Religion is not a uniter, it is a divider.

"VERIFIABLE" to what extent? To the extent that the findings will collaborate with the findings of someone in the past. The same is true (VERIFIABLE) with the evidence of the workings of the Holy Spirit among that group of peers called Christians.

Now concerning the desirability and the availability of capacity to VERIFY scientific findings. I want you to go out today and gather all the necessary components, equipment and such, and then conduct the necessary testing to VERIFY the amount of horsepower generated by the ignition of a TitanII missile. Not the mathematical computations. Gather together all of the said equipment and components. I want to see a homemade video of you performing such tasks.

As for 'hijacking the word evidence'. Not true. I had nothing to do with the placement of that word in the Bible nor did I have anything to do with the translations which allowed that word to be placed in the Bible.

You are simply infuriated (emotionally aroused) by the fact that you cannot successfully refute (to a point of banishment from the religious dictionary) that religious definition, that you have to resort to such BS things as DNA which has not been a part of this discussion, when you know that the discussion is really about something entirely different. Who or what is the creator of such 'division' among the people.

 

See my post immediately preceding this one.

But the real question is; Can you prove any of those claims?

Prove your claim.

 

The more posts you make like this, the less you will be heard by those who read PF.

People know exactly what I mean by verifiable evidence. Asking to what extent is just a way to bog down the debate.

Also, this holy ghost BS is not verifiable. Human Chromosome 2 can be verified by ANYONE. Anyone would include Myself, you, women, men, black, white, latino, russian, american, christian, atheist, Islamic, etc. Not just one group.

This is why your rebuttal is one gigantic fail.

Stupid ridiculous request denied.

Placement in the bible?

Moving right along to the next red herring.....

And finally, out of the religious playbook, we have the ad hom of “you are just mad”....How quaint.

PS: jc already 'said' that he is the divider:

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Well, if you are so capable, then produce one on your next posting. I don't want a graphic of what you think one looks like, I want a complete "Human Chromosome 2" delivered via the internet. Otherwise, all you can produce on this internet forum are words and graphics. You have not verified anything other than the ability to produce words and graphics on the internet.

In other words, you cannot produce as you said you could. Got it.

Such as your Human Chromosome 2. Got it.

Where are the words "you are just mad" that was presumably posted by me? I don't see them there.

Scripture citation?

Yes! You are a big laugh.

 

Request denied. This is why people like you are a divider and not a uniter.

Human Chromosome 2 has already been accepted as scientific fact. If the human race kept repeating results just to appease the religious folk, then science would never be able to move forward. Thank you for showing how religion and its followers is a divider and not a uniter. I really outta rep ya for this one.


PS: I see you do not deny this:

JC himself is a divider according to your bible.

 

WOW!!!!

You are still trying to sell that Chromo 2 in some way equates to evolution...

 

It has been explained to you by numerous posters. Just because you don't understand it, that is not our problem.

 

Hmmmm....

I have tried to be more tolerant. I have tried to be more understanding. But a of difference in nothing else than religion, regardless of the same "ends" in manifesting morals and ethics, can cause a divide in a persons relationship with someone they care for, then is that not divisive?

Why tolerate the intolerant? Why tolerate a belief system in which its very premise is divisive and excludes?

 

Thus the reason the Christians and some other Theist religions will be against atheists. It seems that the motive behind some atheists is "divide and conquer". An old militaristic strategy. So your question highlighted above is applicable toward the atheists.

 

Um..... nope. Atheists do not evangelize like theists.

 

Although Jesus admitted that he did not come for peace, but rather division, it is not appropriate for Christians to act divisively. Christianity believes there is an objective right and wrong. However, though right is clearly divided from wrong, Christians are to ... Galatians 5
[16] ...walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh.
[17] For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you would.
[18] But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law.
[19] Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness,
[20] idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit,
[21] envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
[22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
[23] gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law.
[24] And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
[25] If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.
[26] Let us have no self-conceit, no provoking of one another, no envy of one another.

