Brian Fitzpatrick of the MRC's Culture and Media Institute has compiled a handy road map showing Americans all the sights where the media have unloaded truckloads of doubt about Christianity during the weeks leading up to Easter. It's called "The Easter 'Hit' Parade." For example:
A History Channel program scheduled for Easter Sunday will question whether the Bible is God’s complete revelation to mankind. The current – Holy Week – issue of Newsweek teases readers with the headline “Is God Real?,” and features a debate between a prominent evangelical pastor and an outspoken atheist. An April 3 New York Times article dismisses the story of Moses parting the Red Sea as a “myth.” Newsweek’s March 19 cover story, “The Evolution Revolution,” showcases the latest evolutionary theories attempting to explain the development of humanity without God. The news media have promoted not one but two different Gospel of Judas books in the past few weeks, along with a purported secret gospel written by Mark. The arts world has mocked Jesus with a life-sized, nude, anatomically correct sculpture made of chocolate, and a papier mache sculpture portraying Him as Illinois senator Barack Obama. On March 4, the Discovery Channel took the prize, by broadcasting a documentary claiming to have disproved the foundational belief of Christianity: that Jesus rose from the dead.
Brian also has a box chronicling the trend of attacks on Christianity over the last ten years. Check it out.
Comments Policy
Different year same stuff.
April 8, 2007 - 14:13 ET byDifferent year same stuff. The whole "controversy" of other gospels keeps returning it would be like the MSM presenting the flat earth group over and over again. (yes there still are those out there) Actually the theism/atheism debates can be enlightening providing the theist is qualified and not some hand picked bomb-thrower. Yes the mocking continues, so what? Evolution, look to the scienctific evidence (watch out for the pre-determined materialistic philosophy) Jesus didn't rise from the dead? Did he swoon, was there an imitator, a conspiracy, did the 500 witnesses lie. Retreads all. And Marcus Borg and the jesus seminar, well lets check some scholars on their rhetoric.
The current – Holy Week
April 8, 2007 - 14:27 ET by motherbeltThe current – Holy Week – issue of Newsweek teases readers with the headline “Is God Real?
This is right after Newsweeks' issue with the cover story that asks "Is Global Warming Real?" Right?
Didn't think so.
Yet again the right of the
April 8, 2007 - 14:34 ET by JDWYet again the right of the news media to say what they want.
Up front star on television currently is Rosie, speaking for the dems, saying what they will not in general public.
The dems screwed up royally last week. The atheist Ahmedinejad, who per his religion does not accept the crucifixion of Christ, forgave the British hostages because of the passing of Christ.
Our anti-God party, siding with the Muslims, once again finds themselves in a corner.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
If you are going to whine about spelling... get a life
Absolutely agree, JD. If thi
April 8, 2007 - 16:26 ET by NoMoreClintonsAbsolutely agree, JD. If this doesn't bring out the conservative vote and the "religious right" next time . . . I don't know what will. Oh yeah, wait a minute . . . voters have short memories. We have to keep reminding them. Too bad this didn't happen a year from now!
it will happen a year from no
April 8, 2007 - 16:36 ET byit will happen a year from now it happens every year
We know their heads are in a
April 9, 2007 - 04:04 ET by Andrew H.We know their heads are in a dark, odorous place where no light can enter.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
Our anti-God party, siding wi
April 8, 2007 - 16:42 ET by bigtimerOur anti-God party, siding with the Muslims, once again finds themselves in a corner.
Having them in that corner would be a mighty good place to keep them in too!
"Knowing this first, tha
April 8, 2007 - 17:06 ET by mattm"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." - 2 Peter 3:3-7
Happy Easter.
EXACTLY. Whatever the issue o
April 8, 2007 - 22:37 ET by stanleygoodspeedEXACTLY.
Whatever the issue of the day, it is THE WORD OF GOD that properly addresses and exposes it ... whether it's resurrection denial, global warming, or any of the other prevailing lies of the day.
