Richard_P_Feynman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2017
- Posts
- 1,449
Well I wouldn't call it obsolete in the sense that the scientific Community considered it to be obsolete. They still preach it like it's the gospel.
Yeah, not really.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well I wouldn't call it obsolete in the sense that the scientific Community considered it to be obsolete. They still preach it like it's the gospel.
I have. Cretinism does not work. Doesn't matter how theologically correct it may be; it doesn't work.Look it up.
Citation?Well I wouldn't call it obsolete in the sense that the scientific Community considered it to be obsolete. They still preach it like it's the gospel.
Yeah, not really.
Yeah really. And they mock Christians for not buying into it.
Yeah, not really.
Then you're not talking to a real evolutionary biologist.
Actually really. It's not obsolete, merely corrected, adjusted, refined, blended into more making sense, by blending it with the works of the creator of the science of genetics: a Friar.
Ya. thanks for that one![]()
Incidentally, you're almost certainly right, but for reasons you're not aware. Evolutionary theory strictly as envisioned by Darwin is obsolete, and has been obsolete since the Modern Synthesis.
Then you're not talking to a real evolutionary biologist.
The difference: evolutionary biology works and cretinism doesn't. Prayer is much less dependable than medicine.I've taken evolutionary biology in Collegel. I've taken evolutionary Ethology.
It's all geared to try and convince people that God is not real. It's mass propaganda if you ask me.
The difference: evolutionary biology works and cretinism doesn't. Prayer is much less dependable than medicine.
Your 'real' deity apparently doesn't benefit you, and you've said you don't expect your deity to do anything for you. Your study of evolution should have taught what happens with non-beneficial adaptations.
Uncredited and not credible.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...ting-that-carbon-14-is-found-in-materials-dat
Now go find a James O'Keefe video.
The claim that the dinosaur fossils the Paleochronology Group tested contained C-14 and soft tissues. They are well-known quacks.Which information is incorrect?
The claim that the dinosaur fossils the Paleochronology Group tested contained C-14 and soft tissues. They are well-known quacks.
The ones the quacks tested don’t.Even the Evolutionists admit that they contain soft tissue. Are they quacks too.
The ones the quacks tested don’t.
That's what "not credible" means, yes.So then the quacky evolutionsts are lying because they've found them and admitted that they had soft tissue in them. They were amazed that somehow soft dinosaur tissue survived for 70 million years. It never occurs to them that maybe it's not 70 millions years old.
That's what "not credible" means, yes.
Just like when God told Abraham that Isaac was his only son. Lies.
So Allah is real, too?Missionaries will tell you that 50-70% of the muslims that become Christians do so because of a dream or a vision or NDE from Jesus Christ visiting them. This story is an example of that:
http://www.wnd.com/2017/10/imam-tells-christians-how-demons-came-to-take-his-life/
So Allah is real, too?
The muslim god is a false god. The only true God is the Christian God. satan is behind all false gods.
What's the standing of the Jewish God then. My understanding is that Yaweh, Ahura Mazda, God and Allah are all the same.![]()
Those who are new to this thread, please read page 70.
Apostles, disciples.
Nope, you're wrong. This whole time you've been worshiping the Muslim's God.The muslims want you to think that they worship the same god as Christians and Jews do. They don't. Yaweh is the God of the Bible. allah is the muslim God. Yes it is their word for god, but it only refers to the islamic god. Never heard of ahura mazda other than the name of a car named a mazda.