Black superior neurotansmitters?

Nice page full of garbage, Menelik. As "proof" of the "fact" of evolution, it states the following:

There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)[SUP]3[/SUP] happens, just like gravity does.
Click to expand...

Read my post above, and Carolina Speed's posts. This is microevolution. Nobody disputes it. But this is NOT evolution where a fish becomes a lizard, macroevolution, which has never been proven. All "evidence" that I've seen is largely a narrative designed to fit a predetermined conclusion, which is the way that all Cultural Marxists create facts.
 
FootballDad said:
Nice page full of garbage, Menelik..
Click to expand...
Why? Just because you don't agree with it? Who are you to call my opinion garbage? Later dude...
 
The page that you linked was not helpful. It merely blathered on about the definition and characteristics of a theory, as in the word theory. And it tries to equate what we know to be true about gravity to evolution, and that they are at the same level of provability!

Then after all of that, it says evolution is a proven theory based on microevolution, or mild interspecies adaptation. Like that proves that great, great grandfather was a rock.
 
FootballDad said:
Nice page full of garbage, Menelik. As "proof" of the "fact" of evolution, it states the following:



Read my post above, and Carolina Speed's posts. This is microevolution. Nobody disputes it. But this is NOT evolution where a fish becomes a lizard, macroevolution, which has never been proven. All "evidence" that I've seen is largely a narrative designed to fit a predetermined conclusion, which is the way that all Cultural Marxists create facts.
Click to expand...

It's proven by whales and their vestigial features.

vestigial hind leg development:
le04_21.jpg


homologous hand bones with other mammals:
homobones.jpg
 
As we have had this heated discussion before I think I need to borrow Menelik's "Not this sh!t again" picture.

thumbnail.aspx
 
There are many problems athiest's and evolutionists have when considering evolution as a theory and so far not one person(evolutionist) has answered any of these questions. As I have stated, evolutionist(athiest) can believe what you want, but please give me some answer for what I've asked? If you can I could consider your belief, but you never do!

1. The basic belief for evolution is time. Evolutionists' believe the earth is billions and billions of years old. There's several if not many problems with this theory. I will try to explain without getting too technical.
It is a fact that Earth's rotation is slowing down. You need to add about a second to time about every 2 years. This works ok if you believe the earth is about 10,000 years old, but if you believe the Earth is a couple of billion years old, you have a big problem. The days and nights would come so fast you wouldn't have time to dress and undress plus your billion year old dinosaurs would be blown away by 5,000 mile per hour winds. Get it? Common sense right?

For those who believe astronauts landed on the moon. Carl Pagan's theory when we landed on the moon was since the universe is billions of years old, the moon would be covered in about 10 feet of space dust. Ever wonder why the space ship that landed had those long legs extending from it. Scientists thought it would sink into space dust, but it didn't. It landed in about 3/4in. in dust and using their own dating it says the moon was abround 8-10,000 years old.

Evolutionists' date humans coming into existence around 3 million years ago. From the year 1800-2000, earth's population has grown from about 1 billion to about 6 billion. There's another real problem. Go back and try to figure Earth's population if humans have been around for 3 million years.

2. Evolutionists' never explain where matter and energy comes from when it suddenly condensed in a ball about the size of a period in a sentence. This is actually written in elementary science books! OK, where did the matter that condensed come from? They can't answer that question! I don't know for sure, but my faith says an infinite God created it.

I can go on with these things, but I think most get it.

3. .....and there is the biggest problem athiests' and evolutionists' have with creation, the existence of God.

It bothers them when I say this, but it doesn't bother me if they think I'm a fool for believing in God. I wonder why this is?
 
Carolina Speed said:
Evolutionists' date humans coming into existence around 3 million years ago. From the year 1800-2000, earth's population has grown from about 1 billion to about 6 billion. There's another real problem. Go back and try to figure Earth's population if humans have been around for 3 million years.
Click to expand...

I'm more amazed that you think this is a good point. Eurasia's social organization and technology has been exponentially advancing during the interglacial period. Before that they lived as hunter-gatherers, somewhat like the San in south Africa and the Australian Aborigines, the population would not have been large.

