Evolution is a hoax

[BADecker]

1. Abiogenesis (The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.)

2. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB035.html

3. The theory of Mendel has provided a great contribution to the theory of evolution

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquired_characteristic https://www.nextgurukul.in/nganswers/ask-question/answer/Acquired-traits-are-incapable-of-directing-evolution-Justify-the-statement/Diversity-in-Living-Organisms/86260.htm

Just like you can read things that supposedly disprove evolution, you can also read rebuttals of them on google, why don't you ever read those I wonder?

1. Wow. Life evolved because life exist? Wow... That is deeply religious statement.
2. What is this? No abstract, no conclusion. What is that? They had to hoax the original experiment by finding the missing vials in 2008. Why? Because there were no other ways to cheat the truth - the fraud was needed.
3. Sorry, but... it is probably the same reasoning as in point 1. Am I right? Because statisticly it make it less probable. Still it does not make it impossible.
4. "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name."

1. Actually, life evolved but we don't know for sure how life originated, is it really that hard to understand? I thought it was quite a self explanatory point.

2. ?? Your book is a hoax made by idiots thousands of years ago.

3. ''Because statisticly it make it less probable. Still it does not make it impossible.'' Tell that to badecker

4. I provided 2 links, do you and badecker only see wikipedia when you read something?

You yourself know that you don't know for a fact that life evolved. You believe it because some other people told it to you. And you are so happy about it that you won't even check out the fact that they are talking nonsense. You would rather simply believe. If you were honest, you would stop troll spreading your religion as fact, when you don't know that it is fact.

Evolution is a hoax, and you are helping to prove it.

[1713528792]

1713528792

[1713528792]

1713528792

[1713528792]

1713528792

[1713528792]

1713528792

[Przemax]

1. Abiogenesis (The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.)

2. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB035.html

3. The theory of Mendel has provided a great contribution to the theory of evolution

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquired_characteristic https://www.nextgurukul.in/nganswers/ask-question/answer/Acquired-traits-are-incapable-of-directing-evolution-Justify-the-statement/Diversity-in-Living-Organisms/86260.htm

Just like you can read things that supposedly disprove evolution, you can also read rebuttals of them on google, why don't you ever read those I wonder?

1. Wow. Life evolved because life exist? Wow... That is deeply religious statement.
2. What is this? No abstract, no conclusion. What is that? They had to hoax the original experiment by finding the missing vials in 2008. Why? Because there were no other ways to cheat the truth - the fraud was needed.
3. Sorry, but... it is probably the same reasoning as in point 1. Am I right? Because statisticly it make it less probable. Still it does not make it impossible.
4. "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name."

1. Actually, life evolved but we don't know for sure how life originated, is it really that hard to understand? I thought it was quite a self explanatory point.

2. ?? Your book is a hoax made by idiots thousands of years ago.

3. ''Because statisticly it make it less probable. Still it does not make it impossible.'' Tell that to badecker

4. I provided 2 links, do you and badecker only see wikipedia when you read something?

1. It is a sylogism.
2. My point was - your link gives no info for the reader.
3. Ok. He is just a man. Not all of those points are about impossibility, some of them are about improbability.
4. Sorry I thought it was one link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquired_characteristic - geneticists are talking about phenotypes and genotypes. The so called hereditary is more in touch with phenotypes.

The answer in the second link:
 
a) Acquired traits mostly are concerned with somatic cells.

b) Acquired traits cannot be carry forwarded to next generation as there is no change in the genetic material of the reproductive cells.

c) Acquired traits mainly include changes in the behaviour which are due to life style followed by an organism.

Is not b) point proving the Baddecker point? And isnt the c) proving phenotype concept?

[BADecker]

1. Abiogenesis (The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.)

2. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB035.html

3. The theory of Mendel has provided a great contribution to the theory of evolution

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquired_characteristic https://www.nextgurukul.in/nganswers/ask-question/answer/Acquired-traits-are-incapable-of-directing-evolution-Justify-the-statement/Diversity-in-Living-Organisms/86260.htm

Just like you can read things that supposedly disprove evolution, you can also read rebuttals of them on google, why don't you ever read those I wonder?

