|
|
| ||||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
coram_deo 08-Sep-21, 16:33 |
 1) I don’t believe the theory of evolution because of the lack of evidence for macroevolution and all of the evidence against macroevolution see here: m.gameknot.com 2) My disbelief in the theory of evolution has nothing to do with my being a Christian. In fact, I didn’t believe the theory of evolution long before I became a Christian. 3) The theory of evolution is a pagan religion consisting of mother earth as your god, Charles Darwin as your prophet and On the Origin of Species as your bible. That’s why so many of you refer to god as “she.” You’re referring to mother earth when you do that. Your pagan religion is literally as old as the Bible: see 1 Timothy 6:20 and Romans 1:20-25. Also see here answersingenesis.org 4) Many highly-credentialed scientists are skeptical of the theory of evolution’s ability to explain the complexity of life and believe it needs to be scrutinized. See here: dissentfromdarwin.org 5) Scientists who publicly question or oppose the theory of evolution risk their professional reputations and careers. For just one example see here: uncommondescent.com 6) There is far more evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ than there is for the theory of evolution. See here: m.gameknot.com and see here m.gameknot.com 7) The Bible is not one book. It’s 66 books, written by 40 men, over a time span of 1,500 years. See here m.gameknot.com 8) Christians don’t live under the Law, they live under Grace due to their acceptance of, and belief in, Jesus Christ and His Resurrection. No one earns their way into Heaven. Salvation is by faith alone. See Ephesians 2:8-9 and see here: m.gameknot.com No offense guys, but it’s just not worth trying to have a discussion with you anymore. It’s like talking to a brick wall, only worse because the brick wall is dishonest, obnoxious and insulting. I won’t be reading threads in FIAT FLUX III and so won’t (obviously) be responding to anything you post about me, Christianity or your pagan religion. Consider this list as my umbrella response to anything you post to me. Have an enjoyable life and take a break from all the negativity and doom-and-gloom you’re constantly posting in the forums. Go for a walk in the fresh air and enjoy God’s Creation! “This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” (Psalm 118:24) |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 09-Sep-21, 14:15 |
Since he’s the only one who responded to my query of whether the 2nd Law can be violated absent the action of an intelligent being, I figured I owed acknowledgment of his proposal and a response. After giving it some thought, it appears that, yes, the 2nd Law can be violated absent the action of an intelligent being, but that wave (or I should say, a subsequent wave) may very well create disorder from order. In other words, I don’t see a wave as a purely order-creating force. I think, depending on the situation and magnitude of the wave, it could just as easily be a disorder-creating force. But it’s an interesting hypothesis and I thank him for posting it. Why he’s not a moderator at FIAT FLUX III is beyond me since he’s virtually the only one who posts substance in that club. Maybe that’s why he’s not a moderator! He oughta start trolling like the other moderators! But back to the wave: So yes, a wave can create order from disorder in violation of the 2nd Law but it seems just as likely to create disorder from order. Also, the uniform arrangement of sediment by mass after the wave follows a law, whereas the theory of evolution is not guided by intelligence *and* follows no laws. Therefore, in my view, the theory of evolution violates the 2nd Law because its creation of order (and not just order but complexity as well!) is not the result of an intelligent being’s actions *and* it follows no laws. I think we can safely add “violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics” to the mountain of evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution, which is really just a pagan religion as old as the Holy Bible. I may hold the minority view on the 2nd Law and Darwin’s pagan religion, but show me one other example where order arises from disorder absent the action of an intelligent being *and* where a law of nature is not followed. And evolution doesn’t just claim order arises out of disorder. It claims higher and higher complexity arises from disorder through purely natural means and blind chance. It’s total garbage! |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 18-Sep-21, 16:41 |
<<To me atheism is a basic state of mind, a baseline. In science, I may propose a hypothesis to advance knowledge and understanding beyond that baseline. But such a hypothesis must be testable by experiment or observation; it must be falsifiable.>> Is macroevolution testable by experiment or observation? Is it falsifiable? Of course not! And yet this atheist believes in it to the very depths of his being. <<If it is not, I simply refuse to propose it because it is useless.>> He’s finally admitting the theory of evolution is useless (though he doesn’t realize it.) <<I say 'useless' here with a specific meaning: if one is 'allowed' to 'believe' in hypotheses that are not falisifiable, then ANYTHING can be proposed and believed in.>> Yep, just like macroevolution! By contrast, Christianity was absolutely falsifiable. Present Jesus Christ’s body. That would have falsified reports that He was Resurrected and ended Christianity before it started. Because without Jesus Christ’s Resurrection, Christianity doesn’t exist. “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.” (1 Corinthians 15:14-19) <<I hasten to say that of course people have the right to believe in ANYTHING they like - just like the right to 'free speech'.>> I agree. But people who believe Darwin’s theory is a legitimate explanation for the complexity of life should stop trying to pass it off as science. They can believe it, but should believe it for what it is - a pagan religion with “mother Earth” as god; Darwin as a prophet; and “On the Origin of Species” as the religion’s bible. <<But I think we, as humans, also have a responsibility towards our kind to 'keep cool' and just 'follow the paths that are secure'.>> There ain’t no security in macroevolution, my friend. There IS security in Jesus Christ! No one’s crying out to Charles Darwin when they’re in dire straits. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 18-Sep-21, 17:44 |
