Carson: 'Darwin influenced by Satan.'

[SakuMemories]

yes TCK, evolution is built on sand

fucking zombie jews popping out of virgin ****s is a much more solid idea

 

[TheComebackKid]

yes TCK, evolution is built on sand

fucking zombie jews popping out of virgin ****s is a much more solid idea

Let me know when I claim the virgin birth to be a scientific fact. Until then lets focus on that which does claim to be scientific fact.

 

[SakuMemories]

its just funny how you decide that some things are "magical facts" and swallow them without the tinyest bit of evidence

yet when it comes to "scientific facts" you complain for pages and pages that they are not good enough for you

oh well, christians gonna christian

 

[TheComebackKid]

its just funny how you decide that some things are "magical facts" and swallow them without the tinyest bit of evidence

yet when it comes to "scientific facts" you complain for pages and pages that they are not good enough for you

oh well, christians gonna christian

What have I "swallowed without the tinyest bit of evidence"? Go.

 

[The ScorpioN]

Yeah, there are several reasons I check out the evolution threads..

1) comic relief: which is amply provided by Ripskater, and Tck

2) And useful, interesting information, such as the polyploid speciation you mention.

Well said on both points. Dochter is quality when it comes to this.

EDIT: Boagrius in the below post showing some knowledge too. Good job.

 

[Boagrius]

Again, all that shows is natural selection and the losing of things.

So you accept that there are vestigial structures then. Problem is vestigial structures do not and cannot develop in isolation. In the real world they occur concurrently with the “gaining of things” - flippers, tails, blow holes (whales), cognitive capabilities, tooth enamel (humans) - all of this is corroborated by the fossil record. If you accept that a whale’s leg bones are vestigial then the corollary is that you accept the its ancestor most likely had legs. This makes NO sense for a large oceanic cetacean.

1) Why does that matter? THe analogy works. Let's say someone built some walls that can self reproduce into more walls. I'm sure they would use much of the same kind of source material.

It matters because it explicitly allows for speciation to occur. If every different kind of animal had a different kind of hereditary material evolution would be dead… but they don’t.

2) No mechanism has been discovered that would allow large scale cchange necessary to allow for the full narrative of evolution(macro of course).

Yes it has - the interaction of:

Evolutionary Time
Mutations
Sex (and associated genetic “jumbling”)
Gene flow
Natural Selection
Sexual Selection
Genetic Drift

Natural selection, sexual selection, migration, and genetic drift are not examples of things creating new DNA information and developing into more complex creatures. Nor do they provide a mechanism for the widespread change(ie a land animal turning into a whale) that evolution proposes.

My mistake. I should have said the above:

Evolutionary time
Mutation
Sex
Gene flow
Natural Selection
Sexual Selection
Genetic Drift

Altogether.

...examples of things creating new DNA information and developing into more complex creatures.

Most importantly, you’re showing some ignorance here. New/more DNA is not needed to add complexity to an organism. This is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that Polychaos dubium (an amoeboid) has easily one of (if not) the largest genome currently known.

You can get drastic changes by simply jumbling the DNA up, or activating previously inactive sequences. For example, there is a whole body of emerging research (epigenetics) that suggests the environment itself could generate genetic variation by affecting what genes are actually expressed and how.

http://discovermagazine.com/2013/may/13-grandmas-experiences-leave-epigenetic-mark-on-your-genes

Furthermore, you can actually ADD complexity by DELETING DNA function.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antennapedia

Obviously the above is not exhaustive, there are also numerous ways to increase this size of a genome (for which there is plenty of evidence). My point is you don’t NEED to in order to gain “complexity” in a group of organisms.

Endogenous retroviruses are problematic as well. How does it get past Apoptosis?