1. Wow. Life evolved because life exist? Wow... That is deeply religious statement.
2. What is this? No abstract, no conclusion. What is that? They had to hoax the original experiment by finding the missing vials in 2008. Why? Because there were no other ways to cheat the truth - the fraud was needed.
3. Sorry, but... it is probably the same reasoning as in point 1. Am I right? Because statisticly it make it less probable. Still it does not make it impossible.
4. "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name."

1. Actually, life evolved but we don't know for sure how life originated, is it really that hard to understand? I thought it was quite a self explanatory point.

2. ?? Your book is a hoax made by idiots thousands of years ago.

3. ''Because statisticly it make it less probable. Still it does not make it impossible.'' Tell that to badecker

4. I provided 2 links, do you and badecker only see wikipedia when you read something?

1. It is a sylogism.
2. My point was - your link gives no info for the reader.
3. Ok. He is just a man. Not all of those points are about impossibility, some of them are about improbability.
4. Sorry I thought it was one link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquired_characteristic - geneticists are talking about phenotypes and genotypes. The so called hereditary is more in touch with phenotypes.

The answer in the second link:
 
a) Acquired traits mostly are concerned with somatic cells.

b) Acquired traits cannot be carry forwarded to next generation as there is no change in the genetic material of the reproductive cells.

c) Acquired traits mainly include changes in the behaviour which are due to life style followed by an organism.

Is not b) point proving the Baddecker point? And isnt the c) proving phenotype concept?

In addition, God is a giving God. but, at the same time He can't deny Himself. So, what does He do?

Because God is giving, and because nobody can change this quality of His, He gives evolutionists the answer that they want to see, by blinding their minds to the truth. After all, He isn't going to deny Himself by changing the truth, or by denying evolutionists what they ask for and changing His nature thereby.

[Przemax]

I need to give a remark about the first answer.

It is a syllogism of how you presented it. It would not be the syllogism, and the way you wanted to present, if you would say:

1. Abiogenesis (The theory of evolution COULD apply (IF TRUE) as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.)

Otherwise it is a sylogism and gives the reader wrong impression.

In other words you say - you have no idea how life originated, it could be God, and your evolution might be not true, but you want to believe it.

[Astargath]

I need to give a remark about the first answer.

It is a syllogism of how you presented it. It would not be the syllogism, and the way you wanted to present, if you would say:

1. Abiogenesis (The theory of evolution COULD apply (IF TRUE) as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.)

Otherwise it is a sylogism and gives the reader wrong impression.

In other words you say - you have no idea how life originated, it could be God, and your evolution might be not true, but you want to believe it.

Actually even if God created life, evolution would still be true and it's a fact that a lot of religious people accept evolution.

[Przemax]

I need to give a remark about the first answer.

It is a syllogism of how you presented it. It would not be the syllogism, and the way you wanted to present, if you would say:

1. Abiogenesis (The theory of evolution COULD apply (IF TRUE) as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.)

Otherwise it is a sylogism and gives the reader wrong impression.

In other words you say - you have no idea how life originated, it could be God, and your evolution might be not true, but you want to believe it.

Actually even if God created life, evolution would still be true and it's a fact that a lot of religious people accept evolution.

Actually even if God created life, evolution COULD still be true and it's a fact that a lot of religious people accept evolution.

Here you go.

It would defile the Ockham razor and it would be irrational... but hey logically there is such a possibility, and Im open to everything, believe it or not.

Right now I would say - it is highly... terribly against the odds to have happened. But hey - people are hugely against the odds to be creationists as well. And to find two of them on the same forum is rare. So things can happen despite the odds.

[Astargath]

I need to give a remark about the first answer.

It is a syllogism of how you presented it. It would not be the syllogism, and the way you wanted to present, if you would say:

1. Abiogenesis (The theory of evolution COULD apply (IF TRUE) as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.)

Otherwise it is a sylogism and gives the reader wrong impression.

