America is a Christian Nation - Page 133
Page 133 of 156 FirstFirst ... 3383123131132133134135143 ... LastLast
Results 1,321 to 1,330 of 1554

Thread: America is a Christian Nation

  1. #1321
    In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.:

    Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith, and the honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another; covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

    sinful nature is always hostile to God....

  2.   
  3. #1322
    Let the cry babies cry...but it will not change what was going on before you started all your crying!

    sinful nature is always hostile to God....

  4. #1323
    Quote Originally Posted by Farmhood View Post
    Let the cry babies cry...but it will not change what was going on before you started all your crying!

    sinful nature is always hostile to God....
    The opening lines to the Treaty of Tripoli (the first treaty the US Senate ratified) as signed and ratified by founding father John Adams.

    "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using USA Carry mobile app

  5. #1324
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    Quote Originally Posted by nosreme View Post
    This is as pathetic as it is hilarious. Consider the irony, which of course is completely lost on the poster and others with the same affliction: He triumphantly and victoriously criticizes you for not taking the time to consider a tiny amount of contrived "facts" and "evidence" that purport to chip away at the margins of evolution. This pseudoscience would galvanize a reassessment of your understanding and acceptance of evolution based on science and transform you into an evolution-denier. All that would happen despite the enormous and constantly growing (e.g. we now have stunning evidence at the mitochondrial DNA level) amount of scientific evidence supporting the theory (for anti-evolutionists, that's a scientific word; it does not mean "hunch") of evolution.

    But will he (or any other young earth creationist, for that matter) examine--much less, consider--even a summary for the nonscientific layman of the tsunami of evidence putting the lie to "young earth creationism?" Of course not, because there's no need to: The Answers in Genesis summaries are accurate and sufficient--and especially simple--enough for uncritical thinkers.

    This takes us back full circle to the graphic a couple of pages back about how arguing with many Christians is like playing chess with a pigeon.
    Since you can't be bothered with video
    What Darwin Couldn't Begin to Know

    by Frederica Matthewes-Green
    -
    The war between Noble Scientists and Religious Kooks is familiar to connoisseurs of modern stereotyping, and the most common roles for these stock actors to play is in the debate usually titled "Evolution vs. Creationism."
    -
    Note that Evolution is a solid, respectable noun, a square-jawed assertion of how we got here: looks anything but theoretical. Its alternative is not Creation, which would make some sort of parallel sense, but Creationism, hobbled by its concluding, dismissive "ism" like a boxer compelled to wear a frilly bib. But surely Creationism deserves ridicule; it's the province of flatearthers who cling to the King James version of the Bible because that's the kind St. Paul carried. We all know that Evolution was proved long ago.
    -
    As too often happens, what everybody knows ain't so. This is partly due to trademark confusion. Sure, modern dogs came from prototype dogs, and birds with the most efficient beaks tend to win the reproduction game; changes like these within a species can be termed "micro-evolution."
    -
    But imagine the process necessary to turn a walking catfish into a bird. First mutant nubs appear on the back of one, and these are mysteriously so beneficial (and attractive?) that it outbreeds nubless catfish. Occasional mutant descendants have bigger nubs, and somehow this is also a vast advantage. Finally multi-great-grandchildren are dragging large, clammy, hinged protuberances along on their afternoon strolls. It will take a few more millennia to develop that great idea — feathers — and more yet to think up beak and bird legs and hollow bones.
    -
    But true believers must squint and convince themselves that, at every point, these mutations give our proto-birds the winning advantage in the race for survival. It's a leap of faith. Here in the arena of "macro-evolution," which jumps the lines of species, is where the faith of true-believers is most vigorously tested. The testing has just gotten much harder. In his [1996] book, Darwin's Black Box (Free Press), Michael Behe, an associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, has looked beyond the already-problematic questions of crude morphology. In his time, Darwin could offer a reasonable explanation for how a photosensitive spot could gradually evolve into a human eye (though not for how a photosensitive spot came to be in the first place). But this was analogous, Behe says, to "answering the question, ‘How is a stereo system made?' with the words, ‘By plugging a set of speakers into an amplifier, and adding a CD player, radio receiver, and tape deck.'"
    -
    Darwin could only deal with externals; the world of the cell was a "black box" (like the inside of an amplifier) that could not be opened. With the advent of electron microscopes and high-powered imaging, that box has been opened to reveal a world of unimaginable complexity.
    -
    Behe terms it "irreducible complexity." In order to reduce the eye-glazing complexity of molecular biochemistry, he invites us to imagine a mousetrap. This is a simple machine composed of few parts — yet if one part were missing the whole thing would be useless. It cannot have any physical precursors, or have spontaneously assembled itself out of unrelated parts. It must be, from its first appearance, able to perform its function. Behe examines numerous examples at the cell level — vision, blood clotting, cellular transport — that show this sort of irreducible complexity. Darwin could not have known these existed, but there is no excuse for scientists to evade the problem now. Behe's conclusion: These irreducibly complex systems can't be explained by happy accident or minute, gradual change. These systems are the work of a designer. Not a classical God, necessarily. Like the monolith on the moon in the baffling film "2001: A Space Odyssey," we recognize immediately that it was created by someone, but even decades later we may have no idea who. Recognizing the presence of a designer is the first step.
    -
    Yet, despite Behe's caution, this suggestion gets him carted unwillingly back to the beginning of the debate. Critics insinuate that he's smitten with religious notions and trying to pack science into a bible-shaped box. It's an ad hominem charge that seeks to distract from, rather than reply to, his troubling assertions. Good science is supposed to be built on honest assessment of facts, even if the facts overturn dearly held preconceptions. At least, that's what we were told when it was imagined that Darwin had eliminated the need for a Creator. Now that the mousetrap is on the other foot, it feels less comfortable.
    -
    After kicking him around awhile for having gullible faith in God, scientists critical of Behe generally admit they can't refute his charges. Nevertheless, they have faith that one day science will be able to do so. It seems a weak rebuke, just a matter of where you choose to put your faith. But perhaps gullibility is in the eye — or in the photosensitive spot — of the beholder.
    Chief

  6. #1325
    4Clap, clap, clap. You finally learned how to copy and paste. I'm so proud. No go look up genetics & epigenetics. That along with some high school biology will give you the basics to start understanding the mechanics of how evolution is possible. You want to see evolution in action? Go get a population of foxes, start breeding for sociability. In 20 generations you will have a product significantly different so as to viably be called a new sub-species. The russians did it in the 20th century, they were trying to domesticate foxes for their fur, but found out when you domesticate for one trait, you get side effects that ruin the fur. What they ended up with was floppy eared foxes that looked & acted more like domestic dogs. Look it up.

    Does science have all the answers no. Does it explain the how of it a hell of a lot better than God took a rib from adam and made woman. HELL YES. You don't have a viable theory, you have monkeys just trying to poke holes in a theory you don't like.

    Not the same thing.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using USA Carry mobile app

  7. #1326
    Back on topic. America is a Christian nation...I believe because... In Congress, July 4, 1776

    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security - Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

    sinful nature is always hostile to God....

  8. #1327
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    Quote Originally Posted by GryHounnd View Post
    You want to see evolution in action? Go get a population of foxes, start breeding for sociability. In 20 generations you will have a product significantly different so as to viably be called a new sub-species.
    And if you would watch the video, this is exactly what is addressed, by scientists. I am not a scientist, and I will not attempt to regurgitate what scientist have said either for or against anything, unless I have been trained to understand the intricacies. However, in the example above, they did not and cannot turn a fox into anything other than a fox. No matter how much breeding they do, it will never grow wings or flippers, scales or feathers, change from warm blooded to cold blooded or any other change from one animal to another. This is exactly what the THEORY of evolution proposes, and it cannot happen.
    -
    The foxes above, and all animals adapt to their environment, and these genetic coding possibilities are covered by the scientists in the video better than I could explain it. That is why I posted it, and probably why you refuse to watch it. You can breed apes from now until Armageddon, or just watch them evolve, and they will NEVER become a human. Even if they did, you would not remove all intermediary evidence of the middle species that occurred during the process. Quite simple to understand, which is why after almost 2 centuries evolution remains an unproven theory.
    -
    The problem is that scientists are attempting to "prove" evolution. The same could be said of climate change. The true nature of science is learning, and the true nature of learning is not to become complacent with what you already think you know. Scientists are continuously challenging widely held beliefs in order to invent new things, find cures, explain things etc. The key is that once they find a new idea they challenge it with opposing views, try everything to disprove it, in order to prove it or at least make it the most likely explanation.
    -
    You can gather thousands of facts that notionally point towards a theory being correct, but do not prove it. It only takes one or two facts to disprove it.
    Chief

