Well maybe I'm like a pacifist, only accept in the case of peace, I'm more of a "Give morons a chance"

edit:"Subtle" languages annoy me ><

Good point.

Mind over Matter<most idiots.

 wow, there is one worse than mol lol

Another words, you're a slanderous dullshit liar.

fat retard son of a crack whore. a true role model for a chump with chimp envy.

mind over matter wrote:you

 

you thrive on paganism,           and you know it     I simply exposed you as a fraud lover of lies.   you failed tomeet my challenge so you retreated to this mockery of a simple challenge to your intellect. I see you slithered your mentality into my headline yet still noone has bothered to meet the challenge to prove that evolution is, in fact, a "Pagan religious concept" and now you are asking people to prove it is without proving it is a fact to begin with without the need for faith?  LOL you are a slapnut in the image of cartman your idol.

Another words, you're a slanderous dullshit liar.----------->  lol oh is that what you say? please tell what my lies are?  and how am I not calling you what you are? chump with chimp envy drone bitchnugget minion expendable pawn of satan.

  you know what you are yet you came to me for direction because you are lost in your delusions abio-genesis / abio -evolution = non living origins myth which requires  faith not science.

poor so called  non theist fraud living in a non musement zoo  ignoring and ranting like a retardarwin.  you fit the profile so that should not be slander.

you call me a dulshit liar? lol that is a poor rebuttal for a mindbubble like you!

This from a person who worships a Canaanite sky-god and a fiction constructed by Paul the attention whore so he could make himself a "prophet". What god does evolution serve again?

If you believe in progression why are you afraid to do it? Too lazy to use your own brain so you borrow from amalgamations of old myths?

Laws are made by lawmakers - none of them are divine. The laws you claim God made were old when your God was thought up.

No matter how you spell it, you worship a Canaanite sky-god. Congratulations, you're a pagan

everything except the "fat retard son of a crack whore"... that part I like

(even though it isn't all that... accurate in of itself)

Even so, given enough time, a chimpanzee with a typewriter could produce the works of Shakespeare on accident. Understandings in cosmology suppose the existence of multiverses or an oscillating universe could exist, and so long as this is even a possibility (unproven or otherwise) there is no need to suppose a deity. The possibility of multiple iterations that contain billions and billions of stars and billions and billions of planets over billions and billions of years substantially increases the probability in favor of the conditions necessary for life to evolve as it has.

Second, showing that something hasn't been shown to be true does not make it necessarily false. Such as this, I don't think you've even met your own criterion that says if evolution is false, supernatural intervention is true. According to your argument, I don't know think we can know that either one is true.

In summary, you're argument is shaky and riddled with fallacies.

>>>>>>  wrote this>

Couching evolution in religious terms does not make it religious. The is really pure equivocation.--------------------<For something to be scientific, it has to be observable, repeatable, and testable. Evolutionists admit that you can not observe evolution because it is to slow. You definitely can not repeat evolution. And how can you test evolution? Evolution is not fact, it is a religion. you believe because you choose to despite the lack of facts that say it it depends on faith.
 

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to modern Christianity (which is another issue), with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.  belief in molecules-to-man evolution can and does cause people to become atheists as admitted by leading atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins, the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. In answer to the question “Is atheism the logical extension of believing evolution?” Dawkins replied, “My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism.”

•  The holy book of the evolutionists is Darwin’s Origin of Species. The evolutionists believe that this book gives an explanation for the origin and development of life on earth without the need of any CREATOR or supernatural agent.

This is a conspiracy theory at best. Where's the evidence for this "bait and switch" tactic?---------->In biology, LIKE KINDS is a  change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. These changes are caused by a combination of three main processes: variation, reproduction, and selection  what you atheists have done is invented a term called evolution and then revised the definition from all things to sub divisions to pass the buck from one bullshit artist to another.
 

By itself the above definition is true and has been observed since before Darwin. It simply describes the obvious fact that there is variation within every species / kind of animal and plant. Natural selection, due to environmental reasons, can encourage some traits over others in subsequent generations. We can and do observe natural selection reinforcing existing traits. But such things are not mechanisms to add new information into the genes and change one kind of animal (e.g., a reptile) into a totally different kind (e.g., a bird). that is fiction not science.

Darwin may have been considered a great observer, like other naturalists of his day. He was right about natural selection”right about different species (within a kind, of course) becoming more focused on specific traits (we use the term speciation) but he was wrong about his belief that one could extrapolate this as a mechanism to explain the evolution of all the different kinds of animals, plants, etc. Darwin knew he had a problem with the fossil record, and to this day there is no evidence of new kinds of animals making the gradual change to higher and higher and totally different kinds of animals. that includes all the atheist proposed sculptures and film animations and frauds still beings used in secular schools to brainwash fraud lovers like YOU!