In other words you say - you have no idea how life originated, it could be God, and your evolution might be not true, but you want to believe it.

Actually even if God created life, evolution would still be true and it's a fact that a lot of religious people accept evolution.

Actually even if God created life, evolution COULD still be true and it's a fact that a lot of religious people accept evolution.

Here you go.

It would defile the Ockham razor and it would be irrational... but hey logically there is such a possibility, and Im open to everything, believe it or not.

Right now I would say - it is highly... terribly against the odds to have happened. But hey - people are hugely against the odds to be creationists as well. And to find two of them on the same forum is rare. So things can happen despite the odds.

Making up odds isn't a good path to the truth. Evolution is a fact not odds. I don't know why you are against it so much, it's not an ideology, it doesn't hurt anyone, just because it opposes your childish beliefs? All the applications as well like medicine with antibiotic resistance or artificial selection and even computer science, why do you dislike that?

[djBeatcoin]

I'm sure Nietzsche didn't take the Bible literally.

Why do people talk about something they have no idea about? Especially about the difficult subject like Nietzsche literature? You had not expected for a christian to know the writtings of Nietzsche? I do not have to agree with what I read, unlike evolutionists that refuse to read anything critical against evolution.

I mentioned Nietzsche's saying of the death of God only to illustrate that religious zealots, literal believers and ritualists are kind of similar to modern creationists because they lack deeper understanding of religion. Shallow (literal) understanding kills religion and makes it look ridiculous to most educated people. This is my point and Nietzsche's, if I remember well.
And I wouldn't say Jesus took the Bible so seriously. He violated many Jewish taboos and rules during his life. He summarized 613 Jewish commandments into one Golden rule. After all, Christianity came out from His upgrading of the Old Testament. Judaism was a tribal ethnocentric religion and Old Testament reflects that, while New Testament opens the level of a world religion free from many tribal taboos and superstitions (not from all).
What you call "luke warm" I call "open towards new perspectives". But literal reading cuts you the trouble of thinking for yourself, you can just take things as they are written because of their traditional authority. I choose the way of inquiry, scepticism and knowledge.

[BADecker]

I'm sure Nietzsche didn't take the Bible literally.

Why do people talk about something they have no idea about? Especially about the difficult subject like Nietzsche literature? You had not expected for a christian to know the writtings of Nietzsche? I do not have to agree with what I read, unlike evolutionists that refuse to read anything critical against evolution.

I mentioned Nietzsche's saying of the death of God only to illustrate that religious zealots, literal believers and ritualists are kind of similar to modern creationists because they lack deeper understanding of religion. Shallow (literal) understanding kills religion and makes it look ridiculous to most educated people. This is my point and Nietzsche's, if I remember well.
And I wouldn't say Jesus took the Bible so seriously. He violated many Jewish taboos and rules during his life. He summarized 613 Jewish commandments into one Golden rule. After all, Christianity came out from His upgrading of the Old Testament. Judaism was a tribal ethnocentric religion and Old Testament reflects that, while New Testament opens the level of a world religion free from many tribal taboos and superstitions (not from all).
What you call "luke warm" I call "open towards new perspectives". But literal reading cuts you the trouble of thinking for yourself, you can just take things as they are written because of their traditional authority. I choose the way of inquiry, scepticism and knowledge.

You entirely ignore the fact that according to the complete definition of religion, Nietzsche and evolution and atheism are religion, just as formal religions are religion. See #6 at Dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t): "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice."

Now find some proof of evolution, or become honest with yourself.

Evolution is a hoax.

[BADecker]

Making up odds isn't a good path to the truth. Evolution is a fact not odds. I don't know why you are against it so much, it's not an ideology, it doesn't hurt anyone, just because it opposes your childish beliefs? All the applications as well like medicine with antibiotic resistance or artificial selection and even computer science, why do you dislike that?

