The dishonesty of creationists.

[shawn001]

They did find the chromosome that split from the great apes to man, its chromosome 2#!!!


The new human evolution website from the new 20+ million dollar museam hall at the smithsonian.

Evidence of Evolution
Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human evolution, and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years. Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented. Study of human genetics show how closely related we are to other primates – in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms – and can indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, Homo sapiens, all over the world. Advances in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved.

Exciting scientific discoveries continually add to the broader and deeper public knowledge of human evolution. Find out about the latest evidence in our What’s Hot in Human Origins section.
Behavior
Explore the evidence of early human behavior—from ancient footprints to stone tools and the earliest symbols and art – along with similarities and differences in the behavior of other primate species.
3D Collection
Explore our 3D collection of fossils and artifacts.
Human Fossils
From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals. Look into our digital 3-D collection and learn about fossil human species.
Genetics
Our genes offer evidence of how closely we are related to one another – and of our species’ connection with all other organisms.
Dating
The layers that contain fossils and archeological clues can be dated by more than a dozen techniques that use the basic principles of physics, chemistry, and Earth sciences. Some techniques can even estimate the age of the ancient teeth and bones directly. Advances in dating have made human evolution very exciting!

Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program


One Species, Living Worldwide
The billions of human beings living today all belong to one species: Homo sapiens.
As in all species, there is variation among individual human beings, from size and shape to skin tone and eye color. But we are much more alike than we are different. We are, in fact, remarkably similar. The DNA of all human beings living today is 99.9% alike.

We all have roots extending back 200,000 years to the emergence of the first modern humans in Africa, and back more than 6 million years to the evolution of the earliest human species in Africa. This amazing story of adaptation and survival is written in the language of our genes, in every cell of our bodies—as well as in the fossil and behavioral evidence.

This ancient heritage is yours.

Explore the origins of modern humans in Africa about 200,000 years ago and celebrate our species’ epic journey around the world in this video: "One Species, Living Worldwide."

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/...species-living- worldwide


New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution

Homo sapiens originated in Africa 150,000 years ago and began to migrate 55,000 to 60,000 years ago. It is thought he arrived in Australia around 45,000 years before present (BP). Australia was, at the time, already colonised by homo erectus. This dispersal, from Africa to Australia through Arabia, Asia and the Malay peninsula, could have occurred at a rate of 1km per year. (Credit: Image courtesy of University Of Cambridge)


New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution

DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right
Molecular biologist Sean Carroll shows how evolution happens, one snippet of DNA at a time


One of the great triumphs of modern evolutionary science, evo devo addresses many of the key questions that were unanswerable when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, and Carroll has become a leader in this nascent field. Now a professor of molecular biology and genetics at the University of Wisconsin, he continues to decode the genes that control life’s physical forms and to explore how mutations in those genes drive evolutionary change. These days, Carroll also devotes increasing energy to telling the public about his field’s remarkable discoveries through a series of books—Endless Forms Most Beautiful, The Making of the Fittest, and the brand-new Remarkable Creatures. He spoke with DISCOVER senior editor Pamela Weintraub about what his work has taught him about Darwin, the nature of evolution, and how life really works.
It has been 150 years since Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution in On the Origin of Species, yet in some ways the concept of evolution seems more controversial than ever today. Why do you think that is?
It is a cultural issue, not a scientific one. On the science side our confidence grows yearly because we see independent lines of evidence converge. What we’ve learned from the fossil record is confirmed by the DNA record and confirmed again by embryology. But people have been raised to disbelieve evolution and to hold other ideas more precious than this knowledge. At the same time, we routinely rely on DNA to convict and exonerate criminals. We rely on DNA science for things like paternity. We rely on DNA science in the clinic to weigh our disease risks or maybe even to look at prognoses for things like cancer. DNA science surrounds us, but in this one realm we seem unwilling to accept its facts. Juries are willing to put people to death based upon the variations in DNA, but they’re not willing to understand the mechanism that creates that variation and shapes what makes humans different from other things. It’s a blindness. I think this is a phase that we’ll eventually get through. Other countries have come to peace with DNA. I don’t know how many decades or centuries it’s going to take us.

DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right | Evolution | DISCOVER Magazine


They Don't Make Homo Sapiens Like They Used To
Our species—and individual races—have recently made big evolutionary changes to adjust to new pressures.

They Don't Make Homo Sapiens Like They Used To | Human Evolution | DISCOVER Magazine

Hundreds of Human Genes Still Evolving
A comprehensive scan of the human genome finds that hundreds of our genes have undergone positive natural selection during the past 10,000 years of human evolution.

Hundreds of Human Genes Still Evolving | LiveScience

a joint statement of IAP by 68 national and international science academies lists as established scientific fact that Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old and has undergone continual change; that life, according to the evidence of earliest fossils, appeared on Earth at least 3.8 billion years ago and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin

 

[shawn001]

There have also been five mass extintion events we know about in earth's 4.57 billion year history.


Ordovician-Silurian mass extinction
The third largest extinction in Earth's history, the Ordovician-Silurian mass extinction had two peak dying times separated by hundreds of thousands of years. During the Ordovician, most life was in the sea, so it was sea creatures such as trilobites, brachiopods and graptolites that were drastically reduced in number.

Late Devonian mass extinction
Three quarters of all species on Earth died out in the Late Devonian mass extinction, though it may have been a series of extinctions over several million years, rather than a single event. Life in the shallow seas were the worst affected, and reefs took a hammering, not returning to their former glory until new types of coral evolved over 100 million years later.

Permian mass extinction
The Permian mass extinction has been nicknamed The Great Dying, since a staggering 96% of species died out. All life on Earth today is descended from the 4% of species that survived.

Triassic-Jurassic mass extinction
During the final 18 million years of the Triassic period, there were two or three phases of extinction whose combined effects created the Triassic-Jurassic mass extinction event. Climate change, flood basalt eruptions and an asteroid impact have all been blamed for this loss of life.

Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction
The Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction - also known as the K/T extinction - is famed for the death of the dinosaurs. However, many other organisms perished at the end of the Cretaceous including the ammonites, many flowering plants and the last of the pterosaurs

BBC Nature - Big Five mass extinction events

The Permian mass extinction has been nicknamed The Great Dying, since a staggering 96% of species died out. All life on Earth today is descended from the 4% of species that survived.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Theories are beliefs and ideas that has not (as of yet) evolved into or crystallized into an accepted fact; therefore, a theory is still in the workings to mature into a fact (indisputable…!).

Hope this helps…?

KIND REGARDS FROM:

THE CUP

I have posted this many times in the past, but will do so again for your educational benefit.

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon tested hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

SOURCE

To dismiss the meaning of Scientific Theory, or to attempt to compartmentalize biological evolution and the entire Theory of Evolution into a "Theory of Human Evolution" is potentially dishonest and reveals an ignorance of the Scientific Method.

 

[TheCup]

Correct me if I misintepret what you say, but are you suggesting that a huge majority of all scientists don't believe in human evolution or at least don't believe that there is any evidence for it?

Hello mycorrhiza:


That’s what I said...

But, ya see, one has to also take under account here, that overall understanding (as listed above) is actually based upon and directly according to the last scientific gathering and meeting of scientific researchers, which was based upon the overall mythological findings and long ranged current discoveries, within The Theory of Human Evolution concept.

Which this undestanding was also determined by a condenesed collective analysis that was openly presented to the board of scientific members presented by some 34 different scientific researchers throughout America, all of whom also attended the meeting in 1997; of which, I personally attended that same scientific symposium held in Washington DC, 1997. Of course, I attended the meeting as part of a ongoing 17 year research and close investigation into the subject matter at hand, as follows: "Man and Monkey or Monkey's into Man"---1997.

According to 22 geneticists who specialize in many different scientific fields of genetic based research, most scientists attending reported they could not confirm neither determine any genome likeness shared between the 48 chromosomal (genetic-based) accountings within the simian species chemical based composites, when closely compared to the more lower account of 46 currently known chromosomal (genetic-based) accountings currently existing within the genetics of the human genome factors.

The conclusion was clear; the human species (which is made up of 46 chromosomes embedded within the DNA and RNA genetic factors) could not have logically nor genetically evolved from a 48 based chromosome counting of genetic impletions, found to reside within the RNA and DNA genetic factors of the semian order of life on planet earth.

That is what I had discovered so far, and also up to this date anyway it remains the same.

However, do you have any more information to add…? I would be quite absolutely excited to learn of it…?

KIND REGARDS FROM:

THE CUP

 

[secret2]

Just a very quick question CUP: according to your knowledge, is fossil evidence the only kind of evidence that scientists (can) use to support evolution?

 

[TheCup]

Just a very quick question CUP: according to your knowledge, is fossil evidence the only kind of evidence that scientists (can) use to support evolution?

NO, as I stated before, these 22 collected scientest compared the overall genetics of mankind aganist monkey's (or apes), and found no logical chemical likeness anywhere within at all...! Human Evolution researchers have also (its on record) attempted to use not only bone fragments and ancient fossils to prove "God does not exist," they have also gone as far as to contrive many different hoxes in order to show some kind of evidence to back up a mere unfinnished and unfounded theory.

The entire field is totally against the belief in a Godly Being, and really has very little to do with the actual Theory of Human Evolution.

To date the theory has not qualified enought to even be a scientific likeihood. regardless of what other people say they have discovered to make the theroy true.

But, then, again that is what personal beliefs are all about today, who has the best personal belief without physical evidence.

Kind Regards From:
The Cup

 

[painted wolf]

Hello mycorrhiza:


That’s what I said...

But, ya see, one has to also take under account here, that overall understanding (as listed above) is actually based upon and directly according to the last scientific gathering and meeting of scientific researchers, which was based upon the overall mythological findings and long ranged current discoveries, within The Theory of Human Evolution concept.

Which this undestanding was also determined by a condenesed collective analysis that was openly presented to the board of scientific members presented by some 34 different scientific researchers throughout America, all of whom also attended the meeting in 1997; of which, I personally attended that same scientific symposium held in Washington DC, 1997. Of course, I attended the meeting as part of a ongoing 17 year research and close investigation into the subject matter at hand, as follows: "Man and Monkey or Monkey's into Man"---1997.

According to 22 geneticists who specialize in many different scientific fields of genetic based research, most scientists attending reported they could not confirm neither determine any genome likeness shared between the 48 chromosomal (genetic-based) accountings within the simian species chemical based composites, when closely compared to the more lower account of 46 currently known chromosomal (genetic-based) accountings currently existing within the genetics of the human genome factors.

The conclusion was clear; the human species (which is made up of 46 chromosomes embedded within the DNA and RNA genetic factors) could not have logically nor genetically evolved from a 48 based chromosome counting of genetic impletions, found to reside within the RNA and DNA genetic factors of the semian order of life on planet earth.

That is what I had discovered so far, and also up to this date anyway it remains the same.

However, do you have any more information to add…? I would be quite absolutely excited to learn of it…?

KIND REGARDS FROM:

THE CUP

So... this study was done before either the Human Genome Project or the Chimpanzee Genome Project.... and they couldn't figure out the chromosomal fusion thing that is really obvious when you look at human chromosome 2. Let alone all the shared genes already known at the time.

I have a hard time believing these guys are geneticists or biologists (even for the 1990's this is amazingly shoddy heck, it's suspect for the 1960's) and I can't seem to find this research paper anywhere in the scientific literature. Perhaps you have a link to it?

wa:do

ps... biology is not against "godly belief" the majority of biologists I know, including myself, are theists of one sort or another.

 

[shawn001]

Hello mycorrhiza:


That’s what I said...

But, ya see, one has to also take under account here, that overall understanding (as listed above) is actually based upon and directly according to the last scientific gathering and meeting of scientific researchers, which was based upon the overall mythological findings and long ranged current discoveries, within The Theory of Human Evolution concept.