2 Peter 1:3
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him [Jesus Christ] that hath called us to glory and virtue:
These media and print outlets
April 8, 2007 - 17:54 ET by bigtimerThese media and print outlets can babble all they want as they have for years, it will get them nowhere but scorn and condemnation.
The devil in disguise is easy to see at times...such as these examples.
There is still a god of this
April 8, 2007 - 22:20 ET by stanleygoodspeedThere is still a god of this world and he thrives where unbelief is rampant.
2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
That is why the call to speak the truth with all boldness and fearlessness is greater than ever.
Acts 4:29 and 31
(29) And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, THAT WITH ALL BOLDNESS THEY MAY SPEAK THY WORD,
(31) And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost [pneuma hagios - holy spirit], AND THEY SPAKE THE WORD OF GOD WITH BOLDNESS.
stanleygoodspeed....Thank you
April 8, 2007 - 22:36 ET by bigtimerstanleygoodspeed....
Thank you for those verses and words.
Amen to all of it.
The true power in this world
April 8, 2007 - 22:46 ET by stanleygoodspeedThe true power in this world rests in the Word of God and those willing to speak it.
Let us lift high that Word so that it prevails throughout the nation and the world.
2 Corinthians 10:4
(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds;)
John 10:35
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and THE SCRIPTURE CANNOT BE BROKEN;
NO SURPRISE
April 8, 2007 - 19:30 ET by ShadowTXJust mankind's constant betrayal and blasphemy against God.
And you wonder why the world is in the condition it's in now?
We ain't seen nothin' yet!
It all boils down to Jude 1:1
April 8, 2007 - 23:02 ET by stanleygoodspeedIt all boils down to Jude 1:17-19.
Jude 1:17-19
(17) But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
(18) How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time [eschatos chronos - the lowest or trying hour ... the day of adversity], who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
(19) These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
The tares will be sown, the Elihu's will deliver their hard speeches against God and against just men, and the Doeg's will do their deeds; but they will proceed no further ... GOD'S WORD SHALL PREVAIL.
2 Timothy 3:8-9
(8) Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
(9) But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.
Just curious...
April 9, 2007 - 02:12 ET by piniellaWhich version of the 10 Commandments do you subscribe to and why?
What piniella
April 9, 2007 - 02:27 ET by SportPoliticsPiniella what portions of your noted various versions of the Ten Commandments do you ascribe to in a modern lawful sense and why ?
Please reply to my question
April 9, 2007 - 02:29 ET by piniellaPlease reply to my question
You'll have to define your versions first piniella
April 9, 2007 - 02:47 ET by SportPoliticsYou'll have to define your versions first piniella, as you had initially asked another poster, and my mind is open to the possibility that you have had a discussion on this I am not aware of.
Please define the versions of the Ten Commandments you have referred to, and then I may make an attempt to answer your question.
In the mean time, you should also answer mine,that I have already asked you directly.
EXODUS, CHAPTER 341 Now the L
April 9, 2007 - 02:50 ET by piniellaEXODUS, CHAPTER 34
1 Now the LORD said to Moses, "Cut out for yourself two R1083 stone tablets like the former ones, and I R1084 will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets which you shattered.
2 "So be ready by morning, and come up in the morning to Mount R1085 Sinai, and present F727 yourself there to Me on the top of the mountain.
3 " R1086 No man is to come up with you, nor let any man be seen anywhere F728 on the mountain; even the flocks and the herds may not graze in front of that mountain."
4 So he cut out two R1087 stone tablets like the former ones, and Moses rose up early in the morning and went up to Mount Sinai, as the LORD had commanded him, and he took two stone tablets in his hand.
5 The R1088 LORD descended in the cloud and stood there with him as he F729 called upon the name of the LORD.
6 Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate R1089 and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; F730
7 who keeps R1090 lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will R1091 by no means leave {the guilty} unpunished, visiting R1092 the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."