Here you go again, calling scientists stupid. After all, they haven't found one proof for evolution, and very few evidences for evolution that might fit the evolution idea better than they fit anything else. And it's been well over a hundred years that they have been looking scientifically, and thousands of years that they have been looking without applying modern science.

Come on! Give us even one proof, please! You and your childish beliefs! Evolution is, at best, a religion. But really...

Evolution is a hoax.

[Przemax]

Making up odds isn't a good path to the truth. Evolution is a fact not odds. I don't know why you are against it so much, it's not an ideology, it doesn't hurt anyone, just because it opposes your childish beliefs? All the applications as well like medicine with antibiotic resistance or artificial selection and even computer science, why do you dislike that?

Im not against it at all. Or maybe not more than any human made idols. All of the idols are just mere imaginations and are real only in the mind of its believers. Im not one of the believer.

Its like cult of the flag. Someone might ask me - why are you against the cult of the flag or any such a thing. You marvel the creature or things that creatures made and not the creator of all. Thats all.

I mentioned Nietzsche's saying of the death of God only to illustrate that religious zealots, literal believers and ritualists are kind of similar to modern creationists because they lack deeper understanding of religion. Shallow (literal) understanding kills religion and makes it look ridiculous to most educated people. This is my point and Nietzsche's, if I remember well.
And I wouldn't say Jesus took the Bible so seriously. He violated many Jewish taboos and rules during his life. He summarized 613 Jewish commandments into one Golden rule. After all, Christianity came out from His upgrading of the Old Testament. Judaism was a tribal ethnocentric religion and Old Testament reflects that, while New Testament opens the level of a world religion free from many tribal taboos and superstitions (not from all).
What you call "luke warm" I call "open towards new perspectives". But literal reading cuts you the trouble of thinking for yourself, you can just take things as they are written because of their traditional authority. I choose the way of inquiry, scepticism and knowledge.

Why do you call my beliefs shallow? You don't know me ok? You ignored my whole post. Why? Should I post it again?

You were talking about Nietzsche so I told you - you know nothing about. Now you say that Nietzsche wanted to say what you want to say and not what he wanted to say?

You do the same with the Bible. You do the same with me. You caricature everything you talk about to suit you.

You are exactly the "last man" that Nietzsche was talking about. And the same men that Bible says:

2 Tim 4:3

"3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;"

But literal reading cuts you the trouble of thinking for yourself, you can just take things as they are written because of their traditional authority. I choose the way of inquiry, scepticism and knowledge.

You choose the way of the itching ears my brother. I choose not the traditions of man. You do.

Judaism was a tribal ethnocentric religion and Old Testament reflects that, while New Testament opens the level of a world religion free from many tribal taboos and superstitions (not from all).

Are you talking to me or with Nietzsche? You tried to put the words in Nietzsche mouth. Have I said - I am so happy what Izrealites were? No. I was not. But not because of what you say, but because of what Christ said about them. He had said they abandoned Tora(literary meaning) in favour of Talmud (human interpretations and metaphors).

So it is not only you are not agreeing with me. You are not agreeing with the Nietzsche, you are not even agreeing with Christ. And you tell me I do something wrong.... well..... Remove the beam of wood from your eye ok?

Btw why literal commandments cannot be summarise into one commandment if it leads to one being? Why do they have to be metaphorical to do so? That is silly.... completly. If you take something metaphoricly you make more out of something not less.... I wonder how people think.... really. Itching ears...

Christianity came out from His upgrading of the Old Testament.

Well... In some sense it was. But Christ took the Old Testament liteally ok? He fulfilled the law ok? He did not disband it. Or maybe you make a metaphor out of it as well...

Many things in the Bible are as well metaphorical as well as literal ok? That is the beuty of this book. And some things are purely metaphorical. If you think I take everything literaly you must take me for an idiot ok? But on the other hand if you pick what is metaphorical or you think that everything in the book is metaphorical then the John would say about you that you came from the spirit of the antichrist.