Which this undestanding was also determined by a condenesed collective analysis that was openly presented to the board of scientific members presented by some 34 different scientific researchers throughout America, all of whom also attended the meeting in 1997; of which, I personally attended that same scientific symposium held in Washington DC, 1997. Of course, I attended the meeting as part of a ongoing 17 year research and close investigation into the subject matter at hand, as follows: "Man and Monkey or Monkey's into Man"---1997.

According to 22 geneticists who specialize in many different scientific fields of genetic based research, most scientists attending reported they could not confirm neither determine any genome likeness shared between the 48 chromosomal (genetic-based) accountings within the simian species chemical based composites, when closely compared to the more lower account of 46 currently known chromosomal (genetic-based) accountings currently existing within the genetics of the human genome factors.

The conclusion was clear; the human species (which is made up of 46 chromosomes embedded within the DNA and RNA genetic factors) could not have logically nor genetically evolved from a 48 based chromosome counting of genetic impletions, found to reside within the RNA and DNA genetic factors of the semian order of life on planet earth.

That is what I had discovered so far, and also up to this date anyway it remains the same.

However, do you have any more information to add…? I would be quite absolutely excited to learn of it…?

KIND REGARDS FROM:

THE CUP

Lets see 1997 was how long ago?

The theory of evolution predicted this then found it.

Ken Miller Human Chromosome 2 Genome

"The phases through which chromosomes replicate, divide, shuffle, and recombine are imperfect, as DNA is subject to random mutations. Mutations do not always produce harmful outcomes. In fact, many mutations are thought to be neutral, and some even give rise to beneficial traits. To corroborate Darwin's theory, scientists would need to find a valid explanation for why a chromosome pair is missing in humans that is present in apes."

[youtube]8FGYzZOZxMw[/youtube]
Ken Miller Human Chromosome 2 Genome - YouTube

 

[mycorrhiza]

Hello mycorrhiza:


That’s what I said...

But, ya see, one has to also take under account here, that overall understanding (as listed above) is actually based upon and directly according to the last scientific gathering and meeting of scientific researchers, which was based upon the overall mythological findings and long ranged current discoveries, within The Theory of Human Evolution concept.

Which this undestanding was also determined by a condenesed collective analysis that was openly presented to the board of scientific members presented by some 34 different scientific researchers throughout America, all of whom also attended the meeting in 1997; of which, I personally attended that same scientific symposium held in Washington DC, 1997. Of course, I attended the meeting as part of a ongoing 17 year research and close investigation into the subject matter at hand, as follows: "Man and Monkey or Monkey's into Man"---1997.

According to 22 geneticists who specialize in many different scientific fields of genetic based research, most scientists attending reported they could not confirm neither determine any genome likeness shared between the 48 chromosomal (genetic-based) accountings within the simian species chemical based composites, when closely compared to the more lower account of 46 currently known chromosomal (genetic-based) accountings currently existing within the genetics of the human genome factors.

The conclusion was clear; the human species (which is made up of 46 chromosomes embedded within the DNA and RNA genetic factors) could not have logically nor genetically evolved from a 48 based chromosome counting of genetic impletions, found to reside within the RNA and DNA genetic factors of the semian order of life on planet earth.

That is what I had discovered so far, and also up to this date anyway it remains the same.

However, do you have any more information to add…? I would be quite absolutely excited to learn of it…?

KIND REGARDS FROM:

THE CUP

From what I've gathered, nearly every single biologist and paleontologist believes in human evolution. The only ones I've found who don't are the creationist "scientists". I wouldn't say that a meeting between a few scientists made before the human genome project was finished represents a majority of all scientists today. For all I know, the meeting could have been of creation "scientists". Even if it did represent the scientific majority fifteen years ago, which I doubt, that doesn't say anything about the scientific opinions today.

The "mythological findings" you speak of were debunked a long time ago and aren't used today, except by creationists that want to prove evolution wrong. We have plenty of evidence, both genetic and fossils, that humans evolved.

There's nothing special about humans that say we haven't evolved from a common ancestor with the other great apes.