Uh oh, more ignorance showing. They do it via immunosuppression:

“The product derived from the env gene of mammalian type C retroviruses possesses motifs—for example, the fusion peptide, leucine zipper protein, and immunosuppressive peptide (ISP)—that are essential for fusion and the infection of cells. In brief, the precursor env product is cleaved into two components: a surface protein (gp70) and a transmembrane protein (p15E) that contains an immunosuppressive region.32Of interest is an ISP, termed CKS-17, that suppresses lymphocytes and alters cytokine profiles in animal models. The ISP sequence from the murine leukaemia virus LQNRRGLDLLFLKEGGLC (single amino acid code) is reasonably well conserved in HERV-H19 (LQNRRGLDLLTAEKGGLC), HERV-R (ERV-3) (YQNRLALDYLLAQEEGVC), and HERV-E(4–1) (YQNRLALDYLLAAEGGVC), but less so in HERV-K10 (FEASKAHLNLVPGTEAIA). The presence of an ISP could be advantageous to a virally infected cell—in terms of shielding or “cloaking” itself from immunological attack—but may equally be important to a host. This is perhaps exemplified by HERV-R (ERV3), which is highly expressed in trophoblastic cells and results in high concentrations of env protein (∼ 65 kDa) in syncytiotrophoblasts.65The immunosuppressive potential of this HERV and the fusogenic nature of placenta tissue suggests a possible involvement in normal placental function, in protecting the developing fetus from maternal immune responses.66,67 Furthermore, it is possible that HERVs may change the pattern of gene expression during embryo development by altering different rates of development of different parts of the embryo. Another endogenous retrovirus, HERV-W, has also been shown to encode a protein termed syncytin, which may have a role in placental morphogenesis.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1187282/

That was a bit awkward

If a retrovirus invades a cell the cell will just kill itself.

WRONG

Plus ERV's show to be functional and provide a benefit. Hard to call them viruses when they do beneficial things.

More ignorance showing I’m afraid. The classification of something as a virus has nothing to do with whether or not it is harmful to humans or any other species.

Also... you just refuted yourself (!?)

Plus they show up in unrelated animals.

(!?)

Not in the same patterns. It’s not the fact that ERV insertions show up, it’s what ones show up where. Holes in your knowledge really showing now.

There are still a lot of questions to answer before you can propose ERV's as evidence for evolution.

Nope.

That is not shifting goal posts. The evolutionist says evolution accounts for all of the diversity we see in nature. The opposing position says that variation can take place but only to an extent as there are limits.

We’ll see about that. Again, you provide no evidence/mechanism for this premise.

It would be really nice to see some of your sources. So far it has been ENTIRELY one way traffic on this front. Don't be scared homie

So when you guys show me to two different kinds of dogs and say "haha! Proof TCK!" I'm not moving the goal post when I say that does not address the opposing position. And when I say show me something that has significantly changed and/or increased in complexity in anyway you guys have nothing. In fact the general response to such a request is met with mockery.

Not from me.

The goal post is simple. Show me an example or even simply a mechanism that would allow for the widespread change and complexity evolution proposes.

Ok great. The study of what you call macroevolutionary changes is inherently a historical one - hence my reference to the fossil record and genetic evidence. The former being a line of argument, I might add, that you have stopped rebutting (dating methods etc).

But some examples:

Humans:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/overview-of-hominin-evolution-89010983

Whales:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

Birds:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_06

http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...mPage=online&aid=669&fileId=S0006323197005100

http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1642/0004-8038(2003)120[0550:ACCOTT]2.0.CO;2

Natural selection, sexual selection, migration, and genetic drift are not examples of this.

Straw man

ERV's are problematic and a stretch even at that.

Nope.

The Chromosome Fusion 2 model has it's challenges but I admit I need to learn more about that.

And a few other things it would seem? No offence meant but I think you have some homework to do. I’d be happy to mark it for you.

Well kids, I'm getting back to work. If anyone has any legitimate counter points to make let me know. Otherwise I'm going to be over basking in victory

Good for you! A bit premature though.

 

[The ScorpioN]

What have I "swallowed without the tinyest bit of evidence"? Go.

Nephilim coming down in UFOs breeding with human women.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Nephilim coming down in UFOs breeding with human women.

Check and mate. ..


And I would also add dinosaurs roaming the earth with humans

 

[M3t4tr0n]

Plus the bible said unicorns are real.

 

[TheComebackKid]

So you accept that there are vestigial structures then. Problem is vestigial structures do not and cannot develop in isolation. In the real world they occur concurrently with the “gaining of things” - flippers, tails, blow holes (whales), cognitive capabilities, tooth enamel (humans) - all of this is corroborated by the fossil record.. If you accept that a whale’s leg bones are vestigial then the corollary is that you accept the its ancestor most likely had legs.

I don't accept that the bones in the hind of the whale are leg bones nor do I accept that they vestigal. 15 yrs ago you would have been arguing that the whale pelvic bones are vestigal. But what do ya know...we found out they weren't.

It matters because it explicitly allows for speciation to occur. If every different kind of animal had a different kind of hereditary material evolution would be dead… but they don’t.

I'm just not seeing your point here.

Yes it has - the interaction of:

Evolutionary Time
Mutations
Sex (and associated genetic “jumbling&#8221
Gene flow
Natural Selection
Sexual Selection
Genetic Drift

But none of those are examples of macro, or vertical, evolution as I explained.

Most importantly, you’re showing some ignorance here. New/more DNA is not needed to add complexity to an organism. This is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that Polychaos dubium (an amoeboid) has easily one of (if not) the largest genome currently known.

You can get drastic changes by simply jumbling the DNA up, or activating previously inactive sequences. For example, there is a whole body of emerging research (epigenetics) that suggests the environment itself could generate genetic variation by affecting what genes are actually expressed and how.

Right, if DNA code is simply getting switched on and off I don't think that can be used as an example of a "new feature". It was always there. The complexity was always there, built in.

The only way you can argue that epigenetics account for the widespread diversity and complexity we see in life and in history is if you can show that the first single cell had all of the DNA information present in the entire world in it to begin with. Otherwise new DNA code would have to be introduced at some point. Mutation and ERVs are hardly a sufficient mechanism for that.

http://discovermagazine.com/2013/may/13-grandmas-experiences-leave-epigenetic-mark-on-your-genes

Furthermore, you can actually ADD complexity by DELETING DNA function.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antennapedia

Obviously the above is not exhaustive, there are also numerous ways to increase this size of a genome (for which there is plenty of evidence). My point is you don’t NEED to in order to gain “complexity” in a group of organisms.

Yes, you can just change the transcription process. But there is a limit to what features and variances can be produced by changing the transcription process.

Uh oh, more ignorance showing. They do it via immunosuppression:

“The product derived from the env gene of mammalian type C retroviruses possesses motifs—for example, the fusion peptide, leucine zipper protein, and immunosuppressive peptide (ISP)—that are essential for fusion and the infection of cells. In brief, the precursor env product is cleaved into two components: a surface protein (gp70) and a transmembrane protein (p15E) that contains an immunosuppressive region.32Of interest is an ISP, termed CKS-17, that suppresses lymphocytes and alters cytokine profiles in animal models. The ISP sequence from the murine leukaemia virus LQNRRGLDLLFLKEGGLC (single amino acid code) is reasonably well conserved in HERV-H19 (LQNRRGLDLLTAEKGGLC), HERV-R (ERV-3) (YQNRLALDYLLAQEEGVC), and HERV-E(4–1) (YQNRLALDYLLAAEGGVC), but less so in HERV-K10 (FEASKAHLNLVPGTEAIA). The presence of an ISP could be advantageous to a virally infected cell—in terms of shielding or “cloaking” itself from immunological attack—but may equally be important to a host. This is perhaps exemplified by HERV-R (ERV3), which is highly expressed in trophoblastic cells and results in high concentrations of env protein (∼ 65 kDa) in syncytiotrophoblasts.65The immunosuppressive potential of this HERV and the fusogenic nature of placenta tissue suggests a possible involvement in normal placental function, in protecting the developing fetus from maternal immune responses.66,67 Furthermore, it is possible that HERVs may change the pattern of gene expression during embryo development by altering different rates of development of different parts of the embryo. Another endogenous retrovirus, HERV-W, has also been shown to encode a protein termed syncytin, which may have a role in placental morphogenesis.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1187282/

That was a bit awkward

Now, put that in your own words if you can

More ignorance showing I’m afraid. The classification of something as a virus has nothing to do with whether or not it is harmful to humans or any other species.

Also... you just refuted yourself (!?)

(!?)

Not in the same patterns. It’s not the fact that ERV insertions show up, it’s what ones show up where. Holes in your knowledge really showing now.

Yes, and Windows 10 & 7 evolved from the same program because they have similar bits of coding in similar places. This is silly cmon on.

Ok great. The study of what you call macroevolutionary changes is inherently a historical one - hence my reference to the fossil record and genetic evidence. The former being a line of argument, I might add, that you have stopped rebutting (dating methods etc).

But some examples:

Humans:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/overview-of-hominin-evolution-89010983

Whales:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

Birds:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_06

http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...mPage=online&aid=669&fileId=S0006323197005100

http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1642/0004-8038(2003)120[0550:ACCOTT]2.0.CO;2

Cool drawings you got there.

 

[Boagrius]

I'm just not seeing your point here.

Not a problem.

But none of those are examples of macro, or vertical, evolution as I explained.

No, they are the mechanism for it that you explicitly requested.

Right, if DNA code is simply getting switched on and off I don't think that can be used as an example of a "new feature". It was always there. The complexity was always there, built in.

The only way you can argue that epigenetics account for the widespread diversity and complexity we see in life and in history is if you can show that the first single cell had all of the DNA information present in the entire world in it to begin with. Otherwise new DNA code would have to be introduced at some point. Mutation and ERVs are hardly a sufficient mechanism for that.

Strawman, I never said it accounts for all of it, just that it contributes - along with mutation and gene flow. Nevertheless, more homework for you then :wink:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11841181

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9718721

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v30/n4/full/ng852.html

http://www.umich.edu/~zhanglab/publications/2003/Zhang_2003_TIG_18_292.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2945180/

http://genomics.princeton.edu/AndolfattoLab/research1.html

^Some cases of novel (functional) DNA formation via DNA duplication

Now, put that in your own words if you can

I already did. At any rate you already conceded that ERVs are capable of making their insertions and that those insertions are heritable. Moving on.

Yes, and Windows 10 & 7 evolved from the same program because they have similar bits of coding in similar places. This is silly cmon on.

No, it's not. I already provided you with a source that explains how this works.

Cool drawings you got there.

Thanks!

I don't accept that the bones in the hind of the whale are leg bones nor do I accept that they vestigal. 15 yrs ago you would have been arguing that the whale pelvic bones are vestigal. But what do ya know...we found out they weren't.

No we didn't. At any rate I never expected or planned to change your mind per se, I was mainly concerned with correcting some of the misinformation you were coming out with. I'm contented that I have done that now.

With that said, I hope you realise that nothing I have said here was personal, I simply have a differing view. The world is a crazy place and we all have a hell of a task figuring it out in our lifetimes. Best of luck to you in yours.

Cheers

 

[Codger]

The article states:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2290806/

What this is saying is that the new "evolved" lizards with the cecal valves are genetically identical to the "pre-evolved" lizards that were originally dropped off there. That means no new genetic information has been introduced to these "evolved" lizards. That means there hasn't been a mutation or any other kind of mechanism at play here that would create new features.

Please note that I'm not asserting this is definitely the answer just pointing out a problem in the claim that this is observational macro evolution.

OK, a few things:

1. You're moving the goalposts here. You wanted an example of a new feature and this is such an example. You defined feature as a new physical object and this is a new physical object. You didn't demand a specific genetic change. Are you now saying that you're defining "evolved" as new genetic information? I hope not because that is a very weak argument and there are plenty of examples of new genetic information occurring between generations.

2. They don't actually say their has been no change to the DNA. The whole sentence is: " Genetic mitochondrial DNA analyses indicate that the lizards currently on Pod Mrčaru are indeed P. sicula and are genetically indistinguishable from lizards from the source population "

Mitochondrial DNA is not their genome. The reason they checked the mitochondrial DNA is that needed to prove that these were the same lizards they dropped off in 1971 - the possibility might exist that somehow a lizard with this new feature came to the island independently which would render the experiment useless. But they couldn't compare the genomes because they would be different since they've evolved. So they compared the mitochondrial DNA instead to show that these were the same ones with the new feature.

 

[Kiddo716]

So you accept that there are vestigial structures then. Problem is vestigial structures do not and cannot develop in isolation. In the real world they occur concurrently with the “gaining of things” - flippers, tails, blow holes (whales), cognitive capabilities, tooth enamel (humans) - all of this is corroborated by the fossil record. If you accept that a whale’s leg bones are vestigial then the corollary is that you accept the its ancestor most likely had legs. This makes NO sense for a large oceanic cetacean.





It matters because it explicitly allows for speciation to occur. If every different kind of animal had a different kind of hereditary material evolution would be dead… but they don’t.




Yes it has - the interaction of:

Evolutionary Time
Mutations
Sex (and associated genetic “jumbling”)
Gene flow
Natural Selection
Sexual Selection
Genetic Drift



My mistake. I should have said the above:

Evolutionary time
Mutation
Sex
Gene flow
Natural Selection
Sexual Selection
Genetic Drift

Altogether.



Most importantly, you’re showing some ignorance here. New/more DNA is not needed to add complexity to an organism. This is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that Polychaos dubium (an amoeboid) has easily one of (if not) the largest genome currently known.

You can get drastic changes by simply jumbling the DNA up, or activating previously inactive sequences. For example, there is a whole body of emerging research (epigenetics) that suggests the environment itself could generate genetic variation by affecting what genes are actually expressed and how.

http://discovermagazine.com/2013/may/13-grandmas-experiences-leave-epigenetic-mark-on-your-genes

Furthermore, you can actually ADD complexity by DELETING DNA function.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antennapedia

Obviously the above is not exhaustive, there are also numerous ways to increase this size of a genome (for which there is plenty of evidence). My point is you don’t NEED to in order to gain “complexity” in a group of organisms.



Uh oh, more ignorance showing. They do it via immunosuppression:

“The product derived from the env gene of mammalian type C retroviruses possesses motifs—for example, the fusion peptide, leucine zipper protein, and immunosuppressive peptide (ISP)—that are essential for fusion and the infection of cells. In brief, the precursor env product is cleaved into two components: a surface protein (gp70) and a transmembrane protein (p15E) that contains an immunosuppressive region.32Of interest is an ISP, termed CKS-17, that suppresses lymphocytes and alters cytokine profiles in animal models. The ISP sequence from the murine leukaemia virus LQNRRGLDLLFLKEGGLC (single amino acid code) is reasonably well conserved in HERV-H19 (LQNRRGLDLLTAEKGGLC), HERV-R (ERV-3) (YQNRLALDYLLAQEEGVC), and HERV-E(4–1) (YQNRLALDYLLAAEGGVC), but less so in HERV-K10 (FEASKAHLNLVPGTEAIA). The presence of an ISP could be advantageous to a virally infected cell—in terms of shielding or “cloaking” itself from immunological attack—but may equally be important to a host. This is perhaps exemplified by HERV-R (ERV3), which is highly expressed in trophoblastic cells and results in high concentrations of env protein (∼ 65 kDa) in syncytiotrophoblasts.65The immunosuppressive potential of this HERV and the fusogenic nature of placenta tissue suggests a possible involvement in normal placental function, in protecting the developing fetus from maternal immune responses.66,67 Furthermore, it is possible that HERVs may change the pattern of gene expression during embryo development by altering different rates of development of different parts of the embryo. Another endogenous retrovirus, HERV-W, has also been shown to encode a protein termed syncytin, which may have a role in placental morphogenesis.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1187282/

That was a bit awkward



WRONG



More ignorance showing I’m afraid. The classification of something as a virus has nothing to do with whether or not it is harmful to humans or any other species.

Also... you just refuted yourself (!?)



(!?)

Not in the same patterns. It’s not the fact that ERV insertions show up, it’s what ones show up where. Holes in your knowledge really showing now.



Nope.



We’ll see about that. Again, you provide no evidence/mechanism for this premise.

It would be really nice to see some of your sources. So far it has been ENTIRELY one way traffic on this front. Don't be scared homie



Not from me.



Ok great. The study of what you call macroevolutionary changes is inherently a historical one - hence my reference to the fossil record and genetic evidence. The former being a line of argument, I might add, that you have stopped rebutting (dating methods etc).

But some examples:

Humans:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/overview-of-hominin-evolution-89010983

Whales:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

Birds:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_06

http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...mPage=online&aid=669&fileId=S0006323197005100

http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1642/0004-8038(2003)120[0550:ACCOTT]2.0.CO;2




Straw man



Nope.


And a few other things it would seem? No offence meant but I think you have some homework to do. I’d be happy to mark it for you.



Good for you! A bit premature though.

holy fuck that was beautiful

 

[Final Rehab]

Rehab, I'm going to say this very clearly and I want you to meditate on it, internalize it, and accept it.

Its...all...good my man. It's always all good. You don't have to apologize for calling me out on some perceived bullshit you think I'm spouting. I don't take offense to it and it has no bearing on what I think about you as a person. You've always maintained a level of honesty in our exchanges and that is all I ask for. So if you think what I wrote was some straight up bullshit...then say so! Just be intellectually honest about it. Be ready to consider what I have to say in return. Don't be like LI and just make up things just to be a little prick. Thats when I get annoyed and lose respect for a poster.

Meditated on, internalized, and accepted.

And the reason I may seem closeminded is because this is not the first time I've considered God and evolution. Remember I was indoctrinated with evolution so there was a period in my life where I accepted it with no questions asked. Then I asked a few questions and was completely unsatisfied with the answers. I asked a few more and started to realize, holy shit, this theory is built on nothing but sand.

And yes, I do consider evolution a religion for many people.

I don't agree with your position on evolutionary theory but of course some proponents of evolution can be too close-minded to admit that there may be holes in certain aspects of the overall picture. Origin of life is a tough one. While we're on or around the subject though, as to LI's contention that you've supported the idea that dinosaurs and humans walked together, is that true? That concerns me.

And no I don't really think you're a hater. I was being lighthearted.

Yeah it came across that way really but I've been giving you a pretty hard time lately so there was a kernel of doubt.

The accuracy of biblical prophecy.

And please note the non inclusion of "Jews" in your retort.

And I do not agree that the bible is the words of men, but the written account from men, inspired by the eternal God.

OK but my point is that believers in religious texts other that the Bible are just as convinced of those things regarding their own religion as you are of yours. How am I as an earthly man to sort all of that out? Seems like betting on roulette.

Regarding the bolded, I'm not sure I understand. Elaborate please.

 

[Thai Domi]

Meditated on, internalized, and accepted.



I don't agree with your position on evolutionary theory but of course some proponents of evolution can be too close-minded to admit that there may be holes in certain aspects of the overall picture. Origin of life is a tough one. While we're on or around the subject though, as to LI's contention that you've supported the idea that dinosaurs and humans walked together, is that true? That concerns me.



Yeah it came across that way really but I've been giving you a pretty hard time lately so there was a kernel of doubt.



OK but my point is that believers in religious texts other that the Bible are just as convinced of those things regarding their own religion as you are of yours. How am I as an earthly man to sort all of that out? Seems like betting on roulette.

Regarding the bolded, I'm not sure I understand. Elaborate please.

Because the OT is true. It just so happens that the religious leaders during Christ's ministry on Earth misinterpreted them.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Because the OT is true. It just so happens that the religious leaders during Christ's ministry on Earth misinterpreted them.

What do you base this on? How do you know they misinterpreted it?

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Edit:

not going down that path with you again

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Do you believe in the God of the bible? The God of Genesis? The God of Revelation? The God that Paul wrote on behalf of?

As I’ve stated to Colby, Bulokwski, Muster X, Spamking, Final Rehab, and numerous others…

I’m still on the path of searching for the “truth.” I have read countless religious texts, and works of philosophy and religious philopshy (Cs. Lewis)

I’m not sure if I believe in a God or “higher power”, but you’ll never find me say, “I don’t believe in God” or “I’m an atheist” nor will you ever see me ridicule someone for believing in a God.

To answer your question above,
The most appealing, moving, poignant and spiritually uplifting texts I found in the Bible were the Gospels. And honestly, I would even consider the Gospels (especially Luke) some of my favorite works of philosophy.

I would have no issue following the path of Jesus to make myself a better man.
However, I found the god of the Old Testament quite brutal, abhorrent, vicious and devoid of mercy. I could not dedicate my soul to an entity like that.

 

[ButterStoch]

These are dangerous views to hold, especially for someone who wields a certain amount of influence of others.

In a perfect world, people would be prosecuted for these types of views.

"In a perfect world.....people would be prosecuted for these types of views"

Are you Stalin's Grandson?

 

[Winnie The Foo]

Dr. Carson was on The View today.
[YT]q-hFP5DgXHk[/YT]

"Let me explain. Let me explain," he began after Behar brought up fossil records. "Microevolution versus macroevolution are two different things."

Source:http://www.businessinsider.com/ben-carson-nazis-the-view-evolution