Yeah, the lower class were not the murdering scum that the royals were. Scum tends to breed with scum.
No problem here, we're fine
- Thread starter WanderngFool
- Start date
Yeah, the lower class were not the murdering scum that the royals were. Scum tends to breed with scum.
Yeah, the lower class were not the murdering scum that the royals were. Scum tends to breed with scum.
but even these days some of the lower class scum when presented the opportunity would turn into that very scum....
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
Now that would be kind of interesting. Can you imagine if people still had tails? You run into someone you know and their tail starts wagging because they're happy to see you. Or you run into one who you don't get along with and their tail is between their legs? Watch a football game and the whole crowd has their tails going crazy after a touchdown? Thar would be something.
Or be scared to visit grandma in the nursing home full of rocking chairs...lol
Maverick
Seasoned Expediter
Wow. You folks have been having some fun, with royalty, and all. Good to see some laughs and joking a goin on.
Here's one for ya....and why I stopped watching football, for the most part.
SEC biased announcer "LSU is just shredding the Iowa defense with that running game"
Two series later, following the Iowa stuffing of that running game....
"LSU had better start passing more, they can't expect to beat Iowa with just the run"
These announcers, much like Darwin theory, should find all production where it eventually belongs....on the cutting room floor. Shredding should begin immediately.
And what gives "royalty" the idea they are any better than the masses? It's because they fool the masses all the time. To think some of us would hold them in disdain over this? Why, we can't have that. How dare those unwashed masses think for themselves. That's our job....we bred for it.
Another....
.
Here's one for ya....and why I stopped watching football, for the most part.
SEC biased announcer "LSU is just shredding the Iowa defense with that running game"
Two series later, following the Iowa stuffing of that running game....
"LSU had better start passing more, they can't expect to beat Iowa with just the run"
These announcers, much like Darwin theory, should find all production where it eventually belongs....on the cutting room floor. Shredding should begin immediately.
And what gives "royalty" the idea they are any better than the masses? It's because they fool the masses all the time. To think some of us would hold them in disdain over this? Why, we can't have that. How dare those unwashed masses think for themselves. That's our job....we bred for it.
Another....
.
WanderngFool
Active Expediter
I think that's very astute.
Bored is a good explaination, probably as good as any. I tend to think of it in terms of ego, but that leads to sad conclusions.
Maverick
Seasoned Expediter
I think that's very astute.
Bored is a good explaination, probably as good as any. I tend to think of it in terms of ego, but that leads to sad conclusions.
It's pride for sure.
Many scientists are with us
The articles goes on to quote those real scientist.
Some revealing quotes
Darwin is wrong, and always was.
Last edited:
The falsehoods, and ignorance on that page are laughable.
"The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches."
The DNA of finches show that each type of possible variation of type and length of a finch is not, in fact, already in the gene pool. Those variations come into existence because of the adaptive mechanism of finches, namely genetic mutation. Mutations, by definition, aren't already in the gene pool, they are genes that never existed in the pool prior to the mutation.
"What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of."
The reason evolutionists do not want you to know that is because it's not true. There are no known limits, much less strict ones, to genetic variation.
"Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out."
I suppose that's why we no longer have cows, beets and fruit flies.
"And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in."
No, that's where the fossil record and observable changes in DNA comes in.
"They temporarily sidestep natural selection, saying the mutations in DNA needed to build a complicated new part quietly accumulate in duplicate genes, because by themselves each of the necessary mutations is neutral, neither beneficial nor harmful. Then, millions of years later, all are in place. The new part starts working, natural selection chooses it, and the improved creature is off to the races. This scenario exists only in the mind of the evolutionist."
False, on three counts. One, every genetic mutation can be classified as either beneficial, detrimental, or as not having any discernible advantage or disadvantage. Two, the components of a complicated part don't just sit there accumulating in the genes and then suddenly start working, they accumulate and begin to work in other less complicated ways all long those millions of years, and then eventually evolve into more complicated parts. Three, the scenario exists in both the fossil record and in observable DNA records.
"If evolutionists do not know what something does, they assume it is useless, as we will see with "junk DNA"."
False. They don't assume anything. They call it junk DNA if it doesn't serve an apparent purpose, but they don't necessarily assume that it serves no purpose. There are some DNA which they know to not serve any purpose, though, such as certain genes that are turned off in some animal and turned on in others.
"One of their "proofs" of evolution has been that as creatures evolve, some body parts that were useful long ago become less important in the new and improved creatures. Eventually these parts no longer function and they shrink in size. Evolutionists called them "vestigial organs"."
That isn't "proof" of evolution, but it is evidence that supports it.
"In the late 1800s they made long lists of vestigial organs in humans, including the tonsils, pineal gland, thymus, and appendix. In the years since, advances in our understanding of anatomy and biology have knocked them off the lists one by one. Yet the notion lingers on that "there is something to it".
Not true.
In any case, a vestigial organ or structure is simply any organ or structure found in a species which is not being used as it is in other species. Contrary to popular belief, and spurious argument, vestigial organs and vestigial structures aren't necessarily useless or functionless. Nor does evolution depend on an accurate definition of "vestigial." Vestigial does not mean useless or nonfunctional, because it is difficult if not impossible to prove that any particular structure is actually functionless. It is possible that some vestigial organ really is functionless, but scientists and biologists don't assume so dogmatically. That's because the theory that vestigial meant useless was proven incorrect and had to be altered. All that's necessary for an organ or structure to be labeled "vestigial" is for there to be homologies in other species where the use or function is clear, but that same use or function is not the case for the species in question. The use may be odd, very different, or it may simply not be identified yet.