 

Numerous posters? I don't think so... In fact, after I bring up this whole Chromo 2 and then point out that doesn't hold since it's not seen in nature with similar species of life, a lot closer related than us and a chimp, they never answer.. Don't believe me? Why don't you go check out the last page of evolution is a joke and what how Freeware disappears when asked about that... again...

Only you, in blind bliss, attach Chromo 2 as an example of evolution which it is not... I do not know why you keep hanging on to that...

 

"a lot closer related than us and a chimp" <--- and a chimp?

There is nothing more closer related to us than Chimpanzees.

This just shows your knowledge or lack thereof.

 

Here you go... http://www.montanalife.com/writing/Comma_Rules.html some high school english to get you up to speed... then after understanding the use of comma's, you can re-read the following sentence and not be confused! Hooray for you!

In fact, after I bring up this whole Chromo 2 and then point out that doesn't hold since it's not seen in nature with similar species of life, a lot closer related than us and a chimp, they never answer..

 

ohhhh you are saying since humans have the Chimps Chromosomes 2A and 2B fused into one, other species more closely related to each other than us and chimps should also have fused chromosomes?

Is that what you saying?

 

If not, then the same number of chromosomes right? And if they are different, there must be fused ones... right?

So, if species A has 48 chromosomes, and species B has 40 we'd see those lost chromosomes fused together in species B. That is your point of using it as an evolutionary process right?

 

Just because Specie A has a fused chromosomes that match two chromosomes in specie B, that doesn't mean the same MUST hold true for Specie C and D, even thous Species A and B closely resemble each other and C and D match each other AND have different amounts of chromosomes.

As soon as one specie splits into two, those two new species begin their own evolutionary path.

Are you being serious here, or just clowning around? I don't think someone who claims to have as much knowledge on Evolution as you claim could be this dumb. I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you are clowning around.

 

You do know that makes no sense whatsoever right? So, you are saying that if the the whole monkey clade every species had exactly 100 chromo&#8217;s each, then we get to the ape clade and the tangs have 24, the gorilla has 62, we have 48 and the chimp has 100 with no fused chromosomes would surprise you in the least? Really&#8230;? Do you even know what that means?

Please explain this logic that you speak&#8230; I find it quite interesting to say the least&#8230; If you can (which I seriously doubt) can find a link that helps your case, by all means &#8211; go ahead!

Oh, I am being VERY serious&#8230; So&#8230; do you think that when something evolves (we will take the ape clade for starters) into apes that the previous species is not present? Well, we both know it is through the new species DNA. That is your point with Chromo 2. All the other apes have this, and for us, it is fused. Now, we look at the whole ape clade. If it wasn&#8217;t fused, every species within the ape clade would have the same amount of chromo&#8217;s right? The fused one is &#8220;two&#8221; of the chromo&#8217;s present in the other apes fused together thus giving us a &#8220;different&#8221; number of chromo&#8217;s.

So, the conclusion is, if a clade has a different number of chromo&#8217;s we can expect to see fused chromo&#8217;s because to be considered from the same clade they must share the same DNA sequences. Or do you think that DNA magically appears/disappears? Sorry&#8230; WHOLE CHROMOSOMES MAGICALLY APPEAR/DISAPPEAR!!! That&#8217;s more like it&#8230; Do you know how much DNA is within ONE chromosome?

So, please&#8230; take your time on this&#8230; Do some research.. get back tomorrow with good &#8211; useful information.

 

If anyone cares to follow this nonsense, I answered it here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/223129-evolution-joke-pt-viii-50.html#post1060903170

 

I just want to point out from my perspective, that rstones199 and his ilk are the ones drawing the lines and dividing. They are the ones making distinction and attempting to segregate accordingly.

 

I will give a big AMEN to that one.

 

Yuo can think that all you wish, that still does not change the fact that you and your ilk bring this nonsense to the table to begin with.

 

To the table of a Religious Thread. Who brings science to the religious threads? Who? I guess you really do want science to be classified as a religion.

 

It's your opinion only and your opinion doesn't really mean anything.

 

Its not an opinoin that religous nut-jobs bring religion to the table.