Painted Wolf and shawn001 explained it quite well


If you could post a link to the scientific study you mentioned, that would be greatly appreciated!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

NO, as I stated before, these 22 collected scientest compared the overall genetics of mankind aganist monkey's (or apes), and found no logical chemical likeness anywhere within at all...!

Source, please?

Human Evolution researchers have also (its on record) attempted to use not only bone fragments and ancient fossils to prove "God does not exist,"

Garbage. No research in evolution theory has ever been used by a scientist to "prove God does not exist". Evolution has nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of any kind of God.

they have also gone as far as to contrive many different hoxes in order to show some kind of evidence to back up a mere unfinnished and unfounded theory.

Care you give us some examples of these hoaxes?

The entire field is totally against the belief in a Godly Being, and really has very little to do with the actual Theory of Human Evolution.

Hold on, what?

To date the theory has not qualified enought to even be a scientific likeihood. regardless of what other people say they have discovered to make the theroy true.

This is just outright false. Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. It is accepted by the overwhelming majority of biologists (99.99%) and discoveries and advancements are made in the field practically every day. To say it isn't even a "scientific likelihood" is absurd in the highest degree.

But, then, again that is what personal beliefs are all about today, who has the best personal belief without physical evidence.

This means a lot coming from a person who just said a lot of personal beliefs and didn't present any physical evidence.

 

[Krok]

Frankly speaking, a very huge majority of most all other scientists are now beginning to tell people there is absolutely no logical evidence for which to fully support the Theory itself.

Could you specify the number of qualified scientists in both America and then in the rest of the world?

Could you indicate how many of them "tell people there is no logical evidence for which to fully support the Theory itself"?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Hello mycorrhiza:

Which this undestanding was also determined by a condenesed collective analysis that was openly presented to the board of scientific members presented by some 34 different scientific researchers throughout America, all of whom also attended the meeting in 1997; of which, I personally attended that same scientific symposium held in Washington DC, 1997. Of course, I attended the meeting as part of a ongoing 17 year research and close investigation into the subject matter at hand, as follows: "Man and Monkey or Monkey's into Man"---1997.

According to 22 geneticists who specialize in many different scientific fields of genetic based research, most scientists attending reported they could not confirm neither determine any genome likeness shared between the 48 chromosomal (genetic-based) accountings within the simian species chemical based composites, when closely compared to the more lower account of 46 currently known chromosomal (genetic-based) accountings currently existing within the genetics of the human genome factors.

The conclusion was clear; the human species (which is made up of 46 chromosomes embedded within the DNA and RNA genetic factors) could not have logically nor genetically evolved from a 48 based chromosome counting of genetic impletions, found to reside within the RNA and DNA genetic factors of the semian order of life on planet earth.

I must insist such an idea is ridiculous [that this would be the consensus of any body of actual scientists], and insist you link any such conclusion made by actual geneticists in the year you state [since it would certainly be published, and there doesn't seem to be even a trace of it avaiable]; I can also find no notation of such a meeting in that year, what was the title of the symposium itself? In addition, I would note that I can find no trace of any paper named "Man and Monkey or Monkey's [sic] into Man" of any publication year; if you wrote such, please link to it, to offer us the opportunity to rip it to well-deserved shreds.

I believe our new friend will be reinforcing the title/OP of the thread. Just a hunch.

 

[McBell]

I believe our new friend will be reinforcing the title/OP of the thread. Just a hunch.

Will be?
Seems to me he has already thoroughly demonstrated/reinforced/shown the truth of the thread title

 

[camanintx]

Consider TheTheory of Human Evolution. The facts there are very clear, true science would really be best defined and perhaps more widely proven to be factual if researchers, in the field of Human Evolution Science could or can perhaps actually produce the primary ape/male, and also the primary ape/female (and/or both sets of monkey-to-human genetic based species) that actually and truly sired the entire human race.

Except the Theory of Evolution does not say that there was a primary male or female that sired the entire human race. There is an old saying that individuals don't evolve, populations do. Unless you can reduce the difference between humans and apes to a single genetic difference, you will never find the "primary human".

