Ads Disabled because I wrote an article critical of the Gay Agenda
So, first of all, why do we all waste so much of our time trying to "convert" people who are less intelligent than we are? In other words, why are those people who are scientifically literate and well-educated spend their time or even feel compelled to spend their time attempting to explain the definition of intelligence to stupid people? If somebody doesn't have the basic intellectual foundation to understand certain things, it's highly unlikely that any of us are going to illuminate them in a forum of this kind, yet we feel compelled to do so. Why? I am guilty of this.
To perhaps answer that question, I would also suggest that we are struggling with a much larger problem and that's the intellectual disintegration of America. People who toss the Bible out as authority on all things moral and scientific tend to be people who believe and do things like the following:
1. Deny that evolution is a valid scientific theory.
2. Support discrimination against all kinds of groups of people.
3. Support teaching creationism in public schools.
4. Change textbooks in public schools by eliminating science.
I could come up with a bunch of others of a more political nature, but I'll refrain. Are we so compelled by Biblical idiocy that we feel like we're fighting a battle for the soul of our country? I know there's a place for people of faith in the scientific community and the two can co-exist. Not sure the opposite is true.
What do we call a person who sincerely believes the Earth is 6000 years old? Dangerous? Stupid? Moronic? Insane?Because, those stupid people are running around trying to spread hate in the world and effecting peoples lives.
I agree though that you can't fix stupid. But you can show their victims that we are here. We, the people who stick up for them. The world is changing and we are willing to speak out against bullies and bigots. Let the bullies know it's not ok anymore and we have put this bully in her place. For the 1st time in history, the intelligent people of the world are telling the tyrants that enough is enough. Intelligence rules the world now. Not tyranny and stupidity, not fear mongering nor hate.
People like that can now crawl back into the hole that they came out of because the Volksgeist has rejected them for good reason. Not because of the color of their skin, or their orientation, nor the amount of money they have in their pockets. But simply because of who they are as an individual and the harm they wish to bring to others.I completely agree. Religion, Christianity especially, has been forced to evolve or die multiple times, and it's happening again. Eventually the fundamentalists will die off, but they need to recognize that they no longer have carte Blanche, and that their views and across will be held accountable.
Youre wrong in your assumptions...
I do not deny that evolution is a scientific theory...I deny that it is true. If you can teach evolution in the public school as a theory, why not creationism, which has been around much longer than evolution and has been much more widely accepted? Hmmmm you're a bit one sided there....both should be taught. I dont discriminate or support discrimination against anyone. I also dont know what you mean about Christians not teaching science. I work in a Christian school, and we teach science...in fact, I graduated a Christian school and tested in the 96th percentile in the nation on my SATs... So, I suggest you try to understand a bit more about Christians as a whole, rather than judging us by your own limited experience.I agree with you here. Both should be taught in school. Although evolution should be taught as a science and creationism should be taught as a theology.
You mean, since religion and science address two entirely separate questions?!?!?!?! What a novel idea!
But---NO religion in public schools (First Amendment's freedom from religion/Establishment Clause) and so NO Creationism taught as theology, but as only---and VERY clearly as only, part of a larger curriculum of world religions.
Years ago I taught high school social studies---"Global Studies", and we did a unit on world religions that highlighted the basic beliefs of each religion. It would be appropriate, obviously, to include Christianity in such a unit if it was given the say treatment as all other world religions.If you want your kid's taught religion better put them in a private school. I'm not American, but here we have a secular public funded school system and a Catholic public funded school system. Because the Catholic system is public funded it's heavily regulated. My kids went through and one is still going through the Catholic system. (married a Catholic) Science was science, religion was religion. Kids are fine.
And yes, as someone educated in Catholic schools (K through college) myself, I can attest to the fact that in Catholic schools religion is religion and science is science and they are not conflated in any way.
I can still recall the priests teaching us about evolution and the Big Bang and making it very clear that the Bible's "Creation" story was just that---a story; an allegory designed to offer some simple but definitely not historically accurate narrative of how we came to be.
I never met a priest (or nun) in a Catholic school---and I taught in Catholic schools for several years, who "believed" in (a) the Bible as a literal document or (b) in Creationism in any way.
If you were a teacher, then you have to understand the difference between science and religion. Science (ALL the sciences) hypothesize and look for evidence to support that hypothesize. Religion hypothesizes and declares it true because they like the sound of it. Most definitely science does not declare an hypothesis true because people millennia ago thought it was. Nor is it declared true because masses of people think it must be, without ever checking or even understanding the reasoning behind it.
The result, of course, is that religious teachings (creationism) does not belong in the science class. Teach it in religion classes - fine, but keep it out of the sciences until it uses the scientific method of searching for knowledge.Wilderness:
After seeing the student paper that you posted, it is clear to me (at least) that there is NO science taught in some so-called "Christian" schools---at least nothing that you and I and other rational and educated people would understand as science.
