Thread: the wife and i had 'the talk'

Originally Posted by eatyummypuppies

if random mutations occur, thusly will evolution

You are right to a certain extent. They will evolve horizontaly within species but not betwen species

Originally Posted by eatyummypuppies

Antimatter, your threats, indeed the basis of your religion

Not threats, I am sorry you find my words threatining, they weren't meant to be.

Originally Posted by eatyummypuppies

I'm sure to your dismay, that I am stunning success in life

Actually i am happy for you, that is great to hear. My prayer still stands though

Originally Posted by eatyummypuppies

A man that is functioning incorrectly (ie. in opposition to his own life) may become religious; his relationship to reality remains same, erroneous, only now he is validated for it. This will not occur to the man whose thinking is proper.

This could not be more far from the truth

Truth be told you and smalldog have the aversion to reality.

I thought we were going to keep this civil, why is there hostility? @eatyummypuppies, You call these "threats"? Yet they make you laugh, we are crazy Christians and cuter than a basket of kittens, how does this mix with threats?

Quote: "I'm sure to your dismay, that I am stunning success in life; my future looks brighter by the day". End Quote.
This success in your life is great! (and it came by your works, right?)
I, (rather God) recommends that you watch this pride, this will be your fall.

Quote: "Now I have a postulate: A man that is functioning incorrectly (ie. in opposition to his own life) may become religious". end Quote.

So, Christians are people that have "functioned incorrectly"?
If this is the case, than these people are now functioning correctly because of their belief? Awesome! I knew God works in peoples lives.

Evolution? Here's something I read recently, of course it is written by a Christian man:

The biggest hoax of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is
that evolution is a scientific fact. Certainly it is a widely accepted
theory of man’s origin and development, advanced chiefly by those
who reject belief in God, but theories are not scientific fact. The
hypothesis that traces man’s lineage back to spontaneous generation
(life from nonlife, man from ooze and amoebas) has never been sus-
tained. Spontaneous generation has not been scientifically proved,
and there is mounting evidence to the contrary. A growing number
of nontheistic scientists admit to a startling lack of evidence to sup-
port the theory of evolution.
Because the universe came into being before any human was
around to witness the event, it is impossible to verify what happened
except by the witness of God. In fact, the best evidence for evolution
should appear in fossils embedded in rocks, but so many questions
arise in this study (paleontology) that even many evolutionary pale-
ontologists put little stock in the fossil record. Basing one’s belief in
evolution on the shaky ground of paleontology can scarcely be con-
sidered scientific.
“The more one studies paleontology,” says L. T. More, “the
more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone;
exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one
encounters the great mysteries of religion. . . . The only alternative is
the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irra-
tional.”
Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Nat-
ural History in Chicago, stated that the “250,000 species of plants
and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the
world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Dar-
win.” ~
Dr. Robert A. Millikan, a physicist and Nobel Prize winner,
stated in a speech before the American Chemical Society, “The
pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the
doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.”
Karl Popper, in his autobiography, Unended Quest, goes further
than Millikan: “I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not
a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research pro-
gramme—a possible framework for testable scientific theories.” My
first experience with evolution probably best illustrates why
so many accept as fact such an unscientific theory. In my junior-high
biology textbook, I saw with my own eyes a picture of the missing
link. As a matter of fact, I saw four of them: photographs of the
Java man, the Putdown man, Pithecanthro pus erectus, and Peking
man. These photos of manlike creatures really shook my faith in the
Bible, thus fulfilling the intentions of their humanist inventors.
Subsequent research disclosed that all four of those “missing
links” were frauds—nothing more than one or two bones or teeth of
humans or animals. From a few bones, scientists or educators made
plaster-of-Paris models, photographed them, and put them in our
science textbooks. It is no wonder that so many Americans believe
that man descended from monkeys, even though not one scientific
fact can prove such a fantastic claim.
Two other “proofs” of evolution have since been tossed in the
cosmic wastepaper basket: England’s peppered moth and Archaeo-
raptor. Both had been used for many years to brainwash naive
school children with the theory of evolution. Now it turns out that
both were fakes.
Continued...

