Killing Live Babies (Saturbray)

www.brayincandy.com ^ | 1/26/19 | bray

[bray]

So like I said in the original post, you think you are more enlightened. The cult tells you that and you believe it. This forum is the exact place to open our eyes to your divine knowledge.

What was the original sin, you would be enlightened just like God? It is a very seductive cult. How is that denying Jesus working out for you? Got anything to hold onto that is real?

You still believe that 51% good will get you to heaven or make you a good person? Guess what, we can’t reach 1% so what then? Darwin got anything for that?

[princess leah]

Anyone who is prolife needs to move out of NY-I hope and pray that God delivers swift judgement to the governor and all who praised this hideous decision. May all the disaster movies come true for New York...and throw California in as well ....

[I want the USA back]

Only a cold, cruel hearted individual could disagree with you. This is not a time for rejoicing, even if the entire democrat party has embraced killing babies out of their intense hatred for human nature.

[shanover]

KILLING BABIES UGH!!! Enough is enough! We need to just abolish Roe v Wade by the Supreme Court. What’s the left gong to do,murder more? Let it rest on the states and let the chips fall. We can fight those battles also.

[exDemMom]

Prove that evolution is real. Holes? Name one transitional species. For evolution to be real there needs to be millions and millions of transitional species. Name one.

The scientific literature provides thousands of volumes of evidence of the evolutionary processes. Just go to www.pubmed.gov and type "evolution" in the search bar. You will have hundreds of thousands of "hits." Clearly, I cannot condense all of that information here.

As for transitional species, every species alive is one. Shall I start naming them?

--Homo sapiens
--Saccharomyces cerevisiae
--Francisella tularensis
--Xenopus laevis
--Arabidopsis thaliana
--Archaea

I think I've hit every kingdom of organism here. Since there are millions of species, I'm not going to try to name all of them.

[bray]

You really are not going to try to co-mingle adaptation into evolution. Certainly you are not going to try that tactic here where people are knowledgeable.

Just admit you have no proof and you believe it because you have been told to believe it. That is the oldest trick in Darwin's book. You forgot the large beaked Finches of the Galapagos.

[exDemMom]

You really are not going to try to co-mingle adaptation into evolution. Certainly you are not going to try that tactic here where people are knowledgeable.

That is kind of funny, actually, resorting to using a mangled concept of evolutionary theory that is neither scientific nor biblical. In reality, there is no true adaptation. What happens is that in a genetically diverse population, some members are genetically more fit to survive in different environments than others. So, for example, if the majority of a population thrives best in a warm, humid environment, and a geologic event happens that causes the environment to be dryer and cooler, a minority of the population will be better off than the majority. So they reproduce more efficiently, and in a few generations, become the majority of the population. No individual has "adapted"--what happened is that the genetic makeup of the population shifted in response to an environmental change. This happens all the time. Over thousands and millions of years, these genetic shifts (and drifts and mutations) end up causing different populations to become different species

But I know you are not interested in science. So I am going to address another issue.

Just admit you have no proof and you believe it because you have been told to believe it.

It is this: the attempt by creationists to equate science to religion. I know the tactic did not originate with you (it has the hallmark of a creationist scammer origination), so please do not take my use of the word "you" personally in the following. But using that tactic says more about its originator's view of religion than it says about science. If you are trying to discredit something by analogy, you choose an analogy with something you find equally discredited. So, if you are going to denigrate science by dismissing it as just another religion, what does that really say about your views of religion? Or, to put it bluntly, if you are trying to convince people to reject science on the basis that it is just another religion, aren't you really telling them that they should not have religious faith?

Finally, descriptions of the physical world and processes should not have any bearing on your faith. If you believe that Jesus died for your sins, that is true regardless of the fact that evolution is the framework for understanding biological science.

[bray]

Nice little tirade with no proof. Send me a name of a transitory fossil and then I will at least give you some credit for evidence.

You are saying that blacks are a different species than whites since they adapted to their climate over time. Completely ridiculous since there is no difference in species.

Where is that missing link they have been looking for over the last 150 years? If there is no real evidence it is fake science, sad that so many have fallen for it.

[bert]

I know that I can not educate you here but I can make suggestions that will lead to your enlightenment. The thought that acceptance of science leaps to the conclusion of the denial of Jesus is just downright stupid.

But to enlightenemnt....

One easy and very readily available educational source are the works of Stephen J Gould. As a pure scholar, he likes to study and then dissect the works of scholars both religious and scientific who have been arguing the question for let's say nearly 200 years. His works are quite extensive.

For starters, I very highly recommend " Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History". The work describes in detail the work of others who extensively studied the fossild found in the Burgess Shale formations of the Canadian Rockies. If you do actually read that book, enlightenment will result.

But there is a different and even fun path toward scientific enlightenment. It is mostly free and can be very very enjoyable. Purchase a copy of "Peterson's Guide to Wild Flowers" and then in say late March take a weekly trip into the field and observe carefully and closely what is growing. The field can be anywhere but a park is perhaps best.

Science is or can be for everyone. Observing and cataloging the observations of wild flowers is a pure science endeavor.

Used on Amazon $5.29

Used on Amazon $4.37

[exDemMom]

I've already given you examples of transitory species from each of the five kingdoms. The issue is not that I have not provided evidence; the issue is that you reject science. It really is irrelevant how much evidence I present: you will reject it out of hand. So why should I bother?

Where is that missing link they have been looking for over the last 150 years?

Exactly who has been looking for what for the last 150 years? This must be another of the creationist scammer stories. While you imagine that we are all looking for some mysterious missing link, we are actually using the theory of evolution to direct our research. Since the TOE is the central paradigm of biology, it is nearly impossible to conduct biological research without utilizing some aspect of the theory. When I studied toxicology in graduate school, I made extensive use of evolutionary relationships to map out and better understand the biological function that I was studying.

Anyway, I suggest taking the previous poster's advice and educating yourself about science. Science is one of the only areas of knowledge where there are vast areas of the unknown waiting to be explored.

[bray]

You gave adaptations not new species. The oldest trick in the book. As for science, I likely have studied Darwinism more than you have and why I know it is fake science.

I do admire your faith in a myth.