I did a little searching on the web to see what Christians might be teaching in science class and found the following (among thousands of very similar examples):
https://answersingenesis.org/store/prod … u=40-1-323Form the complete description:
"Best of all, God’s Design textbooks help you teach science from a biblical, creationist perspective, emphasizing God’s handiwork in the world around us. Using the God’s Design curriculum from AiG will help strengthen your student’s faith by showing how science consistently supports the Bible’s written record. "
Translation: "We will teach your child to believe the myth by pretending the bible's written record is correct and slamming the children repeatedly with that pretense.
"Students will learn to think critically and logically examine arguments presented by all sides in the creation/evolution debate."
Translation: "Children will lose the ability to reason, accepting anything the priesthood tells them as absolute truth".
I do find it a little odd that a pair of electrical engineers find themselves qualified to write instructional texts on chemistry, physics, biology and cosmology. Not only is that quite a spread of knowledge for anyone, it is far from their own field of study.Ha! I hear you.
One thing I saw on one of the Christian curriculum sites was a notation that "minimal teacher preparation was needed".
Gee...you think?Did it also say "minimum student thought needed"?
Judging from this and the test I posted previously, I fear that would scare off most students. That much thought can be downright scary, particularly when parents comprehend that it might result in learning something. That does not seem to be the objective here; rather a good case of brainwashing is.
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000-what about ALL OF THE ABOVE.
Is it fair to say that those who use the Bible as the source of all their information are scientifically illiterate and tend to be mathematically illiterate as well?
If so, what do we do about that? Isn't that dangerous for us as a culture?I believe that science illiteracy coupled with the current trend toward science denial is a threat to our national security.
Disagree. While the incredible ignorance we see is there, it is also fairly rare. Sure, people today don't understand the most basic things about everyday tools and articles they use (computers, microwaves, TV's, cars, etc.) they don't need to, either. They hire someone else to use or fix them.
The near total science illiteracy, on the other hand, is not common. Most people know stars are a long ways away, they know we came from a big bang, they know the earth is not flat and not the center of everything. That small minority has a very loud voice, but aren't common enough to do any real damage to our country.
I hope.Minority? LOL Big Bang? Really? Seriously? 70% of the US claims to be Christian.. that would leave the other 30% a minority
You do realize he was stating that the amount of people who have no knowledge of science are a minority? Not that Christians are a minority.
And the largest single Christian denomination: ROMAN CATHOLICS...
I'm a Christian, and a Catholic. Well, I WAS, until you informed me otherwise. I'll let Jesus know I've never really believed in him after all. I'm sure your mansion in Heaven will be much larger for having corrected that misconception for me.
"In heaven, all the interesting people are missing" - Nietzsche
I'd guess we're more likely to connect in Purgatory!
But we don't believe in purgatory because remember, we aren't Christians
Like the way Hasidic Jews are not Jews.Ah, I forgot that part...lol
It's just such an asinine argument. There are so many misconceptions among Christians about the various denominations. Sigh.
Last time I checked, if we all focused on the basics, we'd be astounded to find out that we share the same core beliefs. The rest is more decoration than anything else.Oh my...
If there is a hell, then I guess I will see you all there, because ain't none of us that can meet the stink test to get into those pearly gates of heaven...Exactly...and wasn't the Protestant Reformation, after all was said and done, just about decorations?
Wasn't it Martin Luther who didn't like all the decorations at the local church; the fancy vestments; the pomp; the over-the-top pipe organs?No, Martin Luther actually had deeper concerns about what he believed were spiritual abuses in the Church, and was right about many things. His goal was never to start a new denomination; rather it was to renew his own Church and bring it back to a simple following of Christ as presented in the Gospels.
Such people fortunately are in the VERY, VERY SMALL minority. They WILL die out. People who have atavistic views in this postmodern society are OUTNUMBERED. Besides that, they do not have the psychointellectual life skills to navigate this increasingly, complex postmodern society so they will retreat from this society, creating their own universe. However if such people have children, it will be
QUITE UNFORTUNATE for the children involved. These children will grow up in a stultified, quite insular atmosphere but if they aren't completely brainwashed and are psychologically savvy enough, they will eventually rebel against such atavistic thinking and believing parents.
Let me add that it is HIGHLY IMPERATIVE that America become more scientifically literate if she wishes to compete with nations who possess an extremely proficient degree of scientific, technological, and mathemathical literacy. America must learn to fully embrace science and discard her subconsciously fear of fully exploring, utlilizing, and realizing her scientific potential. This is the 21st century and intelligent design and creationism is taught in schools. Totally unbelievable, such things are the height of cultural regression. Discard these outmoded religious precepts and be attuned to this modern era. Had better if America wishes to fully thrive scientifically.
I think that it is important to respect others and their beliefs. If an article is written, it should be written The hubber should write a small passage explaining that the articles content is not in any way meant to offend any particular audience. On the other hand Hubpages Should present in writing articles that are permitted in each hub. I don't feel that hubpages is discriminating. But I do feel that they have to protect their audience, themselves, and the hubber from any legal issues or law suits. You can always rewrite your hub and submit it again and change your wording. Atleast this is my opinion. I love writing on hubpages. I think that they are not trying to offend you, but are rather taking precaution to protect you.