And I wouldn't say Jesus took the Bible so seriously. He violated many Jewish taboos and rules during his life.

Huh? Like what? He violated the Talmud... The metaphorical rabbinical traditions ok?

Are you talking about Sabbath? He told the accusers he was not working - he took pleasure with helping people. That was literal not working ok? Metaphoricly one can wonder if breating is working, and some had that metaphor - so they were not allowed to breath deeply on Sabbath or leave their homes.

The taboo you are talking about came from metaphoricasing the word of God. The exact same thing what you do.

[djBeatcoin]

You entirely ignore the fact that according to the complete definition of religion, Nietzsche and evolution and atheism are religion, just as formal religions are religion. See #6 at Dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t): "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice."

OMG. You are losing it. Jumping from one thing to another. Nietzsche is a philosopher. Evolution is a scientific theory (one of the greatest in terms of explanatory power). Atheism is a disbelief in God or gods.
I devotedly brush my teeth every evening and no one can convince me it's wrong, so is brushing teeth a religion, according to your bright logic?
Although I understand your point that people can be rigid in their beliefs, whatever they were. I'm not like that. I believe the most reasonable and proven scenario. And that is evolution right now.
Don't be so quick to judge people. I'm not an atheist, totally opposite - pantheist 

[BADecker]

You entirely ignore the fact that according to the complete definition of religion, Nietzsche and evolution and atheism are religion, just as formal religions are religion. See #6 at Dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t): "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice."

OMG. You are losing it. Jumping from one thing to another. Nietzsche is a philosopher. Evolution is a scientific theory (one of the greatest in terms of explanatory power). Atheism is a disbelief in God or gods.
I devotedly brush my teeth every evening and no one can convince me it's wrong, so is brushing teeth a religion, according to your bright logic?
Although I understand your point that people can be rigid in their beliefs, whatever they were. I'm not like that. I believe the most reasonable and proven scenario. And that is evolution right now.
Don't be so quick to judge people. I'm not an atheist, totally opposite - pantheist 

You just lost it. Why? This is a forum where we communicate using words. If we don't understand the meanings of words, then the forum has no meaning.

I showed you the meaning of the word religion. But you don't like the meaning. Why not? Do you simply like to have your own pet meanings for words? If that's what it is, why would you expect anyone to be able to communicate with you in a forum?

Further. Thank you for letting us know that you are not an atheist, although why you did so is unclear.

If you believe in evolution, you have a religion. Believe is what is done in religions. If you KNOW about evolution, then you know it is a hoax. Why? There isn't any proof for evolution. Even evolution evidence fits something else better than it fits evolution. The evolution scientists who study evolution know this. But since you simply believe what they say because you don't know, you have made them the high priests of your evolution religion.

[TannerChandler]

Science can be told to be as much con as religion Smiley

Your preaching science and know nothing of it, just because you saw it somewhere .

That's how conning works.

But im not conned by your madness Smiley

Not more than by preacher of any sort.

Science doesnt prove much evolution  no more than you prove anything.

You dont even know what proof is lol

Typing in caps being drunk insulting people is not really a proof of anything outside of your own madness and authority complex .

I blame your parents for yelling too much at you to show their authority.

[Astargath]

https://www.thoughtco.com/direct-evidence-for-evolution-249903
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150803-how-do-we-know-evolution-is-real

There is plenty of evidence, there are hundreds of different websites with it. I know you only believe ''answers in genesis''

[BADecker]

https://www.thoughtco.com/direct-evidence-for-evolution-249903
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150803-how-do-we-know-evolution-is-real

There is plenty of evidence, there are hundreds of different websites with it. I know you only believe ''answers in genesis''

This is interesting. All the evidence in your links is that they SAY there is evidence.

Let me say it again. There is no proof for evolution. Show us even one proof of evolution.

And also. Essentially all the evidence for evolution fits something else better.

Next, there are the many things that show evolution to be impossible.

Evolution is a hoax.

