be inaccurate, incomplete, or even
misinterpreted, for a variety of reasons?
Simply put, if an observation matches an existing explanation, like
the one in the bible, is is more scientific to go with the observation
rather then to go with what we /think/ the data means.
BTW I hope you, your family, and your garden, are doing good :-).
.
us4...@att.net
Atheists are the ones who currently hold the alternative view.
Christians who were once the teeny minority grew in numbers, established the U.S.A.
as the worlds premier SUPERPOWER, and decided to commit to the nation of ISRAEL in a
special partnership.
Atheists have done no such thing but have instead tried to impose their godless
alternative minority views upon everyone else.
US4Zion
us4...@att.net
Checkmate. You atheists do not believe the Holy Writ. No way you can expect
to use it in defense against we believers who do believe it.
US4Zion
us4...@att.net
Sorry Bob but I'm going to have to expose your ignorance here.
There is more to "authority" than just human governmental leaders.
If it were not so, believers would not stand a chance against demons.
For example, calling "911" will not even save you from the criminal negroe who decides to
perform a home invasion upon your family at 1 a.m. in the morning.... much less save you
from demonic spirits.
"Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power
of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.Notwithstanding in this rejoice not,
that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written
in heaven." - Jesus (Luke 10:19-20)
Yes, the first dominion is indeed GOOD NEWS for modern man. POWER which stems from the
divine.
US4Zion
Mitchell Holman
news:1o24r6tqa6s578r6f...@4ax.com:
Holding the alternative view is nothing new
to Christians. Is it inherently wrong?
> Christians who were once the teeny minority grew in numbers,
> established the U.S.A. as the worlds premier SUPERPOWER, and decided
> to commit to the nation of ISRAEL in a special partnership.
And atheism now has the growing numbers.
What does that tell you?
>
> Atheists have done no such thing but have instead tried to impose
> their godless alternative minority views upon everyone else.
Atheism on the rise
Apr 3, 2011
GRAND JUNCTION, Co (KKCO) - Atheists are one of
the fastest growing groups in the country. According
to recent surveys, not believing in god is becoming
more accepted in the United States.
http://www.nbc11news.com/localnews/headlines/Atheism_on_the_rise_
119157949.html
Colanth
>If it were not so, believers would not stand a chance against demons.
And since demons are just figments of your imagination, you don't
stand a real "chance" against them.
>much less save you from demonic spirits.
Since there are no such things.
<BiBullshit snipped>
--
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings." -
Victor Stenger.
Colanth
>Checkmate. You atheists do not believe the Holy Writ.
Of course not. We're sane.
--
"Nothing so immunizes the brain to evidence as ideology." - O.W.Holmes
Colanth
>Atheists are the ones who currently hold the alternative view.
Reality isn't a popularity contest. 50 million lemmings ARE wrong.
>Christians who were once the teeny minority grew in numbers, established the U.S.A.
You mean the guys who wrote "The United States is in no way founded on
Christian principles"? The ones who called the cross the greatest
symbol of death ever? Those ones? The founders were Deists, not
Christians.
--
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way
through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion
that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your
knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
us4...@att.net
You have raised several valid points here. And I appreciate the civil tone in which you
have raised them. In reality it will take quite a while to address all these things and I
will not pretend to be able to address them all in one post.
Darwin is considered to be the father of the "common ancestor" theory within evolutionary
theory, as well as being a major player in the formulation of the T.O.E. itself. Darwin
himself however lost the "faith" which he once had and for all practical purposes became
an atheist.
I have found in my attempts to discuss "contemporary evolutionary biology"... that time
and time again I am confronted by Darwin himself, a dead man from 130 years ago who turned
his back on God. Yes, Darwin is revived and alive here in the minds of this generation,
generation "X"; many of whom which were raised by parents who were believers but who have
themselves fallen away from the faith.
Enter we, the FOUR HORSEMEN. We came into these NG's, conquered, kicked ass and carved out
for ourselves enough turf to establish a foothold here.