- mbuggiehposted 11 years ago
0Brie: Why did you censor my comments (by not "approving" them) about your comments equating homosexuality to pedophilia?
Because you purposely misconstrue what I said..so I am done with you.
Because she has a particular mindview regarding the subject and anyone who disagrees with that viewpoint WON'T be heard, pure and SIMPLE.
Yeah, I am done with this thread. I have yet to bash gay people, or make fun of scientifically minded people or call them names or act as if they are inferior...yet the supposed "scholars" here seem to enjoy making Christians seem stupid... If you want to debate, try not doing it in the manner a 5 year old child takes on the pre-school playground crowd. Grow up and talk facts....buh bye
>complains about insults being hurled
>hurls insults
The dictionary defines "hypocrite" as...Ah ha.........isn't it quite interesting, Zelkiiro. The human mindset, really mindboggling, isn't it!
Love the memes here...lol lol
I'm a Christian and I don't claim to know the bible throughout. But what little I do gather is that "God is love" and if He is love, He loves all creatures, great or small. He loves all people and he didn't create mankind to be separated from each other. We are all one family. This hate and revile against homosexuals is not God's way.
When it comes to the nitty-gritty of things, it's what's in our hearts and how we treat our neighbors, that's important. By neighbors, I mean all mankind.
The other person's sexual preference pales in comparison to the compassion we should show each other. Our love and concern for the other person should not be about who sleeps with whom but about how that person copes with life.
When last have we asked someone else, how they are dealing with a family crisis, or if they are eating well? When last have we just offered someone else an ear or shoulder to cry on. Instead of dwelling on sexuality why not dwell on people in general? We would be much better off.You continue to touch my heart every day! You are a beautiful person!
Thanks Michele. What the bible doesn't teach the holyghost does. You can know the bible from start to finish but without that spirit inside that guides you, you will go about your faith all wrong.
There must be something within us that guides us along the right path and that thing is our compass. You don't have to know every scripture to be holy.
I want to let everyone here know that religion was created by man. The only requirement is that man be holy. Being holy requires certain principles which the bible teaches, but God did NOT create religion and if we depend on religion we are going fail. I call myself a Christian because I believe in the Christ and I believe there is ONE God, but I don;t preach religion because every religion has one thing in common, they all have one deity they worship.
God only requires us to be holy, he did not require mankind to be separated by religion , race or sexuality. If we live holy, then everything else will fall into place. We wouldn't be having this discussion as to who is a Christian or not. Religious history wont save you, holiness will.
Would you like some accolade for not "bashing" gay people? You make it sound as if you are heroic or gracious for not "bashing" a particular group of people.
As for facts:
We are talking facts, but facts mean absolutely zero to people's who allow themselves to be controlled by a total work of fiction; a collection of made-man allegories and myths about a mythical being and his mythical allies and enemies; a collection of allegories and myths edited and changed over time to serve the political and secular ambitions rooted in a quest for power, control, authority.It's not based in myth, it's simply telling the story of the the sun and the solstices, and the procession of the equinoxes more largely, as with many other ancient Mesopotamian belief systems.
The rest is mostly rules are to keep people in line. The idea of the afterlife is the carrot to keep people following those rules and keep people (slaves, poor people) from standing up for themselves by giving them the idea that they have an eternity of rewards, just not in this lifetime; and the afterlife is the stick to keep people afraid of hell and subservient to the church who cherry-picks as they go based upon modern interpretation of ancient texts.
If you want to debate, try learning the rules and logical fallacies before making an attempt, and you may be taken more seriously. Just sayin'.
Ha, he says he has insulted no one and them says we are a bunch of 5 year olds in playgrounds. LOL
Wow, that is one of the most hateful comics I have EVER seen. True Christianity is nothing like that at all. In fact, this makes me sick at my stomach. I have always been taught that we love people, no matter what their standing in life. I do NOT have to condone someone's actions to care about them. On the flip side, stating that I think someone's actions are wrong or immoral, does NOT constitute a hate speech. For me to say that Timothy McVeigh committed a heinous act in blowing up the federal building in Oklahoma City does not mean I hate him. I still didn't want to see his life snuffed out. For me to say I strongly disagree with the homosexual lifestyle and I believe it to be immoral, is not a hate speech. I simply disagree with the actions surrounding that lifestyle. I am sorry this is your view of Christianity Susana, and I truly hope you meet some real Christians very soon who can show you the truth of the Bible. Christ never condemned a person, but he never condoned their sin either... He told them to go and sin no more. His heart was full of compassion, Ours should be as well.
I"m sorry, but weren't you done with this thread? Didn't you just write a whole post about it? And yet you're here?
Joshua, it doesn't benefit their agenda to understand or believe you..therefore they choose to see disagreement as hate because that is what furthers their agenda and their own hatred. It gives them justification in their hatred of us. It's like when the Nazi's told themselves that the Jews were evil. They did this to appease their conscience..it's the same exact thing.
That's what most atheists say about Christians too.
Guess it depends on what side of the fence you're looking at it...
Just a thought. I'm not atheist, so...Another assertion that you can neither demonstrate or prove. I'm starting to think that is all you're capable of, which is the opposite of evidence and logic. Thanks once again for admitting it.
