Probably the process was similar to the evolution of the common chicken. View attachment 66789
(Not my work, though).
here's one who found a prehistoric phone booth and managed to change into a "man"
LOL
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Probably the process was similar to the evolution of the common chicken. View attachment 66789
(Not my work, though).
here's one who found a prehistoric phone booth and managed to change into a "man"
LOL
get a grip young lad.
you got nuthin'
through the process of "natural selection"; DEVOLUTION would result....since certain features are LOST.
just read this 5 times and see if you can spot the lunacy:
The evolution of the peppered moth over the last two hundred years has been studied in detail. Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light colouration, which effectively camouflaged them against the light-coloured trees and lichens which they rested upon. However, because of widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees that peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-coloured moths, or typica, to die off from predation. At the same time, the dark-coloured, or melanic, moths, carbonaria, flourished because of their ability to hide on the darkened trees.[1]
Since then, with improved environmental standards, light-coloured peppered moths have again become common, but the dramatic change in the peppered moth's population has remained a subject of much interest and study, and has led to the coining of the term industrial melanism to refer to the genetic darkening of species in response to pollutants. As a result of the relatively simple and easy-to-understand circumstances of the adaptation, the peppered moth has become a common example used in explaining or demonstrating natural selection.[2]
Peppered moth evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
if ya look into it: BOTH SPECIES always existed
hehehehe. one didn't evolve into the other.
if evolution in this case was true: DEVOLUTION was what happened since the camoflauge needed in the "natural" world was supposedly LOST....but oopsie....da spotted one came back. now...how did that happen?
you got nuthin'
through the process of "natural selection"; DEVOLUTION would result....since certain features are LOST.
just read this 5 times and see if you can spot the lunacy:
The evolution of the peppered moth over the last two hundred years has been studied in detail. Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light colouration, which effectively camouflaged them against the light-coloured trees and lichens which they rested upon. However, because of widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees that peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-coloured moths, or typica, to die off from predation. At the same time, the dark-coloured, or melanic, moths, carbonaria, flourished because of their ability to hide on the darkened trees.[1]
Since then, with improved environmental standards, light-coloured peppered moths have again become common, but the dramatic change in the peppered moth's population has remained a subject of much interest and study, and has led to the coining of the term industrial melanism to refer to the genetic darkening of species in response to pollutants. As a result of the relatively simple and easy-to-understand circumstances of the adaptation, the peppered moth has become a common example used in explaining or demonstrating natural selection.[2]
Peppered moth evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
if ya look into it: BOTH SPECIES always existed
hehehehe. one didn't evolve into the other.
if evolution in this case was true: DEVOLUTION was what happened since the camoflauge needed in the "natural" world was supposedly LOST....but oopsie....da spotted one came back. now...how did that happen?
Last edited:
anyhow....there's a simple test for "survival of the fittest":
study the Eugenics Society (there's those ape-families again)..and find out what happened when the Fittest (the Darwins and the Wedgewoods) decided, based on their theory, that the fittest would interbreed and get rid of undesirable traits...that they would evolve into a super-species.
the results were tragic; horrific...and proof they, along with their ideas, are krazy...and dangerous.
study the Eugenics Society (there's those ape-families again)..and find out what happened when the Fittest (the Darwins and the Wedgewoods) decided, based on their theory, that the fittest would interbreed and get rid of undesirable traits...that they would evolve into a super-species.
the results were tragic; horrific...and proof they, along with their ideas, are krazy...and dangerous.
Evolution and the American Abortion Mentality
by Paul G. Humber, M.S.
Many people today do not seem to realize that the same poisonous philosophy (evolutionism) that justified killing under Hitler 1 has also infected the American abortion mentality
Carl Sagan encourages the fiction that life in the womb traces an evolutionary history. We "must decide," he writes, "what distinguishes a human being from other animals and when, during gestation, the uniquely human qualities—whatever they are—emerge." 3 He compared the appearance of the developing embryo to "a segmented worm" and added that "something like the gill arches of a fish or an amphibian . . . become conspicuous, and there is a pronounced tail." The face becomes "reptilian. . . (then) somewhat pig-like." Eventually, it "resembles a primate's but is still not quite human."