[djBeatcoin]

You just lost it. Why? This is a forum where we communicate using words. If we don't understand the meanings of words, then the forum has no meaning.

I showed you the meaning of the word religion. But you don't like the meaning. Why not? Do you simply like to have your own pet meanings for words? If that's what it is, why would you expect anyone to be able to communicate with you in a forum?

Further. Thank you for letting us know that you are not an atheist, although why you did so is unclear.

If you believe in evolution, you have a religion. Believe is what is done in religions. If you KNOW about evolution, then you know it is a hoax. Why? There isn't any proof for evolution. Even evolution evidence fits something else better than it fits evolution. The evolution scientists who study evolution know this. But since you simply believe what they say because you don't know, you have made them the high priests of your evolution religion.

Thanks for showing me what religion means. Great that you put such a complex term in one sentence, really academic approach, you should have your own class on religion on Harvard.
In line with this definition - I fully believe red traffic light means "don't go", so is it a religion? Do you see how absurd you sound when you use this definition out of its context?

Proof of evolution is all around you, in fossils, in DNA, but you think it's a hoax. Where is the proof of creationism? I don't consider ancient books as proof if they are contradicted with scientific evidence and ordinary logic. This is the difference between creationists and evolutionists.
I don't believe evolution because someone says so, but because it feels so natural and logical. After all, it feels so elegant, actually divine. But creationists cannot think of an elegant God who uses evolution, they see God with a magic wand, like kindergarten kids. But I don't have a problem with that because I accept different viewpoints. The problem is when you use the words like "hoax" for things you don't like or don't understand.

[djBeatcoin]

Why do you call my beliefs shallow? You don't know me ok? You ignored my whole post. Why? Should I post it again?

You were talking about Nietzsche so I told you - you know nothing about. Now you say that Nietzsche wanted to say what you want to say and not what he wanted to say?

You do the same with the Bible. You do the same with me. You caricature everything you talk about to suit you.

You are exactly the "last man" that Nietzsche was talking about. And the same men that Bible says:

2 Tim 4:3

"3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;"

But literal reading cuts you the trouble of thinking for yourself, you can just take things as they are written because of their traditional authority. I choose the way of inquiry, scepticism and knowledge.

You choose the way of the itching ears my brother. I choose not the traditions of man. You do.

Judaism was a tribal ethnocentric religion and Old Testament reflects that, while New Testament opens the level of a world religion free from many tribal taboos and superstitions (not from all).

Are you talking to me or with Nietzsche? You tried to put the words in Nietzsche mouth. Have I said - I am so happy what Izrealites were? No. I was not. But not because of what you say, but because of what Christ said about them. He had said they abandoned Tora(literary meaning) in favour of Talmud (human interpretations and metaphors).

So it is not only you are not agreeing with me. You are not agreeing with the Nietzsche, you are not even agreeing with Christ. And you tell me I do something wrong.... well..... Remove the beam of wood from your eye ok?

Btw why literal commandments cannot be summarise into one commandment if it leads to one being? Why do they have to be metaphorical to do so? That is silly.... completly. If you take something metaphoricly you make more out of something not less.... I wonder how people think.... really. Itching ears...

Christianity came out from His upgrading of the Old Testament.

Well... In some sense it was. But Christ took the Old Testament liteally ok? He fulfilled the law ok? He did not disband it. Or maybe you make a metaphor out of it as well...

Many things in the Bible are as well metaphorical as well as literal ok? That is the beuty of this book. And some things are purely metaphorical. If you think I take everything literaly you must take me for an idiot ok? But on the other hand if you pick what is metaphorical or you think that everything in the book is metaphorical then the John would say about you that you came from the spirit of the antichrist.

If I say you have shallow beliefs, I'm not saying you are shallow. We have to discern people from their beliefs. Failing to do so creates all the trouble in this world. You could believe the craziest thing ever, but I still respect you as a person.
Ok, forget about Nietzsche. I used him freely to make a point. It may have been misused.
I'm sad to give you the news but everything you believe (and everyone in this world) are the traditions of man. Why would only Judaeo-Christian tradition be divine? Why not Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim? I believe they are all true in various degrees. Religions are human conceptualisations of reality. They are called divine because of the sublime insights they offer.