Do you really think that just saying something is fact makes it fact, and that everyone should just accept whatever you say? While asking for evidence from anyone who disagrees with you that you dismiss out of hand? It's nothing more than a hypocritical double standard to mask the fact that you absolutely cannot price what you say is true, you're completely uninformed on history, science and even the history of your own religion, and you just want to be believed in principle. Sorry, reality does not work that way. You don't work that way for anything but your religious bias.Brie:
Why are you so focused on homosexuality?
You've excused away every other possible admonition and prohibition from the Bible as either not applicable in the present or as applicable only to Jews.
So...again, why are you so focused on homosexuality?Why are homosexuals so focused on Christians? My article was about homosexuals forcing their views on Christians not the other way around! I don't see them taking Muslims to court or going to a Muslim bakery to ask them to bake a wedding cake..HMMM I wonder why!
Homosexuals are focused on Christians only when Christians try to force them to behave the way they think a Christian would act. In other words, when Christians try to get homosexuality banned. I have never met a gay or lesbian person who doesn't like Christians for what they believe. It's if they try to impose those religious beliefs in a legal system.
Show me one case where Christians tried to get homosexuality banned that didn't involve children?
Um.. people picketing and sending petitions to the government to ban homosexual marriage because marriage was supposed to be between " a man and woman?" On those grounds ONLY? No mention of children. You've never seen this happen in your own community? Or in the entire US? I know you're not a fan of watching the news (according to your hubs, and I don't blame you there) but that can be seen without the news or any medium. No Christian I have ever spoken with on this planet opposes it on the grounds of strictly whether it will benefit children or not.
So if Christians argue that it's for the welfare of children, then it's ok? Remember, that's still an imposition of CHRISTIAN views of how children should be raised, so it really just an extension of what I was saying...nobody has a legal right to tell another person how to raise their kids.That is being against gay marriage not homosexuality.
That's just it. You've proven my point. Most homosexual people don't give a damn how you think unless you're infringing on their legal rights. Therefore, this is the only situation in which a homosexual person would get upset with a Christian person on their opinion about homosexuality. That's the only venue in which their legal rights can be exercised. Most homosexuals I know, as I already previously stated and which you ignored, do NOT care what Christians say as long as their rights are not violated.
Christians are attacking and attempting to condemn homosexuals publicly on the basis of the fact that marriage (and sex) should be experienced between a man and a woman. If you are not aware that Christians do this on a regular basis, you are not aware of the world you live in. Christians want homosexuality eradicated from even being recognized at all, not just in marriage.
You also did not address my question about the children being involved.We would like all sin to be eradicated, that is true. But I don't know any Christians who fight against homosexuality as long as they aren't trying to force their way of life or force the acceptance of their way of life upon us.
People are told all the time how their kids should be raised..that's why CPS exists.Yet, you argued that homosexuality is illegal in many countries and you backed that up.
Yes, It is a fact, I didn't say whether or not I agreed with it. Personally, I don't think it should be illegal, nor do I think that homosexuals should be given minority, legal status.
Then why did you back up your point with saying it was illegal in some place?
Are you kidding me? YOU have protected legal status too. If there was a bakery owned by gay people, and a couple came in asking for a wedding cake for a Christian wedding, if that bakery refused to make the cake on the grounds that they are Christians, those Christians could sue that bakery.
You don't have less protection from discrimination. Your rights in terms of discrimination are the same as gay people in that if someone discriminates against you because you are Christian, you have just as much legal recourse as a gay person does when they are discriminated against for being gay.
"We would like all sin to be eradicated, that is true. But I don't know any Christians who fight against homosexuality as long as they aren't trying to force their way of life or force the acceptance of their way of life upon us."
I do. LOTS of them.
"People are told all the time how their kids should be raised..that's why CPS exists."
Just because they are, doesn't mean they should be. CPS screws things up as much as it fixes them. Even if they should be, the CPS is not a religious group attempting to change the way people raise their kids based on a religious viewpoint. The analogy is therefore invalid.
All this by no means indicates that one person should be told by a Christian how to raise their kids according to Christian values, simply because the Christian feels they're making a mistake.
Sodomy laws---applicable to same-sex partners only, on the books in many states until the Supreme Court overturned the ban on sodomy with Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. Assorted laws criminalizing homosexual acts on the books in all 50 states at one time or another. Current efforts to reintroduce sodomy laws---particularly targeting same-sex couples.
Brie:
Are you telling me that as long as homosexuality does not "involve" children, then Christians are fine with it and will accept it on par with heterosexuality including accepting same-sex marriage?Further more, since my wife and me ARE legally married and recognized by the federal government, I suppose that the accusation of fornication no longer apply.
No, because gay marriage is not the same thing as homosexuality. Fornication is a sin as is homosexuality but as long as Christians are not forced to accept it, most Christians just treat is like any other sin. It's only when it is being forced onto us ..to accept it as a legitimate life-style that we oppose it.
But no one is forcing you to accept it. My marriage does not impact you whatsoever. If a Christian illegally discriminated against a gay couple, they have to answer to the legal authorities.