8 Moses made haste to F731 R1093 bow low toward the earth and worship.
9 He said, " R1094 If now I have found favor in Your sight, O Lord, I pray, let the Lord go along in our midst, even though the F732 R1095 people are so obstinate, and pardon R1096 our iniquity and our sin, and take R1097 us as Your own possession." F733
10 Then God F734 said, "Behold, I R1098 am going to make a covenant. Before all your people I R1099 will perform miracles which have not been produced F735 in all the earth nor among any of the nations; and all the people among F736 whom you live will see the working of the LORD, for it is a fearful thing that I am going to perform with you.
11 "Be sure to observe what I am commanding you this day: behold, I R1100 am going to drive out the Amorite before you, and the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite.
12 " R1101 Watch yourself that you make no covenant with the inhabitants of the land into which you are going, or it will become a snare in your midst.
13 " R1102 But {rather,} you are to tear down their altars and smash their {sacred} pillars and cut down their Asherim F737 R1103
14 --for you R1104 shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God--
15 otherwise you might make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land and they would play the harlot with their gods and sacrifice R1105 to their gods, and someone might R1106 invite you to F738 eat of his sacrifice,
16 and you R1107 might take some of his daughters for your sons, and his daughters might play the harlot with their gods and cause your sons {also} to play the harlot with their gods.
17 " R1108 You shall make for yourself no molten gods.
18 "You shall observe the R1109 Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven R1110 days you are to eat unleavened bread, as F739 I commanded you, at the appointed time in the month R1111 of Abib, for in the month of Abib you came out of Egypt.
19 " R1112 The first offspring from every womb belongs to Me, and all your male livestock, the first offspring from cattle F740 and sheep.
20 " R1113 You shall redeem with a lamb the first F741 offspring from a donkey; and if you do not redeem {it,} then you shall break its neck. You shall redeem all R1114 the firstborn of your sons. None F742 R1115 shall appear before Me empty-handed.
21 "You shall work six R1116 days, but on the seventh day you shall rest; {even} during plowing time and harvest you shall rest.
22 "You shall celebrate the R1117 Feast of Weeks, {that is,} the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year.
23 " R1118 Three times a year all your males are to appear before the Lord GOD, F743 the God of Israel.
24 "For I will drive F744 R1119 out nations before you and enlarge your borders, and no man shall covet your land when you go up three times a year to appear before the LORD your God. 25 " R1120 You shall not offer F745 the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread, nor R1121 is the sacrifice of the Feast of the Passover to be F746 left over until morning.
26 "You shall bring the R1122 very first of the first fruits of your soil into the house of the LORD your God. "You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk."
27 Then the LORD said to Moses, " R1123 Write down F747 these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a R1124 covenant with you and with Israel."
piniella
April 9, 2007 - 03:01 ET by SportPoliticspiniella, it appears you have provided one version of the Ten Commandents, although it is indeed much more than just the Ten Commandments, and I'll wait for your other various versions, or one more version, that way you will have defined the various ones you referred to earlier, before giving my answer.
In the mean time, you should answer my question, you have everything you need for that, if not the guts.
There are two versions of the
April 9, 2007 - 03:06 ET by piniellaThere are two versions of the 10 Commandments. I gave you one. YOU find the other version.
I will not piniella
April 9, 2007 - 03:24 ET by SportPoliticsI will not piniella. You asked the question, and if you don't know the other version you referred to, or are unwilling to name it or source it, then I won't be able to address your question, since it's content is unclear.
The content is clear. There a
April 9, 2007 - 04:10 ET by piniellaThe content is clear. There are two sets of 10 Commandments. I quoted one set. The other version can be found in Exodus 20:1-22 or Deueronomy 5:6-21
Ah, an answer pinella
April 9, 2007 - 06:21 ET by SportPoliticsAh, an answer pinella, finally.
Well, I went to the first link and I see it's "The New American Standard" version of the Bible, so no I do not subscribe specifically to that version of the Ten Commandments, nor the inclusive seconded area.
I will say however that do not steal, and do not bear false witness, are two great Commandments, that you lying theiving liberals should start obeying yesterday. You also should comport to do not covet they neighbors wife or thy neighbors goods.
So, there's 3 of ten you lying, theiving, perverted liberals need to adopt. Thou shalt not murder is one you libs blow all the time as well. So 4 of them, at least, I want fiercly enforced on you skumbags.
If that's mixing church and state, bring on the revival !
So, which version to you adhe
April 9, 2007 - 06:23 ET by piniellaSo, which version to you adhere to?
I already answered your question pinhead
April 9, 2007 - 07:03 ET by SportPoliticsI already answered your question pinhead. Heck I even answered the question I asked you, for you.
Time for you giving your answer, you lazy barely typing bum.
Choose one of the sets of 10.
April 9, 2007 - 08:21 ET by piniellaChoose one of the sets of 10.
You are a heathen, and yet yo
April 9, 2007 - 13:14 ET byYou are a heathen, and yet you expect to understand the word of God? The natural man does not receive the things of the Lord, because the things of the Lord are seen as foolish to the natural man.
In other words, you, piniella, do not know the first thing about the Lord, which includes His word.
You throwing up the word of God, into the faces of Christians, is foolishness.
Debra...
Debra, Which of the 2 Crea
April 9, 2007 - 16:30 ET by piniellaDebra,
Which of the 2 Creation stories is the true one?
2 creation stories? What are
April 9, 2007 - 16:35 ET by bassndude2 creation stories? What are you sniffing there piniella?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
There are two creation storie
April 9, 2007 - 17:04 ET by piniellaThere are two creation stories in Genesis and in one, Man is created after the other life forms (Revised Standard Version):
GENESIS I 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. 20 And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens." 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. 24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28
<b>But in the second version, Man is created before the other life forms: </b>
GENESIS II 4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground-- 7 then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground the LORD God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." 19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him.
pini....the easiest way for m
April 9, 2007 - 17:19 ET by bassndudepini....the easiest way for me to put this to you is, The Bible is Gods letter to the Christians. You wouldent understand it, your reading someone elses mail. Some of this comes from your selection of interpretations. There is only one story of creation. What you are doing is reading diffrent interpertations of that one story. Go figure. Your not smart enough to figure that one out on your own. You can call it anything you want, but the fact of the matter is, to understand you will have to teach your self Hebrew and go read the original story by the arthur. Moses. Anything else is just somebody else reading it for you. Sounds like Satan is reading it to you.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
There is only one story of c
April 9, 2007 - 18:32 ET by piniellaThere is only one story of creation. What you are doing is reading diffrent interpertations of that one story.
OK, what is the ONE story?
Not that you can grasp this,
April 9, 2007 - 21:28 ET byNot that you can grasp this, piniella, but both accounts are correct.
One account tells of what happened on each day, a past tense story of true events. The other gets into more details of the day man was created.
What you do not understand is that there are even two accounts of God creating 'man,' because one applies to Adam, alone, and the other to Adam and Eve. --27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 1 is summing up what happened on each day, per day. Genesis 2, beginning with verse 7, is detailing the events on the 6th day.
Reading both parts of scripture tells me that Adam was created on the 6th day, before the animals, then Eve was created. But, because Adam and Eve are seen as one (as per Genesis 1:27), the completion of man (Eve) was made after the animals were made.
This is more for those who have an ear to hear, than the one who is seeking to trip us Christians up...
Debra...
Pinny, I realize you dont und
April 9, 2007 - 02:36 ET by Dan The Man 2Pinny, I realize you dont understand what the 10 commands are or what significance they have. There is only one version, the one God put on the second set of tablets.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
It always amazes me, just how
April 9, 2007 - 00:11 ET byIt always amazes me, just how foolish so many people can be, that they would talk as if there are limits to what the One who made the laws of the universe, can do.