Your other points are just ridiculous and shoddy "science" you extracted from Creationist spin sites:
For those who believe astronauts landed on the moon. Carl Pagan's theory when we landed on the moon was since the universe is billions of years old, the moon would be covered in about 10 feet of space dust. Ever wonder why the space ship that landed had those long legs extending from it. Scientists thought it would sink into space dust, but it didn't. It landed in about 3/4in. in dust and using their own dating it says the moon was abround 8-10,000 years old.
Click to expand...
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/moon_dust.html

Again, the origin of the universe doesn't have anything to do with the theory of evolution other than maybe how the conditions were set on the early Earth for abiogenesis.

And it seems to me, that if there is an omnipotent "infinite" being out there, that you would be but a flicker in the vastness of his thought, that he does not love you nor hate you but is merely indifferent, as the evidence clearly shows.
 
Menelik said:
Evolution is pretty much an accepted fact. Trying to inject creationism or other faith based arguments to refute it are intellectually lazy at best or fallacious at worst. Religious explanations simply don't stand the test of the scientific method. Until "Thy Kingdom Come" there is no way to explain the supernatural using science as we understand it. As a Christian this doesn't bother me one bit. I base my belief ON FAITH.
Click to expand...

Menelik, I'm not quite sure what you are saying, but tell me if this is intellectually LAZY please?

Is it intellectually lazy to ask where matter, laws, and energy came from? Please explain intellectually?

If all existence came from the "Big Bang", which is what evolutionists' have put in our public schools text books, the same evolutionists' that understand a law of Physics called "Conservation of Angular Movement" which basically says anything moving in say a clockwise manner possibly like the swirling dot of matter that evolutionists' say occured 20 billion years ago, spins so fast that fragments spinning off of them will spin in the same direction. If this occured, why is our universe not in unison? Why do 2 planets in our solar system spin backwards or opposite the other planets? Why do atleast 6 moons spin opposite of the planet they orbit around?
Is this lazy to ask these questions?

Another question; much shorter. How did we evolve from a rock, as footballdad mentioned? I would like to know?

How did the soup suddenly come alive 3 billion years ago to form life as the textbooks say?

Why has the "Big Bang" theory changed over the years in regards to size from which it was created, from an explosion from nothing of 12 trillion miles in diameter to in 1983 the size of a trillionth the size of a proton?

If your a Christian and believe in evolution, then you believe in death before sin. The Bible says death didn't occur until after the first sin. Right?
 
Anak said:
I'm more amazed that you think this is a good point. Eurasia's social organization and technology has been exponentially advancing during the interglacial period. Before that they lived as hunter-gatherers, somewhat like the San in south Africa and the Australian Aborigines, the population would not have been large.

Your other points are just ridiculous and shoddy "science" you extracted from Creationist spin sites:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/moon_dust.html

Again, the origin of the universe doesn't have anything to do with the theory of evolution other than maybe how the conditions were set on the early Earth for abiogenesis.

And it seems to me, that if there is an omnipotent "infinite" being out there, that you would be but a flicker in the vastness of his thought, that he does not love you nor hate you but is merely indifferent, as the evidence clearly shows.
Click to expand...


.....it's no more shoddy than you believing humans came from a rock. I'm still amazed you believe that! If you don't believe this, please educate me and tell me where we came from?

What is the theory of evolution?

Please don't make accusations about information I have. You don't know where I get my information. Thank you.
 
No one thinks that we evolved from rocks, lol. FBD was making a joke.

I'm not making accusations, I know where you acquire your information.
 
I think with some Athiests is that they get caught up on proving there is no God, more to convince themselves rather than others (at least the ones I have encountered in real life). There is some misconception that religion and science are at war with each other. I bet nobody knows that the Vatican owns the largest telescope in the world, funny that they named it "LUCIFER" which is an acronym for Large Binocular Telescope Near-infrared Utility with Camera and Integral Field Unit for Extragalactic Research. The Vatican invests a lot of money in science. Thomas Aquinas was a scientist himself and explained how the two don't have to be at odds, and there are scientists of all different faiths and it does not change their belief in God. Jesus often spoke in parables which leads me to believe that not every religious writing is supposed to be taken literally, but I could be wrong because the translations are not always EXACT.

"If you read the early fathers of the church, the vast majority of them adopted the view that these days of creation were long time periods, not 24-hour periods.

Why King James? The English language is the largest vocabulary language that man has ever invented. The Hebrew language, by contrast, is one of the most noun poor languages that man has ever invented.

So, the English reader has a difficult time appreciating that in the Hebrew Old Testament, there are very few words to describe periods of time. The Hebrew word Yom, for “day long” can mean 12 hours, 24 hours or a long time period. You have to examine the context, to determine which of the three definitions to use.

Incidentally, we have the same problem with the word “heaven”, for which the Hebrew language has three different definitions. In Genesis One, you have to examine the context in order to determine which heaven is being used in which place. That’s why Paul referred to the third heaven. So you’d know which one he was talking about." So a day could actually mean ages which is what many biblical scholars believe.


I think the Earth is much older than 10,000 years but I don't see how that would affect whether you believe in God or not. The same with any type of evolution.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps the strongest argument for evolution comes from looking at the different races of man, but the same pro-evolution establishment that claims evolution is fact won't allow rational observations about racial differences, claiming instead that all races are "equal" (with the unstated exception that blacks are physically superior to others) and that there are no differences in intelligence. That's just one of the reasons the theory of evolution is absurd.

There are observable differences within a geographically separated species over time, but there is absolutely no evidence that amoebas "evolved" into fish, which "evolved" into squirrels, which "evolved" into monkeys, which "evolved" into human beings.

How did eyes "evolve"? Supposedly all life was blind until somehow some creature was born with two eyes, with this phenomenon then somehow spreading to most other species. Or was it one-eighth of one eye, which eventually "evolved" into two full eyes over a long period of time? How can an eye (sight) "evolve" from blindness? The same with hearing, smell, and many other characteristics. How did sea animals "evolve" into land animals? Did a fish one day wash onto land and begin breathing and then was joined by another fish and breeded with it? Or was a fish one day born with two legs, then decided to hit the beach and go for a walk?

Deviations within a species over time into sub-species is logical and provable; however the only thing more ridiculous than the theory of evolution is the "big bang theory," in which a marble-sized piece of matter, origin unknown and impossible to explain, suddenly blew up and created billions of galaxies and trillions of stars across an unending expanse of space. Can any "theory" be more laughable on its face? The lapses in logic in the Old Testament are trivial compared to the lapses in logic in evolution and the big bang nonsense.

It's way beyond the ability of science to accurately discern answers at this time to questions such as how the universe came about, and how life came to be. We still know very little about sleep and dreams for example, or about the oceans, or even what the earth is formed of once you get beyond several miles down from the surface. But "science" is always promulgated with the same authority from on high as that of religious authority. Medical textbooks from a century ago are laughable today. The books I read as a kid about the solar system are laughable today. Many other examples can be cited. All of which tells me that that which is proclaimed by science today as "truth" will also be laughable a century or ten centuries from now, assuming mankind somehow doesn't annihilate itself.

The scientific method is fine and is immensely valuable. But its biggest drawback is that it has taken on its own religious trappings of inerrancy and intolerence and won't admit its failings and just how little about life and the universe science definitively understands.
 
Last edited:
I think that there are too many Godly people who are caught up in being right. What we all need to do is bring glory to God's name and we can't do that by pushing people away. Whose name are you bringing glory to when you want to prove your point? Yours or God's?

I think that is why God has put a lot of unknowns out there and a lot of things that cannot be proven. It is a test for all of us to give up our pride. It is something I have to personally remind myself of all the time.
 
Anak said:
Don, this should be of interest to you:
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/chap2.pdf
Click to expand...


I'm aware of the Boas school and how it's warped anthropology to fit a Jewish agenda. I also know that Kevin MacDonald, someone I have much respect for, is an evolutionist. Although evolutionists tend to disparage the intelligence of those who don't believe in evolution, my experience is that there are plenty of very smart people who don't buy into the theory, and often for reasons that aren't related to religion. I have a very smart friend who unquestioningly believes the recent "finding" by evolutionists that chickens are direct descendants of the T-Rex. Really? Really??? The mighty T-Rex (assuming it ever existed) is now a chicken??? Otherwise intelligent people really believe that? Ok, whatever. . .
 
Hadn't heard that one actually. It was just an attention grabbing headline in pop science magazines.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/13/uknews.taxonomy
"The analysis shows that T-rex collagen makeup is almost identical to that of a modern chicken - this corroborates a huge body of evidence from the fossil record that demonstrates birds are descended from meat-eating dinosaurs," said Angela Milner, the associate keeper of palaeontology at the Natural History Museum in London. "So, it is very satisfying that the molecules have provided a positive test for the morphology."
Click to expand...
"Out of seven sequences, we had three that matched chicken uniquely and we had another that matched frogs uniquely and another that also matched newt uniquely and a couple of others that matched multiple organisms that include chickens and newts," said John Asara of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Centre in Boston, one of the authors of the study.

Dr Asara said the results supported the view that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but added: "If we had more species in the database to compare it to, such as alligator or crocodile, which have not been sequenced yet, we may also find matches to those species. Based on this study, it looks like chickens might be the closest amongst all species that are present in today's genome databases."
Click to expand...

Small test range in species. T-Rex collagen is probably extremely close to the rest of the birds, and birds evolved from a different theropod lineage further back rather than chickens specifically being directly descended from T-Rex.
 
dwid said:
I think with some Athiests is that they get caught up on proving there is no God, more to convince themselves rather than others (at least the ones I have encountered in real life). There is some misconception that religion and science are at war with each other. I bet nobody knows that the Vatican owns the largest telescope in the world, funny that they named it "LUCIFER" which is an acronym for Large Binocular Telescope Near-infrared Utility with Camera and Integral Field Unit for Extragalactic Research. The Vatican invests a lot of money in science. Thomas Aquinas was a scientist himself and explained how the two don't have to be at odds, and there are scientists of all different faiths and it does not change their belief in God. Jesus often spoke in parables which leads me to believe that not every religious writing is supposed to be taken literally, but I could be wrong because the translations are not always EXACT.

"If you read the early fathers of the church, the vast majority of them adopted the view that these days of creation were long time periods, not 24-hour periods.

Why King James? The English language is the largest vocabulary language that man has ever invented. The Hebrew language, by contrast, is one of the most noun poor languages that man has ever invented.

So, the English reader has a difficult time appreciating that in the Hebrew Old Testament, there are very few words to describe periods of time. The Hebrew word Yom, for “day longâ€￾ can mean 12 hours, 24 hours or a long time period. You have to examine the context, to determine which of the three definitions to use.

Incidentally, we have the same problem with the word “heavenâ€￾, for which the Hebrew language has three different definitions. In Genesis One, you have to examine the context in order to determine which heaven is being used in which place. That’s why Paul referred to the third heaven. So you’d know which one he was talking about." So a day could actually mean ages which is what many biblical scholars believe.


I think the Earth is much older than 10,000 years but I don't see how that would affect whether you believe in God or not. The same with any type of evolution.
Click to expand...


Relgions that aen't flexible get lost overtime like a lot of religions were.A lot of relgions had this. I think there are untruth things in the Bible with how we now know the earth turns around the sun. But that is now accepted.I believe in god but i am maybe a bit bad in some eyes as religious person becuase I am not sure if everything from the bible is the word of god.Genesis one , two had mutiple writers there could have been human mistakes have been made over time.The 10 rules are the ones the most usefull and aren't that multi-interpertable.

When people go from place to place simple said you get a selection process.The out of africa theory looks so clear becuase all non ******** are closer to eachother then ******** to anyone.By homo sapiens europe was the last one populated and whites oculd have hade the most mutatiopns and most being from place to place with so much geneticv clustering with genes not all whites have and all non whites not( alltrhough ther could be some) but becuase all whites have majority or big part of the genes that all non whites have only small part off, and some nobody that is why you see differnces.A black west african can have a non typical west african nose but will never have like Jeremiah wright realtively non black nose, big ears light skin head shape more close to average white and have only minoroty of black traits. So this is why you can always when they don't posses every genetic cluster look wise still see always when someone is black.most genes are for the brain and most adapting to environment is realted to that so this is why most genetic clusters are on caracter.But some say all genetic clusters are only on looks, but how you looks is not the most important to adapting.For example light skin in whites is one of the late mutations but is the most known one.Only the ones that can't be unrecognized are accepted.