[Margaret Sanger said] "The most serious charge that can be brought against modern 'benevolence' is that it encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents. These are the most dangerous elements in the world community, the most devastating curse on human progress and expression."
One wonders how far Sanger would like to have taken her eugenics. She reported a study of the United States Army and concluded that "nearly half—47.3 percent—of the population had the mentality of twelve-year-old children or less—in other words, that they were morons." 7
On the racial dimension, Linda Gordon (cf. above) quotes from a letter written by Margaret Sanger to Clarence Gamble on October 19, 1939: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." 6 Many years prior, Sanger said, "Whether or not the white races will be ultimately wiped off the face of the earth depends, to my mind, largely upon the conduct and behavior of the white people themselves. (Applause.)" 8
Evolution and the American Abortion Mentality
Clarence James Gamble, (January 10, 1894 – July 15, 1966)[1][2] married to Sarah Merry Bradley-Gamble, was the heir of the Procter and Gamble soap company fortune. He was an advocate of birth control and eugenics, and founded Pathfinder International.
Clarence Gamble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
....
here's your big award winning hero.
Carl Sagan encourages the fiction that life in the womb traces an evolutionary history. We "must decide," he writes, "what distinguishes a human being from other animals and when, during gestation, the uniquely human qualities—whatever they are—emerge." 3 He compared the appearance of the developing embryo to "a segmented worm" and added that "something like the gill arches of a fish or an amphibian . . . become conspicuous, and there is a pronounced tail." The face becomes "reptilian. . . (then) somewhat pig-like." Eventually, it "resembles a primate's but is still not quite human."
by Paul G. Humber, M.S.
Many people today do not seem to realize that the same poisonous philosophy (evolutionism) that justified killing under Hitler 1 has also infected the American abortion mentality
Carl Sagan encourages the fiction that life in the womb traces an evolutionary history. We "must decide," he writes, "what distinguishes a human being from other animals and when, during gestation, the uniquely human qualities—whatever they are—emerge." 3 He compared the appearance of the developing embryo to "a segmented worm" and added that "something like the gill arches of a fish or an amphibian . . . become conspicuous, and there is a pronounced tail." The face becomes "reptilian. . . (then) somewhat pig-like." Eventually, it "resembles a primate's but is still not quite human."
[Margaret Sanger said] "The most serious charge that can be brought against modern 'benevolence' is that it encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents. These are the most dangerous elements in the world community, the most devastating curse on human progress and expression."
One wonders how far Sanger would like to have taken her eugenics. She reported a study of the United States Army and concluded that "nearly half—47.3 percent—of the population had the mentality of twelve-year-old children or less—in other words, that they were morons." 7
On the racial dimension, Linda Gordon (cf. above) quotes from a letter written by Margaret Sanger to Clarence Gamble on October 19, 1939: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." 6 Many years prior, Sanger said, "Whether or not the white races will be ultimately wiped off the face of the earth depends, to my mind, largely upon the conduct and behavior of the white people themselves. (Applause.)" 8
Evolution and the American Abortion Mentality
Clarence James Gamble, (January 10, 1894 – July 15, 1966)[1][2] married to Sarah Merry Bradley-Gamble, was the heir of the Procter and Gamble soap company fortune. He was an advocate of birth control and eugenics, and founded Pathfinder International.
Clarence Gamble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
....
here's your big award winning hero.
Carl Sagan encourages the fiction that life in the womb traces an evolutionary history. We "must decide," he writes, "what distinguishes a human being from other animals and when, during gestation, the uniquely human qualities—whatever they are—emerge." 3 He compared the appearance of the developing embryo to "a segmented worm" and added that "something like the gill arches of a fish or an amphibian . . . become conspicuous, and there is a pronounced tail." The face becomes "reptilian. . . (then) somewhat pig-like." Eventually, it "resembles a primate's but is still not quite human."