British scientist Cyril Clarke spent twenty-five years investigat-
ing the peppered moth and found that H. B. Kettlewell, who once
boasted that had Darwin known about these moths “he would have
witnessed the consummation and confirmation of his life’s work,”
was dishonest in his presentation of the facts. When humans glue
dead moths to trees so birds can eat them, one gets the feeling that
the theory is crumbling. The moths that were filmed being eaten by
birds were actually bred in the laboratory and placed on tree trunks
by Kettlewell. University of Chicago evolutionary biologist, Jerry
Coyne, agrees that the peppered moth story, which was “the prize
horse in our stable,” has to be thrown out.
Chinese paleontologist Xu Xing contends that Archaeoraptor,
long used by evolutionists as “proof” that birds evolved from
dinosaurs, is a combination of two fossils: one of the body and head
of a birdlike creature and the other of the tail of a dinosaur. Xing
says he has found another fossil, in a private collection in China,
that contains the mirror image of the supposed tail of the Archaeo-
raptor. National Geographic magazine published a note in its
March 2000 issue saying that CT scans of the fossil appear to con-
firm Xing’s observations and “revealed anomalies in the fossil’s
reconstruction.” The magazine said details “will be published as
soon as the studies are completed.”
Translation: We have been lied to again!

Evolutionists want us to believe that a great miracle (sponta-
neous generation) happened three and one-half billion years ago
and that life, contrary to any observable scientific evidence, devel-
oped into higher and higher forms until man resulted. This is the
supposedly scientific theory that causes humanists to insist man will
continue to get better and better.
George Wald acknowledged the bizarre nature of this belief and
yet wrote, “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task
[getting life from nonlife] to concede that the spontaneous genera-
tion of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result,
I believe, of spontaneous generation.”
Spontaneous generation is not the conclusion of science but of
belief. Wald further admitted that spontaneous generation is a mira-
cle: “Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we
have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as
impossible on the basis of human experiences is meaningless here.
Given so much time the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible
probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to watt:
Time itself performs miracles.”
Evolutionists want us to believe that something happened sev-
eral billion years ago—a biological accident, which man in his most
technologically advanced laboratories cannot reproduce today. The
process of evolution demands a miracle—in fact, several miracles.
Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education
at Christian Heritage College, has asserted, “The miracles required
to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder
to believe than the miracle of creation.”
Now, if it takes a miracle either way, doesn’t it seem more rea-
sonable to believe that those miracles were performed by a Miracle
Worker with infinite intelligence? After all, nearly everyone
acknowledges that the atom, life, and the whole universe reveal
infinite design. “Everywhere we look,” says physicist Paul Davies,
“from the far-flung galaxies to the deepest recesses of the atom, we
encounter regularity and intricate organization Moreover, the
behavior of physical systems is not haphazard, but lawful and sys-
tematic. “
The theory of evolution is a philosophy based on faith, not hard
scientific fact. “It is,” says Phillip Johnson, “sustained largely by a
propaganda campaign that relies on all the usual tricks of rhetorical
persuasion: hidden assumptions, question-begging statements of
what is at issue, terms that are vaguely defined and change their
meaning in midargument, attacks on straw men, selective citation of
evidence, and so on. The theory is also protected by its cultural
importance. It is the officially sanctioned creation story of modern
society, and publicly funded educational authorities spare no effort
to persuade people to believe in it.”
Nancy Pearcey makes the same point when she says, “Darwin-
ism has become our culture’s official creation myth, protected by a
priesthood as dogmatic as any religious curia.” She notes that biol-
ogy professor Kevin Haley was fired from his teaching position for
exposing “students to flaws in evolutionary theory.” Little wonder
Pearcey subtitles her article “Defenders of Darwinism Resort to
Suppressing Data and Teaching Outright Falsehoods.”
By contrast, real science is a method of investigation based on
the study of cold, hard facts. Therefore, evolution is unscientific!

ugh...how did we get from the guy getting told he was going to get divorsed to this?

*sighs* continue the onslaught of religious and scientific crap...

Originally Posted by eatyummypuppies

I have no intention of debating scientific evidence with all of you, mostly because you are incapable of it. Muldrick exemplifies this with the anti-evolution materials of christian origin he has so diligently copied and pasted from, undoubtedly, a forwarded email. None of you will pour over works that clash with your religion; you will flock to whatever confirms what you already believe; what makes you feel good by validating you. This is what I mean when I say "pathological aversion to reality." Would you ever consider thoroughly reading and grasping the works of Nietzsche, a man lovingly dubbed "The Anti-Christ?" I think not. How can you fail to recognize this behavior in yourself? Are you blind?

I told you I read this, from a book, not a forwarded email. (Does it matter were I got it?)
By each reply that you post, I can see that you are threatened... do you wonder why? I repeat, do you wonder why????
I have read and learned many writings that clash with my faith, remember school!
You are exactly right that I will not consider reading anymore of the "opposing" nonsense. I do not fail to recognize this behaviour in myself. Because I now know the Truth. (Capital "T")
You are in my prayers bud, are you threatened by this!

ugh, please stop the who is right and wrong between god vs science, god vs. no god, etc. it will only result in massive head trama and ego brawls as already displayed.

each of the sides will have their good and bad points...but all it comes down to in the end is what your perception of the truth you accept.