Creationists believe YAHUWAH who most people mistakenly refer to with  the pagan term god made the original animal and plant kinds. There have been considerable changes within the kinds since that time. For instance, after the global Flood, different species of dogs have formed, but they are still the dog kind and will never change into a different kind.

Secularists often falsely tell students that creationists believe animals dont change (but they do), and then tell them that we see animals changing (speciation) and then slip in the term evolution for such changes. In the strict definition of the word evolution meaning simply change, then one could say that. But these same secularists know that when students hear the word evolution, they think of Darwinian evolution, meaning

the molecules-to-man idea.  Again something you choose to ignore when you accept your fairy tale evolution

Thus, a straw man is set up, and students think that creationists arent good scientists, so one cant trust them. Change is all around us, therefore Evolution is true! This has become an effective bait and switch tactic, especially on students who are captive in a classroom.

Without much discussion, or challenge from the students, the minor changes of natural selection are then extrapolated to mean, not just variation within an animal group or kind, but that the variation over (unseen) time has allowed invertebrates to transform into vertebrates, and yes – it includes the full range of change from microbes to mankind. It is this extrapolation that is inferred to have happened, that is then taught as a fact – just like that.

 Believe in a little change, and suddenly we are told See, Evolution is true!

Therefore you must believe that all the required and significantly broad changes in physiology in all animals alive today, came from a common ancestor! It is this extrapolation, this immense jump, from minor changes where existing traits are selected to wholesale development of all new life that is the problem and is truly non-science. But in fact a world scam  of manipulation for fools who say in their hearts there is no YAHUWAH who is ELOAH ALMIGHTY YAH AM.

micro-evolution /invented term to help sell the scam of evolution

Horizontal Change – Creationists have never had a problem with Natural Selection, and variation within a kind or family group, or in some cases the phyla or species. (There is no consistent definition of species). Everyone understands change and variation in what characteristics the descendants may inherit and become dominant. This includes the length of beaks in finches and coloring of moths, and even dominant hair and skin color in humans. This variation can be controlled by humans (i.e. dog breeding) and can also happen naturally (hence: Natural Selection) such as long beaked finches having an advantage in times of drought. Their longer beak allows them to pick food deeper out of rock crevices, survive and breed, while their short beaked cousins die off.

Natural Selection does cause" micro-evolution", but it was a creationist who broadly discussed this before that chump with chimp envy, Darwin. Edward Blyth wrote three major articles on natural selection that were published in The Magazine of Natural History from 1835 to 1837. Blyth correctly saw the concept of natural selection as a mechanism by which the sick, old and unfit were removed from a population; as a preserving factor of a created kind. Creationists like Edward Blyth (and also todays) see natural selection as a process of culling; that is, of choosing between several traits, all of which must first be in existence before they can be selected.

Charles Darwin in all his pride and vanity was aware of Blyth. Reportedly the University of Cambridge, has Darwins own copies of the issues containing the Blyth articles, with Charless handwritten notes in the margins. Loren C. Eiseley, a professor of anthropology, in the book Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1979), wrote “Blyth is more than a Darwinian precursor, he is, instead, a direct intellectual forebear. . . .Darwin made unacknowledged use of Blyth’s work.” Darwin apologists do try to cover for Charles, but the fact remains, much of Charles material came from others.  PATHETIC!

The point: Creationists before and after Darwin, do not disagree at all with natural selection or Mico- Evolution as some call it. All of the characteristics the information in the DNA for a variety of traits, appearances, etc., are already there. Natural selection just selects from what is available. At best, natural selection is a conservative force, picking the traits needed for survival in a fallen and changing world, but it is powerless to generate increasing complexity and to originate something new or novel totally unable to change one kind of animal into another whole new kind.

Macro-Evolution (also called Vertical Change): This is the ever increasing complexity of life, The natural development of simple cells, and then invertebrates, then fish, amphibians, and eventually humans. This is what most people think of when we use the basic term Evolution. The problem is that evolutionists simply extrapolate if micro-evolution is true then macro-evolution must be true. There is variation and change within a species, therefore the whole species must have evolved over time. Bait and switch. Bait and switch. Bait and switch. Bait and switch. Bait and switch. 

The problem is there is NO evidence for macro-evolution at all in the fossil record. And all of our discoveries and research into micro-biology and heredity, make this idea of macro-evolution not just unlikely, but impossible. DNA works against this happening. Mutations, or errors in DNA do not add new information and do not help, any more than  a growing ink blot resulting in writing a complete encyclopedia. 