Antichrist and all that magical stuff is missing to point of Christianity in my opinion. The point is, as I see it, that we are all brothers and that "the Kingdom is within you". It's within you, and not in old books.
Obviously, we cannot reach an agreement and that's perfectly fine. Namaste, my brother 

[Przemax]

Why do you call my beliefs shallow? You don't know me ok? You ignored my whole post. Why? Should I post it again?

You were talking about Nietzsche so I told you - you know nothing about. Now you say that Nietzsche wanted to say what you want to say and not what he wanted to say?

You do the same with the Bible. You do the same with me. You caricature everything you talk about to suit you.

You are exactly the "last man" that Nietzsche was talking about. And the same men that Bible says:

2 Tim 4:3

"3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;"

But literal reading cuts you the trouble of thinking for yourself, you can just take things as they are written because of their traditional authority. I choose the way of inquiry, scepticism and knowledge.

You choose the way of the itching ears my brother. I choose not the traditions of man. You do.

Judaism was a tribal ethnocentric religion and Old Testament reflects that, while New Testament opens the level of a world religion free from many tribal taboos and superstitions (not from all).

Are you talking to me or with Nietzsche? You tried to put the words in Nietzsche mouth. Have I said - I am so happy what Izrealites were? No. I was not. But not because of what you say, but because of what Christ said about them. He had said they abandoned Tora(literary meaning) in favour of Talmud (human interpretations and metaphors).

So it is not only you are not agreeing with me. You are not agreeing with the Nietzsche, you are not even agreeing with Christ. And you tell me I do something wrong.... well..... Remove the beam of wood from your eye ok?

Btw why literal commandments cannot be summarise into one commandment if it leads to one being? Why do they have to be metaphorical to do so? That is silly.... completly. If you take something metaphoricly you make more out of something not less.... I wonder how people think.... really. Itching ears...

Christianity came out from His upgrading of the Old Testament.

Well... In some sense it was. But Christ took the Old Testament liteally ok? He fulfilled the law ok? He did not disband it. Or maybe you make a metaphor out of it as well...

Many things in the Bible are as well metaphorical as well as literal ok? That is the beuty of this book. And some things are purely metaphorical. If you think I take everything literaly you must take me for an idiot ok? But on the other hand if you pick what is metaphorical or you think that everything in the book is metaphorical then the John would say about you that you came from the spirit of the antichrist.

If I say you have shallow beliefs, I'm not saying you are shallow. We have to discern people from their beliefs. Failing to do so creates all the trouble in this world. You could believe the craziest thing ever, but I still respect you as a person.
Ok, forget about Nietzsche. I used him freely to make a point. It may have been misused.
I'm sad to give you the news but everything you believe (and everyone in this world) are the traditions of man. Why would only Judaeo-Christian tradition be divine? Why not Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim? I believe they are all true in various degrees. Religions are human conceptualisations of reality. They are called divine because of the sublime insights they offer.

Antichrist and all that magical stuff is missing to point of Christianity in my opinion. The point is, as I see it, that we are all brothers and that "the Kingdom is within you". It's within you, and not in old books.
Obviously, we cannot reach an agreement and that's perfectly fine. Namaste, my brother  

The Kingdom is among you. That is a subtle detail but important newertheless. The devil is in the detail you know? The term was used as to not be decieved. Do not believe others. It is you who will know not some wise guy over the internet that plays with words. Its amongs you, to emphasize, that its not among them.

If you delete a large part of the Bible for your convenience sake I would not call you brother sadly, because whoever take away from that book let him be cursed.

You are just another type of gnostic. Suit yourself.

Namaste? Its hinduistic term. Everything I believe is the tradition of man? Not if you believe in Christs word. How someone calling themselve a christian can say that is beyond my understanding, not that I would wish to understand why someone is so illogical and self contradictory. Someone just is. Like many other things.