 

[mycorrhiza]

The basic tenet of Darwinism holds that living beings came into being spontaneously, as a result of coincidences. This view is completely contrary to the faith of Creation.

Nope, that would be abiogenesis. Could you bother to answer our questions? Where is the evidence that a majority of all scientists reject human evolution?


The pilt down man was disproven by scientists many years ago and is no longer part of the evolutionary tree, the hadiths are not a scientific source and "darwinism" is not based on trying to disprove God.

 

[TheCup]

I must insist such an idea is ridiculous [that this would be the consensus of any body of actual scientists], and insist you link any such conclusion made by actual geneticists in the year you state [since it would certainly be published, and there doesn't seem to be even a trace of it avaiable]; I can also find no notation of such a meeting in that year, what was the title of the symposium itself? In addition, I would note that I can find no trace of any paper named "Man and Monkey or Monkey's [sic] into Man" of any publication year; if you wrote such, please link to it, to offer us the opportunity to rip it to well-deserved shreds.

I believe our new friend will be reinforcing the title/OP of the thread. Just a hunch.

Actually Hammer:

I have no need to reinforice anything....I believe I made myself very clear in my very first posting, neither field of human interest has any clear provable evidence good enough to back up and/or even fully support either; The "Theory" of Human Evolution or The "Theory" of Creationism. As for my own personal beliefs, well---I believe in God, and that really has nothing at all to do with the issue of who is right or wrong here..........!

Regards From:
The Cup

 

[outhouse]

Actually Hammer:

I have no need to reinforice anything....I believe I made myself very clear in my very first posting, neither field of human interest has any clear provable evidence good enough to back up and/or even fully support either; The "Theory" of Human Evolution or The "Theory" of Creationism. As for my own personal beliefs, well---I believe in God, and that really has nothing at all to do with the issue of who is right or wrong here..........!

Regards From:
The Cup

actually it does, YOUR WRONG your post wreaks of dishonesty from ignorance


evolution is a as close to fact as can be


Evolution is taught in EVERY major university around the world as higher learning

while creation is outlawed in public schools and kept from small children, we dont teach our children mythology and pass it off as valid. its just like believing in santa claus, one day you grow up and realize its good and positive but has no place in reality.

 

[painted wolf]

Ok... Cup. I seriously suggest you check the forum rules before you continue. You are in violation of several forum rules.

Plagiarism is not tolerated (though why a Christian would plagiarize a Muslim site is beyond me).

Spamming and proselytizing are also against the forum rules.

wa:do

 

[McBell]

PAINTED WOLF i HAVE A LAST WORD FOR YOU...!

OK........

If you say so; however, everything relative to the explained evidence throughout all efforts HERE ON THESE POSTING BOARDS comes from OTHER people who have a much deeper KIND OF hold and understanding on many of the subject matters you yourself and others have stated and also used bash my postings here, from the start. I simply called attention to recorded historical records, one can find but you folks can't seem to research it for yourselves.

But, I'll take your so called "warnings" to heart here and here is mine: I leave and let you folks go all about your own more often angury and confused ways, through life...? It's your choices, just as my choices are all mine. that you or no other person here can bash me over...!

To be honest, of all of my travels around the world I found you folks are perhaps the absolute most self centered and most unsocialized people I think I have ever come in contact with, But I do have to say this in the favor of the majority of the people here, many here are very good (better than me) at bashing people's belief system, using with your unfounded understandings and weaken belief system; and the major portion of this board is better than me at judging others, although wrongly...!

Good lock........!
BY from...............................!
THE CUP

So does this mean you will stop all the preaching and actually engage in honest discussion with other members, or are you merely flying home to claim victory?

 

[outhouse]

I simply called attention to recorded historical records,

no you didnt

you posted fabricated blatant misinformation

I leave and let you folks go all about your own more often angury and confused ways

looking in a mirror?

To be honest,

you were not honest before??

you folks are perhaps the absolute most self centered and most unsocialized people

im sorry you look at education and knowledge and reason and logic as a bad thing.


it gives a black eye to theist everywhere when people are dishonest due to ignorance