Others have gone back and studied the finches on the Galapagos Islands for longer periods of time. But in the end its the same thing. The finches “inherited” traits are proving evolution! Yet they are still finches, and all that is happening is natural selection of existing information. This is still only micro-evolution, not macro-evolution, DUMBASS!. Additionally, after several generations and changes in weather patterns, the length of finch beaks actually goes back to the original lengths of many previous generations. Of course you have to actually study the data trends over time, and get past the bait and switch game: Look Beaks change! Evolution is true! lol  fucking slapnuts.

Many evolutionists have admitted they have no mechanism to advance from one species or phyla to another: This includes S.J. Gould (Harvard university) who wrote in Scientific American, (Oct 1994)

Natural selection is therefore a principle of local adaption, not of general advance or progress.

In a study on Parasites, four Ph.D.s wrote this:

Natural selection can act only on those biological properties that already exist; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs.

Elmer Noble, Ph.D. Zoology, Glenn Nobel,Ph.D. Biology, Gerhard Schad, Ph.D. Biology, Austin MacInnes, Ph.D. Biology, – Parasitology: The Biology of Animal Parasites, 1989, p. 516.

Pierre P. Grass, one of the most distinguished of all French scientists, published a book, LEvolution du Vivant -his conclusion was even stronger that biology is impotent in explaining the origin of species, and must yield to a supernatural explanation. Macro-evolution is simply not a proven concept. No, not even close. Grass admits it is more logical to accept that there is a creator God (a supernatural or mystical cause).

S¸ren L¸vtrup, a Swedish embryologist, wrote in his book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth – London: Croom Helm, p.422:

I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: … I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?

-----------------

You're either (a) supposing teleology which is question begging, or (b) equivocating between DNA and written language. Either way, this is fallacious.----------> lol no you are being a coward and you know it. you fail to demstrate evolution through science. you failed to meet my posted challenge because you are a fraud and irrelavent to your cause.
--------------

This is a false distinction put forth by creationist who have to concede something about evolution in light of evidence for evolution. Speciation has been shown to happened between species based upon the same mechanism that produces varieties within a species.-----------> again you failed to demonstrate it using the scientific method . I dont need another bait and switch brain washing attempt.  stop being a slapnut. show some common sense prove you are not just an atheist drone minion of a satanic movement right now you expose yourself as a closet pagan..   has been shown ? liar! are you proud? lies dont count in real science.

-----------------

First, then unless you have omnipresence and omniscience, your left with solipsism, such that you cannot know that anything is true, even the existence of a deity.---> you coward! you believe in evolution from nothing to matter to life as we know it through mother nature(evolution) your god is time( given enough time you will believe a fairy tale of origins.

Second, why does one need to posit supernatural intervention? I think you're bifurcating here. -->LOL oh that is pathetic.  Based on the atheist Wikipedia: the Scientific method "must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses". This is exactly what I mean! It must be observable, and testable to be scientific! Evolution is not!
       Where did the original matter come from? No one knows for sure, so you have to BELIEVE that evolution is true. I contend that evolution is a religion, not fact as it is portrayed in schools. No other religions are taught in schools, why is this one? . it does not really matter who is right. No one was there to see it happen. No one can show evolution to be 100% fact. Yet high school students have to learn all about the "evolution" of man in school. There are laws that require textbooks to be accurate, yet we teach our students that we evolved millions of years ago from single celled organisms. This is NOT observable or testable, therefore it does NOT follow the scientific method!  you are in fact invoking a deity in disguise with your time + chance +energy = life as we know it. it is called worshipping creation and not the creator and proping yourself up as YAHUWAH who is the true CREATOR of matter in space over time and it is through HIS LIFE  that all life continues and is sustained.  your problem is you deny your faith in a deity because it is pagan in origins.

--------------

Even so, given enough time, a chimpanzee with a typewriter could produce the works of Shakespeare on accident.------>> LOL LOL I believe you beleieve that stupid analogy as fact.   here you are preaching lies as fact with no basis in reality. you say given enough time (invoking your god) and then adding the word "COULD" implying your beliefe and imposing it according to your will.  have you seen A chimpanzee produce the works of shakespear? NO? oh that's right you are a bullshit artist with humanist pagan education. Have you ever applied your chump theory to reality? No ?  that is not how you atheist bitchnuggets operate.  you are a chump with chimp envy.  You assume a chimp is equal to Shakespear! so how many books have you read that were written by a fucking chimpanzee?  0?  yeah that is what I proved in my repeated posted challenge to all you mind bubbles who rely on intelligent design to try and prove no need of INTELLIGENT DESIGN.  that is a fools intellect.

