Jump to content


Abortionists Having To Face Truth.


  • Please log in to reply
157 replies to this topic

#21 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 12 October 2005 - 01:47 PM

The Haeckel pictures are a joke


How so? They are anatomically accurate enough, or are you referring to the conclusions made from them at the time?

and basically one more proof that atheists cannot be trusted!


A ridiculous concept, if that were translated to all aspects of life, a priest who likes little boys a little too much would be proof that all religious people are paedophiles,….. really!

They even use lies to support their religion! I would never trust an atheist when it comes to evolution. All they want is to refute God and they use anything they can find.


Perhaps if you ask questions you may find out that your preconceptions are wrong on this matter. I.e.
Atheism is not a religion,
Refuting the existence of God is a position some atheists do peruse, but is not welcome in this forum.
Some religious people do not see a conflict with evolution and God.

P.S. is still don’t see what any of this has to do with abortion/facing truth and the connection to Haeckel?

#22 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 October 2005 - 07:55 PM

How so? They are anatomically accurate enough, or are you referring to the conclusions made from them at the time?


So even haeckel admitted to doing wrong, in a trial held by his own school that found him guilty of fraud, is ok? So in that one sentence, you are showing two standards for rejecting and accepting what has been determined a fraud?

Do frauds become non-frauds because science says so? Has science become the dictator of law? Through all that happened with the haeckel's drawings, what would you deem to be ok, even though the intent was never to tell the truth?

#23 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 12 October 2005 - 08:16 PM

View Post

Even if Haeckel's drawings reflected reality, what would that prove? The entire ToE is based on men's imagination and philosophical interpretions, not on any hard scientific evidence.

#24 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 October 2005 - 02:17 PM

So even haeckel admitted to doing wrong, in a trial held by his own school that found him guilty of fraud, is ok? So in that one sentence, you are showing two standards for rejecting and accepting what has been determined a fraud?

Do frauds become non-frauds because science says so? Has science become the dictator of law? Through all that happened with the haeckel's drawings, what would you deem to be ok, even though the intent was never to tell the truth?


Lets for the moment presume that what you have stated is 100% true in every detail. What conclusion can be drawn from this:

Haeckel got found out, the fraud exposed, truth triumphs. To me this is a good thing and only goes to show that in all walks of life there are those who are less than honest. I don’t see how this reflects badly on science in general.

#25 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 14 October 2005 - 11:37 AM

Haeckel got found out, the fraud exposed, truth triumphs.  To me this is a good thing and only goes to show that in all walks of life there are those who are less than honest.  I don’t see how this reflects badly on science in general.

Haeckel's deception is not an isolated example of fraud perpetuated in the name of ToE. The entire mindset of evolutionary thinkers is one shrouded in bias and arrogance. Scientists should be free thinkers, skeptics, eagerly searching for flaws or inconsistencies in current thinking. They should not be emotionally attached to a theory. I have never personally spoken to an evolutionist that had a shred of open-mindedness. Anyone who professes to be a scientist but only presents the perspective of orthodox Darwinism is a con man. To suggest that there is uninimity of agreement among all objective scientists, or to compare the authentication of ToE to such things as the law of gravity, is a bald faced lie. What we have in high schools and universities today constitutes nothing less than state-sponsored propaganda.

#26 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 October 2005 - 12:51 AM

Lets for the moment presume that what you have stated is 100% true in every detail. What conclusion can be drawn from this:

Haeckel got found out, the fraud exposed, truth triumphs.  To me this is a good thing and only goes to show that in all walks of life there are those who are less than honest.  I don’t see how this reflects badly on science in general.

View Post


Would you apply that same principle to K*nt H*vind?

Or was some of his less than honest stuff worse than Haeckel?

What I'm trying to point out is the "double standard" used when a creationist happens to do the same as a scientist. I see this at "every" science forum or website I visit.

#27 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 16 October 2005 - 01:38 PM

Haeckel's deception is not an isolated example of fraud perpetuated in the name of ToE.


The only others I am aware of is the Piltdown man hoax, and some of the recent Chinese discoveries (not by scientists by the way). Do you have any others?


The entire mindset of evolutionary thinkers is one shrouded in bias and arrogance. Scientists should be free thinkers, skeptics, eagerly searching for flaws or inconsistencies in current thinking. They should not be emotionally attached to a theory.