Is the real reason you don't accept evolution because you think it's flawed science or because
it doesn't agree with what the Bible teaches?
If it really were "flawed science" then this would be mentioned on other scientific sources
and websites. Instead all the sources you find against evolution online are from websites
that promote Christianity as a worldview - ICR, Discovery Institute, etc.
Definitely, something fishy going on there...
it doesn't agree with what the Bible teaches?
If it really were "flawed science" then this would be mentioned on other scientific sources
and websites. Instead all the sources you find against evolution online are from websites
that promote Christianity as a worldview - ICR, Discovery Institute, etc.
Definitely, something fishy going on there...
E
Well considering all pro evolution sites are anti christian. Yeah I would say there is something fishy.
So which do we believe. A book thousands of years old which has never been shown to be false as far as science, history and prophesy?
Or a theory which goes of assumptions, speculation, and guess??
So which do we believe. A book thousands of years old which has never been shown to be false as far as science, history and prophesy?
Or a theory which goes of assumptions, speculation, and guess??
something "fishy" alright.
when did you have a right to life, SoWhat? ever?
did ya know that since the genious sagan died, POSTBIRTH abortions are now hip?
now the idea is, until you're 3, you're not a human being.
wanna know where THAT science comes from? a religion.
oh ya...it's fishy alright.
...
The Abortion Debate
by Carl Sagan & Ann Druyan
In contemplative moments, nearly everyone recognizes that the issue is not wholly one-sided. Many partisans of differing views, we find, feel some disquiet, some unease when confronting what’s behind the opposing arguments. (This is partly why such confrontations are avoided.) And the issue surely touches on deep questions: What are our responses to one another? Should we permit the state to intrude into the most intimate and personal aspects of our lives? Where are the boundaries of freedom? What does it mean to be human?
Of the many actual points of view, it is widely held—especially in the media, which rarely have the time or the inclination to make fine distinctions—that there are only two: “pro-choice” and “pro-life.” This is what the two principal warring camps like to call themselves, and that’s what we’ll call them here. In the simplest characterization, a pro-choicer would hold that the decision to abort a pregnancy is to be made only by the woman; the state has no right to interfere. And a pro-lifer would hold that, from the moment of conception, the embryo or fetus is alive; that this life imposes on us a moral obligation to preserve it; and that abortion is tantamount to murder. Both names—pro-choice and pro-life—were picked with an eye toward influencing those whose minds are not yet made up: Few people wish to be counted either as being against freedom of choice or as opposed to life. Indeed, freedom and life are two of our most cherished values, and here they seem to be in fundamental conflict.
Let’s consider these two absolutist positions in turn. A newborn baby is surely the same being it was just before birth. There ‘s good evidence that a late-term fetus responds to sound—including music, but especially its mother’s voice. It can suck its thumb or do a somersault. Occasionally, it generates adult brain-wave patterns. Some people claim to remember being born, or even the uterine environment. Perhaps there is thought in the womb. It’s hard to maintain that a transformation to full personhood happens abruptly at the moment of birth. Why, then, should it be murder to kill an infant the day after it was born but not the day before?
As a practical matter, this isn’t very important: Less than 1 percent of all tabulated abortions in the United States are listed in the last three months of pregnancy (and, on closer investigation, most such reports turn out to be due to miscarriage or miscalculation). But third-trimester abortions provide a test of the limits of the pro-choice point of view. Does a woman’s “innate right to control her own body” encompass the right to kill a near-term fetus who is, for all intents and purposes, identical to a newborn child?
We believe that many supporters of reproductive freedom are troubled at least occasionally by this question. But they are reluctant to raise it because it is the beginning of a slippery slope. If it is impermissible to abort a pregnancy in the ninth month, what about the eighth, seventh, sixth … ? Once we acknowledge that the state can interfere at any time in the pregnancy, doesn’t it follow that the state can interfere at all times?