----------------------------

 Understandings in cosmology suppose the existence of multiverses or an oscillating universe could exist, and so long as this is even a possibility (unproven or otherwise) there is no need to suppose a deity. The possibility of multiple iterations that contain billions and billions of stars and billions and billions of planets over billions and billions of years substantially increases the probability in favor of the conditions necessary for life to evolve as it has. ---------->> again you are useless to your atheist cause.  you want to talk about probability?

because you have no facts in science to back your faith in abio evolution of life as we know it!   you dont really trust your own statment and neither does any atheist because you would by your logic expect to play the biggest lottery out there every day for ten years and then expect to win every day in a row for ten years. that is the same dumb ass logic you subscribe to in your brainwashed faith.  the criteria for intelligent life in outer space has already been met right here on earth. yet you fail to grasp it with your delusional mind bubble filled with pockets of methane.  All of creation is evidence of a SUPER NATURAL intelligent  CREATOR from the non living matter which cannot be created by humans to life which cannot be created by humans and even at the smallest molecular scale we see information in the organic technology that fits the criteria of intelligent mind at work and thus intelligent life other than human and far superior. 

atheist terminology falling under the stupid invented term EVOLUTION:which is being preached in maistream media

Cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary, organic, macro and micro -------evolution. dont play stupid they are all connected under the scam of evolution even if you ignore most of them because you cannot grasp the big picture. that does NOT mean they are ALL not a part of your unoriginal pagan religion of origins.

Cosmic evolution involves the origin of the universe, time and matter itself. The Big Bang theory falls within this discipline of evolution.                                        NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

Chemical evolution involves the origin of complex elements. This discipline also attempts to explain the process in which those elements formed. 

NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

Stellar and planetary evolution is the discipline used to explain the origin of the stars and planets. This is distinct from cosmic evolution, yet, at times, overlaps it.  NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
 

Organic evolution attempts to explain the origin of living matter. Those in origin of life studies most often focus on this discipline of evolution.
NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

The two final disciplines of evolution are also the most often confused by people. They are macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Micro-evolution states that all living organisms experience mutations and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations. The difference between this and macro-evolution is that micro-evolution only deals with mutations within a species.

Macro-evolution, on the other hand, states that such adaptations and mutations allow new species to form.

 NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

Also micro changes can be observed with the scientific method. While all the other terms OF EVOLUTION are imaginary and preached as religious fact without question or basis in science or common sense. ( PAGAN HUMANIST /ATHEIST/ CHUMPS WITH CHIMP ENVY/ ARE OF THE SPIRIT OF SATAN)

Either you're redefining science or you don't know what science is. What about the work that has been done in the realms of cosmology and biology is unscientific?

Likewise, even if evolution is false, this does not make theism as you know it true.
 

MoM,

Your god (whatever you want to call him) was created by people. The people who wrote what you claim to be the original scriptures (you know, the Greek ones).

You worship the creation instead of the creators.

Pagan.

Submitted by ubuntuAnyone on September 9, 2010 - 12:53am.

Evolution is a process that describes how life changes. Naturalism is a philosophy. There are plenty of theists who oppose naturalism as a philosophy but accept evolution as science.-------------->the only theists that accept evolution are not theists who believe in YAHUWAH and believe in HIS WORD as it is written which does not state evolution in any way shape or form. HE clearly explains that HE created matter in space over time and that He formed the matter into a MAN and only then did HE breath life from HIMSELF in the the lifeless formed MAN. LIFE as we know it is a continuation of life not a evolution fron non life.

The creationist position says dogs, wolves, foxes and coyotes all share a common ancestor. This is supported by science. This is logical and rational.

The evolutionist position says dogs, wolves, foxes and coyotes also have fish, amphibian and reptile ancestors. This is unsupported by science. This is faith. The evolutionist has faith that wolves are the descendents of ancient salamanders.

The evolutionist has faith that human beings are distant cousins of dogs, wolves, foxes and coyotes, while sharing the same salamander ancestor that panda bears, elephants, birds and giraffes share. This is unsupported by science.

The evolutionist has faith that a magic salamander contained the trillions and trillions of genetic data necessary to give rise to all species of mammals, reptiles and birds on earth.

In that case, my "religion" should be focused primarily at my parents who brought me into existence. My mother carried me and birthed me and my father raised me. I love my parents dearly such that my "religion" is my relationship to my parents. Under your definition, I have no reason to credit an invisible, inaudible, intangible being for my existence, much less does he/she/it deserve any sort of affection or worship.,,------> LIFE as we know it is a continuation of life not a evolution fron non life. you admit that your life did not originate from scum! and that you observe is a testimony that your life could only come from a continuation of life pre existing. Life is not a natural thing that happens without life to begin with, there is a need for procreation where life is to continue.

It's not mystery that I don't care to much for Dawkins, but I was showing you were making a category mistake. Railing against him such as this, is irrelevant to your point or cause.------->dawkins like darwin are poster boys for their generations of fools like you who seek to justify the fiction of evolution of everything from nothing.