Then I personally reached out and sought among these pagans here, a few good men who might
assume leadership roles in order to discuss these things in a civil manner and at the same
time, discourage the idjut SPAMMERS. But it didn't work. No takers.
Fine. Ok with me. Go with the flow. Sure. No problem.
So I decided after the failure of the aforementioned efforts.... to invoke the killfile in
order to eliminate all "dead Darwins" as well as the sons of Darwin.
Fact of the matter is is that believers (both Christians and Jews) dominate science.
"Dead Darwins" are the (irrelevant) minority. Here is a list of the top 100 most
influential scientists... most of which are "believers":
"The list below is from the book The Scientific 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential
Scientists, Past and Present, Citadel Press (2000), written by John Galbraith Simmons."
1 Isaac Newton Anglican (believed in the Arianism of the Primitive Church)
2 Albert Einstein Twentieth-Century Science Jewish
3 Neils Bohr the Atom Jewish Lutheran
4 Charles Darwin Evolution Anglican (nominal); Unitarian
5 Louis Pasteur the Germ Theory of Disease Catholic
6 Sigmund Freud Psychology of the Unconscious Jewish; Atheist; Freudian
7 Galileo Galilei the New Science Catholic
8 Antoine Lavoisier the Revolution in Chemistry Catholic
9 Johannes Kepler Motion of the Planets Lutheran
10 Nicolaus Copernicus the Heliocentric Universe Catholic (priest)
11 Michael Faraday the Classical Field Theory Sandemanian
12 James Clerk Maxwell the Electromagnetic Field Presbyterian; Baptist
13 Claude Bernard the Founding of Modern Physiology
14 Franz Boas Modern Anthropology Jewish
15 Werner Heisenberg Quantum Theory Lutheran
16 Linus Pauling Twentieth-Century Chemistry Lutheran
17 Rudolf Virchow the Cell Doctrine
18 Erwin Schrodinger Wave Mechanics Catholic
19 Ernest Rutherford the Structure of the Atom
20 Paul Dirac Quantum Electrodynamics
21 Andreas Vesalius the New Anatomy Catholic
22 Tycho Brahe the New Astronomy Lutheran
23 Comte de Buffon l'Histoire Naturelle
24 Ludwig Boltzmann Thermodynamics
25 Max Planck the Quanta Protestant
26 Marie Curie Radioactivity Catholic (lapsed)
27 William Herschel the Discovery of the Heavens Jewish
28 Charles Lyell Modern Geology
29 Pierre Simon de Laplace Newtonian Mechanics atheist
30 Edwin Hubble the Modern Telescope
31 Joseph J. Thomson the Discovery of the Electron
32 Max Born Quantum Mechanics Jewish Lutheran
33 Francis Crick Molecular Biology atheist
34 Enrico Fermi Atomic Physics Catholic
35 Leonard Euler Eighteenth-Century Mathematics Calvinist
36 Justus Liebig Nineteenth-Century Chemistry
37 Arthur Eddington Modern Astronomy Quaker
38 William Harvey Circulation of the Blood Anglican (nominal)
39 Marcello Malpighi Microscopic Anatomy Catholic
40 Christiaan Huygens the Wave Theory of Light Calvinist
41 Carl Gauss Mathematical Genius Lutheran
42 Albrecht von Haller Eighteenth-Century Medicine
43 August Kekule Chemical Structure
44 Robert Koch Bacteriology
45 Murray Gell-Mann the Eightfold Way Jewish
46 Emil Fischer Organic Chemistry
47 Dmitri Mendeleev the Periodic Table of Elements
48 Sheldon Glashow the Discovery of Charm Jewish
49 James Watson the Structure of DNA atheist
50 John Bardeen Superconductivity
51 John von Neumann the Modern Computer Jewish Catholic
52 Richard Feynman Quantum Electrodynamics Jewish
53 Alfred Wegener Continental Drift
54 Stephen Hawking Quantum Cosmology atheist
55 Anton van Leeuwenhoek the Simple Microscope Dutch Reformed
56 Max von Laue X-ray Crystallography
57 Gustav Kirchhoff Spectroscopy
58 Hans Bethe the Energy of the Sun Jewish