God made, up, up and down, down. We could just as easily be walking on the sky.
So many people cannot believe in the virgin birth, yet look at birth as we know it to be! A sperm and an egg come together and a baby comes from the union! Can man REALLY explain this phenomenon? Is this not a miracle in itself?
Yes, God parted the Red Sea. And that is far from the only shockingly surprising things that God has done. Most of us have had miracles happen in our lives.
It just amazes me when I see the pots putting limits on what the potter can do --as if.
Debra...
www.InformingChristians.com
Barbarians
April 9, 2007 - 01:05 ET by piniellaFrom the article you linked to:
If you don't think evolution is true, you are a barbarian.
piniella
April 9, 2007 - 01:21 ET by SportPoliticspiniella, if evolution is true, we can conclude there are vast differences in the races of mankind, making some races superior to others.
If you believe in evolution, you are a racist.
No we can't conclude that
April 9, 2007 - 02:08 ET by piniellaYou are confusing biology and sociology.
You are wrong piniella
April 9, 2007 - 02:18 ET by SportPoliticsYou are wrong piniella. The biology of an organism dictates it's abilities in the sociological context.
Once again, if you adhere to evolution, the result is that the various colored races developed in isolated areas of the world and developed with differing traits and adaptations. Evolution claims that blacks were "here first" - and therefore later adapatations of the genus that survived may indeed be superior.
You are therefore a racist, by definition.
Since you have never figured that out, it is my conclusion that you indeed, are the one who comports more closely with actually embodying a barbaric mentality.
When it comes to science, accepting a theory as valid makes for adhering to the postulates considered settled in it's attempted proofing. One hopes you are capable of understanding that. It appears you have been blind to your inherent declaration of a racist belief system with your support for evolution.
Sorry, biology is not destiny
April 9, 2007 - 02:25 ET by piniellaIf you want to learn about human variation, check out Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond.
If you want to tell me why you are a racist piniella
April 9, 2007 - 02:39 ET by SportPoliticsIf you want to tell me why you are a racist evolutionist, I would appreciate it.
Which itterations of the human race have fallen extinct, and why ? That's the first answer you should address.
Do you adhere to the recently modern competing theory of several lines of evolution toward the human race, with the failed lines dying out ?
If so,how do you see the current human race exhibiting the same characteristic survival of fittest, or indeed the best mutations surviving ?
In your knowledge of recent history and even data from the human fossil record as well as other archeological finds, which race do you consider to have adapted best with it's long time generational mutations up to this point ?
Do you consider the recent spate of world travel a factor in making the probability of formerly defined strains of humanity ascending while others go extinct as the past evolutionary record shows, a likely continued scenario, perhaps through space travel and other world colonization, or do you consider it a currently and forward going unlikelihood due to mingling of the races?
There is no biological basis
April 9, 2007 - 02:57 ET by piniellaThere is no biological basis for racism. If you would like to learn more about this topic from an evolutionary biologist, I suggest reading Stephen Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man"
Evolution dictates it
April 9, 2007 - 03:04 ET by SportPoliticsEvolution dictates it, no book you source can claim otherwise correctly.
I'm still waiting for your answers to my above reasonable questions. If you made an attempt it would at least mean you had your own knowledge to bring to the discussion, or were willing to enage in discussion, or actually thought about the topic and formed a belief in the area.
Simply listing a book source is ridiculous. Have you no thoughts ?
No, evolution does not dictat
April 9, 2007 - 03:08 ET by piniellaNo, evolution does not dictate that. YOUR understanding of evolution needs to be improved.
LOL piniella
April 9, 2007 - 03:21 ET by SportPoliticsLOL piniella. You source a cry against IQ tests and the liberal hated curve.
That doesn't destroy the theory of evolution, which declares adaptive positive mutations result in the advancement of a kindom, phylum, class, order, family, genus , species, etc.
Indeed evolutionary evidence outlines geographically limited adaptations of identical species and their continuance in one case and demise in another.