Why would only christian be divine? Because it is proven that all the rest are mere demonical imitations without the proper understanding.

Yes they are all true to some degree. It is like every succesfull lies is true to some degree. Like evolution. It is true that there is a dna, adaptation, change, natural selection etc etc.

Yes the Holy Ghost and The Kingdom of God is not in the book, but whoever keepeth the teaching of that book is to be blessed with both.

[BADecker]

You just lost it. Why? This is a forum where we communicate using words. If we don't understand the meanings of words, then the forum has no meaning.

I showed you the meaning of the word religion. But you don't like the meaning. Why not? Do you simply like to have your own pet meanings for words? If that's what it is, why would you expect anyone to be able to communicate with you in a forum?

Further. Thank you for letting us know that you are not an atheist, although why you did so is unclear.

If you believe in evolution, you have a religion. Believe is what is done in religions. If you KNOW about evolution, then you know it is a hoax. Why? There isn't any proof for evolution. Even evolution evidence fits something else better than it fits evolution. The evolution scientists who study evolution know this. But since you simply believe what they say because you don't know, you have made them the high priests of your evolution religion.

Thanks for showing me what religion means. Great that you put such a complex term in one sentence, really academic approach, you should have your own class on religion on Harvard.
In line with this definition - I fully believe red traffic light means "don't go", so is it a religion? Do you see how absurd you sound when you use this definition out of its context?

Proof of evolution is all around you, in fossils, in DNA, but you think it's a hoax. Where is the proof of creationism? I don't consider ancient books as proof if they are contradicted with scientific evidence and ordinary logic. This is the difference between creationists and evolutionists.
I don't believe evolution because someone says so, but because it feels so natural and logical. After all, it feels so elegant, actually divine. But creationists cannot think of an elegant God who uses evolution, they see God with a magic wand, like kindergarten kids. But I don't have a problem with that because I accept different viewpoints. The problem is when you use the words like "hoax" for things you don't like or don't understand.

You are welcome for the thanks. But I'm not interested in teaching a class at Harvard right now.


A couple of buddies were driving down the road one day. As they were going along, they came to a red light, but the driver didn't stop. He drove right on through. The passenger thought, "Well, everybody does that once in a while." They came to another red light, and again, the driver drove right on through like he didn't see that the light was red. His buddy casually remarked, "Who taught you to drive? That was a red light back there." The driver replied, "My brother taught me to drive, and doesn't red mean 'go' and green mean 'stop'?" His buddy, the passenger, was shocked. He said, "No, no. It's just the opposite. Red means 'stop' and green means 'go'. Your brother has it backwards. If you don't change, we're liable to get into an accident." "I see," said the drive. "I'll do it the right way from now on." As they were driving along, they came to a green light. The driver stopped. The passenger thought, What? He said, "Didn't we just go through this - red means 'stop' but green means 'go'? Why did you stop for green?" The driver said, "My brother might have been coming the other way."


All the evidence that fits evolution theory so far, fits something else better... something like adaptation.

All the so-called proof for evolution so far, has been found to not prove evolution when it is examined according to further and more complex scientific examination.

There are many things in nature and life that show that evolution in any way we can imagine it is impossible.

When we think that our brother might be coming down the road with mixed up evolution evidence, we need to slow down for the "green," not stop for it. We need to show him that the proof for evolution is all talk, even though it might be something that maintains evolution theory.

The only reason that evolution is maintained as a theory rather than simply dropped, is because some people want it to remain a theory. They want it to remain a theory for several reason, among which are:
1. They make money off the belief of people, via the universities, and the digs;
2. They remain popular and famous because of it;
3. Dropping evolution, as it should be dropped, would upset the current flow of science;
4. Dropping evolution, as it should be dropped, would upset society because of how wide-spread the evolution religion has become.
But the evolution lie needs to stop so that people can wake up and live with correct thinking.

Evolution is a pure hoax.