I don't get why some Christians think the "own" marriage. Pair-bonding ceremonies conveying rights within the community (including homosexual pairings) predate Christ quite considerably.
Brie:
How does same-sex marriage personally affect you? Forget the stop sin/sinners from sinning crap--because you let all sorts of sin/sinners continue unchecked.
Just one simple question:
Why so obsessed with homosexuality?Brie:
So same-sex marriage is a buy one/get one free sin (2 sins in 1) OR is same-sex marriage okay if the partners promise to be celibate?
If Christians were not illegally discriminating against a legally protected minority, there would be no lawsuits. It seems simple to me.
Maybe Muslims don't try to impose on their legal rights.
Could it be because you will not relent in your efforts to hurt us? To destroy our lives and careers? Our families?
Could it be because you won't stop trying to us the US government to deny us our "inalienable right" to life, liberty, and happiness?
Could it be because you tell lies about us and claim that we are pedophiles?
Want more examples?
Because if she said all people who ate shellfish were going to hell, this thread would have been 4 posts long.
True...and I am allergic to shellfish, but gay, so then what?
Bah, it's sort of a pick your battle kind of thing. No need to waste energy on fighting those who have no power to influence anything just because they disagree with you. The world is full of people that disagree.
Why argue with an internet full of people whose opinions... honestly... affect nothing?
Funny that you would liken anyone who supports equality to Nazis, who sought to eliminate people who were different. Pretty sure, you fit the ideals of a Nazi better than your opposition does.
Also, you might find it interesting to note that Adolf Hitler was a Christian, and he thought he was doing God's work:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."Well...before that Brie and her allies were conflating gays and supporters of equality with pedophiles---or at least with supporters of pedophiles.
It wasn't long before the Nazi analogy was deployed. After all, it is in the great big book of talking points from the Christian right...
Isn't it fascinating how people use the Holy Bible as a weapon against their own private beliefs. All too frequently, particular passages in the "Good Book," are distorted and twisted into someone's belief in what is called "Abominations." Since we all seem to have a computer, perhaps going to your own search engine and type in "Bible Abominations," some of these individuals will discover themselves as sinners as well. I find it strange that religious leaders and Sunday Morning Hypocrites as well, will blast out one passage against others. I must tell them to Keep Reading. I, for one, decided upon a whim, to go on line and query abominations in the bible. Somehow, I came up with approximately 70 plus abominations listed. If they were not going against "sex," they were going against pigs and mice as consumables. Perhaps these same I even went to the book of "Leviticus" and discovered that it was approved for man-kind to eat fish that had scales, but it was an abomination to consume shell fish in any form. HELLO!!! says: Leviticus 11:9-12
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.Killing the Jews was "truth" for the Nazis. I'm sure they would be horrified at your attack of them.
Turns out the Earth is flat after all:
"Isaiah 11:12 : And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the Earth.
Revelation 7:1 : And after these things I saw four angels standing on four corners of the Earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
Job 38:13 : That it might take hold of the ends of the Earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
Jeremiah 16:19 : O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit."
Spheres don't have corners or faces. God says the Earth is flat. Science has proven it is spherical. Thus, given that God knows everything and cannot make a mistake according to the bible, he would know that the Earth is not flat. Ergo, God does not exist.
Also, from Genesis 1:16 : "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."
The reason the moon shines at night is because it reflects the sun. The sun itself could be considered a light because it emits electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum, thus creating actual light. The moon is a satellite and doesn't emit visible light of its own, yet God says it is a light just like the Sun. Once more, God would know that the moon isn't a 'light', and he does not make mistakes. Ergo, God does not exist.Here's an interesting tidbit for all you Creationists out in the audience:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9hs3Y1 … p;t=23m59sI got five minutes in. I couldn't watch the rest. It was too painful.
My disclaimer: Not all creationists are like this, granted; and every person can exhibit this much lack of logic.
I love how they're saying: It's never been proven. It can't be fact!
Then I began talking to my computer:
"So...we replace it with something else YOU think is fact? Even if evolution WAS wrong, that doesn't make creationism right. Y U NO UNDERSTAND?"
*facepalm* Ok I'm done.Creationists: Because evolution doesn't exist. That's why dog's, who one man can cause to evolve across multiple generations of breeding and atmospheric influence....yup....they don't exist. Your dog is a figment of your imagination.
All animals are bred within their own kind, never is something bred outside of their kind. Sigh...
Define "kind". Then define species, please.
In the Bible "KIND" is used to refer to any GROUP of living things capable of reproducing together - producing other offspring that are themselves the same kind.
Canines are an excellent example. We would never imagine that all the different breeds of domesticated dogs are different species. And we would never imagine that all the different breeds of dog are anything but dogs. We would all agree, I think, that BREED does not equal kind.
Yet within the dog category there are numerous WILD canines that are categorized each as a distinct species. All of these are capable of reproducing together, so even though science calls them species, they are nonetheless the same biblical KIND.
Canines include domesticated dogs (100s of breeds), wild dogs, dingos, jackals, foxes, wolves, and coyotes, as well as other extinct and extant dog-like species. Generally speaking, all of these breeds and species are part of a single kind - the dog.