Darwin observed variations within a species and then made the completely wild and unsubstantiated speculation that variations within a species could be extrapolated to account for all the plants, animals and humans that exist. It’s so ridiculous! There are changes *within* a species but those more accurately should be called “variations” and not “evolution.” There are strict boundaries beyond which variation cannot go. As far as Darwin’s theory being falsifiable, let Darwin speak for himself: “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” Have discoveries in the fossil record over the ensuing 150 years helped Darwin’s case? c.tenor.com “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.” Has the ensuing 150 years helped Darwin’s case? images.app.goo.gl From ideacenter.org: With this statement, Charles Darwin provided a criterion by which his theory of evolution could be falsified. The logic was simple: since evolution is a gradual process in which slight modifications produce advantages for survival, it cannot produce complex structures in a short amount of time. It's a step-by-step process which may gradually build up and modify complex structures, but it cannot produce them suddenly. Darwin, meet Michael Behe, biochemical researcher and professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. Michale Behe claims to have shown exactly what Darwin claimed would destroy the theory of evolution, through a concept he calls "irreducible complexity." In simple terms, this idea applies to any system of interacting parts in which the removal of any one part destroys the function of the entire system. An irreducibly complex system, then, requires each and every component to be in place before it will function. As a simple example of irreducible complexity, Behe presents the humble mousetrap. It contains five interdependent parts which allow it to catch mice: the wooden platform, the spring, the hammer (the bar which crushes the mouse against the wooden base), the holding bar, and a catch. Each of these components is absolutely essential for the function of the mousetrap. For instance, if you remove the catch, you cannot set the trap and it will never catch mice, no matter how long they may dance over the contraption. Remove the spring, and the hammer will flop uselessly back and forth-certainly not much of a threat to the little rodents. Of course, removal of the holding bar will ensure that the trap never catches anything because there will again be no way to arm the system. Now, note what this implies: an irreducibly complex system cannot come about in a gradual manner. One cannot begin with a wooden platform and catch a few mice, then add a spring, catching a few more mice than before, etc. No, all the components must be in place before it functions at all. A step-by-step approach to constructing such a system will result in a useless system until all the components have been added. The system requires all the components to be added at the same time, in the right configuration, before it works at all. How does irreducible complexity apply to biology? Behe notes that early this century, before biologists really understood the cell, they had a very simplistic model of its inner workings. Without the electron microscopes and other advanced techniques that now allow scientists to peer into the inner workings of the cell, it was assumed that the cells was a fairly simple blob of protoplasm. The living cell was a "black box"-something that could be observed to perform various functions while its inner workings were unknown and mysterious. Therefore, it was easy, and justifiable, to assume that the cell was a simple collection of molecules. But not anymore. Technological advances have provided detailed information about the inner workings of the cell. Michael Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, states "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10^-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable microminiaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." In a word, the cell is complicated. Very complicated. In fact, Michael Behe asserts that the complicated biological structures in a cell exhibit the exact same irreducible complexity that we saw in the mousetrap example. In other words, they are all-or-nothing: either everything is there and it works, or something is missing and it doesn't work. As we saw before, such a system cannot be constructed in a gradual manner-it simply won't work until all the components are present, and Darwinism has no mechanism for adding all the components at once. Remember, Darwin's mechanism is one of gradual mutations leading to improved fitness and survival. A less-than-complete system of this nature simply will not function, and it certainly won't help the organism to survive. Indeed, having a half-formed and hence non-functional system would actually hinder survival and would be selected against. www.ideacenter.org |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 19-Sep-21, 00:44 |
I knew you’d come around! <<Among other clubs there is still this one-person project that has not attracted others who would love the Holy Bible sufficiently.>> I’ve had two applicants - one is a pathologically dishonest fellow who exclusively attacks Christians on GK and never has a good word to say about the Holy Bible (in fact, he rewrites the Bible as self-published science fiction) and the other applicant, while a nice and interesting guy, said he likes to push the envelope of free speech (you’ve thrown him out of your club more than once.) <<Or then, they have not been accepted as members because they have not followed the rules of the Leader>> If you read the club mission statement, you’d know this club is for anyone who loves the Holy Bible. <<(like the leader of Jonestown).>> Back to Jonestown again?! I already showed you from your favorite source (Wikipedia) that Jim Jones was an atheist who hated Christianity (kind of like you and your moderators.) Just read up a few posts, where I quoted extensively from Wikipedia about Jim Jones’ atheism and communism. I’m neither an atheist nor a communist. But you don’t care about facts. It’s all about the smear with you. Anything you can say to smear someone, regardless of whether it makes sense, is fine by you. <<Remembering the terror from that,>> Yes, what atheists do is often very terrifying because they think no accountability exists for their actions. You know most of the mass murders in the 20th century were committed by communist atheists, right? <<I am pleased that there seems to be no followers of this extreme.>> Yes, being extreme in loving God and the Holy Bible - how terrifying 😧 <<I have nothing against the vast knowledge of the Bible expressed by the founder - some quotes of that are truly worth our appreciation.>> Glad to hear! <<Otherwise, his posts is just precisely the garbage he ascribes to Darwin>> So you’re Ok with the club as long as it doesn’t criticize Darwin and the theory of evolution. You yourself concluded the theory of evolution, from a scientific standpoint, was useless because it was a theory proposed without observation or experimentation of macroevolution. Darwin noticed variation and changes within a species and made the ridiculous and farcical leap to claiming that intra-species variation could account for all the plants, animals and humans in existence. Preposterous! << - as if he would be likened to that great scientist at any point in time.>> Darwin wasn’t a scientist. He was the founder of a pagan religion. You yourself said a proposed theory that lacks observation or experimentation is scientifically useless. That’s macroevolution staring you in the face, my friend! <<"We love the Holy Bible" club is not a club>> I actually agree with this. I think it’s more of a blog, and I have no problem with that. <<and I doubt there was ever any intention to make it a club.>> I’ve had two people apply (see above.) <<From what I've seen, it is no more than a soap box for Coram to preach from.>> You’ve never heard of a blog? Is every blog a soapbox? I enjoy posting verses and passages from the Holy Bible, and most of what I post are direct quotes from the Bible and commentaries on the Bible. Lots of people who love the Holy Bible and God have blogs and enjoy posting on them. How am I different? <<I have reason to believe that he has had applications to join, but none have been deemed worthy.