Since you're issuing challenges, I will: show me how "all the evidence points to a supernatural intelligence that is responsible for the the finite realm of matter in space over time with life and information." I think in your attempt you'll probably end up begging the question....->

 The existence of YAHUWAH is taken for granted in the modern translations of the WORD OF YAHUWAH in what you think is the Bible.

There is nowhere any argument to prove it. He who disbelieves this truth is spoken of as one devoid of understanding (Psalm 14:1).

The arguments generally adduced by theologians in proof of YAHUWAHs existence are:

• The a priori argument, which is the testimony afforded by reason.

• The a posteriori argument, by which we proceed logically from the facts of experience to causes. These arguments are:

  1. The cosmological, by which it is proved that there must be a First Cause of all things, for every effect must have a cause.

  2. The teleological, or the argument from design. We see everywhere the operations of an intelligent Cause in nature.

  3. The moral argument, called also the anthropological argument, based on the moral consciousness and the history of mankind, which exhibits a moral order and purpose which can only be explained on the supposition of the existence of YAHUWAH. Conscience and human history testify that “verily there is a YAHUWAH that judgeth in the earth.”
     

     Some fools still try to insist that the machinery of the first cell could have arisen by pure chance. For instance, they say, by randomly drawing alphabet letters in sequence from a hat, sometimes you will get a simple word like 'BAT'. So given long time periods, why couldn't even more complex information arise by chance?

     However, what would the word 'BAT' mean to a German or Chinese speaker? The point is that an order of letters is meaningless unless there is a language convention and a translation system in place which makes it meaningful!

     In a cell, there is such a system (other molecules) that makes the order on the DNA meaningful. DNA without the language/translation system is meaningless, and these systems without the DNA wouldn't work either.

     The other complication is that the translation machinery which reads the order of the 'letters' in the DNA is itself specified by the DNA! This is another one of those 'machines' that needs to be fully-formed or life won't work.

     Dr. Werner Gitt, Director and Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, makes it clear that one of the things we know absolutely for sure from science, is that information cannot arise from disorder by chance. It always takes (greater) information to produce information, and ultimately information is the result of intelligence:

     'A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) . . . It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.' 'There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.'

     We can therefore deduce that the huge amount of information in living things must originally have come from an intelligence, which had to have been far superior to ours, as scientists are revealing every day. But then, some will say that such a source would have to be caused by something with even greater information/intelligence.

     However, if they reason like this, one could ask where this greater information/intelligence came from? And then where did that one come from . one could extrapolate to infinity, for ever, unless .

     Unless there was a source of infinite intelligence, beyond our finite understanding. But isn't this what the Bible indicates when we read, 'In the beginning YAHUWAH .'? The YAHUWAH of the original scriptures of YAHUWAH is an infinite being not bound by limitations of time, space, knowledge, or anything else.

      which is the logically defensible position?—that matter eternally existed (or came into existence by itself for no reason), and then by itself arranged itself into information systems against everything observed in real science?

     Or that a being with infinite intelligence, created information systems for life to exist, agreeing with real science?

     The crux of the matter is this: If one accepts there is an ELOAH ALMIGHTY  who created us, then that ELOAH YAH AM also owns us. He thus has a right to set the rules by which we must live. In the original scriptures of YAHUWAH, He has revealed to us that we are in rebellion against our Creator. Because of this rebellion called sin, our physical bodies are sentenced to death—but we will live on,  with YAHUWAH, or  not without Him in a place of judgment.

     Can you believe in the existence of something that you cannot see?

     Have you ever seen your own brain? We all believe in many things that we have never seen. Have you ever seen the wind? Have you seen history? We see the effects of the wind, but the wind is invisible. We have records of history, but it is by faith we believe that certain historical events happened. Television waves are invisible, but an antenna and a receiver can detect their presence.

     Do you know that you have a receiver? Prior to becoming a child of God, your 'receiver' (your RUWACH) is dead because of sin (see Ephesians 2:1). You need to be plugged into the life of YAHUWAH, and then you will come alive and be aware of the invisible spiritual realm.

     Scientists have found that within the cell, there are thousands of what can be called 'biochemical machines'. All of their parts have to be in place simultaneously or the cell can't function. Things which were thought to be simple mechanisms, such as being able to sense light and turn it into electrical impulses, are in fact highly complicated.

     Since life is built on these 'machines', the idea that natural processes could have made a living system is untenable. Biochemist Dr. Michael Behe uses the term 'irreducible complexity' in describing such biochemical 'machines'.

     '…systems of horrendous, irreducible complexity inhabit the cell. The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century who have gotten used to thinking of life as the result of simple natural laws. But other centuries have had their shocks, and there is no reason to suppose that we should escape them.

     'For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse' (Romans 1:20). var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));

     var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-1914339-1");
     pageTracker._initData();
     pageTracker._trackPageview();

     var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
     document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));

     var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-1914339-1");
     pageTracker._initData();
     pageTracker._trackPageview();
     

Have you ever actually observed life being given to "non living matter"->?NO! and I know that you have not either. the state of life is sustained through procreation.