I disagree, evolution is supported by the evidence. I have yet to see evidence that disproves, or provides for, a better theory, if you think you have some evidence we can discuss it’s merits, that’s what this forum was created for.


I have never personally spoken to an evolutionist that had a shred of open-mindedness. Anyone who professes to be a scientist but only presents the perspective of orthodox Darwinism is a con man. To suggest that there is uninimity of agreement among all objective scientists, or to compare the authentication of ToE to such things as the law of gravity, is a bald faced lie. What we have in high schools and universities today constitutes nothing less than state-sponsored propaganda.


I’m afraid there is little to discuss here, your personal opinion you have on this matter is a private affair, however if you wish to discuss the philosophic aspects of evolution in the schools there is a topic for that.

#28 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 16 October 2005 - 01:51 PM

Would you apply that same principle to K*nt H*vind?

Or was some of his less than honest stuff worse than Haeckel?

What I'm trying to point out is the "double standard" used when a creationist happens to do the same as a scientist. I see this at "every" science forum or website I visit.


It’s difficult to make the same accusation of dishonesty to a creationist, because they may be convinced that they are in position of “the truth”. That’s not the same thing as lying. Only the individual in these cases will know if they are lying, i.e. pulling of some scam (or jumping onto the bandwagon) to sell books.

The differences is this, Science is compelled to follow the evidence, if you deliberately falsify the evidence that’s about as close as scientific heresy as there is and the minimum punishment would be loss of reputation.

For the likes of K*nt H*vind, how can some one make the same sort of claim that he is lying?, all he has to do is say, “I don’t agree with your interpretation”, “this is my interpretation”. Provided that is what he really honestly believes deep down, then I don’t consider him to be a liar, ill informed maybe, but defiantly not a liar.

#29 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 16 October 2005 - 05:01 PM

  I disagree, evolution is supported by the evidence.  I have yet to see evidence that disproves, or provides for, a better theory, if you think you have some evidence we can discuss it’s merits, that’s what this forum was created for.

The theory of evolution is riddled with innumerable scientific fallacies, and I will elaborate on only one at this time. The theory of evolution is absolutely destroyed by abiogenesis. There is simply no possible way that a cell could evolve on its own. You utterly fail to face the issue squarely. Every attempt ever put fourth to explain how this might have happened offers suggestions that are in absolute defiance of known laws of physics and probability. Critical hurdles are always glossed over. Rather than honestly dealing with this insurmountable hurdle to evolution, you brush off the evidence and attempt to appeal to my imagination and faith to just accept it based on what you suppose as "evidence" to support other aspects of ToE., despite the fact that any attempt to explain how abiogenesis hypothetically happened makes no rational sense.

Any scientific theory can be disproven if one irrefutable flaw is found. The fact that abiogenesis is impossible is irrefutable. If not, I would challenge anyone to prove that it is possible. You have no empiric evidence that a proto-cell has ever existed, nor any conceptual model of how such an organism could have come about. Therefore, you have nothing.

#30 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 17 October 2005 - 02:10 PM

The theory of evolution is riddled with innumerable scientific fallacies, and I will elaborate on only one at this time. The theory of evolution is absolutely destroyed by abiogenesis. There is simply no possible way that a cell could evolve on its own.


Well you sound very certain, what evidence do you have that supports that conclusion? but as we have a discussion on the topic already let’s no bring it up again in this one. Please keep this topic about Hackel.

#31 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 07 November 2005 - 08:19 PM

How so? They are anatomically accurate enough, or are you referring to the conclusions made from them at the time?
A ridiculous concept, if that were translated to all aspects of life, a priest who likes little boys a little too much would be proof that all religious people are paedophiles,….. really!
Perhaps if you ask questions you may find out that your preconceptions are wrong on this matter.  I.e.
Atheism is not a religion,
Refuting the existence of God is a position some atheists do peruse, but is not welcome in this forum.
Some religious people do not see a conflict with evolution and God.

P.S.  is still don’t see what any of this has to do with abortion/facing truth and the connection to Haeckel?

View Post


Of course atheists want to try to refute the aspect of God, they like any other atheistic outlooking person love their sin and want to not be accountable to God. But just because they try to fool themselves into trying to believe he's not real, does not change the fact that he is.

Evolutionists are nothing more than atheists who try to explain God away with an imagined story that makes no sense, The man who discovered DNA, admitted it was to well designed and to complex to have happened by chance as evolution would attempt to suggest, so he decided aliens must have designed it, and then it started evolving. Ok now, if that's not an anything but God view-point I don't know what is.

