sky4it

Everytime you say something Bramble I empathize with what you are saying. I remember when I was about 19, and after listening to all the VPW stuff. I would come across passages that VPW abused, and it put a knot in my stomach. It was like reading something somebody had stuck a fork into, and I couldnt get through it anymore, neither did I want to try. It was as if someone named VPW had made those words seem horrifyingly ugly because of VPW like abuse. These are the inflicted wounds of a group named TWI. The news which does not seem good today is that tommorow they wont be wounds but be things that are being and can be transformed into something beautiful. Why? Because how many people on earth get to see how sinster some people can become by misabusing words? Not to many. You also get to look at life from the catbird's seat. If someone is shouting bible, they had better be able to make it sing the way it should. It's good business Bramble, for you and God to sort this out. Its good business for God to have people who understand what the requirements are in applying that bible. Bramble, TWI gave me a good look into relgious application that was erroneous that I benefited by. One of my favorite examples is those who always quote "forsake not the gathering together of the saints" in an effort to controll activivites of those on the periphery. They always conviently forget the one in I John that says "you need no man to teach you" because of the Holy Ghost. It turns out Bramble that we can figure out more in our prayer closet than otherwise, which is good news. What about forsaking the gathering together? People can "gather" anywhere Bramble, like we are gathering here at GS to communicate. Now i don't that out of the bible saying not to forsake gathering, I do it because i enjoy talking to people like you. Gee , isnt this the way the bible is suppose to work, where things happen naturally? I think so. You do one thing Bramble that no one else does. You always put philosophy, religion and non-religion to the personal application, as in what does it mean to so and so. That's good, because thats the test it should have, today. Discussing philosophy and theology in mental dynamics, is just pure intellectualism run amuck, and does little to satisify the needs of the person. I hesistate to paraphase what you are saying, because I dont want to step on your toes. If I do step on your toes, feel free to step on mine, its all good and part of what must be done, to communicate effectively.

These are rather dark times JJ, in the history of God's creation. Lest you victimize God to much, dont forget killing and murder and rejection go on everyday on planet earth here while he is absent. Oh and with respect to who gets "dumped", people everywhere are continuously "dumping" there spouses a biblical no-no. There is a rather king size view in one of Jesus parables, where he describes the sinister plan. The plan is not just to reject and dump him. The plan is to murder you know who and take over everything he has. Moreover, the reason for being here, was never to "commit sin", thus the consequences for the action cannot not be attributed to you know who. You make the argument that based upon democracy, you know who is a bad guy and should be voted out of office. You know who, father and son only get two votes, which on the face of things seems a tad unfair. The compliment is, that he went with it anyway, based upon his capacity for righteousness. Your not left without explanation for what you said. Turns out in the book of Job there was Job's three friends and a fourth guy named Elihu who went into one of the best philosphical arguments ever to assist the suffering Job. Elihu (a term meaning God) was yet another orator who was predictive of the coming of Christ. You might do well to take a peek Gen: 2:4 for "these are the generations and the earth when..." who are the these? Well the ones listed of course. The created beings some of who were in heaven looking into the things going on in earth. Yep, the angels desired to peek into these things. It is not outside the realm of any authority, wether God's, the United States or China, to set up priniciples of law to be followed. God does allocate a higher bad value to things like telling lies and adultry, which if one thinks about logically are very sound. Man's law is vastly larger than God's simply because it tolerates liars and adultery. (Larger in terms of complexity) Thus the Almighty wins again. Not only does the Almighty win, but Judeo-Israeli law provided what is the first soceity with a basis of laws incorporating concepts like "trespassing" "ordinances" "laws" and "iniquity". Other societies simply saw the fortutious nature of what God had done and ripped him off so to speak. Atheists typically love to rant about "The Exodus" and Leviticus. Yet, according to Paul's own admission, it is only apparently not understood. To which David echoed terrific thoughts, as too what liberty is there when understood properly. One good is example is "bearing false witness" which does not imply not telling the entire story when some control freak is trying to subvert you; rather it implies bearing a load of untruth against another to damage someone who is innocent and even those who are not innocent. Why? Because its not up to man to tell lies to whip up storms against those whom they perceive are blamable. Of course you really can't explain this to people without some getting it wrong. Why? Because people who dont care will always cherry pick and use it as a license to harm others that is why. So the law must take on a certain type of veracity for people to get it. This flaw is not God's but rather man's diminishing respect for him on how to apply it. Then there is the rants about clean and unclean animals for appetite. Even a vegetarian will point to the Genesis account for there particular twist. Moreover, it's pretty common knowledge that some people back then worshipped animals and thought that by eating a cat one might take on cat like qualities. Thus, you know who gets bashed again for trying to find a way through the mess. Interesting that in trying to find a way through the mess, we now know that consumption of pork and other "freebies" today, can cause cholesteral problems. Nope, God was simply trying to find methods of convience to deal with man's ignorance all the while knowing that down the road he would take punishment from mouths of people who need a cheap excuse for only they know what. Ever wonder why the Almighty is so quite? They poison him if he does or doesnt that is why. That is one good reason. The other is we really have a good subset of values to work with, all we have to do is DO IT , to get more. Its good stuff, all the time.