This conjures up the specter of predominantly male, predominantly affluent legislators telling poor women they must bear and raise alone children they cannot afford to bring up; forcing teenagers to bear children they are not emotionally prepared to deal with; saying to women who wish for a career that they must give up their dreams, stay home, and bring up babies; and, worst of all, condemning victims of rape and incest to carry and nurture the offspring of their assailants. Legislative prohibitions on abortion arouse the suspicion that their real intent is to control the independence and sexuality of women…
And yet, by consensus, all of us think it proper that there be prohibitions against, and penalties exacted for, murder. It would be a flimsy defense if the murderer pleads that this is just between him and his victim and none of the government’s business. If killing a fetus is truly killing a human being, is it not the duty of the state to prevent it? Indeed, one of the chief functions of government is to protect the weak from the strong.
If we do not oppose abortion at some stage of pregnancy, is there not a danger of dismissing an entire category of human beings as unworthy of our protection and respect? And isn’t that dismissal the hallmark of sexism, racism, nationalism, and religious fanaticism? Shouldn’t those dedicated to fighting such injustices be scrupulously careful not to embrace another?
There is no right to life in any society on Earth today, nor has there been at any former time… : We raise farm animals for slaughter; destroy forests; pollute rivers and lakes until no fish can live there; kill deer and elk for sport, leopards for the pelts, and whales for fertilizer; entrap dolphins, gasping and writhing, in great tuna nets; club seal pups to death; and render a species extinct every day. All these beasts and vegetables are as alive as we. What is (allegedly) protected is not life, but human life.
And even with that protection, casual murder is an urban commonplace, and we wage “conventional” wars with tolls so terrible that we are, most of us, afraid to consider them very deeply… That protection, that right to life, eludes the 40,000 children under five who die on our planet each day from preventable starvation, dehydration, disease, and neglect.
Those who assert a “right to life” are for (at most) not just any kind of life, but for—particularly and uniquely—human life. So they too, like pro-choicers, must decide what distinguishes a human being from other animals and when, during gestation, the uniquely human qualities—whatever they are—emerge.
Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. Nor does human life begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, hundreds of thousands of years ago. Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, alive. They are not human beings, of course. However, it could be argued that neither is a fertilized egg.
The Abortion Debate This is an excerpt from... | We Speak For Earth
they are right about one thing...those who are "pro-choice" better decide when life begins.
the evolutionist's hero Carl Sagan says life begins at the Big Bang and is one long chain, and there has never been a right to life, ever, since you are just a link in a meaningless chain.
"What does it mean to be human?" - according to Sagan - NOTHING.
when did you have a right to life, SoWhat? ever?
did ya know that since the genious sagan died, POSTBIRTH abortions are now hip?
now the idea is, until you're 3, you're not a human being.
wanna know where THAT science comes from? a religion.
oh ya...it's fishy alright.
...
The Abortion Debate
by Carl Sagan & Ann Druyan
In contemplative moments, nearly everyone recognizes that the issue is not wholly one-sided. Many partisans of differing views, we find, feel some disquiet, some unease when confronting what’s behind the opposing arguments. (This is partly why such confrontations are avoided.) And the issue surely touches on deep questions: What are our responses to one another? Should we permit the state to intrude into the most intimate and personal aspects of our lives? Where are the boundaries of freedom? What does it mean to be human?
Of the many actual points of view, it is widely held—especially in the media, which rarely have the time or the inclination to make fine distinctions—that there are only two: “pro-choice” and “pro-life.” This is what the two principal warring camps like to call themselves, and that’s what we’ll call them here. In the simplest characterization, a pro-choicer would hold that the decision to abort a pregnancy is to be made only by the woman; the state has no right to interfere. And a pro-lifer would hold that, from the moment of conception, the embryo or fetus is alive; that this life imposes on us a moral obligation to preserve it; and that abortion is tantamount to murder. Both names—pro-choice and pro-life—were picked with an eye toward influencing those whose minds are not yet made up: Few people wish to be counted either as being against freedom of choice or as opposed to life. Indeed, freedom and life are two of our most cherished values, and here they seem to be in fundamental conflict.