  9. #1328
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by whodat2710 View Post
    And if you would watch the video, this is exactly what is addressed, by scientists. I am not a scientist, and I will not attempt to regurgitate what scientist have said either for or against anything, unless I have been trained to understand the intricacies. However, in the example above, they did not and cannot turn a fox into anything other than a fox. No matter how much breeding they do, it will never grow wings or flippers, scales or feathers, change from warm blooded to cold blooded or any other change from one animal to another. This is exactly what the THEORY of evolution proposes, and it cannot happen.
    -
    The foxes above, and all animals adapt to their environment, and these genetic coding possibilities are covered by the scientists in the video better than I could explain it. That is why I posted it, and probably why you refuse to watch it. You can breed apes from now until Armageddon, or just watch them evolve, and they will NEVER become a human. Even if they did, you would not remove all intermediary evidence of the middle species that occurred during the process. Quite simple to understand, which is why after almost 2 centuries evolution remains an unproven theory.
    -
    The problem is that scientists are attempting to "prove" evolution. The same could be said of climate change. The true nature of science is learning, and the true nature of learning is not to become complacent with what you already think you know. Scientists are continuously challenging widely held beliefs in order to invent new things, find cures, explain things etc. The key is that once they find a new idea they challenge it with opposing views, try everything to disprove it, in order to prove it or at least make it the most likely explanation.
    -
    You can gather thousands of facts that notionally point towards a theory being correct, but do not prove it. It only takes one or two facts to disprove it.
    I would ignore this him/her/whatever. Crazy. The Catholic church supports evolution and the existence of alien life. Scientists, especially many with a Ph.D. have an arrogance that makes them believe they are all-knowing. But both Einstein and Hawking are at odds with science over absolute religion, precisely why Einstein considered himself an agnostic instead of an atheist.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  10. #1329
    Quote Originally Posted by whodat2710 View Post
    I am not a scientist, and I will not attempt to regurgitate what scientist have said either for or against anything, unless I have been trained to understand the intricacies.
    That you're not a scientist is obvious, anyone however can train themselves in the scientific method and crtical thinking. You apparently choose to do neither.

    Quote Originally Posted by whodat2710 View Post
    You can breed apes from now until Armageddon, or just watch them evolve, and they will NEVER become a human. Even if they did, you would not remove all intermediary evidence of the middle species that occurred during the process. Quite simple to understand, which is why after almost 2 centuries evolution remains an unproven theory.
    You just contradicted one of the biggest arguments creationists ( I believe you included, although I may be mistaken on your posts) use to try and argue against the evidence of evolution, you ask where are the intermediate species? You just admitted that intermediate species can and do exist. I can point you to numerous examples of them, the best documented that I know of being the horse, but the homonid record is fairly well documented as well. Furthermore, you make the outdated and mistaken assumption that evolution is a linear process, it is not. Modern evolutionary theory states that evolution is like a tree with a trunk and branches, with many of those branches leading to dead ends.