It's kinda funny, and it's kinda sad that people would hide from the light like that, so desperate to want to hang onto a life they decide the morals in.
Fact facts people, the bible is literal history starting in Genesis, and science is a man made method, with great limitations, and is insignificant next to God's power and reality.

in Him,
Louie Buren <><
http://www.AnswersDepot.com
http://CenterUniverse.blogspot.com

Attached Files



#32 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 08 November 2005 - 10:14 AM

Of course atheists want to try to refute the aspect of God, they like any other atheistic outlooking person love their sin and want to not be accountable to God. But just because they try to fool themselves into trying to believe he's not real, does not change the fact that he is.

Evolutionists are nothing more than atheists who try to explain God away with an imagined story that makes no sense, The man who discovered DNA, admitted it was to well designed and to complex to have happened by chance as evolution would attempt to suggest, so he decided aliens must have designed it, and then it started evolving. Ok now, if that's not an anything but God view-point I don't know what is.

It's kinda funny, and it's kinda sad that people would hide from the light like that, so desperate to want to hang onto a life they decide the morals in.
Fact facts people, the bible is literal history starting in Genesis, and science is a man made method, with great limitations, and is insignificant next to God's power and reality.

in Him,
Louie Buren <><
http://www.AnswersDepot.com
http://CenterUniverse.blogspot.com

View Post

Great Post.
Evolutionists selectively filter the evidence. They believe it because they want to, not because of any real evidence in nature. They ignore all negative evidence or vainly attempt to explain it by vague ad hoc theories that make no rational sense.
Did you notice how Chance justified Haeckel’s drawings? Evolutionists see a need to propagate fraudulent information and then they justify it because they “know” the theory’s true, and therefore will use whatever means necessary to convince others. The entire ToE is laced with deception and exaggeration as will as numerous scientific fallacies.
You have to realize that atheists believe that, as with everything else, moral values evolved and thus there is nothing wrong with lying, cheating, or whatever… as long as survival of the species is pre-eminent.

#33 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 08 November 2005 - 02:32 PM

Of course atheists want to try to refute the aspect of God, they like any other atheistic outlooking person love their sin and want to not be accountable to God. But just because they try to fool themselves into trying to believe he's not real, does not change the fact that he is.


what sin are you implying – denial of God? Or something else?

Evolutionists are nothing more than atheists who try to explain God away with an imagined story that makes no sense, The man who discovered DNA, admitted it was to well designed and to complex to have happened by chance as evolution would attempt to suggest, so he decided aliens must have designed it, and then it started evolving. Ok now, if that's not an anything but God view-point I don't know what is.


Evolution makes sense to me and millions of others, religious or not.

It's kinda funny, and it's kinda sad that people would hide from the light like that, so desperate to want to hang onto a life they decide the morals in.


Well I’m not hiding from anything you care to discuss, the floor is yours ………..

Fact facts people, the bible is literal history starting in Genesis, and science is a man made method, with great limitations, and is insignificant next to God's power and reality.


Yet this man made method is responsible for every bit of technology at out finger tips!



Your thumbnail link is incredibly insensitive. Poor form lionheart209 .

#34 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 08 November 2005 - 02:38 PM

[quote name='Springer' date='Nov 9 2005, 03:14 AM']
[quote] Did you notice how Chance justified Haeckel’s drawings? Evolutionists see a need to propagate fraudulent information <snip>[/quote]

Well I certainly did not intend for that to happen, perhaps if you refer me to the text in question, I can clarify the matter.



[quote] You have to realize that atheists believe that, as with everything else, moral values evolved and thus there is nothing wrong with lying, cheating, or whatever… as long as survival of the species is pre-eminent. [/quote]

I do not believe this for an instant – if you believe this to be true start a new topic and I will state my position on this matter of morals.

#35 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 08 November 2005 - 05:19 PM

Don't think they will use human clones will be used in experiments that were for animals?

Why did they experiment with making cloned fish with no heads? No head means they feel no pain. So you could just do whatever until they died, and say it was painless, and some how, that would make it right and moral. but will human clones be our doom? If their immune system is weak, this could allow diseases we have not seen in years make a come back. Plus new ones to form as well. We could wipe out our own kind just for the greed of knowledge and money.