The very theory itself declares one birth in a species is capable of being superior to another, and that various lineages within a single species diverge and evolve at various rates, some to the advancement of the same, and others to it's stagnation for periods before recovery and even demise from failure to acquire the adaptations neccesary for survival.
Evolution is inherently a battle within a species, and ever more so when geographical confinement to various ecological surroundings demand delineated mutation for continuance,as I pointed out in my questions to you above.
You merely declaring it does not is vastly insufficent, and absolutely incorrect.
I gave you a gentle out above, in order to coddle your liberal sensitivity, but you failed even that kindness, which mused that such a condition may in fact be moot considering the modern travel of mankind.
Evolution is inherently a b
April 9, 2007 - 03:25 ET by piniellaEvolution is inherently a battle within a species,
Evolution is more than that. There are other levels at which evolution operates. See Gould's book, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory.
Of course there are piniella
April 9, 2007 - 03:50 ET by SportPoliticsOf course piniella, the discussion is always larger than my paragraphs of a reasoned and knowledgeable approach, compared to your feckless links and incapacity to discuss the problem of racism inherent in evolution.
You been given many chances now to make a reasoned argument but you don't have one, yet my side of the coin stands strong clearly above.
Evolution will always be intrinsically racist in it's theoretical construct. Indeed the theory of evolution declares survival of the fittest through adaptive mutation, and the history we have of geographically limited mankind, and even pre-human bipedals shows just that. The results are apparent in the various colors of the human skin seen in its races.
Until very recently, geographically limited strains of the human race developed in near isolation, and indeed in what was genetically preponderent isolation for millenia, resulting in various human configurations and races, outwardly different in shape and color and stature by the very evidence our own eyes view to this day.
In the theory of evolution, other kingdom through species followed a similar pattern, resulting in superior speciation and even unique survival in various geographical regions.
Although many other kingdom have retained their geographical isolation to a substantial degree up to the present, mankind has more than begun to obliterrate the geographical constraints which anthrpological research have proven were present for millenia, and have become accepted proofs in evolutionary theory.
Therefore, the races are in fact different, and genetics and dna research has proven this beyond any doubt.
Many people are quite uncomfortable with these facts. Especially evolution believing liberals who prefer to bash Christians instead of even understanding what they claim to be their own adherence to science,declares racism in it's very essense and proofs.
There is absolutely no denying that human race developed in isolated regions of the world with little and in some cases no intermingling for very long periods of time, quite long enough for divergence of the species, and superior and inferior outcomes in adaptation. Evolution declares it to be true.
Wether that condition will continue, or is indeed even still present in large enough measure to continue divergence is a good question, precipitating an interesting and perhaps never before on the face of the earth condition. ( It could be plankton of the ocean, for instance, exists in such a mixed fashion to a very large degree, yet I suspect temperate differences still delineate strains absolutely ).
Until very recently, geograph
April 9, 2007 - 03:56 ET by piniellaUntil very recently, geographically limited strains of the human race developed in near isolation, and indeed in what was genetically preponderent isolation for millenia, resulting in various human configurations and races, outwardly different in shape and color and stature by the very evidence our own eyes view to this day.
Skin color is irrelevant
No in fact it is not piniella
April 9, 2007 - 04:19 ET by SportPoliticsNo in fact it is not piniella, and if you knew anything about evolutionary adaptation, instead of just being a habitual link artist of ignorance, you would know that.
What your left wing liberal mindset has told you about skin color is not true when it comes to the science of evolution.
Why have you rejected the very theory you earlier claimed makes one a barbarian if one does so ?
You're exposing your ignorance of the science, and showing your immutable liberal doctrine of close minded fearfulness.
I suspect the reason is, you are a racist evolutionist due to your political belief system, and in order to compensate and adjust your belief in evolution ( which your political belief system dictates you must defend absolutely even if you have no amalgamation of knowledge to allow you to do so ) to comport with your also outwardly declared "non-racist" politically dictated leftist stance, you deny the former in your charade of ignorance - hoping to "save face".
Quite amazing - skin color does not matter - as you had just linked an article on "ring species" salamanders as your "proof" - which declares the intermixing of the speciations produced skin colors of the salamanders that were incapable of providing cover and therefore were failing lineages.
LOL - You're too easy there bub.
Skin color is irrelevant when
April 9, 2007 - 04:25 ET by piniellaSkin color is irrelevant when one, such as you, is trying to prove that the theory of evolution is racist. You have badly misunderstood the theory so I suggest you try the readings I linked to.
As I said piniella, you are adhering to liberal beliefs,
April 9, 2007 - 04:41 ET by SportPoliticsAs I said piniella, you are adhering to liberal beliefs, not science. A clear indication that you are the one that needs to read your own links, as I pointed out your error as well in your failed interpretation of your own ring link.
You have failed miserably, and have been outed as a clueless adherent to your partisan ideology, quite incapable of discussion of even a tad of the science involved in evolution, and you also failed to deliver on your ideation of several versions of the Ten Commandments.
You utterly and miserably lost completey, on every single count, and failed to offer any of your own ideas.
The theory of evolution does require that the races are different, that they exist is proof positive, and it does matter, and therefore is fully supportive of racism, wether you like that fact or not is of no concern to me.
Obviously you are a pretender, and a fairly ignorant one at that.
you also failed to deliver on
April 9, 2007 - 04:45 ET by piniellayou also failed to deliver on your ideation of several versions of the Ten Commandments.
No, I did not fail. I gave you the citations for the other version.
The theory of evolution does
April 9, 2007 - 04:47 ET by piniellaThe theory of evolution does require that the races are different
The question is "How different?" Racists would have us believe there are significant differences. Evolutionary biologists disagree.
pinhead finally coughs up a partial truth
April 9, 2007 - 06:56 ET by SportPoliticspinhead, you finally coughed up a partial truth, since you mingled it with your opinion.
The curve you whined in a link about earleri only claimed minor differences,but all you liberals screamed "racist!", and have spent years trying to refute that evidence.
One of the current liberal arguments is that asains do so well in school because their "culture" emphasizes it. You liberals refuse to give any credit to evolution in the matter. You absolutely and entirely refuse evolution in that area. The next thing out of your ignorant mouths is that all cultures are equal and valid, right after you denied your pet evolution doctrine like a neanderthal, and claimed asains have a superior culture of education. If you want to say that type of culture isn't superior, then it sheds light on your massive demolib lie that education is supremely important for all Americans,and must be culturally emphasized.
You liberals are absolutely stuck in your own web of lies, deciept of others, self deception, and contradictions.
One of your favorite "liberal talking points" in favor of blacks in your evolution theories, is that " the blacks were here first, so they are the most genetically diverse"...
It's sounds praiseful to you idiot liberals, except when one considers that newer mutations and adaptations that help in survival are considered superior and part of the whole darwinian "survival of the fittest" and the "move toward whole new species" you blabbering libs spew all the time, being the ignorant defenders that you are. In other words, if blacks were first, those that came next would be a move up,in your racist evolution doctrine.
Only in this case, when one moves from single celled organisms, allthe way up through it all, and more and more complex life forms come later and later, until we finally have "intelligent human" - you liberals claim that all evolution and darwinism must be immediately declared "absolutely false!" - and our species never has and never will be evolving along clearly obvious "race differences" - that in all other earthen life forms - are considered -biodiverse and a good sign that evolution is cruising along well and upward.
Why is that you libs, when it comes to humans, vehemently deny your own pet darwinism ? Is it because, everyone with half a clue knows full damned well it's racist if you don't ? LOL
Yes, darwinism and your little evolution stuff is racist, PERIOD.