>> I’ve had two applicants - you and another guy. I turned both down for reasons I stared in my reply to the FIAT FLUX III founder that is directly above this reply to you. <<It is where only the wisest insights are to be revealed.>> Huh? I like posting about the Holy Bible. I don’t claim my opinions are “only the wisest insights” or even wise. They’re just my opinions. <<Far be it from him to allow anyone else the privilege to post on his private site; they might (Shock! Horror!) post something Coram disagrees with.>> I would have no problem with someone other than me posting here. But not someone who is pathologically dishonest, exclusively attacks and belittles Christians, rewrites the Holy Bible as science fiction and craves the approval of atheists to the point where it seems like a submission fetish. <<Gentlemen and ladies of all persuasions;>> This is where you address your imaginary stadium full of people. <<you are seeing here why mature believers read more of those who disagree with their own views than those who support them.>> I read plenty of people who disagree with me. Just not on GK. <<You learn more listening to others than from hearing your own echo.>> Totally agree, but GK is not the only website in the world. I read plenty of websites that don’t share my beliefs within Christianity. I don’t waste my time reading atheist websites but Christianity is multi-faceted and has doctrinal disputes that I think are interesting. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 19-Sep-21, 02:04 |
So here’s the post copy-and-pasted from that thread: So I took a look at one of two attack threads on me and this club in FIAT FLUX III, and the guy who founded that club is comparing me to Jim Jones(!) Here’s what he posted: <<This discussion is as if we have not discussed this before ad nauseam. The major claims made by coram_diabolo are claims that cannot be refuted by science. Science humbly accepts that and does not digress to unnecessary argumentation. Jonestown is an example of where such extremism can lead at worst. All it needs is a talented leader with an impressive rhetoric and appearance - and there we are. Fortunately, the attendance of his 'club' is sparse, so may be I am worrying too much?>> I know very little about Jim Jones and the Jonestown Massacre (and it appears the founder of FIAT FLUX III knows even less) but a quick scan of a Wiki article reveals Jim Jones became an atheist long before establishing a communist enclave in Guyana where he orchestrated a mass murder/suicide of 918 people - a third of them children. Sounds like me, right? Here are excerpts from Wikipedia: “By the early 1970s, Jones began deriding Christianity as ‘fly away religion’, rejecting the Bible as being a tool to oppress women and non-whites, and denouncing a ‘Sky God’ who was no God at all. He wrote a booklet titled ‘The Letter Killeth’, criticizing the King James Bible. Jones also began preaching that he was the reincarnation of Father Divine, Mahatma Gandhi, Jesus, Gautama Buddha, and Vladimir Lenin. Former Temple member Hue Fortson Jr. quoted him as saying: What you need to believe in is what you can see.... If you see me as your friend, I'll be your friend. As you see me as your father, I'll be your father, for those of you that don't have a father.... If you see me as your savior, I'll be your savior. If you see me as your God, I'll be your God. In a 1976 phone conversation with John Maher, Jones alternately said he was an agnostic and an atheist. Marceline admitted in a 1977 New York Times interview that Jones was trying to promote Marxism in the U.S. by mobilizing people through religion, citing Mao Zedong as his inspiration: "Jim used religion to try to get some people out of the opiate of religion." He had slammed the Bible on the table yelling "I've got to destroy this paper idol!" In one sermon, Jones said: You're gonna help yourself, or you'll get no help! There's only one hope of glory; that's within you! Nobody's gonna come out of the sky! There's no heaven up there! We'll have to make heaven down here!” All of that sounds an awful lot like the founder and moderators at FIAT FLUX III. Also from Wiki: “Jonestown was held up as a benevolent communist community, with Jones stating: ‘I believe we're the purest communists there are.’ Jones' wife, Marceline, described Jonestown as ‘dedicated to live for socialism, total economic and racial and social equality. We are here living communally.’ Jones wanted to construct a model community and claimed that Burnham ‘couldn't rave enough about us, the wonderful things we do, the project, the model of socialism’. Jones did not permit members to leave Jonestown without his express prior permission.” “Many members of the Temple believed that Guyana would be, as Jones promised, a paradise or utopia. After Jones arrived, however, Jonestown life significantly changed. Entertaining movies from Georgetown that the settlers had watched were mostly canceled in favor of Soviet propaganda shorts and documentaries on American social problems. Bureaucratic requirements after Jones' arrival sapped labor resources for other needs. Buildings fell into disrepair and weeds encroached on fields. School study and nighttime lectures for adults turned to Jones' discussions about revolution and enemies, with lessons focusing on Soviet alliances, Jones' crises, and the purported ‘mercenaries’ sent by Tim Stoen, who had defected from the Temple and turned against the group.” “Jones then ordered and likely coerced a mass murder-suicide that claimed the lives of 918 commune members, 304 of them children, almost all by drinking Flavor Aid laced with cyanide.” What does any of that have to do with Christianity and the Holy Bible? Nada! In fact, as most people know, communism and atheism go hand-in-hand. In fact, communism and mass murder go hand-in-hand as well. The founder of FIAT FLUX III is also back to comparing me to Satan 🙄 What caused him to blow a gasket and post so much hate? Well, I *did* post a short video earlier today criticizing his pagan religion (theory of evolution) so I guess that warrants being compared to Satan and a mass murderer. Why if I criticized another scientific theory, like the theory of relativity or law of gravitation, I’m sure his reaction would have been the same! |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 19-Sep-21, 04:29 |