Do you have a better way of observing the universe? -->making false assumptions has nothing to do with observation.

If I am unable to make observations about "the cosmos from the perspective of a dot", why should I beleive you or anything else from anyone else making observations from the same dot?---> you are free to believe lies that men have told you or you can do your own research and test the things that are said only the truth is visable in the light of day. observing distance does not mean you are observing time in the same context. light  does not travel at a constant rate of speed. so being a dot in the universe does not give you the authority to dictate false presuppositions about billions of unseen unobserved years. of course if you want to push the lie of evolution then you need every unscientific quote you can inmagine.

life leaves in an instant in the form of death and does not take millions of years to spontaniously occur yet your theory depends on unseen amounts of time for life to occur by natural causes.

You also failed to answer my question about what is unscientific about biologgy and cosmology as we know it.
---->we do not know the same things if we did you would not be deaf dumb and blind to reality

everything as you define biology and cosmology is unscientific yet you believe it as gospel.

What do you say to theists who accept the findings in contemporary science? --->I say if you accept evolution just as the satanic pope does then your are a damned fool and are without excuse and you were never of YAHUWAH but instead you are of SHATAN.

your religion of evolution is a man made false god

Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!

Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.

Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his “missing link&rdquo. (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)

Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: “Skull fragment may not be human”, Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)

Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: “Upgrading Neanderthal Man”, Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)

I'm pretty sure MoM is Jewish, thus there are no "Greek ones"

So...MOM has just said he that he accepts evolution, so he's not the theist he says he is...

Such things are supported by science...I'm not sure where  you're getting your facts from, but it sounds like you are reading science books edited and published by YEC's

You believe that man was created from dust by an invisible, inaudible, intangible being, that you've never sseen before over just believing that man came from dust alone... That's not scientific at all, rather it sounds quite a bit more fanciful than some form of abiogenesis.

That doesn't tell why I should believe you. Why is your observation from this same rock in space any better than mine?

The No-True-Scotsman fallacy at work....geez.

one possible scientific experiment is to attempt to falsify or strengthen the theory by making a prediction using the theory, and following it.

in this case, i would point to tiktaalik, which was found by neil shubin in 2004. the prediction was something along the lines of;

since we only find fish in rocks 380 million years old, and amphibians in rock 360 million years old, then we should find a missing link somewhere in between.

after searching in rocks of that age, in the area where the advent of the species would have taken place, tiktaalik was found.

tiktaalik is literally a half fish, half amphibian. it has scales on its back, and fins, yet it has a flat lizard head, shoulders, and looking under the fin we find the beginings of the arm, with the shoulder leading to an arm leading to an elbow, and miraculously, a wrist.

so, my counter question is, why do all predictions sway to evolution? if creationism is correct, we should find that dinosaurs lived, and therefore died at the same time as modern animals and even humans. why do all of the fossils convieniently line up to make a perfect progressive model of species throughout the ages?

on top of that, your references to "cosmsic, chemical, micro and macro evolution" makes me think that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution, or no oubt even the word theory means.

There is no hard line between idea, hypothesis, theory, and fact, but a scale by which one can measure by degrees of certainty one can say that something is so. A fact is merely something that is so supported by such a volume of evidence, that it would not make sense to doubt it. Evolution is a fact, natural selection is the theory through which it acts, and it is this colloquial misconception which causes much doubt to be cast on evolution by creationists.

there is no chemical, cosmic, micro, or macro evolution. evolution merely states that a specimen with a beneficial mutation (slightly longer giraffe neck, slightly brighter peacock colours) will live longer, and pass on the mutation, and its genes more than a specimen which died due to lack of this mutation. the compounding of these mutations over a very long amount of time (several million years) would result in a species looking completely different. if you agree micro evolution (or whatever you try to call it) happens, you must admit that over millions of years, these small mutations would add up to change the species entirely, also, dont give me any of that "never seen data added" shit, that has been exhausted already.

as for cosmic? i must assume you are asking how we know how old the universe is, well, we have many ways, which i am not a specialist in, but if you do want to learn (Which you claim to) then google WMAP, or radiometric dating.

chemical dating? ask doctor manhattan, im sure he would love to tell you how gold can only be made in supernovas.

i still look for bunnies in the cambrian.

