Regarding the Existence or Absence of God

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by goldenarm
Hey, I was raised a Catholic! I challenge both daniel_m and thunderdolt to prove that Catholicism is the scourge of mankind.

Bring it on Godless One and Born Again Zealot!!
More...

prove it was the scourge of mankind? shit man, don't you have any knowledge of history at all! :)

look, as i've said, i'm only too willing to engage in serious discussion about my views...but there needs to be a certain measure of civility and maturity about it....

i'm not saying you aren't civil or mature, but, after my experience with this moron thunderbolt, i can't take anything for granted..
 
Originally posted by thunderbolt


Once again, another lie. The word of Christ would have spread without Catholics. The word has stood for thousands of years and will continue to do so while FOOLS like you come and go.
More...

perhaps...but it would have spread as the story of a mystical, incorporeal christ, not the phony version christianity has given us...

of course, you have no idea of what i'm talking about, your knowledge of the history of this period is zilch...
 
Originally posted by daniel_m


perhaps...but it would have spread as the story of a mystical, incorporeal christ, not the phony version christianity has given us...

of course, you have no idea of what i'm talking about, your knowledge of the history of this period is zilch...
More...

Your knowledge is the one lacking. You didn't even know the first commandment.
 
Catholicism is the one true religion of God and Jesus Christ, as handed down to Christ's apostle Paul. All other Christian sects are heretical offshoots (albeit well-intentioned) of the authentic mother religion.
 
Originally posted by thunderbolt


Your knowledge is the one lacking. You didn't even know the first commandment.
More...

dickhead, i told ya....in those few posts i was trying to be nice to you... i was faking it...i thought maybe if i be friendly towards you, you'll open up exactly why you take on such an irrational, inflexible, (and idiotic) position...

but i think you are beyond salvation...

now, do you really wanna discuss the content of the bible? i'll cream you on that too....truly you are the simplest opponent one could ever have...

thing is you just keep jumping from place to place, making empty assertion after empty assertion..
if someone challenges you on a point..you either ignore it, or write it off as the words of a sinner...
it is practically pointless talking to you..
 
Originally posted by goldenarm
You love sparring with the Dolt! At this rate, you'll reach 1000 posts in about 2 days!
More...

hehe...i have a weird facsination with him

he is truly an idiot wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma! :)
 
The scientific irrelevance of evolutionism has been strikingly (but,
no doubt, inadvertently) illustrated in a recent issue of _Science
News_. This widely read and highly regarded weekly scientific journal was commemorating its sixtieth anniversary, and this included a listing of what it called the "scientific highlights" of the past sixty years.

Of the sixty important scientific discoveries and accomplishments
which were chosen, only six could be regarded as related in any way to evolutionist thought. These six were as follows:

(1). 1927. Discovery that radiation increases mutation rates in
fruit flies.

(2). 1943. Demonstration that nucleic acids carry genetic
information

(3). 1948. Enunciation of the "big bang" cosmology.

(4). 1953. Discovery of the "double helix" structure of DNA.

(5). 1961. First step taken in cracking the genetic code.

(6). 1973. Development of procedures for producing recombinant DNA molecules.

Four of these six "highlights" are related to the structure and
function of DNA. Even though evolutionists have supposed that these concepts somehow correlate with evolution, the fact is that the remarkable DNA molecule provides strong evidence of original creation (since it is far too complex to have arisen by chance) and of conservation of that creation (since the genetic code acts to guarantee reproduction of the same kind, not evolution of new kinds). One of the two other highlights showed how to increase mutations but, since all known true mutations are harmful, this contributed nothing whatever to the understanding of evolution. One (the "big bang" concept) was indeed an evolutionary idea but it is still an idea which has never been proved and today is increasingly being recognized as incompatible with basic
physical laws.

Consequently, it is fair to conclude that no truly significant
accomplishment of modern science either depends on evolution or supports evolution! There would certainly be no detriment to real scientific learning if creation were incorporated as an alternative to evolution in school curricula. It would on the other hand, prove a detriment to the pervasive religion of atheistic humanism which now controls our schools.
 
Originally posted by thunderbolt
There would certainly be no detriment to real scientific learning if creation were incorporated as an alternative to evolution in school curricula. It would on the other hand, prove a detriment to the pervasive religion of atheistic humanism which now controls our schools.
More...

i'm not sure on what grounds you have the authority to make scientific commentary...and given by the usual structure of your posts...it sure looks like a cut and paste to me..

in any case, the problem with positing creation as an explanation is that it is totally religious in nature...a "creator"?? please...
that's completely beyond the realm of science...

THANKFULLY we have atheistic humanism pervading the classroom! what a breath of fresh air after centuries of education being in the jealous grips of a misologist church!


 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top