I don’t post “edited versions” of anything if by “edited,” you’re implying an attempt to misrepresent or deceive. And no, I don’t save PMs once I’ve read them so feel free to lie about what you wrote. I actually expect that. <<I was knocked back because he didn't want anyone who might disagree with him.>> Wrong, but another example of your pathological dishonesty. Given your attacks exclusively on Christians, your disrespect for the Holy Bible (rewriting it as science fiction and denigrating Biblical prophecies) and your craven obsequiousness toward atheists, I suspected you just wanted to join my club to be disruptive and obnoxious so you’d win plaudits from the atheists you’re constantly trying to impress. That’s why I asked you if you thought the Holy Bible was inerrant, infallible and immutable and if you believed that Jesus Christ was Resurrected. I wanted to see how you’d respond in light of the aforementioned. Do you remember what you said? I suspect the atheists you’re constantly trying to impress would be taken aback by your belief in the Virgin birth of Jesus Christ, that He died for the sins of the world and that God raised him from the dead. That’s what you told me you believed, though you seemed much more ambiguous when the founder of FIAT FLUX III asked you to *publicly state* what you believed when a member of that club asked you, instead of replying via PM as you initially planned. But the clincher in making my decision was when I asked you if you thought the founder of FIAT FLUX III’s comparison of me to Satan was appropriate and you said you didn’t know. That you would trivialize how evil Satan is by thinking an offended atheist might be justified in comparing a Christian to Satan told me that you don’t take your faith seriously and that you’re far too servile toward atheists not to do whatever they tell you. <<Yes, I'm the guy who is 'pathologically dishonest', as you have probably worked out for yourselves by now.>> Yes, you are. And who are you talking to, Bob? The stadium full of people you imagine read posts on here? <<I also 'attack Christians on GK'. But don't take my word or even Coram's word for that; just ask Apatzer.>> How about asking members of Neutral Ground? <<And I never have a good word to say about the Holy Bible. (That's why I've been used at my local Bible College as a tutor/mentor.)>> I’m talking about on here, Bob. I have little doubt you cater your positions and behavior to the majority of a group that you’re in. <<I even confess that I re-wrote bits of it in one of my fiction novels! Just like a thousand other novels put out by Christian publishers all around the world, including many translators of the Bible who provide less than strictly literal translations (such as the Good News Bible or the Living Bible).>> I think it’s disrespectful of the Holy Bible to rewrite it as science fiction entertainment. I guess we just disagree about that. <<Gosh I must be evil if I can't stick to Coram's preferred seventeenth-century King James text when writing a 21st century novel!>> You’re being disingenuous. We’re not talking about which version of the Bible someone uses, translations of which were typically done over years by a team of Biblical scholars. We’re talking about one person rewriting the Holy Bible as science fiction entertainment. <<Thank you, Coram, for showing how different we are!>> We’re very different. I definitely agree on that. I’m not ashamed of being a Christian and I couldn’t care less what atheists think of me. And I respect the Holy Bible. But congrats on your promotion to moderator at FIAT FLUX III. You definitely earned it! |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 19-Sep-21, 11:45 |
The following forum post made by coram_deo on 19-Sep-21, 04:29 has been reported by bobspringett with the following note: continued misrepresentation intended to damage my reputation. The chain of posts over the last few months shows this being done repeatedly.. If the reported messages violate GameKnot's Rules and Policies, please take the appropriate action as soon as possible — delete the offending post and warn or remove the users involved. I think it’s pretty clear this complaint is just the beginning. FIAT FLUX III has decided to shut this club down and nothing will stop them. FWIW, I haven’t lodged a single complaint against posts in FIAT FLUX III that compared me to Satan; compared me to Jim Jones, who was responsible for the murder-suicides of 900+ people, a third of them kids; that said I’m the anti-christ; that said I’m mentally ill; that said I’m a bigot; and the literally dozens upon dozens of insults saying I’m an idiot, moron, etc., all of which are in violation of GK rules. Just check threads in FIAT FLUX III entitled “We love the Holy Bible,” “We love the Holy Bible II” and “Evolution theory” to see the avalanche of insults and hate directed against me, none of which I filed a complaint over. And that doesn’t count all the lies that the founder and moderator have posted about what I have said and what I believe. But this is the way trolls operate: When the victim of their harassment and hate doesn’t get intimidated into silence, they try to shut him up another way. And censorship is usually that other way. So I’ll spend today thinking about whether to delete the post I received a complaint about, which I believe is completely accurate. But one way or another, the atheists and their milksop have decided to shut this club down and made that decision, imo, based on my criticism of the theory of evolution (which is their pagan religion.) Now, I could go through the aforementioned three threads in FIAT FLUX III and file complaints about each post that constitutes an attack, harassment and insult against me. I’m guessing I could legitimately file 50+ complaints. But in my experience, this is a one-way street on here. Atheists are permitted to get away with whatever they want - believers are held to a far stricter standard. In fact, I purposefully didn’t buy an annual membership on here because I figured this would happen. So if I delete the offending post, which is entirely true based on the complainant’s continual and purposeful misrepresentations (and outright lies) about what I’ve said and what I believe, more complaints will follow and GK will shut this club down. If I don’t delete the post, GK will shut this club down. So either way, this club will be shut down, and atheists who have repeatedly harassed me for criticizing the theory of evolution and accurately labeling it “garbage” will have one less dissenting voice in this forum. It’s like the bully who repeatedly punches someone in the face, but then, when the bully gets punched, he runs to the teacher to complain and demand an apology. I think I’d rather have this club shut down without kowtowing to atheists and their milksop. 👋 |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 19-Sep-21, 14:29 |
Earlier today, the founder of FiAT FLUX III wrote the following: <<Tragicomedy mostly. I mean just compare him to two other Christians, Bob and Apatzer. The latter two show all the love for the next of kin and deep kindness that at least I was brought up to associate with the Christian faith.>> Let Bob and Apatzer be subjected to a 10-week campaign of hate - smears, insults, lies and misrepresentations of what they have said and believe the way I was and see if they show “all the love for the next of kin and deep kindness.” I halfway think the founder of FiAT FLUX III and his fellow atheists are so full of hate they don’t even realize how hateful they are. They think their hate level is the norm. So why was the FLUX club’s campaign of hate directed at me? It’s simple. I believe Darwin’s theory of evolution is garbage and I’m not afraid to say so. And I think the final straw was when I demonstrated - by the FIAT FLUX III founder’s own words - that Darwin’s theory was “scientifically useless” because macroevolution was not demonstrated by observation or experimentation which was the criteria the FLUX founder used to determine a proposal was “scientifically useless.” <<It is by that comparison I have likened the third to another force as he shows no compassion whatsoever for other humans except himself.