Socks: Sky4it thinks we need some Abigail and Bramble too sort this all out. Where are those two beauties when u need em? Eh? Eh is what they say in Canada. peace socks peace, bramble she can make me dance good heavens ! Better than Leonard Skynard that girl has got it going. oh my.

Then it is largely irrelevant now isnt it? Senior is getting up there in years. I have a little problem with the publication too Oak, they with there Hitler comments. Hitler cited both Christian and evolution sources so with him it never gets settled. I'll take your word for it tho, and believe he said it. I always thought Senior was more of a politician than Junior was. Wasnt Senior against abortion yet Barbra was for it? Thats what I remember. Maybe senior was just really trying to convince what they call the right? I dunno, but you cant take citizenship away from people based on religion, thats just plain wrong. Maybe its just because hes from Texas. The lovable thing about Texans is, no matter how hard they try every once in a while they all spill there guts to you. At least with those guys you can get 4 years of honesty. Hopefully Instead of "I did not have sex with that woman" No i am not talking about innocent Monica, but all the other ones he denied.

Misterp-mosh I seriously doubt that GW Junior wants to take away your citizenship. Do you have a link of a text where GW said that? What happens with you guys is this: Sure there is some people like David Koresh or the guy of the cult who tried to catch Halleys comet or some wack job somewhere spouting off. This is not a reflection of Christian views which in almost all cases are most happy that you and I and everyone share in civil liberties. Christians could make the same mistake by saying people like Jeffery Dahlmer are reflective of atheists, but mostly we dont because we dont see a lot of cannibal zombie atheists running around. Lets have some harmony but stopping futile stereotyping. Ok?

Another Dan: Those are a few great points. I especially like the part about "that is where faith comes in" I also like the part about experience. Experience is an individual thing. Atheists dont accept it because it is not supposedly there 'experience" but the fact remains they can have that experience too, it is like old duckster VPW used to say " available" The disciples asked Jesus to "Increase our faith". Perhaps a better question would have been, what is faith?, besides the commentary provided in Hebrews. One of the best examples in my view is juxtaposing the difference in Jacob vs Esau. Jacob placed a great value on the promises of God; he also had interest in them and respect for them. If faith were simple interest, respect and value in the promises of God, that fits my experience. Indeed, to think that interest respect and value can increase and grow because it is faith is an experience. It's like you get more confident about what God is doing in the mist of the worst turmoil. Man do i luv this stuff called faith. Its terrific.

I believe that there is no delusion for me, yet the understanding or knowledge of it can grow and change in an increasing way. Ahh Abi, faith is so valuable, you can shut out all noise when times are difficult, and watch the stroke of the Almighty make things plain when he chooses. Sure it is possible to have the furniture re-arranged, but the tenants remain the same and get stronger. Thats my nickels worth.

Oh my Garth, whatever shall we do? Does this mean stoning is not cool anymore? There is more than one form of stoning, people mouthing off about it is another form of stoning. Ever see that old cop thing scared straight? I think that is what God was looking to achieve, that not working, the Jesus of the New Testament fit the bill, but how do we ever get rid off all the adultry? Maybe someone (perferably an atheist) should just lopp off Hugh Hefner's pee pee? think that might work? Maybe obedience was the pivotal point. Well judging by the conduct of Larry Flint and Hugh Hefner, its probably a good call that someone established a moral framework. To me the choice looks brilliantly made, to you it looks like you think God made a hard call. Either way, nice job Oh God.

Another Dan: Nah, Abi is probably just having a bad hair day. She probably has some snarls up there that have to be hairbrushed out, thats my guess.

Ask yourself a question, what is the best way God could show his attributes and that he is God? Would it be by showing up as Superman and saying here am I? I think not, for to do so all he would generate is people with superinfatuated ideas of his nature. His nature is non-celebrity non-star like qualtiy, and with good reason, that there might be a kingdom which is established on equality not on servitude of some misabused power. Me thinks in this way, he has shown the ideal way to use power, [too bad most dont like it that way for themselves. /b] Of course this explains why if you cant live in a kingdom like that with out abusing privledge one can be thrust out. In this, we all have equal chance, to be servants and not ruling by force.

Hi Abby, Nice to see you peeking. If you were peaking you would be in your prime, (I think you are) or climbing mount everest. Later...

Which is exactly like people like Dawkins like it. Dawkins preys on people with heavy laden adjectives that sound "smart" but when you unwind it, it is Darwins unprovable qwack views just redone, replete with a new set of adjectives that sound "scientific". BTW, Albert Einstiens special law of relativity, combined with II Peter 3:8, make it not only plausible but perfectly feasible that the works of God where created in 6 days, and match up perfectly with the fossil record. I will post my calculation here, but another guy from Colorado came up with the calculation first: His name is Geoff Schroeder of a group called free thinkers of Colorado here is his calculation: http://www.freethinkerscs.com/articles/letusdothemath.htm Time scale One day is with the Lord is as a thousand years and (plus) a thousand years as one day. II peter 3.8 First part “One day is with the Lord as a thousand years” EARTH TIME GOD’s Time 1) 1,000 years = 1day 2) 1,000 years x 365 = 1 day x 365 days (thus 365 days are = 365,000 years) 3) 365,000 Years = 1 year 4) 365,000 years X 1,000 years = 1 year x 1,000 years 5) 365,000,000 (365 million years) = 1,000 years Second part And (+) A THOUSAND YEARS IS AS ONE DAY Earth time God’s Time 6) from 5 above 365,000,000 = 1,000 years 7) 365,000,000 = 1,000 years = ONE DAY (+) Text THUS 365,000,000 365 million years = One day (God’s time) Bible Geological Time Line (Leap year days are not added) Beginning of Day 7 = 0 from completed creation Day 6 0- 365,000,000 years Day 5 365,000,000 years - 730,000,000 years Day 4 730,000,000 years - 1,095,000,000 years Day 3 1,095,000,000 years - 1,460,000,000 years Day 2 1,460,000,000 years - 1,825,000,000 years Day 1 1,825,000,000 years - 2,190,000,000 years THUS NOT ONLY DOES EINSTEIN MAKE SENSE EINSTEIN IS BIBLICAL. II Peter 3:8 is supported by Einstein’s Special Law of Relativity. Einstein and II Peter 3:8 are true and Evolution is False and a Lie.

Another Dan: I actually have a great amount of disrespect for this man. It has to do with the things he says in "ignorance" and he tries to be real cute about stereotyping Christians. He also insults the God of the old testament in a manner that goes well beyond a simple need to digress. I have read his book the Blind Watchmaker and have a 9 page article on it. I am working on some stat calculations so I have yet to post it. Anyway, take it easy another dan.

b) Question b: Spent eternity which is now past doing whatever he wanted to. Had to have created beings which were capable of rejecting him, because he wanted love and companionship, not robots or plastic individuals. Was it a hard choice? Certianly looks like it was, because before the foundation of the earth he knew it would cost him his life on tree. He was called the perfection of beauty. I believe also the covering cherub. Meaning he had it all. There were two cherubs I believe, perhaps the other one was Michael the Archangel. Satan, wasnt satisfied with being beatuful and having power, he wanted it all and wanted to slay you know who. Why did God create someone like that? He wasnt created like that, he made up his mind to do what he did. Sickness isnt ONLY from sin. See the man born blind. Death is a consequence of sin. Sometimes sin is also. God never wanted sin for anyone. The Bible says that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Not just Adam and Eve.

Garth see above Flatrock: Enjoyed your post, thanks. I think you and others might find it interesting that the actual Calvin contraption also has political levers and such built into it. Obviously modern day Calvinists dont utilize Calvins political views, but it might be interesting to look at them. Most of them are at the end of his writings. I have not studied them in detail, but it may be interesting to look at them. anyway appreciated the post.

Calvin would probably say, Its inconceivable. Behave yourself Garth, putting John Calvin in Weirweille's shoes is so un Twi like, even if too enjoyable. Later,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Horses: I actually know a guy from Madison Wisconsin. He was in my wedding. I have not talked to him in well over 20 years, but I am sure he would be willing to provide you with a list of churches in his area. He is not a pastor and would not be a person trying to recruit you or anything. He certainly would be able to tell you the different churches in the area since he has live there many years. His name is Kenton Sorensen (I dont even remember the last name spelling it is either son sin or sen on the end. His wifes name is Marlene. I am certain he would tell you of the churches in the area to assist you. Like I said , I have not spoken with him in over 20 years, but he is a family man and familiar with Madison, having lived there the last 20 or more years. I live a long long way from Madison, so I would not be able to assist you.

Who are we? We are Debo, are we not men?

Garth and YID Garth: Why is it I get the feeling after we are done with this thread you and I would drink a few cold ones and laugh a lot. Anyway I will post one more article afterwhich this thread can move south. BTW, YID: I agree with Garth that posting in caps doesn't make for good dialogue. Also the athiest/abortion/Democrat stuff. I am a little surprised that Garth didn't extrapolate you to nerdville. Let's see, back during Roe vs Wade, young sexual wanna bes before embarking in a few moment of pleasures, SAT DOWN AND READ THE BORING DARWIN TOO JUSTIFY A PROBABLE ABORTION. Uh no that wouldnt go, but if you want to make an argument lets here it. I could try but Garth would have me cut up rather profoundly. Anyway, Garth after this thread dies, I will follow up on the Calvin thread and if your looking for more from me on some other thread, tell me where that thread is. One thing I should say to you Garth in the form of a semi-excuse. I was rather reved up coming in here and it really was unfair to take it out on you. I tried to provoke you a little to see if I could get you to throw some pies. You didnt and congrats. I guess, Dawkins should use guys like you as proof of ethics and good behavior. If I got to your nerves a little it was intended more for Dawkins and Olbermann, you are a way superior person to them. Later man.................................................

Abigail and Oakspear: Abigail usaid: Again, I am not convinced. Judaism does not contain the notion of elect in the same sense Christianity does. Nor am I pursuaded that monotheism was the creator's answer to paganism. In fact, I find that entire statement sort of nonsensical. Gee Abi, after that I am feeling like I am rather Jewish thanks,(LMAO) , you make me feel rather Jewish and proud of it. Interesting. Abi, that the 12 tribes when traced though history, they don't really know were they went. I am Norwegian, and as all Christians feel a certian sense of unity with Abraham. Not sure what u meant by the "monotheism" point, so why mention it. The trinity is fine by me , because it is still one God One Lord, as the Apostle Paul so eloquently said. Anyway Abi your statement: Again, I am not convinced. Judaism does not contain the notion of elect in the same sense Christianity does. Thanks. You are right, Jesus Christ the same today, yesterday and forever! An election word in the New T; will never translate to what Calvin said. Thanks. And Abi: Do not dismiss yourself; u are an angel thanks Oakspear: usaid:Just as mainstream Christianity is the 800 pound gorilla in the room of our culture, "official" Roman paganism was in 1st century culture. Oak Really, I thought we were all just trying to be helpful! Oak does this mean I am not mainstream? Cause I never really thought TWI people were mainstream back when either. Well I like the idea of mainstream, it doesn't bug me if I am not. But for your info, I think your a nice guy Oak, and I mean it. anyway thks Oak. I don't dance often, seems that only Abi and Bramble can make me dance. How do you know I am being honest about all this, well I have had a few whiskey's tonight, I mean they called Jesus a winebibber doesn't that mean I can have a few? I think so. That's all the proof ( the proof was 80/40 on the Jim Beam I drank) I think you need. I aint drunk but just want you to know I mean it. Thanks.