Canines include many breeds, many species, and are all included within a larger category of taxonomy called the canidae family or the sub-family:caninae, or to narrow the classification more distinctly, the genus canis, which includes dogs, wolves, coyotes, and jackals. Then within these wide classifications are a hundred or more species.
Any distinct species which are capable of reproducing together are NOT different biblical kinds. They are the same kind. Furthermore, if it can be shown by migration patterns, by history, by DNA, or other possible factors that a species is related to another species (even if they can no longer reproduce together) they are still the same kind. They are divergent offspring with the same ark ancestor.
Kind is not equal to species. Kind is a wider classification, closer to genus or family or sub-familyI fail to see how this is relevant. No, a dog can't breed with a cat for example, that's common sense. Dogs and cats did however, descend from a common ancestor.
Creationists like to say that evolution doesn't make sense because something can't just randomly change into something else. This isn't how it works though. The domestic dog evolved from wolves. You can see the same process in experimentation with domesticating the red fox. Through artificial selection, researchers in Russia took foxes that had traits amenable to domestication, and selectively bred that line until they had a domesticated fox carrying preferable genes that make it more hospitable towards humans like a dog is. The domestic foxes they've produced act more like dogs, carrying their tail low and seeking affection, which wild foxes don't do. Their ears are even folded like a domestic dog. This is an example of evolution that is artificially driven.
Natural selection is the same process, but driven by survivability. It can be easily explained by looking at something like sickle cell anemia. Because malaria had no treatment for a long time, and humans with sickle cell anemia have a higher resistance to malaria, whilst malaria was killing off humans with normal red blood cells that were more susceptible to infection, humans with sickle cell anemia were more likely to live on. That's one of the reasons why a larger population of people have the condition today. More people with sickle cell anemia were able to survive malaria, compared to those without the condition.
Then you have bacteria where you can see natural evolution taking place because they divide so quickly. Where else do you think antibiotics came from? The bacteria and fungi that can produce antibiotics are able to kill off their competitors. Whilst other species of bacteria are killed off by competitors, the antibiotic producers live on, becoming more widespread. In this same way, when humans attack bacterial infections with antibiotics, the bacteria that are susceptible die off, but those with mutations protecting them against the antibiotic live one. Kill off enough of the weaker variant, and before you know it, you have species like methicillin resistant staph. There's even documented evidence that bacteria can share genes with their own species, transferring them to another bacterium, or even to another species of bacteria, therefore creating a new 'animal' per se.
So you agree then Brie, that dogs evolve? As you just said they bred within their kind but they change. All dogs came from wolves. Dingos, foxes and countless other species exist and all came from one background. It is undeniable!!
"never is something bred outside of their kind" So the creation of the German shepherd from the wolf Brie? Please explain how that is possible?There is variation within a kind but NO ONE KIND BECOMES ANOTHER as is taught by Darwinism.
Macro-evolution refers to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two or the change of a species over time into another.
That's actually incorrect, and that does not describe the actual theory of evolution.
Macro-evolution is just a term to explain lots of micro-evolution over time.
LOOK, what the bible says doesn't matter because we are speaking ENGLISH on an ENGLISH site and you are referencing a book that has been translated more times than we can count and most meaning has been lost.
NOW you are quoting Darwin even though you just discredited science. So stupid!! DOGS EVOLVE!! End of story. They grew larger ears, change color, change size, change their skull shape, eyes, eye sight, even lose their tails or hair. Go throw your nonsense at someone else. I'm done trying to even comprehend how someone can be so illogical and brainwashed.Dogs are a product of selective breeding. All dog forms are a consequence of that selective breeding. There is only one species of dog and they are so close to wolves as to reliably breed with them. There is little genetic difference from one dog to the next, despite their external appearance their genes have not evolved to produce a new species.
Yes, to breed a new variant of the dog, you take a dog with traits you like, and concentrate those traits by breeding similar dogs together until you have a new variant that is carrying the desired traits and can reliably pass them down every time it repoduces.
Foxes and dogs are an example of evolution from wolves as a common ancestor. That's evolution.Dogs cannot reliably pass down a trait unless bred with a similar dog. If you breed a Great Dane and a German Shepherd Dog you will have neither a Great Dane nor a German Shepherd Dog, you will have something entirely different. They are both simply dogs and can easily breed with wolves.
Wolves are not really an ancestor, as one might think. The donkey and the horse have an ancient ancestor but are of distant enough relations that they do not produce breed-able off spring. This in not the case with dogs and wolves. Dogs are not a product of evolution. They are wolves shaped by the desires of men to perform certain tasks or to possess certain traits. That is not evolution.
I have no objection to evolution, though I think it is still a sketchy and incomplete idea. It is using dogs as an example that is flawed.Artificial selection is still considered evolution, and a population of animals doesn't have to be a different species to its predecessor to have evolved. Evolution is the change in inherited characteristics of a population over time, and when humans domesticated wolves, they caused that change. Dogs evolved from wolves because wolves were selectively bred to create a population of domesticated animals that had different characteristics to their wild counterparts.