Example: Even wonder why the Incas just disappeared from the face of the earth? If you look at how far advanced they were, in experiments they did on humans. I believe they actually open themselves up to a sickness that killed them so fast, you could not tell what happened to them. So fast that they were so scared, they did not even record what had happened. so it remains a mystery. We could do the same with human clones.

Clones and the end times:
Will the human clone have a soul? According to the word of God, the anti-Christ will be possessed by the devil himself. If the clone has no soul, it would explain how this could be done. How death (him being mortally wounded, and make a full recovery) has no control over him. Being conceived in a way that God did not make us to be, would make the clone with no soul. Why? God says that He knew us before we were born.  Which means born in the way God intended. And when God referred to people multiplying, He always made references to their seed. But guess what? The clone has no seed of a man.

A clone only has life because someone started the cell splitting using a low voltage jolt to the woman's egg. Birth outside the way the Creator designed us.

God's word also says: He (the anti-Christ) will not have need of a woman. Some thought this would mean that he would be g*y. But, a clone often is a morphodite (having both male and female organs that don't work). How can you have S@xual desires if your s@x organs don't work? Also, this would also go along with what happened when angels (Satan's angels) had s@x with women and had a race of giants. What happened to these angels?

2 peter 2:4. For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of DARKNESS, to be reserved unto judgment;

Being in chains, means that God does not want this to ever happen again. So the seed of Satan (anti-Christ in the flesh) cannot be multiplied because he is a clone, and his s@x organs don't work. For if Satan did have a body fully functional, what do you think he would do with it?

So will the anti-Christ be a clone? It all seems to fit.

View Post



Hey ADMIN3,

I guess that's a possibility, I always imagined that the anti-Christ would be the CEO of the ACLU or something. :)
I actually don't think people can be cloned the way they clone animals.
If it was attempted, I think it would fail, due to what you stated, God created people with a soul, and that can't be cloned and is essential for life to be created in a human form.

And for life to be created correctly and infallibly it needs to be done by God or else it's not going to work.

my 2 cents :)

Louie Buren <><
My Webpage

Attached Files



#36 Grengor

Grengor

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • California

Posted 28 November 2005 - 07:04 PM

The Haeckel pictures are a joke and basically one more proof that atheists cannot be trusted! They even use lies to support their religion! I would never trust an atheist when it comes to evolution. All they want is to refute God and they use anything they can find.

View Post


Would you trust a Christian when it comes to Evolution then? What if they end up saying the exact same thing regarding evolution?

#37 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 December 2005 - 12:12 AM

Would you trust a Christian when it comes to Evolution then? What if they end up saying the exact same thing regarding evolution?

View Post


Evolution is evolution regardless of who backs it up. God never wrote in His word that we evolved. And how much of God's word do you have to omit for evolution and old earth to work? Genesis chapters one and two.

Also, we get people in here that pose as christians who believe evolution but are really atheist. I hope your not one of those. :D

#38 Grengor

Grengor

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • California

Posted 22 December 2005 - 04:21 PM

Evolution is evolution regardless of who backs it up. God never wrote in His word that we evolved. And how much of God's word do you have to omit for evolution and old earth to work? Genesis chapters one and two.

View Post


He also never wrote that burritos at 2 AM are good, but they still are.

Omit? My word no.

#39 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 20 March 2009 - 09:57 AM

That's pretty amazing. I live about an hour north of Monroeville.

View Post


I’ve been watching this story on-and -off for some time now: http://www.dr-tiller.com/

And, the reason I’m putting it here is because, “I believe” that the de-evolution of morality (or moral decline) amongst the de-sensitized in this country (and world) is brought on by moral relativism.

And, that moral relativism was escalated by the notion of evolution, and the secularization it spawned. We tell our kids they are animals. We tell our kid that unborn children are nothing more than blobs of flesh. Then, when we don’t like those animals or unborn children anymore, we throw them in the trash. But, we hypocritically postulate saving the whales.

#40 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 20 March 2009 - 09:57 AM

I’ve been watching this story on-and -off for some time now: http://www.dr-tiller.com/

And, the reason I’m putting it here is because, “I believe” that the de-evolution of morality (or moral decline) amongst the de-sensitized in this country (and world) is brought on by moral relativism.

And, that moral relativism was escalated by the notion of evolution, and the secularization it spawned. We tell our kids they are animals. We tell our kid that unborn children are nothing more than blobs of flesh. Then, when we don’t like those animals or unborn children anymore, we throw them in the trash. But, we hypocritically postulate saving the whales.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users