 DRONE who admits faith in science fiction which is an oxymoron for fools

prediction verified by experiment

one possible scientific experiment is to attempt to falsify or strengthen the theory by making a prediction using the theory, and following it.

in this case, i would point to tiktaalik, which was found by neil shubin in 2004. the prediction was something along the lines of;

since we only find fish in rocks 380 million years old, and amphibians in rock 360 million years old, then we should find a missing link somewhere in between.

after searching in rocks of that age, in the area where the advent of the species would have taken place, tiktaalik was found.

tiktaalik is literally a half fish, half amphibian. it has scales on its back, and fins, yet it has a flat lizard head, shoulders, and looking under the fin we find the beginings of the arm, with the shoulder leading to an arm leading to an elbow, and miraculously, a wrist.

so, my counter question is, why do all predictions sway to evolution? ----------->first you need to understand that you are using fiction to base you delusion of a question which has no foundation in reality. you started telling nonsense about only finding fish in rocks and that those rocks are 380million years old etc... with the other eg.'s. your socalled predictions are not relevant because they are not based in reality. Too bad Soo sad!

if creationism is correct, we should find that dinosaurs lived, and therefore died at the same time as modern animals and even humans. why do all of the fossils convieniently line up to make a perfect progressive model of species throughout the ages?

---->the simple answer to your drone brainwashed question is that they do not. never did and never will in the real world. However in your science fiction books they can exist to appear any way you want them to.  you obviously did not go to reality school nor did you  consider thinking for yourself and researching the invention/origin  of the  imaginary geo-ilogical  collumn  bycharles lyel  (lawyer/asshole/atheist/satanic bitch mentor of Darwin.)

regarding terrible lizards/dinosaurs as you call them, they are represented throughout human records of history. that means real eye witness accounts proving that humans and dinos lived at the same time. SURPRISE!  it's called history. go learn!

on top of that, your references to "cosmsic, chemical, micro and macro evolution" makes me think that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution, or no oubt even the word theory means.----------->> Really? you think? Misunderstanding of evolution and theory? OH, you mean the atheist religion of  human origins based in speculation and paganism! Right that science fiction thing you admire so much like Dr.manhatten.

There is no hard line between idea, hypothesis, theory, and fact, but a scale by which one can measure by degrees of certainty one can say that something is so. A fact is merely something that is so supported by such a volume of evidence, that it would not make sense to doubt it. Evolution is a fact, natural selection is the theory through which it acts, and it is this colloquial misconception which causes much doubt to be cast on evolution by creationists.

there is no chemical, cosmic, micro, or macro evolution. evolution merely states that a specimen with a beneficial mutation (slightly longer giraffe neck, slightly brighter peacock colours) will live longer, and pass on the mutation, and its genes more than a specimen which died due to lack of this mutation. the compounding of these mutations over a very long amount of time (several million years) would result in a species looking completely different. if you agree micro evolution (or whatever you try to call it) happens, you must admit that over millions of years, these small mutations would add up to change the species entirely, also, dont give me any of that "never seen data added" shit, that has been exhausted already.

----------->first you need a lesson in facts  not science fiction which is an invented term for idiots by satanists.

I shall provide you what you lack in education about the real world in real time

as for cosmic? i must assume you are asking how we know how old the universe is, well, we have many ways, which i am not a specialist in, but if you do want to learn (Which you claim to) then google WMAP, or radiometric dating.

chemical dating? ask doctor manhattan, im sure he would love to tell you how gold can only be made in supernovas.

-> yes I am sure in your atheist dream world I might consider asking dr.manhatten to meet my posted challenge since you clearly failed most adriably for a chump with chimp envy!

------------->you education begins here starting with foundations that support  a sound sytem of belief that is considered knowledge.

first for evolution to happen you need life to exist  and since you cannot use science to show how life existed befor it evolved you are a still atheist drone slapnut  

since by your stupid branwashed religion of origins there is no life to evolve in the first place. evolution is not relevant.

I do not need to invent stupid theories for idiots to hide behind. nor would I say it takes too long  to see happening in realtime. I do not need mutations and natural selection and fossils to prove a fact that supports a worldview that is a majority in the worlds population even if we people of are not on the same page as to the truth identity of the ALMIGHTY CREATOR. the fact remains that  the need for communion with our CREATOR ALMIGHTY is relevent becuase there is a issue of life and death for us all.   HE WHO IS ETERNAL /self existent ->  YAHUWAH and He manifests HIMSELF  in so many many ways beyond your atheist capacity to grasp.

since there was by your foolish beliefe no life to evolve all you have is death/nonliving matter/materials that can be found today in living matter.

I  can show through repeatable science that life only comes from life fully funtional with no need to evolve. It happens every day.