59 Euclid the Foundations of Mathematics Platonism / Greek philosophy
60 Gregor Mendel the Laws of Inheritance Catholic
61 Heike Kamerlingh Onnes Superconductivity
62 Thomas Hunt Morgan the Chromosomal Theory of Heredity
63 Hermann von Helmholtz the Rise of German Science
64 Paul Ehrlich Chemotherapy Jewish
65 Ernst Mayr Evolutionary Theory atheist
66 Charles Sherrington Neurophysiology
67 Theodosius Dobzhansky the Modern Synthesis Russian Orthodox
68 Max Delbruck the Bacteriophage
69 Jean Baptiste Lamarck the Foundations of Biology
70 William Bayliss Modern Physiology
71 Noam Chomsky Twentieth-Century Linguistics Jewish atheist
72 Frederick Sanger the Genetic Code
73 Lucretius Scientific Thinking Epicurean; atheist
74 John Dalton the Theory of the Atom Quaker
75 Louis Victor de Broglie Wave/Particle Duality
76 Carl Linnaeus the Binomial Nomenclature Christianity
77 Jean Piaget Child Development
78 George Gaylord Simpson the Tempo of Evolution
79 Claude Levi-Strauss Structural Anthropology Jewish
80 Lynn Margulis Symbiosis Theory Jewish
81 Karl Landsteiner the Blood Groups Jewish
82 Konrad Lorenz Ethology
83 Edward O. Wilson Sociobiology
84 Frederick Gowland Hopkins Vitamins
85 Gertrude Belle Elion Pharmacology
86 Hans Selye the Stress Concept
87 J. Robert Oppenheimer the Atomic Era Jewish
88 Edward Teller the Bomb Jewish
89 Willard Libby Radioactive Dating
90 Ernst Haeckel the Biogenetic Principle
91 Jonas Salk Vaccination Jewish
92 Emil Kraepelin Twentieth-Century Psychiatry
93 Trofim Lysenko Soviet Genetics Russian Orthodox
94 Francis Galton Eugenics
95 Alfred Binet the I.Q. Test
96 Alfred Kinsey Human Sexuality atheist
97 Alexander Fleming Penicillin Catholic
98 B. F. Skinner Behaviorism atheist
99 Wilhelm Wundt the Founding of Psychology atheist
100 Archimedes the Beginning of Science Greek philosophy
http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html
Perspective. P.O.V.
Yes. Let us disregard the "dead Darwin" perspective in favor of the "Creation"
perspective.
US4Zion
Mitchell Holman
news:ac34r6d83ceq45oki...@4ax.com:
Yep. Your own Holy Writ says all governments are
from God and Christians should always obey them.
Far from being founded by Christians, America
was founded by......HERETICS!
Pepsi
Olrik
> If it were not so, believers would not stand a chance against demons.
Evidence for them?
> For example, calling "911" will not even save you from the criminal negroe
Oh, and you're also a racist.
I'm not surprised. After all, you're a xian.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:14:53 -0400, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>>1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for
>>>there is no authority except that which God has established.
>>>The authorities that exist have been established by God.
>>>2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is
>>>rebelling against what God has instituted"
>>
>>And it doesn't matter whether that authority is King George III, or
>>Adolf Hitler, or Saddam Hussein ("regime change" is anti-Biblical) or
>>Joseph Stalin.
>>
>>Personally, I think that Saul of Tarsus was full of shit if and when
>>he allegedly wrote that. But those biblical idolaters who think that
>>the words of men have somehow become the inerrant Word of God through
>>some kind of supernatural magic are stuck with the logical
>>consequences of their belief (or are hypocrites, which Jesus condemned
>>most strongly among sinners).
>
>
>There is more to "authority" than just human governmental leaders.
Certainly.
>If it were not so, believers would not stand a chance against demons.
Whoopie for them.
>For example, calling "911" will not even save you from the criminal negroe who decides to
>perform a home invasion upon your family at 1 a.m. in the morning.... much less save you
>from demonic spirits.
Nor will it save one from an insane fundie who decides to "take off
the gloves", whatever that means. But one doesn't need human
governmental leaders to save one from nonsense.
On the other hand, simply not believing in demonic spirits will mean
that you will never experience them.
>"Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions,
Walked on a bed of rattlesnakes lately, liar?
>Yes, the first dominion is indeed GOOD NEWS for modern man. POWER which stems from the
>divine.
Those who do not believe in the divine do not experience any power
stemming from it, neither for them nor against them.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Apr 22, 6:02 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>[\]
>>
>> Imagine a village in Southern Gaul at the time of the collapse of
>> Rome. The people there speak Latin of course, but as time goes on,
>> their pronunciation and vocabulary and even grammar drift away from
>> their more distant neighbors. 1500 years later they are speaking
>> French. On what day did they stop speaking Latin? Well, of course
>> there was no single day you could point to. You could divide the
>> language up that they spoke into a dozen, if you like, spread over
>> time. That's all that Darwin was saying here. The dividing lines are
>> largely arbitrary when discussing such gradual change over time. But
>> however you do that, it doesn't change the facts of the matter.
>
>Language is something that actually does change slowly over time. We
>know this through observation, which is a key element.
>
>I'm sorry to inform you of something K. There is no real evidence
>showing something like that can actually happen to a biological
>creature.
It doesn't happen to a biological creature. It happens to the
descendants of a biological creature *as compared to* that creature.
You don't have entirely the same genes as either of your parents. You
have evolved. This has been observed. It is fact.
>Simply put, if an observation matches an existing explanation, like
>the one in the bible, is is more scientific to go with the observation
>rather then to go with what we /think/ the data means.
Absolutely not. Because the Bible has no explanation. "Godidit"
doesn't explain anything.
us4...@att.net
Nothing. But it tells you that I'm tired of your alternative, misguided and distorted
views so I'm putting you in killfile never to see your stuff again. All 58 of your recent
posts will be deleted from my database and none of your future posts will be
downloaded/seen by me.
bye,
US4Zion
us4...@att.net
> Far from being founded by Christians, America
>was founded by......HERETICS!
There is a 99.5% probability that you will be in killfile within 48 hours.
US4Zion
us4...@att.net
>us4...@att.net wrote:
>>On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:14:53 -0400, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>>>1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for
>>>>there is no authority except that which God has established.
>>>>The authorities that exist have been established by God.
>>>>2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is
>>>>rebelling against what God has instituted"
>>>
>>>And it doesn't matter whether that authority is King George III, or
>>>Adolf Hitler, or Saddam Hussein ("regime change" is anti-Biblical) or
>>>Joseph Stalin.
>>>
>>>Personally, I think that Saul of Tarsus was full of shit if and when
>>>he allegedly wrote that. But those biblical idolaters who think that
>>>the words of men have somehow become the inerrant Word of God through
>>>some kind of supernatural magic are stuck with the logical
>>>consequences of their belief (or are hypocrites, which Jesus condemned
>>>most strongly among sinners).
>>
>>Sorry Bob but I'm going to have to expose your ignorance here.
>>
>>There is more to "authority" than just human governmental leaders.
>
>Certainly.
Unbelievable. After all these years of disagreeing on everything, we finally agree on
something.
US4Zion
Mitchell Holman
news:se27r6dj3asi7oi8m...@4ax.com:
I was hoping you were capable of reconciling Paul's
condemnation of those who rebel against government with
the American Revolution.
Since you are not up to it can suggest someone who can?
In Romans 13, Paul writes:
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for
there is no authority except that which God has established.
The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling
against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring
judgment on themselves.
Mitchell Holman
news:9137r6d8a6go6qktf...@4ax.com:
If you don't want to read what atheists have to say
what are you doing in an atheist newsgroup?