they know talk about europe a lot about all middle east leaders and when they will stop killing there people.It will take tame.Espacially if you think genetic clusters and adapting is only on looks.and culture wasn't a big pang and with only environment factors, which do influence genetic caracter clusers btw.
Arabs did nearly always lose from europeans, if we want to help them we have for example to look which caracter traits are very common there, talk to their mouth but with slighy differnces.never say something the exact opposite becuase then people come in defence mode.But this is very simplistic .I have no Idea why exactly you get very temperamentfull and overly defencenly in pride when you have lived for thousands of years in the arab world with very little water and 80% saharan were you have to come up for yourself, which is espacially there very important
 
dwid's wife said:
I think that there are too many Godly people who are caught up in being right. What we all need to do is bring glory to God's name and we can't do that by pushing people away. Whose name are you bringing glory to when you want to prove your point? Yours or God's?

I think that is why God has put a lot of unknowns out there and a lot of things that cannot be proven. It is a test for all of us to give up our pride. It is something I have to personally remind myself of all the time.
Click to expand...


I don't believe that all Godly people are caught up in wanting to be right. None of us are always right, although some may think they are.

As I've stated here many times, I'm not sure how all things came into existence, but I do believe in a creator.

I have no problem with theories about evolution being discussed or taught, but give equal time to creation also.

Contrary to what Anak keeps saying, like no one believes we came from a rock, while, he and people here don't believe this; this is what is being taught in schools and shown.

I have tirelessly asked here, ok, if you don't believe in a creator how did we get here to no end and no one has given an answer. I believe you can look at the earth, universe, stars, galaxies, etc. and you can see the glory of God!

With evolution there's no glory being brought to God whatsoever, if you begin with the so-called, "Big Bang," which is the basis for other forms of evolution. That's fine, if that's what you want to believe. Atleast this is what is being taught in schools from an early age. There's no mention of a creator!

Let's also teach the belief in creationism with equal time and evidence.

I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, Godly people aren't the only ones who want to be right, some evolutionists' want to be right also, you left them out.
 
Because someone doesn't "believe" the (KJV) Bible is infallible Word of God, doesn't impact the FACT that it indeed is (just that). People can believe whatever they want, but I'll stick with that great Word of truth & salvation.
 
My thanks to waterbed for this thread! Although it has wandered a bit from the initial half-joking posts, it is informative. Keep in mind, I never intend any disrespect for valuable, informed posters such as Menelik or Anak. I also was really happy to see dwid's wife posting! Welcome to the boards! I particularly liked Don's understated post on his opinon.

Now as this relates to Caste Football and its message, is that Cultural Marxists have taken the anti-God and pro-humanism arguments as the central pillar to their entire agenda. Who cares was "God" says about homosexuality? It's a "normal" and "acceptable" lifestyle. Religion is an "opiate" to the masses that must be ridiculed and then replaced by a new god, the state. These same scientists who promise "enlightenment" through their work are subsidized by the PTB who have a pre-determined agenda.

Anak, the whale bone vestigial argument has been rebuked by every marine biologist. The so-called vestigial bone structures are necessary for the mating of the whales, without them we would be whale-free despite the best efforts by free-Willy and Star Trek. It's an argument on par with our appendix and coccyx being vistigial, or the baby-in-the-womb-with-gills hoax.

And as for great-great-great-great-great grandfather being a rock, well, I might have been half-joking there, but essentially that is where biological evolution begins. "As the Earth cooled, rain fell down on the rocks, creating a primordial soup of elements and amino acids that eventually became the first living organism........"
 
Doesn't that sort of post, comparing blacks to simians, violate the posting guidelines? :suspicious:
 
Carolina Speed said:
Yes, waterbed very interesting indeed. This opens up alot of debate! Africans are descendants of gorillas????Really? What do others think? Anak?
Click to expand...

It doesn't make that claim, just comparisons with more archaic humans and other apes suggesting that Africans are more pithecoid than Eurasians.

Figure%2026-1.GIF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
American Freedom News
Back
Top