>> I would wager, very confidently, that I donate more money to charities that help the poor in a month than you’ve donated in your entire life. I don’t feel the need to have two houses and the luxuries you feel the need to have. Most of my money beyond basic necessities goes to help the poor, and it’s significantly over 10 percent of my income. Can you and the other atheists in your club say the same? Y’all talk a good game, but I suspect that’s all it is - talk. Well your and the other FLUX members’ platitudes don’t buy groceries or pay rent for a poor family. They just make you feel good about yourselves. One atheist on here admits to being stoned most of the time and said he’s been that way for 45 years. He’d rather get high than help a starving family and yet he’s the first to virtue signal about the importance of compassion toward the poor. <<And, of course, mockery and insult to several generations of serious scientists since and including Darwin.>> And here we have the root, the real reason, the FLUX founder and his fellow atheists want this club shut down. I criticized their pagan religion and refused to be intimidated into silence. Darwin’s theory is garbage - it was garbage when he proposed it in 1859 and the ensuing 160+ years have not proven otherwise. In fact, evidence that it’s garbage is stronger now, what with revelations concerning DNA and the complexity of the cell, than it was way back in the mid-1800s. As I said before, I couldn’t care less who believes in the theory of evolution. Just don’t pretend it’s science when it so obviously isn’t. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 06-Oct-21, 18:57 |
<<I know there is a decision not to react to posts in other clubs. In some ways I don't understand why not. Discussion is never unimportant.>> Agree. Discussion is important. And is much more fruitful and productive when it’s done without trolling. <<I won't comment on the extensive claims against me in the 'We Love the Holy Bible' club,>> Claims against you? I’m posting your and your moderators’ words verbatim. <<and I would have hoped Andrew would already have nullified those in exchange of what he has written about me>> I intentionally misspelled the name of your club and criticized the theory of evolution. It was only after weeks of abuse that I criticized you personally. And, unlike you, I deleted those ad hominem attacks the following day. <<now and over the years.>> What happened this time is pretty much the same as what happened when I was on here before. I criticized the theory of evolution and you got in a huff and went on the attack. My calling the theory of evolution “garbage” in the Neutral Ground club years ago led you to complain to that club’s founder about my calling the theory “garbage” - which is why I called it “garbage” when I formed this club. But it was not just to tweak you. I sincerely believe it is garbage as a way to explain the complexity of life. I mean, take a step back and ask yourself what evidence exists for speciation. You’ve got a couple of questionable transitional fossils and that’s it. You’ve got nothing else. And don’t play games and try to say there are thousands of species of horseflies. You know what I’m talking about and what other creationists are talking about. You guys have been trying to get one species to turn into another species for decades (with bacteria and fruit flies) and you can’t do it. The only “evidence” you’ve got supporting the theory of evolution is a couple of questionable transitional fossils when Darwin himself said the number of transitional fossils should be “truly enormous.” It’s not - not even close. <<Could we leave this idiotic topic and discuss facts?>> If you - or any other atheist - had been subjected to the abuse you and your club moderators subjected me to, whoever dished out that abuse would have been thrown off this website. You know it and I know it. Quote from me: <<<I would suggest that as long as “science” discounts the existence of a supernatural realm - a realm beyond the five senses (though science still allows a realm of extra dimensions and multiple universes) - science is limiting itself and is therefore missing the big picture.>>> <<My response to this is the following. If I were to accept the existence of a 'supernatural realm', it would - (note: TO ME!) - be a very cheap 'way out'. I much prefer to test all other possibilities.>> Seems to me you’re saying no evidence exists for a supernatural realm. Do you really believe that? I grew up in Connecticut, not far from Bridgeport, in the United States, and there was a famous case of paranormal activity in a house on Lindley Street in Bridgeport, Connecticut. You can Google it if you’re interested; I’m certainly not going to waste my time posting something that’s not going to be read. To dismiss that a supernatural realm exists, you’ve got to dismiss reports of exorcisms (i.e. demonic possession,) all paranormal activities, all phenomenon that cannot be explained by naturalistic means. I think that’s a ludicrous position in which you intentionally ignore something that can’t be explained by naturalistic means. And yet scientists entertain extra dimensions, multiple universes, etc., all of which cannot be observed or studied by our five senses. It’s clear (note: TO ME!) that scientists who are atheists have a bias against God and not a bias against hypotheses that cannot be observed or studied with their five senses. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 06-Oct-21, 19:08 |
<<The reason for this claim ('only one known example') is - to the best of my knowledge - based on observation (including experiment) where all future organisms (after the endosymbiosis event) have closely related DNA seqiences. However, I would contest Lane's statement of 'only one known example', because apart from the endosymbiosis between presumably an archaea and an aerobic bacterium (leading to the present-day mitochondria), there is another line where bacteria were 'infected' by what we today call cyanobacteria, leading to the eukaryotic plant cells.>> I’ve looked into this a little bit - not surprisingly, endosymbiosis is not universally accepted - and will look into it some more before the end of this week. If I’m not mistaken, Lynn Margulis was the first scientist to propose endosymbiosis as a way cells became more complex and she did not believe the theory of evolution was credible as a way to explain the complexity of life. This is one of her quotes: “I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change—led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.” |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 11-Oct-21, 21:00 |
Instead of browbeating thumper, I think it’s high time, amigo, that you acknowledge the theory of evolution is “scientifically useless” by your own definition. You stated, quite unequivocally and quite emphatically, that a proposal that lacked observation or experimentation was “scientifically useless.” Darwin’s theory lacks both. At the time Darwin proposed his theory, he did not observe speciation, nor did he conduct an experiment demonstrating speciation. And neither has anyone else in the ensuing 160 years. It’s well past time to swallow your pride and admit the obvious - the theory of evolution, *by your own definition*, is “scientifically useless.” |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 01-Nov-21, 10:26 |
An embryo is an unborn (or unhatched) animal or human young in its earliest phases. Embryos of many different kinds of animals: mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, etc. look very similar and it is often difficult to tell them apart. Many traits of one type of animal appear in the embryo of another type of animal. For example, fish embryos and human embryos both have gill slits. In fish they develop into gills, but in humans they disappear before birth. Animals are similar and develop similarly, implying that they are related, have common ancestors and that they started out the same, gradually evolving different traits, but that the basic plan for a creature's beginning remains the same. I wonder, if creationism was true, why wouldn’t human embryos just look like tine humans?>> Good grief! This moderator at FIAT LUX III believes the Ernst Haeckel hoax! He actually thinks human embryos have gill slits! And the evolutionary scientist who founded that club agrees with him! That hoax was exposed literally decades ago! From apologeticspress.org: In the late 1880s, Ernst Haeckel foisted upon the scientific community one of the most infamous deceptions of the last two centuries. He proposed that all organisms trace their evolutionary history as they develop through their embryonic stages. His descriptive phrase for this process, “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” caught on quickly, but was soon seen for the false, ridiculous hoax that it was (see Harrub, 2001). One of the tenets of his fraud was that humans, as well as other animals, have gill slits at certain periods of their embryological development. He said that these gill slits were evidence of mammals’ ancestral relationship with fish. Of course, in showing his ideas to be false, the scientific community also acknowledged the evident fact that the folds of tissue in humans and mammals that were thought to be gill slits were nothing of the sort. Knowing the fallacious nature of Haeckel’s hoax, one would expect the current scientific community to steer clear of possible misconceptions that would lead modern readers to the idea that Haeckel was right. That is not, however, what we find in Neil Shubin’s national bestseller Your Inner Fish (2009). As is evident from the name, Shubin attempts (but fails) to prove that fish have an ancestral relationship to humans. In his discussion of the folds of tissue that Haeckel falsely identified with gill slits, Shubin maintains that, even though we know they are not gill slits, they “look like the gill slits in the throat regions of fish and sharks.” Since he believes that they “look like gill slits,” he finds this justification to call them gill arches throughout his book. Under a caption on page 88 of his book, he wrote: “If we follow the gill arches from an embryo to an adult, we can trace the origins of jaws, ears, larynx, and throat. Bones, muscles, nerves, and arteries all develop inside these gill arches” (emp. added). Notice that the caption acknowledges that the arches have nothing to do with gills. Yet Shubin insists on referring to them as gill arches. On page 93, Shubin wrote an entire section under the heading “Gill Arch Genes.” On page 104, Shubin stated: “The embryos of different species are not completely identical, but their similarities are profound. All have gill arches….” While Shubin claims to be distancing himself from the false ideas put forth by Haeckel (pp. 103-104), his subtle and dishonest connection of embryological folds in humans to gill slits in fish leaves no one wondering what he is trying to do. His artificial connection of these folds to gills shows that he does, in fact, adhere to the incorrect view that such “similarities” between humans and fish prove the two to be related. Shubin could have chosen any name he wanted for the various folds of tissue. Why did he choose “gill arches” and continue to proliferate the false idea that such embryological developments prove humans are related to fish? Of course, one can only speculate as to why such a knowledgeable, modern paleontologist and anatomy professor would choose such a course. It seems one obvious reason is to continue foisting on the unsuspecting public the demonstrably false idea, which has long been associated with Haeckel’s work, that humans and fish are related. Such subtle deception belies the true agenda behind popular, evolutionarily biased writings like Shubin’s. apologeticspress.org From creation.com For more than a century, one of the foremost bastions of Darwinian evolution has been that embryos of different animals pass through a similar stage in which they resemble one another very closely. Although embryologists had long known this to be false, a bomb exploded in 1997 when an embryologist actually published real photos of embryos, showing many more differences than previously thought. The embarrassment to the evolutionary community was severe. But now a historian has made a serious attempt to rehabilitate Haeckel by revising both the history and the science around his claims. Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919) was a professor of zoology and marine biologist, as well as a qualified medical doctor who was involved at the University of Jena during most of his academic lifetime. Besides his interests in biology, he was also a passionate artist who paid attention to many fine details in his artworks. His artwork was mainly about living creatures. But Haeckel is perhaps best known for his deception, using his wonderful talent as an artist combined with his authority as a scientist to convince people that Darwinian evolution is a fact. This specifically applies to sets of embryos which Haeckel drew and published in his very popular works Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte and Anthropogenie. Ever since the publication of these sets, it has been controversial, and fellow scientists felt it was at best a misrepresentation of reality, at worst deceptive and fraudulent. (The latter was ultimately shown to be the case.) Despite the controversy, textbook authors and teachers of evolutionary theory keep on using these diagrams, or versions of them, in order to convince students of evolutionary truth, even in the 21st century! In 1997, a ‘bomb’ exploded in the face of all those evolutionists who so fondly kept on using this evolutionary ‘icon’, when embryologist (and evolutionist) Dr Michael K. Richardson and his colleagues published a variety of real photographs of the relevant embryos. These drawings of Haeckel were later compared directly to the actual photos, and they were found to be far more different than everybody even thought. Richardson also published photographs of species additional to those which appeared in Haeckel’s popular embryo plates. This showed that Haeckel conveniently used those which tended to look more similar, while ignoring those which were different. More at: creation.com The fact that outspoken evolutionists don’t know of this fraud - and one of them is a scientist! - is appalling! |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 01-Nov-21, 11:19 |
Ask yourself this: If evidence for the theory of evolution is so strong, why have there been so many hoaxes and frauds created as “evidence” to support it? Piltdown Man and Ernst Haeckel are just the beginning. As for the folks at FIAT LUX III, I think they should write “Human embryos do not have gill slits” on a chalkboard 100 times. That includes you, professor! |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 01-Nov-21, 16:45 |
And after briefly looking at other posts in the Evolution theory cont. thread at FIAT LUX III, another moderator is claiming “thousands upon thousands” of transitional fossils exist. Where do they get this nonsense?! That’s why it’s pointless to have a discussion with atheists like this. The truth doesn’t matter to them. Everything is secondary to their ideology. If evidence contradicts their evolutionary dogma, they ignore that evidence and pretend it doesn’t exist. Or they’ll make up some ridiculous excuse to dismiss the evidence and declare, “Case closed!” zorroloco, the moderator who fell for the Ernst Haeckel hoax, will again be falsely claiming human embryos have gill slits within 48 hours. Everything, including and especially the truth, is subordinate to his belief that he’s an evolved animal. m.youtube.com |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 02-Nov-21, 09:19 |
The evolutionist in FIAT LUX III who fell for the Ernst Haeckel hoax appears to still believe the hoax despite the hoax being exposed decades ago. And both he and the other evolutionist say the hoax was a “cool idea” instead of saying Ernst Haeckel and his fake drawings were a fraud and an embarrassment to science. Check this statement out: <<Hypotheses are set up and those that won't stand the ultimate test will fall, such as this one.>> So the deliberate fraud by Ernst Haeckel was a “hypothesis?” <<Yet, the ground principle that embryos go through prior evolutionary stages is true in my opinion! It is only that some details of that have been wrongly interpreted.>> Details were wrongly interpreted?! This was a deliberate fraud, not unlike Piltdown Man. And this from the moderator who fell for the Ernst Haeckel hoax: <<I still think there are gill slit appearing things in embryos,>> Notice how he moves off from his initial assertion that “human embryos have gills” to human embryos have “gill slit appearing things.” So dishonest. He just won’t admit he was wrong. And this from the scientist: <<The gill slit idea was very cool in the sense that it strongy supported Darwinian evolution theory at a very early stage.>> “Very cool.” Why? Because it “strongly supported Darwinian evolution theory…” Sound objective to you? Sound like a scientist who could be counted on to do an objective analysis of evidence or data? You know what I think is cool? The truth. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 02-Nov-21, 09:32 |
“For example, fish embryos and human embryos both have gill slits.” Revised statement: “I still think there are gill slit appearing things in embryos,” Are gill slits the same as “gill slit appearing things?” Seems to me they’re not - unless you’re an evolutionist who won’t admit he fell for a hoax. But he shouldn’t feel bad. The Ernst Haeckel hoax is still being taught as fact in USA schools. Tell me again how the theory of evolution is a “scientific” theory and not a pantheistic religion. I thought science was supposed to correct mistakes and deliberately false information - not perpetuate them! And not to say they’re “very cool” ideas that were “wrongly interpreted.” Good grief. I’m more of a scientist than the two of them put together. Why? Because I can look at evidence and data objectively and because I care about the truth. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 02-Nov-21, 11:55 |
The single greatest piece of evidence for evolution has to be what lead Darwin to develop the theory of evolution in the first place, which is the clear and evident interrelatedness of all life.>> This statement is completely false. Ever hear of the Cambrian explosion? Watch and learn, my friend! youtu.be This video is 8:42 long. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 02-Nov-21, 14:57 |
When you remove the hoaxes, conjecture, speculation, wishful thinking and fairy dust, the “evidence” is virtually non-existent. <<But if you refuse to see it…>> Oh I see it. And I see it for what it really is. <<The mindset that produces such a anti science perspective>> The theory of evolution is not science. It doesn’t follow the Scientific Method and virtually zero evidence supports macroevolution. You’ve got a couple of questionable transitional fossils and that’s it. <<produces troubling results. www.yahoo.com>> At least you’ve moved off your endless Google links. <<But it’s healthier to live with atheists, agnostics and humanists!>> Sure - just ask people in China, people who lived in the former Soviet Union, people in Cuba, people in North Korea, etc. Living under atheists in communist governments is not very pleasant. What’s the death toll of communist governments killing their own citizens? Over 100 million, right? BTW, did you get permission from your handlers to start weighing in on this topic? Aren’t you supposed to be dividing Americans and pitting them against each other? Stick to your script, comrade! |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 02-Nov-21, 23:15 |
Yet, I am sad to say, I have utterly failed.>> Why do you say that? I think there have been good discussions. I think (perhaps in error) that we agreed humans and chimps are not 98% to 99% similar, I base that on the most recent link you provided on the subject, an article which disputed that percentage of similarity. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 04-Nov-21, 09:26 |
www.yahoo.com The ignorance and gullibility of many right wing evangelicals and their virile rule the anti-science cult is evident.>> Still not as ignorant and gullible as atheists (and others) who believe the theory of evolution and think it’s based in science. And is English your native language or are you using Google to translate into English? Asking ‘cause the above sentence (and more than a few of your prior sentences) don’t make much sense. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 20-Nov-21, 21:48 |
Your definition of “religious fanatic” is someone who doesn’t believe in the theory of evolution, which puts thousands of scientists, many of whom have far greater credentials and qualifications than you, under your heading of “fanatic.” You’re the fanatic, stalhandske. You can’t see the theory of evolution for the evidence-free garbage that it is. But many scientists do. And one day, likely soon, Darwin’s garbage theory will be revealed as the biggest scientific fraud of the 20th- and 21st centuries. You’ve lived your life believing and working for a lie, stalhandske. And you’ve done it because you abandoned science and the scientific method! |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 21-Nov-21, 08:53 |