You mean like the theory of Intelligent Design?
Most of the theories of how the pyramids were built were tested, and discarded. That's how science works. The theories that are consistent with experience and observation are preserved.
Ironic that you'd make such a statement after linking to a Web page of an author with an agenda supported by falsehoods and emotion. To date, not one piece of actual evidence has debunked the theory. Not one. It doesn't matter what you believe, it what the evidence shows that matters.
To the end called knowledge, goober. When I read something that differs from what I believe, I like to find out whether what I thought I knew is wrong - sometimes, it is. Sometimes, what I 'know' has been superseded by new info that I wasn't aware of, and sometimes, it was wrong even when I first 'knew' it. Either way, it is the same thing that impels scientists and good investigators to find out: the satisfaction of just knowing that the information is solid and correct.
Boredom? I don't inflict that on everyone else, I just get out the glitter and paint something, lol.
Maverick
Seasoned Expediter
To the end called knowledge, goober. When I read something that differs from what I believe, I like to find out whether what I thought I knew is wrong - sometimes, it is. Sometimes, what I 'know' has been superseded by new info that I wasn't aware of, and sometimes, it was wrong even when I first 'knew' it. Either way, it is the same thing that impels scientists and good investigators to find out: the satisfaction of just knowing that the information is solid and correct.
Boredom? I don't inflict that on everyone else, I just get out the glitter and paint something, lol.
Could not have said it better. I'd like to have a dime for every time I was wrong. Wouldn't be driving a van....that's for sure.
But wait! Us former monkeys might get a kick outta that.
While shopping for bananas can be fun, especially after we learned to read.
Last edited:
I'm not trying to do anything. I'm simply accepting the evidence for what it is, rather than discarding the evidence in favor of a belief.
Maverick
Seasoned Expediter
Maverick
Seasoned Expediter
Who gave you permission to post a picture of my Uncle Ernie?
is nothing sacred now a days?
Last edited:
Your cousin, Otter.
OK, the reality is, despite the allegation of me trying to convince someone of something they are not going to believe in, that's not something I'm going to be able to do. It's impossible. But what is also a reality is, we can't have that many idiots out there in science from so many disparate and distinct scientific disciplines, from all over the world, it's just not possible. So for a Christian to point their finger at a scientist and say, "You're wrong," without having any understanding of what they are talking about, is laughable, just as if a scientist laughs at someone's theology without having ever cracked the Bible, it's the same thing. Christians have to understand where scientists are coming from, they have to understand "this is the data, this is the evidence, this is what we have, now can you make sense of that with the Bible?"
The fact is, those who don't believe in evolution, which is most Christians, don't understand evolution. They've never studied it. They won't study it. They refuse to study it, because it tests what they've been told all their lives, because it tests their faith. Instead of trying to make sense out of the evidence with the Bible, they try to discredit or dismiss it. It's safer to do that.
The fact of evolution is incontrovertible and supported by mounds of empirical evidence. Faith, on the other hand, is fragile. It is supported only by the strength of human will. This is where it gets tricky. Because to many believers, faith, not works, is the only guarantee that one can pass God's litmus test and gain access to His divine kingdom. To lose one's faith is to literally dаmn oneself. So tests to that faith must be avoided at all costs. Therefore, it is better to be a philosophical coward than a theological failure.
You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe. - Carl Sagan
Last edited:
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Ok, wasn't going to post this on EO, but since someone got the ball rolling...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/11/fred-reed/darwinism-is-nonsensical/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/11/fred-reed/darwinism-is-nonsensical/
Just another one of many who hasn't studied and doesn't understand evolution. If he did, he wouldn't use the work "doctrine" to describe it. Doctrine is dogma, a creed or body of teachings of a religious, political, or philosophical group presented for acceptance or belief. Evolution works strictly off evidence, not belief.
Newp. At some point the sane have to say, "How can this be? Why can this be? Something is going on that I don't understand."
Fred doesn't know or care why, and he never asks. Because he can't fathom it. At least he admits to it being unfathomable, though, I'll give him credit for that.
Maverick
Seasoned Expediter
One cannot experience evolution. One cannot say "it's absolute" at all. But a believer can....
From the very moment God places His hand on your shoulder, and in effect says you're mine the believer has actually experienced that power. Just like JFK, 911, and any other harrowing blow to the mind, this person of God knows exactly when that took place, where he/she was...and how powerful it was. It's a spiritual absolute with no doubt something just changed your life, as if the lights came on. That's the real reason a Christian will never look at evolution.
Hebrews 12
[4] Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.
[5] And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
[6] For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
[7] If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
No, you will never convince a believer in evolution, if he/she has been brought under conviction, has directly experienced that chastening, and hears The Shepard's voice. There is something very powerful beyond Maverick, Turtle, and science mongers.
There is no real debating it between someone who has not experienced it, and someone who has. I've said it before, and I'll say it again.....you, or anyone else, does not sin anymore than I do. This poster remains a wretched sinner, saved by grace.
I've been brought to my knees, my friend.
It IS something you know, and do not forget.
Last edited: