Theirs Is An Angry God

Who Would Jesus Hate?

http://lulapilgrim.joeuser.com/article/313713/Kicking_God_out_of_Schools/
from JoeUser Forums

One of our members has written an article that offers the thesis that banning prayer in schools somehow led to a rash of school shootings. In fact, the author quotes God as saying "I am not allowed in schools." This is the All-Powerful diety speaking, mind you. If there is any sense to this article, full of "reap the whirlwind" it is that the shootings could have been prevented had not the All-Merciful wanted to send a message.

Usually I do not respond to this kind of non-sequitur  (because my momma told me not to talk to crazy people) but this theory, that God causes or at least permits bad things to happen to punish people because America has become increasingly secular, requires a response.

First of all, the blogger that wrote the article showed a blatant disregard for the loss of life of children. I have linked to the original blog post and nowhere will you find any expression of sympathy for the death of children. I certainly realize that she was not the author of the original article, but she chose to reprint it. But feel free to point out any acknowledgement by the blogger of how much pain was caused by these shootings.

It is not an isolated blogger who says this type of absurdity. This same creed of hate is spewed by prominent evangelists such as Rev. Jerry Falwell, Rev. Pat Robertson, and of course, John Hagee.

On September 13, 2001, on the 700 Club, Falwell and Robertson explained the destruction of the World Trade Center as follows:

JERRY FALWELL: And I agree totally with you that the Lord has protected us so wonderfully these 225 years. And since 1812, this is the first time that we've been attacked on our soil and by far the worst results. And I fear, as Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, said yesterday, that this is only the beginning. And with biological warfare available to these monsters -- the Husseins, the Bin Ladens, the Arafats -- what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact -- if, in fact -- God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.

And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

Not to be outdone, Pastor John Hagee explained Hurricane Katrina as follows: "New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God” because “there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came.”

Think about this for a moment. Most of the kids that have been shot is schools were Christian. As far as I know, no one in the World Trade Center on September 11th had any particular affiliation with the ACLU or any abortion group. Most of the people who lost their lives as a result of Hurricane Katrina were not gay. God must have very, very bad aim if he makes these things happen.

Pastor Hagee acknowledges that it is only his perception, his vision of the world and of God that makes him see things this way. Why, I ask, would someone chose to worship a God that kills little children to express his disagreement?

In his latest remarks, Pastor Hagee has said that God allowed/caused the Holocaust to happen because he wanted the Jews to return to Israel. Somehow he manages to avoid the fact that Zionism predates the Holocaust by 60 years and was basically a movement of Secular Jews. (I know that some will disagree with me, because history, like science, is "just a theory.") When God wants to send a message he kills 6 million Jews, 3 million Russian Prisoners of War and another 2 million Slavs. Props to John McCain for finally saying that Hagee and his ilk are crazy.

(Note to God in case you are reading this. If you want ME to go somewhere, send me an email, okay?)

I know that you can find support for this kind of superstitious thinking in the Old Testament, that book that was written by men who lived 2500 years ago and thought that the world was flat and the Sun went around the Earth. God murders all the people in Sodom and Gommorrah, down to the littlest child. He sends bears to tear apart children because they make fun of a bald prophet. But why would anyone living in the modern world buy into this crap? Haven't we, you should excuse the expression, evolved a bit?

Secularism is to blame for all the ills of the world? Explain this. Europe in the early 14th Century was almost completely Christain. It was an age of unquestioned faith. In 1315 the Great Famine wipes out millions of European Christians. In 1347 the Black Death wipes out a third of Europe's population (while the people pray in churches.)

There is no rhyme or reason to the idea that God caused school shootings, or the World Trade Center attack, or Hurricane Katrina or the Holocaust in order to steer people toward or away from a particular way of thinking. In order to accept such an idea you have to embrace the idea of an Angry God who has only contempt for human life. And that is just plain sick.

religion christianity hate
21,543 views 44 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top

Religion is the spring from which all morality flows. Without it we would all just be running around satisfying our carnal urge du jour :LOL:

This kid is wise beyond his years.

 

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bravo, Larry. Tell andrew_ to make it so we can give Karma on OPs as well as on comments, because you deserve some.

my momma told me not to talk to crazy people


So did mine. I should follow her advice more often, because I fail at it so frequently here.

There is no rhyme or reason to the idea that God caused school shootings, or the World Trade Center attack, or Hurricane Katrina or the Holocaust in order to steer people toward or away from a particular way of thinking. In order to accept such an idea you have to embrace the idea of an Angry God who has only contempt for human life. And that is just plain sick.


QFT.

These reactionary 'Christians' make me throw up in my mouth a little.

Yum, gotta love that rich bile taste.
SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top

Interesting video, stubbyfinger. Rather than saying that religion is the spring from which morality flows, let us say that religion provides the carrot and the stick to enforce moral belief. If you are "good" you go to Heaven; if you are "bad" you go to somewhere else. But most of the great religous leaders are considered great because they made people think about and reconsider their moral stance.

Jesus was known for his parables. Why a parable? Because you have to THINK about what it means.

Here is my favorite moral message from Rabbi Hillel, a man who taught around first century CE:

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."

Thank you, SanChonino. No worries, my real life Karma is good enough. Good job, good kids and my teaching keeps me out of (or gets me into) trouble.

+2 Loading…
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top

Have you noticed how uncommon it is for those who write about the Catholic or Fundie Baptist God to post on articles specifically about them?

BTW, nice work, Larry, Shalom.

 

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Have you noticed how uncommon it is for those who write about the Catholic or Fundie Baptist God to post on articles specifically about them?


They flee, those scaredy-pants.
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top

Not to be outdone, Pastor John Hagee explained Hurricane Katrina as follows: "New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God” because “there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came.”


Jerusalem has homosexual parades now. And guess what, the same scum of the earth that evangelical Christians claim have been allowed by G-d to punish the US are also opposed to the homosexual parades in Jerusalem.

And, incidentally, that same scum is opposed to evangelical Christianity too (and, admittedly, because evangelical Christianity is on the good side of that equation).


I don't think that G-d punishes people for homosexuality. I can ask my rabbi, I suppose; but I understand G-d had said that he wouldn't do that any more.

 

Sodaiho,

Don't mix Catholics with the fundamentalists. Most catholics, especially and including the pope and the church leadership, are completely rational people that do not support the kind of "Christianity" those evangelicals support.

Catholicism does not want to replace science with religion in state schools (or church schools).

 

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
I know that you can find support for this kind of superstitious thinking in the Old Testament, that book that was written by men who lived 2500 years ago and thought that the world was flat and the Sun went around the Earth.

Can you show me anywhere in scripture that says the earth is flat? Or that the Sun went around the earth? Because there is NOT one instance anywhere in scriptue that I'm aware of where the writers said any such thing.

In fact it was the Christians who thought otherwise. I'm not talking Catholic institution. I'm talking Christians. Christiopher (light Bearer) Columbus knew from reading scripture that the earth was round.

You're Jewish right? So you would adhere to the OT correct? Have you ever read Deut 28? There are promises and there are blessings and they are conditional. You may want to read that to get a fuller understanding of where the Christians are coming from.

Isaiah wrote his book in about 740 BC (almost 3,000 years ago) and said this in Chapter 40:22:

"It is HE (God) that sits upon the CIRCLE of the earth and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretches out the heavens as a curtain and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in."

It's not that God is causing these things to happen. We live in a world of sin and sorrow and when we continue to walk away from God and his ways, we walk away from his hand of protection as well. It's us being the cause of our tribulations, not God. God allows this to happen as a consequence of our own actions.

You also forget something very important here. God is THE creator. WE are not. It's not about us. It's about Him.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
They flee, those scaredy-pants.


really? Are you talking about me?

I really don't think so.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't think that G-d punishes people for homosexuality. I can ask my rabbi, I suppose; but I understand G-d had said that he wouldn't do that any more.


no what God said is that he wouldn't destroy the earth by flood again. That's it.

We do know from reading the NT that God will destroy the earth by fire the next time. It's the only global warming I believe in.

Catholicism does not want to replace science with religion in state schools (or church schools).


and neither do fundies, as you call them.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

and neither do fundies, as you call them.


That's simply not true.

I have seen so many articles and comments here from Christian fundamentalists who want to teach "intelligent design" in science class but then scream blasphemy when I explain to them what that would mean.

Science involves experiments. We can teach creationism or intelligent design in science class, IF either of them can be shown to work in an experiment. However, that would be blasphemy. Hence we would have to change science class (and remove the "science" part) in order to teach creationism.

That's what replacing science with religion is.

And don't tell me you haven't been advocating it.

Again, if you demonstrate that creationism works in an experiment, I am all for teaching it in science class. Same request applies as before: use a Semitic god so that I can more easily verify the experiment.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's simply not true.


that's not true. I'm a fundie as you like to label and I know for a fact that we just want all the theories to be represented. The only time ID would really come up for the most part is when the subject of origins comes up. Then they can give out both ideas instead of just the molecule to man theory which is the evolutionary one.

Neither one can be replaced or reproduced in a Science class that's why they are both called theories. So why teach one and shut the door on the other?



Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

that's not true. I'm a fundie as you like to label and I know for a fact that we just want all the theories to be represented.


Intelligent design and creationism are NOT theories. You want to change the definition of "theory" to include your religion and you want to change what science is to include ideas that cannot be verified experimentally.

I have made my own experiment here and simply told you what creationism, if it were a theory, would be subject to. I was told that doing so was blasphemy

How can it be science if testing is blasphemy?


Neither one can be replaced or reproduced in a Science class that's why they are both called theories. So why teach one and shut the door on the other?


You can show in an experiment that one species can evolve into two. But no creationist has ever shown how some god "creates" an animal in an experiment.

Where is the "Christian principle" of "honesty" now?

I am telling you: show me how a god (or any other creator) can create two species of fruit flies out of one species of fruit flies in an experiment and the discussion ends here and now with me supporting the teaching of creationism in science class alongside any other theory and with full explanations of all needed experiments.

Until then you are simply LYING when you claim that changing science to include your religion is not replacing science with religion.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Where or when did I use the word "fundie"???
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Experimental Creationism:

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/314483/Experimental_Creationism
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
You can show in an experiment that one species can evolve into two. But no creationist has ever shown how some god "creates" an animal in an experiment.


but you're comparing apples to oranges.

You're saying you want me to produce a god in an experiement right? Well I can't.

But then you compare it to making one species into two. Well I can show you that. My husband and I ended up with three more for a total of five after starting out with just two.

What you CAN'T show me is to make one species out of one to begin with with only molecules or dirt or slime. And then you have to show me how we got the dirt and slime to begin with. Can you make dirt out of nothing? How about slime? If we're going to talk beginnings, let's talk about both sides of beginnings.

You're not getting it. We HAVE THE SAME EVIDENCE on both sides. What we can't agree on is how it all started to begin with. Neither side can produce this evidence and it has to be taken on faith. Both sides.

Let's compare apples to apples here.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
One of our members has written an article that offers the thesis that banning prayer in schools somehow led to a rash of school shootings.


That would be me and with the exception of this post, I shall not defend the points made in my article on your blog.

...If there is any sense to this article, full of "reap the whirlwind" it is that the shootings could have been prevented had not the All-Merciful wanted to send a message.
......this theory, that God causes or at least permits bad things to happen to punish people because America has become increasingly secular,...


If you believe what you've written here then you have come to the wrong conclusion.

That we have done bad, sinful and evil things and that we are reaping the whirlwind for having done those bad things is not God's punishment or God's revenge upon us. That idea was brought up by Foreverserenity and both KFC and I made it clear that in this case, "reaping the whirlwind" was not GOd's revenge or punishment. Here is a cut and paste...



Foreverserenity posts# 4
While I don't agree with the kicking God out of school, and think that it is a wrong thing to have done. I don't agree that this is the reason why all those bad things have happened in school. Are you saying that God, not being allowed their, so to speak, is the reason why what has happened did?



That's not a good impression for someone who doesn't believe to read about God at all. Obviously he's vengeful then, he is, but not in that way.



KFC POSTS #7

It's more God letting us have our way. If you get a chance read Deut 28. It shows us a picture of what happens when we trust and listen to God vs what happens when we choose to turn our back on him. It's like reading the news today.

Lula posts:

KFC, I thank you and agree with your response. When people do evil things, it's their doing, not God's vengence.

Yes, this just about sums up my entire article. History shows how things were then when God was allowed IN before these Supreme Court decisions and history shows what happened as a result of kicking God OUT of schools.

LULA WRITES:
Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience,
why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to
kill strangers, classmates or even themselves.

LEAUKI POSTS #6

Are you really asking that question? Or are you really asking how you can rationalise it to yourself that secularism is the cause of that?


To me, the Supreme Court decisions declared that, in all public schools, we don't want God and His principles of right and wrong (morality) here anymore. We want man to determine what is right and wrong without God and thus, secular humanism was established in place of Christianity.

So, the US moved from George Washington's "It is impossible to rightly govern without God" to secular humanistic views that insist on such things as I delineated in my article.

What we see happening ever since the cultural and sexual revolution came into full play is a battleground between the first religion, Christianity based upon honoring God and His principles of right and wrong, and the second religion, Secular Humanism, based upon honoring man, or "self", and his ideas of right and wrong.


It's quite clear that America went from being a Christian nation to a Secular Humanist nation. As KFC said, "Look at the news today", and you'll see we've gone from honoring and worshipping God to honoring and worshipping man. Open a book, watch a movie, listen to songs, read our laws, and notice that every one upholds and promotes either one religion or the other.

We've gone from the Supreme Court decision of 1892, "Our laws and institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian..."

to the Supreme Court decisions of banning prayer, Bible reading and removing the Ten Commandments in all our public schools.

I then posted a recent article about the same occurring in England once Christianity was booted out in favor of secular humanism.

Here are a few highlights of the news today that KFC spoke about.

"The beliefs, values and virtues of Great Britain have been formed by the Christian faith" and the loss of that faith in public life has resulted not only in social breakdown, but the creation of a moral and cultural vacuum

In an article in the new political magazine Standpoint, the Rt. Rev. Dr. Michael Nazir-Ali, the Anglican Bishop of Rochester, pinpointed the "social and sexual revolution" of the 1960s orchestrated by Marxist academics, as the source of the sudden collapse of Christian values. The "endless self-indulgence" of the "new Britain" has resulted in skyrocketing rates of drunkenness, drug abuse, street violence, family breakdown.

"It is this situation that has created the moral and spiritual vacuum in which we now find ourselves. While the Christian consensus was dissolved, nothing else, except perhaps endless self-indulgence, was put in its place," he wrote.

Britain's social values such as the dignity of human life, equality before the law and freedom are developments of Christian values, the Pakistan-born Nazir-Ali said, and without their Christian foundation, will break down in favour of new belief systems based on different values.

The bishop wrote that Britain's historical reality is that it was Christianity that unified a "rabble of mutually hostile tribes, fiefdoms and kingdoms" into a nation conscious of its identity and strong enough to form a global empire. Dr. Nazir-Ali credited the rise of neo-Marxism among academics in the 1960s who orchestrated the "social and sexual revolution" to which Church leaders "all but capitulated".

Ominously, Hitchens adds, "We have a country demoralised in every sense, its people robbed of their own pride, its children deprived of stability and authority, terrifyingly ignorant of their own culture, its tottering economy largely owned from abroad, its armed forces weak, its justice system a sick joke, its masses distracted by pornography, drink and drugs, its constitution menaced, its elite in the grip of a destructive, intolerant atheism.







Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

Actually, KFC said that God did not intervene because of His being banned in schools. Granted, I do believe that secularism led to the shootings at schools (pretty much any), due to the decline of morality that accompanies it. Yes, there can be moral secular people, but it's much more rare.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

You're saying you want me to produce a god in an experiement right? Well I can't.


Too bad.


But then you compare it to making one species into two. Well I can show you that. My husband and I ended up with three more for a total of five after starting out with just two.


Really? While I know that it is possible to make one species into two in a lab, I wouldn't have expected you and your husband to be able to do something.

(I do hope that you are not referring to your own kids as a "different species" here.)


What you CAN'T show me is to make one species out of one to begin with with only molecules or dirt or slime.


Of course I can't. But how is that relevant. It is YOU who said that this is how G-d did it and that that should be taught as science.

Evolution does not say anything about the start of life, so what exactly do you want me to demonstrate?

I can assure you that once I figure out a theory (i.e. an idea that can be tested) about how to _start_ life, I will write a blog post about it and tell you as well.



And then you have to show me how we got the dirt and slime to begin with. Can you make dirt out of nothing? How about slime? If we're going to talk beginnings, let's talk about both sides of beginnings.


I am not aware of any scientific theories about how to create something out of nothing. What exactly are you referring to?

Evolution is a process that started millions of years after the beginning of the universe and the theory of evolution does not say anything at all about the beginning of the universe or even the beginning of life.

Although Richard Dawkins argues that there could be a way for replication to start I am not aware of any experiments that successfully demonstrated his idea (and hence make it into a theory).

I am sure if you follow scientific journals you will read about it should there be any results.


You're not getting it. We HAVE THE SAME EVIDENCE on both sides. What we can't agree on is how it all started to begin with. Neither side can produce this evidence and it has to be taken on faith. Both sides.


So you are arguing that since science cannot demonstrate how the universe began (which has NOTHING to do with evolution), any scientific theory should be regarded as not being supported by evidence?

I'm afraid we do not have the same evidence on both sides. Scientists CAN demonstrate how one species can be made into two. But creationists CANNOT demonstrate how a creator does it.

NEITHER parties have evidence for how the universe began. But that is quite immaterial, since we are talking about _evolution_, which has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe.


Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
(I do hope that you are not referring to your own kids as a "different species" here.)


you said nothing about "different" You said:

You can show in an experiment that one species can evolve into two. But no creationist has ever shown how some god "creates" an animal in an experiment.


A species cannot go outside its paremeters. You can produce diff dog species from one species of dog but you cannot make a cat from a dog.

Doesn't matter anyhow you are comparing apples to oranges.

Of course I can't. But how is that relevant. It is YOU who said that this is how G-d did it and that that should be taught as science.

Evolution does not say anything about the start of life, so what exactly do you want me to demonstrate?


EXACTLY. And that's what I say about creation. So why not teach both? It's only when it comes to origins this becomes an issue and neither can demonstate one over the other in a lab experiment.

I can assure you that once I figure out a theory (i.e. an idea that can be tested) about how to _start_ life, I will write a blog post about it and tell you as well.


I'll look forward to that.... :D 

volution is a process that started millions of years after the beginning of the universe and the theory of evolution does not say anything at all about the beginning of the universe or even the beginning of life.


this cannot be proved. In fact whenever a real genuine discovery is made, it's thousands of years. I've yet to see anything come forward that is proven beyond a doubt to be millions old. In fact last month there was an article about greyhounds and their history. They could only go back about 5,000 years to trace them. Interesting. That's how it usually is.

Although Richard Dawkins argues that there could be a way for replication to start I am not aware of any experiments that successfully demonstrated his idea (and hence make it into a theory).


There isn't. Everytime they try when the cells get to a certain stage, they blow up. With all this techonology and all their talk I'd think by now they could wouldn't you?

I'm afraid we do not have the same evidence on both sides. Scientists CAN demonstrate how one species can be made into two. But creationists CANNOT demonstrate how a creator does it.


yes we do. Go ask a scientist. He'll tell you. We have the same evidence. What we don't have is the same world view. We take the evidence and come up with diff conclusions. That's all. Even if a scientist can make another complete species out of a diff one (which can't be done)it still isn't in the same ballpark as what we're speaking of. You're starting with one species and telling me I have to come up with something from nothing and prove God did it. Well we both have to start at ground zero.

At your ground zero, you have to show me how you get that very first cell from nothing.

At my ground zero, I can tell you that God provided that first cell and made a human out of it.


Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

The Biblical sources for the Sun going around the Earth:

Joshua 10:12-13

12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Other Biblical quotes to support same:

Psalm 93: 1
The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and is armed with strength. The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.

But back on topic, do you worship a God that kills children to show his displeasure?

 

 

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Biblical sources for the Sun going around the Earth:
Joshua 10:12-13
12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.


This isn't about the sun going around the earth at all. This is about the sun staying still and it says so in the scripture you cited.

There are many attempts at answering this what some call a difficult passage. Did God actally halt the earth's rotation for a period of 24 hours so the sun wuld stand still in the sky? Would God have done so even if perfectly capable?

There are allegd stories about a long day in Egyptian, Chinese and Hindu cultures but are difficult to validate. Some astronomers and some space scientists have uncovered evidence for a missing day but also hard to vouch for. A couple of professors from Harvard Observatory and Yale say they had discovered a day missing from the annuals of the heavens but again can't really be substantiated. Some sugest that there was a prolongation of the day merely in he sense that the men did in one day what should have taken them two. But there are problems with some of the special vocab used in this scripture.

But I believe there is a very logical explanation and it has nothing to do with the sun going around the earth. A miracle was done here but not one that would contradict nature. Joshua 10:11 (the verse before the one you cited) helps explain. But not sure what you're trying to prove here. What is your point?

Psalm 93:1 has nothing to do with this section in Joshua. Read the verse and its contents...the Lord is clothed? My version says he puts on srength as a belt. Really a spirit is clothed? Remember Psalms is a book of poetry.

But back on topic, do you worship a God that kills children to show his displeasure?


what children are you referring to? What displeasure are you referring to?

Reply #22 from Stardock Forums Top

Lulapilgram's article (as cited) began by quoting a letter as follows:

"Dear God:
Why didn't you save the school children at..."

To which God is supposed to have responded

"I am not allowed in schools.

Sincerely,
God"

She then cites Supreme Court decisions, Dr. Spock, etc. and concludes "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."

God could have stopped the shootings but did not because of the banning of prayer is school, according to Lulapilgram posted.

I cited statements from Hagee, Falwell, Robertson, et al that supports this type of thinking.

Why are you asking what we are discussing?

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

you said nothing about "different"


Making "one into two" implies "different". What do you think are "two species" if not "two different species"?



A species cannot go outside its parameters. You can produce diff dog species from one species of dog but you cannot make a cat from a dog.


Says who that a species cannot go outside its parameters?

Of course you cannot make a cat from a dog. But you can make, over hundreds of thousands of years, a cat and a dog out of a common ancestor.

That's the theory and the experiment supports the theory.

If the descendants of one species form two groups that cannot interbreed (i.e. two species or "two different species"), both groups will continue to change and evolve. And over a period of millions of years their respective ancestors will be very different from each other.

Fossils show us that the process we can observe in a lab also happened over millions of years on earth.

But I am still waiting for you to show us the experiment that demonstrates Creation.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

yes we do. Go ask a scientist. He'll tell you.


Ask which scientist?

How can you demonstrate how a creator creates two species?
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

Why are you asking what we are discussing?


G-d blessed her with forgetfulness.