Let’s consider these two absolutist positions in turn. A newborn baby is surely the same being it was just before birth. There ‘s good evidence that a late-term fetus responds to sound—including music, but especially its mother’s voice. It can suck its thumb or do a somersault. Occasionally, it generates adult brain-wave patterns. Some people claim to remember being born, or even the uterine environment. Perhaps there is thought in the womb. It’s hard to maintain that a transformation to full personhood happens abruptly at the moment of birth. Why, then, should it be murder to kill an infant the day after it was born but not the day before?
As a practical matter, this isn’t very important: Less than 1 percent of all tabulated abortions in the United States are listed in the last three months of pregnancy (and, on closer investigation, most such reports turn out to be due to miscarriage or miscalculation). But third-trimester abortions provide a test of the limits of the pro-choice point of view. Does a woman’s “innate right to control her own body” encompass the right to kill a near-term fetus who is, for all intents and purposes, identical to a newborn child?
We believe that many supporters of reproductive freedom are troubled at least occasionally by this question. But they are reluctant to raise it because it is the beginning of a slippery slope. If it is impermissible to abort a pregnancy in the ninth month, what about the eighth, seventh, sixth … ? Once we acknowledge that the state can interfere at any time in the pregnancy, doesn’t it follow that the state can interfere at all times?
This conjures up the specter of predominantly male, predominantly affluent legislators telling poor women they must bear and raise alone children they cannot afford to bring up; forcing teenagers to bear children they are not emotionally prepared to deal with; saying to women who wish for a career that they must give up their dreams, stay home, and bring up babies; and, worst of all, condemning victims of rape and incest to carry and nurture the offspring of their assailants. Legislative prohibitions on abortion arouse the suspicion that their real intent is to control the independence and sexuality of women…
And yet, by consensus, all of us think it proper that there be prohibitions against, and penalties exacted for, murder. It would be a flimsy defense if the murderer pleads that this is just between him and his victim and none of the government’s business. If killing a fetus is truly killing a human being, is it not the duty of the state to prevent it? Indeed, one of the chief functions of government is to protect the weak from the strong.
If we do not oppose abortion at some stage of pregnancy, is there not a danger of dismissing an entire category of human beings as unworthy of our protection and respect? And isn’t that dismissal the hallmark of sexism, racism, nationalism, and religious fanaticism? Shouldn’t those dedicated to fighting such injustices be scrupulously careful not to embrace another?
There is no right to life in any society on Earth today, nor has there been at any former time… : We raise farm animals for slaughter; destroy forests; pollute rivers and lakes until no fish can live there; kill deer and elk for sport, leopards for the pelts, and whales for fertilizer; entrap dolphins, gasping and writhing, in great tuna nets; club seal pups to death; and render a species extinct every day. All these beasts and vegetables are as alive as we. What is (allegedly) protected is not life, but human life.
And even with that protection, casual murder is an urban commonplace, and we wage “conventional” wars with tolls so terrible that we are, most of us, afraid to consider them very deeply… That protection, that right to life, eludes the 40,000 children under five who die on our planet each day from preventable starvation, dehydration, disease, and neglect.
Those who assert a “right to life” are for (at most) not just any kind of life, but for—particularly and uniquely—human life. So they too, like pro-choicers, must decide what distinguishes a human being from other animals and when, during gestation, the uniquely human qualities—whatever they are—emerge.
Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. Nor does human life begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, hundreds of thousands of years ago. Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, alive. They are not human beings, of course. However, it could be argued that neither is a fertilized egg.
The Abortion Debate This is an excerpt from... | We Speak For Earth
they are right about one thing...those who are "pro-choice" better decide when life begins.
the evolutionist's hero Carl Sagan says life begins at the Big Bang and is one long chain, and there has never been a right to life, ever, since you are just a link in a meaningless chain.
"What does it mean to be human?" - according to Sagan - NOTHING.
K
Drat. You're on to us conspirisy theowhatsits! Gigs up. les go home...
And to think I actually thought you wanted truth. Oh well, I'm not God. He knew. In fact, He knew you before you were born. He knows what you will become. He's called to you. I know He has because He calls out to everyone. Some are not listening I suppose.
And to think I actually thought you wanted truth. Oh well, I'm not God. He knew. In fact, He knew you before you were born. He knows what you will become. He's called to you. I know He has because He calls out to everyone. Some are not listening I suppose.
well then let's keeping kicking it upstairs to the big boys:
Peter Albert David Singer, AC (born 6 July 1946) is an Australian moral philosopher. He is currently the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. He specialises in applied ethics and approaches ethical issues from a secular, preference utilitarian perspective. He is known in particular for his book, Animal Liberation (1975), a canonical text in animal rights/liberation theory.
In A Darwinian Left,[38] Singer outlines a plan for the political left to adapt to the lessons of evolutionary biology. He says that evolutionary psychology suggests that humans naturally tend to be self-interested. He further argues that the evidence that selfish tendencies are natural must not be taken as evidence that selfishness is "right." He concludes that game theory (the mathematical study of strategy) and experiments in psychology offer hope that self-interested people will make short-term sacrifices for the good of others, if society provides the right conditions. Essentially Singer claims that although humans possess selfish, competitive tendencies naturally, they have a substantial capacity for cooperation that has also been selected for during human evolution. Singer's writing in Greater Good magazine, published by the Greater Good Science Center of the University of California, Berkeley, includes the interpretation of scientific research into the roots of compassion, altruism, and peaceful human relationships.
...
in case you didn't get it: here's what happens to the mind that remains hostile to; and is eventually cast off by GOD (reprobate, only able to DO EVIL):
...
Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which compares the preferences of a woman against the preferences of the fetus. In his view a preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences. Since a capacity to experience the sensations of suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus, up to around eighteen weeks, says Singer, has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for such a fetus to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a woman's preferences to have an abortion; therefore, abortion is morally permissible.
Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"[26]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."[27]
Peter Singer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
there's your evolutionary "theory" is all it's GLORY.
Peter Albert David Singer, AC (born 6 July 1946) is an Australian moral philosopher. He is currently the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. He specialises in applied ethics and approaches ethical issues from a secular, preference utilitarian perspective. He is known in particular for his book, Animal Liberation (1975), a canonical text in animal rights/liberation theory.
In A Darwinian Left,[38] Singer outlines a plan for the political left to adapt to the lessons of evolutionary biology. He says that evolutionary psychology suggests that humans naturally tend to be self-interested. He further argues that the evidence that selfish tendencies are natural must not be taken as evidence that selfishness is "right." He concludes that game theory (the mathematical study of strategy) and experiments in psychology offer hope that self-interested people will make short-term sacrifices for the good of others, if society provides the right conditions. Essentially Singer claims that although humans possess selfish, competitive tendencies naturally, they have a substantial capacity for cooperation that has also been selected for during human evolution. Singer's writing in Greater Good magazine, published by the Greater Good Science Center of the University of California, Berkeley, includes the interpretation of scientific research into the roots of compassion, altruism, and peaceful human relationships.
...
in case you didn't get it: here's what happens to the mind that remains hostile to; and is eventually cast off by GOD (reprobate, only able to DO EVIL):
...
Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which compares the preferences of a woman against the preferences of the fetus. In his view a preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences. Since a capacity to experience the sensations of suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus, up to around eighteen weeks, says Singer, has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for such a fetus to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a woman's preferences to have an abortion; therefore, abortion is morally permissible.
Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"[26]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."[27]
Peter Singer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
there's your evolutionary "theory" is all it's GLORY.
False. Most "evolution" sites or scientific journals don't mention Christianity at all. Religion
doesn't even come into the picture. Also, there are a lot of Christians that accept evolution.
It may even be the majority of Christians by now - they just call it "God-guided".
Just be honest and say you reject evolution because it disagrees with the Bible. Don't quote
a website with a Pro-Christian agenda and call it science.
Scientific theory - RationalWiki
"Just" a theory
Creationist and Intelligent design proponents often like to describe the theory of evolution as just a theory. This relies on equivocating the common usage of the term theory (meaning "idea" or "guess") with the scientific meaning. Theories are the single highest level of scientific achievement and nothing is just a theory - that would be like saying Bill Gates is just a multibillionaire. Additionally, one might say that the notion of evolution is "just a theory" in the same way that Cell Theory and the Theory of Gravitation (fundamental principles of biology and physics, respectively) are "just theories."
This argument played out with hilarious ramifications in the recent decision of the Florida State Board of Education to teach evolution as a "scientific theory." Apparently, the creationists on the Florida SBOE thought that this was a "compromise" — by making evolution a "scientific theory" at law, they thought, it would weaken the position of evolution. After all, then it would be "just a theory," right?[SUP][1][/SUP] Wrong! This "compromise" actually puts evolution on the exactly right footing — at the highest tier of science — and ensures that students will be taught about what the term "scientific theory" really means, hopefully eventually drawing the sting of the colloquial meaning confusion.[SUP][2][/SUP]
doesn't even come into the picture. Also, there are a lot of Christians that accept evolution.
It may even be the majority of Christians by now - they just call it "God-guided".
Just be honest and say you reject evolution because it disagrees with the Bible. Don't quote
a website with a Pro-Christian agenda and call it science.
Scientific theory - RationalWiki
"Just" a theory
Creationist and Intelligent design proponents often like to describe the theory of evolution as just a theory. This relies on equivocating the common usage of the term theory (meaning "idea" or "guess") with the scientific meaning. Theories are the single highest level of scientific achievement and nothing is just a theory - that would be like saying Bill Gates is just a multibillionaire. Additionally, one might say that the notion of evolution is "just a theory" in the same way that Cell Theory and the Theory of Gravitation (fundamental principles of biology and physics, respectively) are "just theories."
This argument played out with hilarious ramifications in the recent decision of the Florida State Board of Education to teach evolution as a "scientific theory." Apparently, the creationists on the Florida SBOE thought that this was a "compromise" — by making evolution a "scientific theory" at law, they thought, it would weaken the position of evolution. After all, then it would be "just a theory," right?[SUP][1][/SUP] Wrong! This "compromise" actually puts evolution on the exactly right footing — at the highest tier of science — and ensures that students will be taught about what the term "scientific theory" really means, hopefully eventually drawing the sting of the colloquial meaning confusion.[SUP][2][/SUP]
Last edited:
E
lol, And your point? talk about a strawman argument!
How can they be truly christian if they deny the word of God?
lol. God would not guide any of his children to evolution. Evolution causes God's word to become void. Why would God contradict his own word?
Alot of strawmans here..
Oh, Did I quote a website?
And what science?
Where you there when the fossils formed? Where they formed by a massive flood or by millions of years?
Since you were not there. YOU CAN:T KNOW. JUST GUESS
Where you there 3 million years ago to know how the earths atmosphere was? And how much radiation was getting through the upper atmosphere. to prove carbon dating is a pure science, and not just mere speculation?
face it bud. It takes more faith to be an evolutionists than it does to be a Christian creationist.
what are you posting a website for? did you not just yell at me for doing this (when I did not)
Come on man, You did not even refute what I said.
What should I trust? A science based on unknown, theories, speculations or guesses.
Or a book which continually has been proven to be factual in all aspects concerning science, history and prophesy?
How can they be truly christian if they deny the word of God?
lol. God would not guide any of his children to evolution. Evolution causes God's word to become void. Why would God contradict his own word?
Alot of strawmans here..
Oh, Did I quote a website?
And what science?
Where you there when the fossils formed? Where they formed by a massive flood or by millions of years?
Since you were not there. YOU CAN:T KNOW. JUST GUESS
Where you there 3 million years ago to know how the earths atmosphere was? And how much radiation was getting through the upper atmosphere. to prove carbon dating is a pure science, and not just mere speculation?
face it bud. It takes more faith to be an evolutionists than it does to be a Christian creationist.
what are you posting a website for? did you not just yell at me for doing this (when I did not)
Come on man, You did not even refute what I said.
What should I trust? A science based on unknown, theories, speculations or guesses.
Or a book which continually has been proven to be factual in all aspects concerning science, history and prophesy?
oh ya....lookit da proof.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
dats not a fake foto.
heres da proof:
SEE
that looks just like.....a styloid process at the end of a wrist bone more than 1.42 million years old.
cuzz da bumps on it.
...
Digital imaging of bone and tooth modification`
Even without a detailed outline of enhancement steps, there is little danger of introducing information by going too far with image processing algorithms because images become obviously distorted quickly as enhancement procedures are compounded. Note in Figure 2E after only a few repeated iterations of the “curves” and “unsharp mask” algorithms the image is rendered useless for scientific purposes. Some algorithms do introduce data, but the patterned effects are generally obvious and unlikely to mimic actual morphology. For example, the Kai Power Tools Photoshop plug-in filter “Vortex tiling” produced the fractal in Figure 2F.
For our first case study we utilize data on the earliest evidence of animal butchery by a human ancestor (Figure 3A–E). This material derives from the 2.5-million-year-old Hata Member deposits in the Bouri Member of the Middle Awash study area, Ethiopia (de Heinzelin et al., 1999; Asfaw et al., 1999).
Cut and chop marks found on fossil antelopes and horses indicate that these creatures were butchered and that their long bones were cracked open for marrow extraction. The species Australopithecus garhi is the only hominid identified from Hata Member deposits. Not only is this species the likely perpetrator of the bone modification, it is also thought to be very close to the theoretical ancestor of all members of the genus Homo, occurring just before the major brain expansion characteristic of our genus. The Bouri evidence predates other occurrences of modified bone by over 500,000 years. The extension of meat acquisition to this early date required the inclusion of SEM imagery in the original Science publication (de Heinzelin et al., 1999).
Digital imaging of bone and tooth modification - Gilbert - 2000 - The Anatomical Record - Wiley Online Library
oh wow. 2.5-million years ago, just before the major brain expansion characteristic of our genus, ape-people were butchering antelope and horses.
this horse
In 1876, Othniel C. Marsh described a skeleton as Eohippus validus, from the Greek ηώς (eōs, "dawn") and ιππος (hippos, "horse"), meaning "dawn horse". Its similarities with fossils described by Richard Owen were formally pointed out in a 1932 paper by Sir Clive Forster Cooper. E. validus was moved to the genus Hyracotherium, which had priority as the name for the genus, with Eohippus becoming a junior synonym of that genus. Hyracotherium was recently found to be a paraphyletic group of species, and the genus now includes only H. leporinum. E. validus was found to be identical to an earlier-named species, Hyracotherium angustidens (Cope, 1875), and the resulting binomial is thus Eohippus angustidens.[2]
or dis horse:
In elementary-level textbooks, Eohippus is commonly described as being "the size of a small Fox Terrier", despite the Fox Terrier being about half the size of Eohippus. This arcane analogy was so curious that Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay about it ("The Case of the Creeping Fox Terrier Clone", essay #10 in his book, Bully for Brontosaurus), in which he concluded that Henry Fairfield Osborn had so described it in a widely distributed pamphlet, Osborn being a keen fox hunter who made a natural association between horses and the dogs that accompany them.[3]
Eohippus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
so were they butchering horses....or dogs.
ROTFLMHO