The genes that make dogs amenable to humans are passed down to the offspring of every dog breed, but you can't say the same for wolves because it is the minority of offspring in wolves that carry these genes. As a population on a whole, dogs have very different inheritable characteristics than wild wolves do."Wolves are not really an ancestor, as one might think. They (dogs) are wolves shaped by the desires of men..."
Make up your mind. Either wolves are ancestors or they are not. Modern though seems to point to an extinct "wolf" (which means a wolf like creature similar to modern wolves but not the same) as the direct ancestor. Would you agree or not?
As far as not being evolution, you seem to be saying that humans are not a part of the wolves environment. Untrue; men were most definitely a part of that environment, an environment that evolved wolves into modern dogs.
Brie, I would suggest you look up horizontal gene transfer. Bacteria can transfer genes to members of their own species or to other species without reproduction.
http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/~smaloy/Microbi … hange.htmlMaffew, she will say this is a lie as she interprets the bible as saying it's a lie. She is arguing a point by backing up her conclusion with it's own conclusions. i.e the car is invisible because I say it is. If you can see it, then you have magic goggles on because the car is invisible. Why? Because a book said so. Because the book is magic!! That's why!
There is NO EVIDENCE for macro-evolution..it must be believed on..just like any religion.
What part of MACRO don't you understand?
The part where it applies to your argument. Because it doesn't. I just said before, MACRO-EVOLUTION is ONLY a WORD, used to describe lots of MICRO-EVOLUTION over time.
Which means..it cannot be scientifically proven and must be taken as true based on faith.
It IS scientifically proven. Miacids slowly evolved into wolves. Wolves slowly evolved into dogs. Dogs are slowly evolving into something else. Micro-evolution is the different species of dogs that are different shapes and sizes. Macro-evolution is the wolf compared to the dog, or the miacid compared to the wolf. That IS, an actual example of macro-evolution.
Macro-evolution is a word used to describe the result of many years of micro-evolution. It isn't a process itself.Maffew, I told you the future before it happened, look above. Maybe I should write a book and Brie will believe everything I say. Brie, cheese is actually people who were hypocrites for too long and they just.....turned into cheese.....
HERE is a better one. Brie, if there were only Adam and eve, how is their black people, white people, Asian people, etc if evolution doesn't exist and people do not change over time? How do you explain homophobia and Neanderthal bones? Just a funny shaped guy?
And why does God, who knows all and does not make mistakes, claim that the Earth is flat, and the moon is a light?
Cfin, it's NO use. It will be only an exercise in utter futility!
Macro-evolution is NOT scientifically proven and it never will be because it didn't happen. The scientific method requires that something is observable and falsifiable.. Macro-evolution is neither.
The only difference between macro and micro evolution is the amount of time. If you say it is unproven, you are wilfully ignoring the mountains of evidence and simultaneously saying there isn't any. It's dishonest.
Not true. Why don't you take a basic science class and get back to me..you people are boring me.
Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal. The evolutionary concept demands these bizarre changes.
Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog.But whales did evolve from land mammals. Perhaps YOU should take a basic science class.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar … vograms_03There are many examples of animals currently making the transition form land to water and they all appear to follow the example whales took millions of years ago. Hippos, seals and manatees come to mind.
Also, you just said that "the changes are horizontal in effect". Horizontal changes ONLY occur in bacteria. As I said, read the microbiology article. Horizontal transfer is when bacteria transfer their plasmid into other bacteria to give them their genes. Dogs don't have plasmids and they can't transfer genes without reproducing.
But it is proven. It did happen. Wolves and dogs ARE a macro-evolution.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledg … d-96679683
YOU, don't understand the meaning of the word. I'm going to liken it to erosion. You don't disagree that land is eroded by wind and water right? Over time, a hill can be eroded away. Every time a small fragment of the hill has eroded, that's like microevolution of a species. Eventually, the hill completely erodes away. All those little fragments that were chipped off over time, changed the shape of the hill, and eventually it looked completely different because it was flat. This is like macroevolution. We CALL it macroevolution because we're talking about the entire series of microevolutions as a WHOLE.
You're using the word incorrectly. Many microevolutions over time, are a macroevolution collectively. Just like many centimeters together, are called a meter.Wolves and dogs mate therefore they are the same kind! Time is your faith and if you want to believe in evolution go ahead but it's just a religion that you have to believe on by faith because it cannot be proven scientifically.
Only the bible refers to animals as 'kind' and it's meaningless to science. Dogs and wolves are two different species. Your bible may say they are the same because you are working with 'biblical kind' rather than science, but I am working with the latter, which says they are different species. It doesn't matter that they can mate. They are still two distinct species, and the dog evolved from the wolf.
If you want an example that fits your biblical requirement, I can happily suggest either foxes and dogs, or miacids and dogs. Neither of those pairs can mate, therefore by your terms they are not the same 'kind'. Yet foxes and dogs both evolved from wolves, and they both evolved from miacids.You may want to change views from threaded to chronological to ensure you are responding to the correct person.