A man by the name of Louis Pasture had just finished a set of experiments that proved that micro organisms lived in the air. This was a finding that everyone was waiting for. The reason was there had been a scientific fight between two theories. One was called spontaneous generation and the other theory dictated that life comes from life. The spontaneous generation camp would quickly point out that maggots appeared from meat, that mosquitoes came from a pond or the mice would appear from warm moist soil. How could a maggot appear where there were no other maggots present? How could mold appear on bread where no mold was present? They concluded that matter contained the vital material and energy that would cause life to spontaneously generate if combined with other chemicals or conditions that were right. in 1862 we see that Louis Pasture indeed published the proofs that bacteria is in the air and that is were the "new life" comes from and effectively demolished the theory of spontaneous generation once and for all. In fact, the Law of Biogenesis, that life only comes from life, was formed in part thanks to Pasture's work. We call curing milk pasteurization in honor of Louis's work in bacteria. Pasture had once and for all killed the silly notion that life can come from matter or did he?
 

scientists of all persuasions have missed a critical issue when discussing the validity of evolution. And that is evolution has a pillar, that is a support beam to the theory as a whole, which is based on an assumption that has been disproved centuries ago. This fact is repeatable, demonstrative, and very predicable. In fact, the assumption that life only comes from life, and not inorganic matter, is given the highest level that any assumption is given in science and that is the level of a Law. If there is anything that science knows to be true it is Laws. Laws trump theory. If you take out the idea of spontaneous generation from evolution, I cannot see how the house of evolution can stand. If indeed spontaneous generation is that critical to evolution, then the Law of Bio Genesis trumps the theory of evolution.

present day, one might be mystified to see many great scientists still peddling the evolution myth which is based on a retired old idea. Not only that, we are forcing teachers to teach our kids this myth. One side says that life comes from life and this is observed 100% of the time with not one observable inconsistency, the other side being satanic dumbass monkey wannabe bitchnugget drones says life comes from inorganic matter at some time in the past, which has never been observed or duplicated in labs once ever! Yes, that means no repeatable facts of science.  I am not sure about you as you will have to make up your own immaterial mind, but I think I would place my bets on something that is right 100% of the time and not rely on something that is right 0% of the time as in your case according to your false manmade religion for drones.

So why do so called scientists claim to posses so much evidence of evolution, to the point that the establishment agrees with them?

Simply because these asshole scientists had an assumption where they then went out to find the proofs to support the assumption.

However, if your foundational assumption is wrong, the house of evidence you build on that foundation becomes very suspect. The idea that life can erupt from nonliving matter has been soundly dismissed by the strongest demonstrative methods known to science and as such, the evidence that support that assumption become very suspect. It does not matter how eloquently and skilfully the evidence is built, if the foundation is falling apart the building must be condemned. evolution cannot occur in the first place because it has no foundation in science.

This is also a repeatable fact. you are mentaly deaf dumb and blind .

 Science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method ..... the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding



So we see by the above definition, that true science should be defined as facts, backed up by tests using the scientific method. So, what is the scientific method? It is defined below.

Scientific Method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Theory: Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&ampr-E

Function: noun

Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein

Date: 1592

The analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another : abstract thought :SPECULATION: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b :an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE.

definition of religion is:

Main Entry: religion

Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back

Date: 13th century

1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith <-atheists pay attention to your hypocrisy (you are just closet pagans who worships a manmade entity called mother nature) You are for pro choice which is really pro murder of unborn humans. pity no atheists were aborted through that mentality.

Another dictionary explains "religion" in these terms:

Religion: a belief in, recognition of or an awakened sense of, a higher, unseen controlling power or powers with the emotion or morality connected therewith: rites or worship: any system of such belief or worship: devoted fidelity: monastic life.

faith

Pronunciation: 'fAth

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/

Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE

Date: 13th century

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

You will notice that the Webster's definition of "faith" is the same as the Biblical definition. I think that we can, in simple terms, explain the faithful of a religion as those who have become an institution by their faith, which is belief in something in which there is no scientific proof. If you can't see it, and no one has ever seen it, and there is no proof that it happened then to believe it is certainly faith and when it is instituted with a group of others, it is a religion.

Evolution Is The Religion:

look at ways in which those who believe in evolution are faithful in their religious beliefs.

1. Belief in a "Big Bang," that they have no proof of.

2. Belief in life which resulted from chemical processes, of which they have no proof.

3. Belief in an old Earth, for which no convincing proof has ever been found.

4. Belief in macro-evolution without producing any transitionary forms.

5. Belief in uniformitarianism, that all environmental processes have always been the same on Earth, with no proof of that hypothesis.

First, since evolution is a religion, it should not be subsidized by the government. To me this seems like what the ACLU terms a violation to the separation of Church and State, as accorded in the Constitution. Billions of dollars of government grants are given each year for the furtherment of evolutional study.

Secondly, evolution should not be taught as a theory or fact in public schools. This is another clear violation of the constitution. I have proved that evolution is a faith, and if one looks at it clearly, it takes more faith to believe in it than other faiths do. So, lets get it out of our schools.

 I accept  your failure to meet my posted challenge. now run along back to your atheist home base and bring more chumps with chimp envy.