When Syntax is there Syntax Part I Be sure to read over the concept of Reversion in #7 below a couple of times, this is critical to getting to the bottom of Darwin. I told you that I did not need to wear Michael Behe’s shoes, put on Weikart’s overcoat or hide behind Ann Coulter’s dress to talk about Evolution. Notice that I did not say- hide in Miss Ann’s dress since women are appealing to me. You see if I thought like that, then I would have to put that affection on the cross. That’s what is called living out these things that are in the bible. BTW, what I am saying is I wrote this stuff, Darwin is not that hard to figure out. VARIATION To understand Darwin, one needs to understand this concept and that Darwin calls it a Law. Throughout Darwin and many other writers on evolution, the concept of variation is described with many other adjectives. A small subset of these would be: vary, variable, small changes (Dawkins), modification, micro changes, mutations, differences, development and the like. In addition, (and this is important) there are at times in these writings literally huge diatribes of lengthy ensembles of words, all which are indicative of an explanation for these “variations.” In fact, variation is talked many times in the past tense, as though it has happened and provided as “proof” for the theory. The concept of variation in the past tense and derivative, is in fact the “faith” based component of the psuedo-science and is provided as proof in the things written below, that it makes evolution not a science but a faith based belief (however a false one.) Most sciences (if not all), separate the topics in to different subjects. For example, economics separates itself into a “macro component” and a “ miro component.” Evolution has a micro component and macro component as well. The micro is describing small changes. The macro is explaining how a seal turned into a bear. Yet, in evolution, these two concepts are not separated in lectures (or any books that I have read) at all. It is not like listening to one move from micro to macro back and forth so that it is all rubbed together. Unmistakably, this adds to the confusion. It is sort of like watching someone who is saying they are playing pool with no pool table, just a bunch of pool balls they are throwing around everywhere. The mission of the micro component in evolution is to prove the macro component. There is however one huge problem with this. If micro evolutionists could prove small changes (they haven’t) it still would not prove the macro side. For example, if people who told lies grew long noses (Pennochio-Darwin–oops), all this would prove is that people who lie grow long noses. The micro component is reduced to talking about birds that have larger bills as though this is proof of evolution. Even that, has not been proved. For example, if a species of birds in the wild over successive generations had longer bills, about all that proves is that the birds which had the longer bills survived in that particular bird population. Neither are evolutionists able to demonstrate that there was any bird population in the particular species that did not exist in times gone past. Ie(That the beak of the bird they are talking about didn’t exist before there study) Even if they could demonstrate it, it still would not prove what the theory suggests: that a great big jackrabbit jumped out of the woods and became Diane Sawyer. Since there is no viable demonstration of the particulars which work, this is the reason it is not a scientific study but a faith based belief. Interestingly when you contrast faith as in Christian faith, this type of faith is readily available to be proved by EXPERIENCE. Ie(Christian faith is genuine or true where evolutionary faith cannot be proved- read DeCartes or to a lessor extent Kant) This means that evolutionary faith is untrue, and as such will be proved false in the rest of this paper. 1)Charles Darwin Descent of Man Chapter 2 Manner of Development of Man Darwin:’From the astonishing number of observations it is proved that local influences of some kind act directly on stature................For instance, it is established ‘ that residence in Western States, during the years of growth, tends to produce increase in stature.” On the other hand, it is certain that with sailors their life delays growth, as shown, “by the great difference between the statures of soldiers and sailors at the ages of 17 and 18 years.” Darwin thought that there was differences in stature between “Western Frontiers people” and “soldiers” compared to “sailors.” Darwin does this to prove his “law of variation” which by he is implying is the PROOF for evolution. If in fact there were differences could they be explained by other criteria? Well, yes in fact it could, for which if Darwin’s premise is TRUE could result in many questions. I do not know however, of one university that has an endowment to study the scientific field of “ DIFFERENCES IN STATURE BETWEEN SAILORS AND SOLDIERS.” Is there a more likely explanation? Yes, in fact there is. The topic of astonishing number of “Differences in stature between sailors and soldiers”, is from a report called Investigations in Military and Anthrop. Statistics. The report is nothing more than a U.S. statistical compilation of U.S. servicemen and information on them. Darwin simply quotes their observations as though their observations were scientific fact. The more likely answer is this is just bad science, for one reason: this was not a scientific study but a census compilation. Noteworthy in the census report is that Darwin reads through it and gleans commentary from others that fit the pseudo-scientific evolutionary model. The bizarre thing, is not that census workers would record hard information and provide commentary , but rather that someone would study the “differences in stature of soldiers and sailors” and think this is raw science; and that slight difference in stature are influenced by and evidences of evolution. 2)Here is some more wack-doodle doo science in the same Chapter under “Effects of the Increased Use and Disuse of Parts” 1st paragraph, (Read it yourself if you will) Darwin essentially agues that through lesser use, certain parts of the body become shorter in length or longer depending on the case. Once again the poor sailors get massacred. According to Darwin, this is why sailors had, “in the late war” ie( the variation occurred in one lifetime) shorter arms and longer legs than say your average ordinary GI joe soldier. Darwin, however, ran into a contradiction is studying our nautical friends. He ascertained that poor sailors have shorter arms but use them a lot, an unexpected result. How did the great mind of Darwin resolve this? It is in fact a comical answer. Darwin said that sailors, “chiefly use there arms in pulling and not supporting weights.” ie (there arms are shorter because they are “Pullers” not “weight supporters”) Get It? If you don’t; don’t be surprised. In the wack-doodle do mind of Darwin when something doesn’t work out in the faith based system of “variation”, just plug in your own answer. In this case the fill in the blank credo is DESCRIBING POOR SAILORS AS PULLERS NOT WEIGHT SUPPORTERS. Where is all the scientific research into the effect of “pulling” as opposed to “weight supporting?” Well, in fact I do not think there is an endowment at any university to discuss this mystifying topic either. Neither did Darwin have a scientific book on pullers as opposed to weight supporters (Thank goodness) For even in the wackadoodle do mind of Darwin, he knew that would be one flew over the coco’s nest. Thank goodness, the poor sailors have had enough. BTW, if you want some more wackadoodle doo sailor stories, there might not be more of that on sailors, but in all likelihood there is enough bad science to fill up a comic book store. Some of it is tough to get to, since Darwin is studying groups of people that are hard to even identify, maybe even by design. Since I know your funny bone isn’t the goods with Darwin lets move on to some other goofy goods. The above paragraphs prove a few points about Darwin. Darwin loved to race his contraption around through statistical studies, and balance the facts with creepy fairy tales: like saying sailors were pullers not weight supporters. IT IS SORT OF LIKE STUDYING THE CULT GURU DARWIN’S HOLY GRAIL ONLY TO FIND OUT HE WAS A REAL STINKING LOUSY SCIENTIST. IT ALSO PROVES THAT THE CULT GURU’S DARWIN’S HOLY GRAIL, IS REALLY STUFF UP THERE ABOUT WITH VPW OR CALVIN, IN TERMS OF GOOD SCIENTIFIC OR THEOLOGICAL THOUGHT. 3) Descent of Man, Chapter On the Manner and Development of Man Darwin, “ If we consider all the races of man as forming a single species , his range is enormous; but some separate races, as the Americans and Polynesians, have very wide ranges. It is a well known law that widely ranging species are much more variable than species with restricted ranges; and the variability of man with more truth be compared with that of widely ranging species than that of domesticated animals. Darwin says that man as a single species has “enormous range.” Darwin says that some races like Americans and Polynesians have “very wide ranges.” Darwin kind of threw animals out the door as far as this comparison goes, but not completely. First, how can man as a single species have “enormous range” that in sentence two becomes a “restricted range?” There is only one answer. Darwin must be indicating animals have restricted range. (Unless, of course some men have enormous restricted ranges but that’s crazy wacky even for Darwin) In addition, how is one suppose to compare” enormous ranging” types with “widely ranging” types in men? Is there suppose to be a difference in widely vs enormous ranging types? This is ridiculous. In fact, this is even crazier than the next paragraph. Yet, this is Charles Darwin. Let’s suppose that Darwin is referring to animals as those who have restricted range. (Because it can’t be anything else unless men have enormous restricted ranges; an utter absurdity) This is where the bogus science really falls apart yet again. Darwin indicates that “widely ranging species are much more variable than species with restricted ranges.”ie(This was his quote.) The widely ranging are Americans and Polynesians. Those with restricted ranges are animals. Darwin, however, may not be talking about all animals but comparing men with one single species of animal. Take dogs for example, which one can breed some successfully even though there is great variation between them. There are over 800 breeds of the dog species. The ones that can be interbreed have greater variation then men do in characteristics. Still, when comparing men and a species of animal, there is absolutely no reason to assume (as Darwin does) that man who is more widely ranging and thus more variable because of this trait. The humorous part is this: I did not know until Darwin, that our fury friends had “ranging” difficulties and turmoil. In fact there is no reason to mention it, unless you have a wack-doodle doo science that one is trying to prove. Anyway, the argument fails on all grounds. Thus, Darwin is implicitly wrong and contradictory .Furthermore, most people don’t study the Guru’s words because they are by design evasive and illusive. Sort of like a magic act, that when you put it under a microscope is lacking in logic and the trick falls apart. Darwin calls this stuff a LAW. In the animal kingdom, certainly camels and kangaroos would have “good ranges” as opposed to ants and snakes that don’t get around so well. If Darwin were even partially correct we would have huge variations in the population of jumping jack fury looking kangaroos and camels with stripes and small noses. Instead what do we find, large populations of the less well ranging snakes and ants all over the world, who have considerable and more diversified populations than our two humped and jumping jack friends. What does all this say about Darwin? It proves that not only was he a horrible scientist but a horrible communicator as well. 4) Descent of Man, Chapter - Secondary Sexual Characteristics of Man - Under Summary Charles Darwin quote, “We may conclude that the greater size, strength, courage, pugnacity, and energy of man, IN COMPARISON WITH WOMEN, were acquired during primeval times , and have subsequently been augmented........females. The greater intellectual vigor and power of invention in man , is probably ......(in comparison to who? Women is the comparison in the context.) Darwin just said that men have greater intellects and powers to invent than women. Darwin just said that men have greater courage, pugnacity and energy than women. Notice that this is Darwin’s summary or conclusion. He developed all these conclusions while observing people. Once again, lets just call this what it is: bad science. Isn’t this what is called today “sexiest?” The “woolly hair” thing, that’s Darwin too. If only old Don Imus had known, all he had to do was quote from Darwin to describe women’s basketball and he would have been in familiar and safe territory. Because Charles Darwin’s Holy Grail of Origins is beyond reproof, even if you point out the wack-a-doodle doo theatrics. The topic of women becomes important in #7 below, when Darwin does his “science” on hairy people. 5) Charles Darwin Descent of Man Chapter 2 3rd Paragraph Darwin: “ The variability or diversity of the mental faculties in men of the same race, not to mention the GREATER DIFFERENCES between the men of distinct races, is so NOTORIOUS that not a word here need be said.” Darwin thought that there were GREATER DIFFERENCES between the races than between one single race IN PEOPLES MENTAL FACULTIES. This is simple to understand what he is saying: You take two Caucasians of different aptitude say one has a high IQ and one has a low IQ. Darwin just said that between specific races; the DIFFERENCES ARE GREATER THAN THAT. Ie(Darwin thinks that the differences between race IQ (a measure of “mental faculties”) is greater between the races than between IQ as measured in one particular race.) How exactly is this not racist? Furthermore, he said it is notorious. ie(it’s a bad thing) Now when Haeckel and Company were doing “science” is it that hard to see where they were going? This is as easy as 1+1=2, and there is no argument around it. Darwin also said that it was a well known fact, so he didn’t have to talk about it. For Darwin this well known fact was notorious. 6) Yet another problematic area for Darwinists is the Darwinian concept of “Reversion” which topic is part of Darwin’s law of Variation. Reversion is in essence a “bad thing” It is in fact a sequence of moving back to a more primitive state. Thus, the Social Darwin thing, is not a figment of someone’s imagination. It explains why some feel compelled to help the bogus evolutionary contraption along. This concept is right from Darwin by the way. From Darwin, Descent of Man Chapter 2 On the Manner of Development of Man under topic Reversion, Quote by Charles Darwin: “ The simple brain of a micocephalous idiot, in as far as it resembles that of an ape, may in this sense be said to offer a case of reversion.” BTW, I have a sister who is mentally ill who has been called names like idiot all her life, thank you very much Charles Darwin. That certainly ought to raise a few eyebrows for people wanting to hire a Darwinist psychiatrist no? Oh, and here’s one for Darwin’s crap log book, since when did equating idiots to apes, not become a crime? Er uh lets see back to those Holocaust concentration camps where the mentally retarded were massacred and you now want to say the science of Darwin had nothing to do with it? Please explain this statement by Darwin in context, not just of the races, but the massacred mentally ill? Look at the fact also that Darwin says the idiot and apes brains are the same. Does this in fact show why concentration camp people where running around with there rulers measuring peoples skulls? Or maybe in the Darwinian view of things, the camp soldiers had nothing else to do; so they were just playing with rulers and stuff. Sort of like the soldiers rationale thing, where thinking soldiers are “rulers with measures.” not“measurers with rulers.” Gee, whatever the “fill in the blank” pseudo-science needs to suit it’s purpose. 7) Descent of Man- Chapter Secondary Sexual Characteristics of Man - Topic: Hair (To understand this topic, you must keep in mind Darwin’s reversion concept) Darwin: “Some races are much more hairy than others, especially the males; but it must not be assumed that the more hairy races, such as the European, have retained there primordial condition more completely than the naked races such as the Kalmucks or Americans. It is more probable that the hairiness of the former ie(European- added) is due to PARTIAL REVERSION ;for characters which have been at some former period long inherited are always apt to return. We have seen that IDIOTS are often very hairy, and they are apt to REVERT in other characters to a lower animal type.” Quote Charles Darwin. Here is one more Darwin quote a few paragraphs earlier: “for in all parts of the world women are less hairy then men.” Darwin ran into a few roadblocks in his study of hairy people. One road block was that some Europeans were hairy. The other was that women are not hairy at all. So what does Darwin do: he simply says “it must not be assumed that Europeans have a “primordial condition” because it’s just a PARTIAL REVERSION.ie( partial reversion in Darwin’s mind is simply “apt to return.”) Partial reversion then is to be expected but not FULL BLOWN REVERSION, the condition that idiots have. Because in Darwin’s mind idiots are VERY HAIRY. So if one is very hairy that would be full reversion but sort of hairy that is just partial reversion. Ie(Does this mean Robin Williams is an idiot?) I think not. Let’s just call this what it is: bad science. BTW, people in Africa are not very hairy either. Why doesn’t the Guru Darwin discuss this? Because it doesn’t fit the simpleton’s mind of what he is trying to prove. Furthermore, Darwin already has enough axes to grind with them, who Darwin describes up and down in his writings as “savages.” Noteworthy is the fact, that when in doubt, just split Darwin’s concept of Reversion in two and create ‘FULL BLOWN REVERSION” and “PARTIAL REVERSION.” If you are European you get the good reversion as in the partial one. If you are an idiot you get the bad reversion as in the “full blown case of reversion.” It sort of works like this: If you are a European and hairy, it’s just a case of the mumps or chicken pox, nothing to worry about. If, however, one is an idiot who is very hairy; well then it’s terminal. Why does this stuff mean anything in the Guru Darwin’s mind? Because as we shall see from #8 below appearances in man ALWAYS mean something in the Quack Darwin’s mind. Furthermore, you can’t make this stuff up, it’s just that bizarre and comical. BTW, if you can’t see this is just horrible science after all this, check yourself out, in fact you might be really hairy, it could be you have the full blown reversionary type. Here is the important one: REVERSION IS THE PROOF FACT THAT CHARLES DARWIN OFFERS AS “PROOF” OF HIS THEORY OF EVOLUTION. (In fact, it is critical in trying to understand Darwin’s theory) Here is the proof: Charles Darwin: Descent of Man, On the Manner of Development of Man - under topic Reversion last paragraph. Darwin quote: “ These several reversionary structures, as well as the strictly rudimentary ones reveal the DESCENT OF MAN from some lower form in an UNMISTAKABLE MANNER.” Thus, once you rip a hole ( a Darwinian sized hole-oops) in the concept of Reversion, it all falls apart. I just did that. It is unmistakable (as Darwin would say) that Darwin’s concept of reversion is false and a lie. Reversion is the one thing that Darwin offers as proof in fact for his theory and we have now seen that it is false and not science at all. (Does this mean Robin Williams is safe today as far as a science project goes?) Gee, I am not a hairy man shouldn’t this make me happy? 8) Darwin Descent of Man Chapter 4 On The Affinities and Genealogy of Man 2nd paragraph “ .....He (man) retains many rudimentary and useless structures which no doubt were once serviceable. Characters occasionally make there re-appearance in him, (that would be partial reversion like mumps or chicken pox ) which we have reason to believe were possessed by his early progenitors. Ie(the early progenitors were more like idiots, but back then it was a healthy sort of thing like the apes- which yes I added) If the origin of man had been wholly different from that of all other animals, these various appearances would be mere empty deceptions; but such an admission is incredible.” A) This statement by Darwin: “If the origin of man had been wholly different from that of all other animals.” This statement by Darwin becomes a contradiction WHEN ANYONE TRIES TO APPLY MORALITY AND ETHICS to the Darwinian model. Under the Darwinian model, animals and man and their “origins” are not wholly different, they are in fact much the same. If the Darwinian model were remotely true, one could apply ethics and morals to alligators and frogs, which in fact is INSANE. Still, Darwinians agree that men can be taught and have learning faculties, (unless you are a reversionary idiot). Yet, the SIMPLE FACT THAT MEN can possess ethics and morals shows that men are different in there origin (from animals), a claim that shows that the Darwinian statement here is a falsehood and a lie. Certainly, the differences between man and his progenitors could not be like climbing Mount Everest, if Darwin were correct. What animal can be taught morals and ethics and talking(a parrot a little) and mathematics in a behavioral setting that is intellectual? None that’s how many. Oh but wait, someone taught there dog to pee outside and a cat is better by punishing it. This is the type of proof Darwinians are reduced to when comparing man and animals, and applying morals, ethics and other things. B)Darwins statement, “these various appearances would be mere empty deceptions; but such an admission is incredible.” What Darwin is saying is that when we have appearances (like rudimentary and useless structures) they are not empty deceptions. Ie( Appearances in man which are unexplainable are not for no reason they prove something.) What do they prove? EVILOUTION is what they prove in Darwin’s mind. The fact that we have people who Darwin calls idiots or “rudimentary and useless structures” is proof defacto in this statement by Darwin that the simpleton has proved evolution in his mind. ( you can’t make this stuff up this is the simpleton’s mind) . HERE IS THE WAY DARWIN THINKING WORKS: WELL YOU SEE THOSE STARS UP THERE, WE DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE FOR SO THEY PROVE EVOLOUTION. This is what the QUACK A DOODLE DOO SCIENCE IS REDUCED TOO. The following is the most important in understanding the mind of Darwin towards his “science of evolution”: Darwin thinks to make an admission that appearances in man can’t be explained is INCREDIBLE. (This is precisely what he said in his statement.) I do not know of normal scientists who wake up in the morning and can’t cure cancer or explain a phenomena they are working on and say to themselves, its incredible that we didn’t solve this today,baby!!!!! (This is how the simpleton’s mind works) Does Darwin think it is INCREDIBLE that people have muscle structures that work with nerve impulses so people can walk? Nope, he never mentions it for one reason: Things that are harmonious in creation are to Darwin not where he is driving the contraption of evolution, so he never stops to bag it or consider it. (BTW, that’s what “normal scientists do, they study harmonious things in nature and draw on it conclusions which advance science.) Thus, evolution is NOT a natural science. For Darwin anything that he can’t explain today (but chiefly in appearances in man), he will not tolerate without an explanation, but mainly in context to origins of man and to God, The explanation to Darwin has to be something else other than God. Of course, with a God who is infinite in knowledge and creative works this explains precisely why Darwin will not accept him. God is just too incredible for Darwin to digest. If Darwin were a rational man, he would say like all Christians who acknowledge that the works and knowledge of God is past finding out. Darwin will not admit this because he wants nothing to do with God, because God and his works can’t be digested by the simpleton’s mind, at least not in a measure that Darwin is willing to do. I believe that I have proved the evolutionary faith to be fiction, fairy tales, exaggerations, bad science (and badly communicated) so it should be referred to as such. Calling it a faith does disservice to the concept of faith. Unless of course one is referring to the faith held by Sun Yung Moon.

See above Geo and Garth at least give me a grade on my NEW joke on the bottom. Furthmore, I do not suppose that Rush Limblaugh calling feminists feminazi's helps the environment of freindly discussion. Have feminists made a contribution to soceity? In fact they are the one group who has stated that pornography is a crime against women to which I agree. (I am sure that shedding bra's didn't changed the law of gravity in the 60's but everyone has to have a starting point) I also don't agree with Rush's health care views. But what about Rush himself? I mostly like him. He is kind of like a fact churning person with spin. I heard him a few months ago and he sounds really wore out. What about his pill popping? If I had to carry the garbage that guy has, I probably would have taken a few too. Kind of like wondering how divorce lawyers stay healthy. Does this make me an apologist for Rush? I don't think so. Sort of like the sympathy I feel for Elizabeth for having to be married to John Edwards. Actually Garth, I have a lot of respect for you, you knocked me down so quick on the athiest/communist stuff, I am still recovering. You were about as fast to do that stuff as Pamela Anderson would be to mount a rockstar drummer. Joke: Q: What do you call the love child of a Democrat and Republican? A: Richard Dawkins or (if you prefer Charles Darwin) (Does this mean Hillary is really a Republican in Cognito?) so on a A-F basis what does it get?

geo and garth: Yeah ok, I will keep the rhetoric off the commmie/Nazi thing and not do that stuff. You have to understand I read all of Wiekerts book and the historical stuff so it wont be brought up again. But since I have read both Darwin and Dawkins I have a couple of papers I wrote on the stuff, and it would be nice if I could have it critiqued so that coming from you guys on scale of 1 to 10 how much you see there. AFTER THAT GARTH, START ANOTHER TOPIC, BECAUSE ITS NICE TO CHAT. btw geo: usaid: But you are entirely correct, evolutionists are a bunch of worthless nazis and commies, I'm quite sure... stop it geo, that's way execessive dont you think? Actually, Garth is a real intelligent person, I have learned more than a few things from him. BTW, compliments from me are difficult. BTW Geo there is another book out which I havent read by an athiest, part of the topic is that religion is according to this guy the cause of all wars etc. The ax is ground both ways in recent debate. The whole Nazi thing gets me a little worked up because many people have painted swastikas on Miss Coulter. I think your right tho, it is rather counterproductive to principaled thought. Bramble: I think that is overgeneralized how you portrayed what I said. Let me put it to you this way. I think that bible based spirit filled give a person the best chance to be fit to survive? Perhaps the topic makes it appear a little jilted and I dont want to write an entire page on it. I don't often get a chance to discuss the atheist/faith debate, but I have watched quit a few. Garth and Geo can give me some pointers. Basically, Bramble my thoughts against what you said run kind of like this: We have laws in society, which work to keep all individuals from engaging in bad behavior. This is why most people as a whole are compliant regardless of ideology. In this, America is greatly favored. BTW, both Garth and Geo have considerable more CLASS, than the ones I have watched in other debates, so how is that not now a compliment? Does this mean that Garth and Geo are more civil and even tempered than Dawkins and the other guy? Yes IN FACT I THINK IT DOES. At least when Garth makes an argument for athiesm, it doesn't dismiss faith summarily like Dawkins does. When is Garth's first book coming out? BTW, both you guys challenged me to be more civil and make better arguments. That's a challenge I have to accept. It for me is called self impovement.

krylis: usaid: the wording of this (following below) makes it seem like God is lazy! Serious? well we know he works 6 days a week and not 7 doesnt everyone need a rest? Not lazy I suggest just bored of buttering up sinners. Anyway that is my op, and I dont think anyone is keeping score.

You know Geo I read your website post ups just now, a lot of it anyway. Second Crusade eh? I have yet to see Behe show up in military attire with a slogan lets get em. Give me a break geo. BTW, sometime Friday I will have a nice little work up on Darwin for you and Garth. It aint Behe or Wiekert but I think you should enjoy. I would much enjoy your critique but in case your wondering I am not auditioning for Discovery Institute status. Like I said, the best way to fight Darwin is with Darwin and Dawkins is with Dawkins. Richard Dawdah dah dah kins, I just kind of studder when I say that name, there is such profound intelligence ooosing out of the pages? Well maybe we can cover that too. Hope to hear from you guys.