    Quote Originally Posted by whodat2710 View Post
    The problem is that scientists are attempting to "prove" evolution. The same could be said of climate change. The true nature of science is learning, and the true nature of learning is not to become complacent with what you already think you know. Scientists are continuously challenging widely held beliefs in order to invent new things, find cures, explain things etc. The key is that once they find a new idea they challenge it with opposing views, try everything to disprove it, in order to prove it or at least make it the most likely explanation.
    No, creationists are trying to disprove evolution, there is a difference, but I'll get to that in a minute. On climate change, there is no arguing about "proof" that the climate is changing, we have 200 years of documented temperature measurements, documented rises in ocean level, and CO2 concentrations, ocean acidification, and visual evidence of stable eco-systems changing rapidly (in our life spans, my favorite is a glacier the size of Texas breaking off in the Antarctic), and increasing intensity of storms and other weather patterns. There is very little evidence that the climate is NOT changing. The questions are; "What are the causes?" (room for some debate), and "How bad will it get?", & "What are we going to do about it?" And you're right, science is constantly challenging it's own notions, which brings me to my last point.

    Quote Originally Posted by whodat2710 View Post
    You can gather thousands of facts that notionally point towards a theory being correct, but do not prove it. It only takes one or two facts to disprove it.
    You are pure wrong on that assertion. The thousands of individual facts that notionally point to a theory being correct build the body of evidence to PROVE said theory by showing consistency and reproduce-ability. It is up to you to come up with better, more convincing facts, with the same or better reproduce-ability. Creationism's facts do not do this.

  11. #1330
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    Quote Originally Posted by GryHounnd View Post
    You just contradicted one of the biggest arguments creationists ( I believe you included, although I may be mistaken on your posts) use to try and argue against the evidence of evolution, you ask where are the intermediate species? You just admitted that intermediate species can and do exist.
    Wrong interpretation. All animals have the ability to adapt to their environment. The same species of dog placed in different environments will eventually take varying paths and each will eventually take on different traits. They will never become anything but a dog. This is where Darwin et.al. made the wrong assumptions. Adaptation could be called evolution if you choose, since they do "evolve" into a version of the species better suited to their environment. There is ZERO evidence of an animal jumping from one Genus to another.

    Quote Originally Posted by GryHounnd View Post
    No, creationists are trying to disprove evolution, And scientists that are proponents are no trying to disprove it as they should. there is a difference, but I'll get to that in a minute. On climate change, there is no arguing about "proof" that the climate is changing, we have 200 years of documented temperature measurements, documented rises in ocean level, and CO2 concentrations, ocean acidification, and visual evidence of stable eco-systems changing rapidly (in our life spans, my favorite is a glacier the size of Texas breaking off in the Antarctic), and increasing intensity of storms and other weather patterns. There is very little evidence that the climate is NOT changing. The questions are; "What are the causes?" But there is NO evidence that it is man made, it's called "weather". The Ice ages could not be blamed on humans, so why this? Politics. (room for some debate), and "How bad will it get?", & "What are we going to do about it?" But Progressive liberals "know" the answer and all they need is funding from your tax dollar to "fix" it. And you're right, science is constantly challenging it's own notions (except on the as yet unproven THEORY of evolution, then they cry foul), which brings me to my last point.
    Quote Originally Posted by GryHounnd View Post
    You are pure wrong on that assertion. The thousands of individual facts that notionally point to a theory being correct build the body of evidence to PROVE said theory by showing consistency and reproduce-ability. It is up to you to come up with better, more convincing facts, with the same or better reproduce-ability. Creationism's facts do not do this.
    Wrong at the inception. You do not need to PROVE one theory in order to DISPROVE another. You can have all the facts you want that tend to support (not PROVE) a theory. It takes only one single fact to disprove a theory. That is how it works. No matter what theory there is, a single solitary fact that shows it is not possible disproves the theory, regardless of mountains of evidence that show it is possible. It is also possible for one fact to conclusively prove a theory. That has yet to happen with the theory of evolution, or there would be no debate.
    Chief

Similar Threads

  1. Judge Declares Prayer Unconstitutional - Here's What You Can Do
    By Conservative Wife & Mom in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 04-22-2010, 07:48 PM
  2. Obama & The Progressives Planned Destruction of America...
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-23-2010, 04:57 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-08-2010, 06:32 PM
  4. Is America No Longer a Christian Nation?
    By HK4U in forum Off-Topic
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-10-2009, 10:48 PM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-31-2008, 08:34 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast