Saying you are religious does not at all mean you are religious... Lipworks won´t do the trick, only actions will.
I would say the vast majority of our leaders act as if they have no belief at all in Gods.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution - a very bad joke...
- Thread starter Gauss
- Start date
Saying you are religious does not at all mean you are religious... Lipworks won´t do the trick, only actions will.
I would say the vast majority of our leaders act as if they have no belief at all in Gods.
In a good or bad supreme being?
I would say that in the higher echelons of freemasonry there are some very secret rituals and I do not believe they are white magic...
Why do they say "stupid atheist"?
Because they are into magic and in otyher dimensions there are dark beings nad bright beings and both have some power to affect this dimension. This is not the type of worshipping where you pray to God and tell him how you are going to become a better person.
Don´t they want to run society and control the mass of low level people in their direction? So if all people are atheists that would really suit them because atheists are the easiest to control...
If you have control of the media and science you would control everyone.. And the bright beings above will abandon the humans so the dark ones can take over.
Just some random thoughts of mine, I guess you will not accept this as truth because it is no absolute truth by any means. Just my wisdom at my level of understanding.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
From what, Jack Chick tracts?
How is this be a problem for evolution? First, there is no genetic difference between artificial and natural selection- evolution is a change in alleles over time and both forms of selection do this. Artificial selection simply emphasizes human involvement in selecting traits we value over others.
And the German Shepherd, or more specifically the traits we associate with the breed, was first introduced in 1899. No problems with evolution whatsoever.
If you had studied science you would know that in nature there is not a single system that evolves linearly in one direction.... All systems of the universe oscillate. You know we have night and day and then night again, just to make a simple example.
Hence evolution has no scientific basis at all. It is a law of nature to oscillate back and forth and never go in one direction only as these biologists pretend...
So when mankind gets wicked he is eliminated and a new mankind is then created, back and forth we go.
A nuclear reactor two billion years old:
Prehistoric Nuclear Reactor In Gabon Republic | Pureinsight
A professor of mathematics tells us his view:
Granville Sewell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By now, those who could enlighten will have enlightened.
I thank you for your time and wish you good luck in your quest for higher truth.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
That is rather rude, don't you think?
You have not answered my question.
I mean, I even ask it TWICE...
Are you posting this all over the place? When I Google this it pops up in a lot of forums verbatim. Just curious.
I'll just respond to the footprints and the trilobite fossil (the Meister Print as it's usually called) since I posted about it in this thread. It's a spall pattern, not a footprint.
Starsoul
Truth
:clap
Exactly!
if Evolution was anything more than a joke, It still wouldn't be a 200 yrs or so old 'theory', but a Law with what science has achieved today. Too bad proof cannot be generated and the question of proofs of ancient civilizations is a strong one.
Sorry, did not see that one, too many atheists here..
Ie a natural disaster struck them, like Noah´s flood(Atlantis civilization was wiped out), it came during Yu the great´s time - Yu the Great - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
There could be huge earthquakes, a terrible disease hitting on evil people(they have massive karma so it is very easy to pinpoint such people from other dimensions) or comets, anything to wipe out the civilization when it became too bad.
Was it not said by Swedenborg that the old Egyptians were extremely advanced technologically(see the saucers on their engravements) but also very wicked so they were wiped out.
Wish everyone good luck in their quest for higher truth.
David M
Well-Known Member
Thats not oscillation, and how do you explain tidally locked bodies like Mercury.
Thus showing that you are truly ignorant of what ToE says, there is no direction in evolution.
No, concentrated natural deposits of uranium. There was no nuclear reactor built there. There author of this piece of garbage is a lying fantasist.
Someone who claims that evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? That makes him either a moron or a liar.
Someone else who doesn't understand science. A scientific theory is at a higher level than a scientiic law. Theories never become Laws they explain why Laws work.
Last edited:
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
What was "natural" about Noah's flood?
So in other words you really don't know?
I mean you just tossed out a super generic "natural disasters" then started talking about un-natural disasters and what could have happened.
Seems to me that you have done nothing but ratification from the time this 'idea' struck you.
Furthermore, you have not provided anything but conspiracy theories and pseudoscience to support any of it.
I have to agree with you though.
Better get out of the thread now before you lose your last ounce of credibility.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
and yet Evolution has tons more evidence going for it than creation...
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
The joke is rejecting the empirical evidence supporting biological evolution, and instead resorting to pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, poor research and a complete ignorance of the scientific method.
Another view is that a law is a theory, but one which has been verified to a great extent & has enormous usefulness, eg, the law of gravity (for weak fields). Yet even in the scientific community, many theories which behave as laws are still called "theory", eg, theory of evolution, theory of relativity,
paolops181
God rules!
Evolution is false! How can you believe about the big bang theory? We should rather fear God.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
- Biological Evolution is backed by overwhelming empirical evidence.
- The Big Bang has nothing to do with the facts supporting Biological Evolution.
- Biological Evolution has nothing to do with whether or not God exists.
And, IMHO, a God who demands fear is unworthy of worship.
Really?! ALL systems oscillate?! Wow. That's a new law of physics! You must be a super genius. If this is remotely true, the Swedish Academy should contact you at any moment now to award you your Nobel Prize.
I think what you meant to say is: "if you are utterly ignorant about science" you'd make up idiotic concepts like "all systems of the universe oscillate."
_____________________
Geopolitics.us - Natural Philosophy of Life - a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma
Atheists are easiest to control? Is the sky yellow?
It's been said that organizing atheists is like herding cats.. you know, because of their independence of mind, and everything..
Controlling religious people, on the other hand, is much easier. They already think of themselves as a flock of sheep.
You're clearly not putting much thought into what you're writing.
_____________________
Geopolitics.us - Natural Philosophy of Life - a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I know this is probably useless, but I have to say it. You misunderstand a scientific law and scientific theory. When something is a scientific theory, it doesn't mean it doesn't have enough evidence to be a law. They are two completely different things.
A scientific theory is just an explanation of a bunch of facts based on evidence. It is as factual as a scientific law. You can go here for a better clarification.
I don't mind people being ignorant of things. I'm ignorant of a lot of things. But what gets me is being ignorant about something, but dismissing it as if you aren't ignorant on the subject. If you want to remain ignorant about it, great. Just don't form an opinion without the necessary information.