stalhandske said: This is what was just posted in GK: From me: Your definition of “religious fanatic” is someone who doesn’t believe in the theory of evolution, which puts thousands of scientists, many of whom have far greater credentials and qualifications than you, under your heading of “fanatic.” stalhandske said: <<You clearly don't understand whom you are talking to.>> Oh I know whom I’m talking to. I have more than a little experience interacting with you and I know your character quite well. <<I say 'fanatic' for the simple reason that you represent a vanishingly small minority of Christians,>> One of your club members, who should be a moderator, recently posted stats from 2019 that said 60% of Protestants in the United States and a third of Catholics in the U.S. don’t believe the theory of evolution. How is that a “vanishingly small minority?” <<as I have pointed out repeatedly.>> And you’ve been repeatedly wrong. But you won’t admit it. << No, that does not in itself say you are 'wrong', but relative to the vast Christian majority, you are the fanatic.>> Again, according to stats a member of your club posted, 60% (that’s a majority, tiger!) of Protestants in the U.S. and a third of Catholics in the U.S. don’t believe the theory of evolution. Your “vast Christian majority” only exists in your imagination. I said: <You’re the fanatic, stalhandske. You can’t see the theory of evolution for the evidence-free garbage that it is. But many scientists do. And one day, likely soon, Darwin’s garbage theory will be revealed as the biggest scientific fraud of the 20th- and 21st centuries.> stalhandske said: <<That's just your repeated mantra.>> I repeat it ‘cause it’s true. What’s the evidence for macroevolution? A couple of questionable transitional fossils. That’s it. Nothing else. And there’s a ton of evidence against it. Your false claim that humans and chimps are nearly identical genetically was the latest false claim from you that I blew out of the water. And *you* posted a scientific article that agreed with me! Then you pretended to be outraged about something and left the discussion in a manufactured huff, which is your tried-and-true exit strategy when proven wrong. You really need to come up with something new. That exit strategy is so played. <<I have responded to every single point of criticisim you have made,>> That’s completely false. You explained orphan genes? You identified the number of transitional fossils? You explained the lack of pre-Cambrian fossils? Should I review our previous discussions for all the other points you ignored? <<but those responses aren't acknowledged by you and just ignored.>> I’m guessing you’re referring to your 2nd Law argument. I’m getting to that. <<By contrast, I have seriously considered every one of your objections.>> See above for three examples you ignored and I could find many more if I bothered to review our past discussions. I said: <You’ve lived your life believing and working for a lie, stalhandske. And you’ve done it because you abandoned science and the scientific method! > <<Wow! This is kind of gross.>> Unfortunately the truth sometimes is gross. <<But I really don't give a damn>> Obviously, since you responded to it (lol) <<and won't use further bad language,>> You’ve used far worse language than that on here. <<because I know the qualities of the opponent.>> Back atcha, hombre! |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 21-Nov-21, 10:05 |
Evolution of the horse from Britannica. Some great pucs and graphics gere:>> Great pucs and graphics gere? Do you speak English, my friend? And interesting that horse evolution needs “graphics.” Where are the transitional fossils, hombre? Oh, they don’t exist so let’s just make up some drawings! 🤔 ✍️ 🐎 |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 21-Nov-21, 10:17 |
How many times do I have to tell you guys that the theory of evolution is not science?! The idea of macroevolution is not based on observation or experimentation and does not follow the Scientific Method. In fact, experiments that tried to prove macroevolution (with bacteria and fruit flies) all failed. Darwin observed some minor differences in beaks on birds and made the completely unsupported and ridiculous extrapolation that those minor changes within a species meant one species evolved into another and another and another by blind chance. His whole theory is a pathetic joke and is just a pantheistic religion for atheists. That’s why most atheists are so concerned with global warming: “We must save the earth goddess! Hang on, goddess! We’re coming to your rescue!” |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 21-Nov-21, 10:42 |
We have virtually incontrovertible proof>> Proof?! You don’t even have evidence! <<in horses, whales and more. Genetics,>> Similar genetics (and they’re not as similar among species as you think) could just as easily be explained by a common design. After all, we live on the same planet, are exposed to and breathe the same atmosphere and eat the same foods. Why wouldn’t our designs be similar? <<fossils,>> How many transitional fossils are there? Why won’t evolutionists ever answer this question? Darwin said for his theory to be true, the number of transitional fossils would have to be “truly enormous.” Are they? Not even remotely close! <<anatomy,>> Yeah, whales and horses sure do have the same anatomy. Why, anatomically, they’re practically twins! <<embryology>> You fell for the Ernst Haeckel hoax. And fairly recently. Don’t tell me you’re going back to that. <<all point to the same incontrovertible fact of evolution.>> None of it points to evolution. But I don’t expect you to reject your pantheistic religion. <<Of course, if anyone had a reasonable alternative. I’d be happy to hear it. *Crickets*>> Genesis 1 and 2, my friend! You reject the creation account in Genesis because you’re an atheist. And the two self-described Christians in FIAT LUX III who believe the theory of evolution won’t (or can’t) say how they can believe both the theory of evolution and that God made humans in His image. And I say “self-described” because one of them says he’s a Christian but also says he doesn’t know who or what God is or what he believes, and I don’t think those are reconcilable positions. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 21-Nov-21, 11:29 |
I'm carving this beauty into the bark of a tree.>> Not so fast with the carving tools, hombre. Remember this video? youtu.be I posted it the last time you claimed the tree of life was evidence for evolution. Naturally, you ignored it 😞 |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 21-Nov-21, 12:15 |
Your opinion, but most Biblical scholars I’m aware of (not to mention Jesus Christ and His disciples) believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. <<The Jews, holders of those sacred texts, dispute the nonsensical interpretation of their works by modern literalists,>> Do you have a citation for this? Because you have an unfortunate habit of making factually false statements that have no citations on where you get them from. You can do that all you want in your silly little political debates, but don’t you try that with the Holy Bible, pardner. Not on my watch. And “modern literalists?” Are you claiming that Biblical scholars and commentators centuries ago did not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2? That’s certainly your implication. Have a citation for that? <<as does the Catholic church hierarchy.>> Many of the Catholic Church hierarchy’s beliefs and practices contradict the Bible. I’ve listed them at least twice before. Want me to again? I’ll only do it again if you ask. And ask nicely. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 21-Nov-21, 12:23 |
And I would add (and should have said initially) that significant evidence exists for intelligent design (which implies a Creator) - far more evidence than exists for one species turning into another and another and another ad infinitum by blind chance. Far more evidence for intelligent design than the absurd hypothesis that the complexity of life we see today evolved from a single-celled organism doing the backstroke in the ocean. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 21-Nov-21, 12:31 |
<<One of the Dakotas and Georgia tried to pass legislation legalizing vehicular manslaughter of liberal protestors, so long as you could kill more than one at a time. I'm not sugar coating it--this was the intent of the proposed law.>> |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