I read something a while back that stated that great danes and the chihuahua may no longer be able to produce viable offspring. No one in the right mind would put a male great dane's sperm inside a chihuahua, but if you did it the other way around puppies could be born, however they may not survive just as the only adrian/asian elephant hybrid didn't.
No Brie---scientific method does NOT require proving the counterfactual or proving that something is false or can be demonstrated to be false.
And yet we have numerous examples of species that used to be one and now are two. The donkey, zebra and horse are example of animals that can no longer produce offspring that can reproduce. The african and asian elephants is another example. People always ask to see examples of animals that are in a transitional phase. There are many examples. The fox and the dog are yet another example.
How do you know they used to be one..you weren't there. You don't know anything except what your scientists/priests tell you and you just believe them with more faith than I have!
I KNOW that creation cannot be proven, the problem is that you don't know that evolution cannot be proven either. I know that I have faith but you have even more faith than I do.I know they were one once because of the physical DNA and fossil evidence. Just as the first peoples all looked the same, but within a few thousand years of living in different environments we have a lot of very different looking people. Science has no reason to lie, it looks for truth regardless of religion. Do you think it's by chance that a lion and a tiger can mate and have little ligers even though they are not in the same environments and never meet in the wild?
By your own logic, you can't reasonably believe in creation because you weren't there to see it. You can't have it both ways, Brie. It's special pleading. Another logical fallacy. Can you actually make any kind of valid point?
Of course there is also the Humanzee. There are those who think it's possible creepy as they may seem.
Depends on your definitions, doesn't it?
Your own comment, from the hub you wrote on evolution:
"Tell me where can I find a change from a dog to a cat through natural selection that can be replicated, falsified and verified?"
"Everything was brought forth AFTER HIS KIND, NO DOGS HAVING KITTENS"
"I would be convinced if you found a dog who naturally gave birth to ...say a cat."
As you were told in the hub, cleverly setting up a definition as to what constitutes proof of evolution (a dog giving birth to a cat) as something the theory says cannot happen works well. For anyone that neglects to actually think about the claim, anyway.
Brie, your very condescending for a person with such a low level of education, or education based on fact and recognized as education in the western world at least.
I have a college degree and used to teach high school. I'm sorry I have a low tolerance for fools.
The purpose of education is to broaden a person's mind and widen his/her perspective regarding life and society. The purpose of college is to forever analyze and really that learning and growing is a continual thing. The purpose of college is to see ALL angles and sides of a situation. The purpose of college is to become wiser.........
A college degree in what, exactly?
Calling people fools makes it no more true than saying the proof for God is your word. In other words, not at all.I see. Not biology, then. Not theology. Not biblical studies. Not physics. Not anything actually relevant to the conversation, then.
A college degree DOESN'T necessarily make one more open-minded regarding society and situations. Although this should be the purpose of a college education. A college education is what one MAKES of it, no more, no less.
Being against gay marriage = wanting gay couples to have less rights than straight couples = being anti-homosexual.
You guys can argue about creationism and evolution all you want, just make sure you leave the Nazis out of it. They claimed to know the truth, so I don't see why we should criticize their truth. And they had a book of facts to back it up.
Evolution is a scientific fact. I think you're just talking about the idea that humans evolved from apes. Otherwise, you don't understand evolution at all and you might as be using the word "junknuts".
I'd like to go back to the original question. So, Brie, if these Christian businesses were discriminating against black people and the black people tried to shut them down, would there be anything wrong with that?Scientists have observed organisms evolving more times than anyone can count. The statement that evolution cannot be proved scientifically is a statement of pure idiocy.
Related Discussions
- 126
Homosexual Agenda
by Elayne 14 years ago
How do you feel about the homosexual agenda being taught to elementary children?http://www.ldsmag.com/lds-church-update … /6394?ac=1
- 135
How do you convince someone that they are not destined to be LGBT?
by taburkett 8 years ago
How do you convince someone that they are not destined to be LGBT?As a young executive, I counseled individuals in the past and promoted them into moral society by consistently stating the truth about the mental affliction. Emotional outbursts continue to support the education of LGBT as a...
- 3
Is there such a thing as the "gay agenda" and what is it exactly?
by Der Meister 12 years ago
Is there such a thing as the "gay agenda" and what is it exactly?I have heard this phrase used before, but it is usually never defined. Besides gay marriage, what else does it refer to?
- 69
Married Men That Live A Secret Homosexual Life "Good Or Bad"?
by mdawson17 15 years ago
In the recent years I have seen more men come out of the closet after being married for more than 5 years. This concerns me becuase I think of the spouse that has dedicated her complete life to him!I have seen children lives tour up and even worse the children involved become very confused.I have...
- 218
The Supreme Court of USA has made gay marriage legal in all 50 states.
by Akriti Mattu 10 years ago
Personally, i feel it's a huge leap forward. What are your views ?
- 31
Exodus International to close
by Elizabeth 12 years ago
Exodus International, the notoriously vocal organization committed to the idea that gay people can change their sexual orientation is closing its doors and changing it's message. Along with the press release containing their decision to end their "ministry", the leader of Exodus has...