That's how it all went from little ameoba up to cavewoman sally to java man to human - with each little movement - often confined geographically - a great and wonderful leap for the liberal "scientific open mind" , until of course it comes to NOW - whence immediately the whole idea of evolution is slammed into the ground and declared absolutely false, so you queasy lying liberal babbling pieces of crap can claim " there are no differences in the races"....
Then, after claimnig that a thousand times, you finally decide your lie isn't going over the greatest, and you, meaning YOU - cave in to the truth and babble :
" There are differences but the question is how much"...
Yeah, goodbye lefty loon.
But one more thing first. You know those Ten Commandments Christain Bible believers you harrassed like a 2 year old jerk in the other thread ? You know, those ones that you demand and claim are barbarians if they don't believe in your on again off again evolution ?
Well, they have said " ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL IN GOD's IMAGE".
Now, they founded this great nation the US of A. They put that good stuff into practice as well, abolishing slavery with Britains help, for the first time in the history of evolution.
They explain the races with the Tower of Babel,and God dispersing man, who were orignally speaking all the same language...
So ya know, your evolution stuff is filled with racism, and I find you libs are full on with segregation and race wars and race baiting and all the rest...
But the ones you hate - the Ten Commandments ones - they are " All created equal" type of people. You ought to consider that sometime, mr Ten Commandments basher.
What your left wing liberal m
April 9, 2007 - 08:29 ET by piniellaWhat your left wing liberal mindset has told you about skin color is not true when it comes to the science of evolution.
It has told me nothing of the sort. I did not deny that skin color is a property that can be selected by evolution.
There is absolutely no denyin
April 9, 2007 - 03:58 ET by piniellaThere is absolutely no denying that human race developed in isolated regions of the world with little and in some cases no intermingling for very long periods of time, quite long enough for divergence of the species, and superior and inferior outcomes in adaptation. Evolution declares it to be true.
Our species originated in Africa and spread from there.
Well at least you finally took a theory position
April 9, 2007 - 04:10 ET by SportPoliticsWell at least you finally took a theory position, from 5th grade, and currently contested, as you should well know if you were informed, which you obvoiusly are not.
I quite understand now why you won't make your own analytical comments, you know very little.
Although many other kingdom
April 9, 2007 - 04:30 ET by piniellaAlthough many other kingdom have retained their geographical isolation to a substantial degree up to the present, mankind has more than begun to obliterrate the geographical constraints
Man is a Species, not a Kingdom. Your taxonomy is flawed beyond belief.
Wrong again piniella
April 9, 2007 - 04:49 ET by SportPoliticsWrong again piniella, your comprehension is pathetic. We don't need to argue over mamallia because of your illiteracy, but that is all you have , isn't it ? LOL
Now, once again, why have you denied the inherent difference of the races in direct conflict with current DNA and genetic proven scientific fact, and denounced the theory of evolution with your liberal "I am not a racist" diatribe, that has exposed you as a charlatan ?
Once again, the theory of evolution REQUIRES that differences in the races exist. PERIOD. It is inherently racist, there is no denying it, it you understand it.
You obviously do not, and probably never will understand the theory of evolution, and the science behind it, because your liberal belief system tells you the science cannot possibly be correct. You are in a terrible pickle. Grow up and open your mind to the science of the theroy of evolution, and it's real implications for the human race.
why have you denied the inher
April 9, 2007 - 05:03 ET by piniellawhy have you denied the inherent difference of the races in direct conflict with current DNA and genetic proven scientific fact
I haven't done so. I have stated that the differences are irrelevant for a claim that one race is superior or inferior to another.
Although many other kingdom
April 9, 2007 - 04:36 ET by piniellaAlthough many other kingdom have retained their geographical isolation to a substantial degree up to the present
The Kingdoms overlap geographically and have done so since they came into existence. Loosely put, where there are plants, there are animals. And the two kingdoms of bacteria, Monera and Protista, are almost everywhere.
You're saying nothing piniella
April 9, 2007 - 04:51 ET by SportPoliticsYou're saying nothing piniella, and certainly I know it.
Shall i now inform you that kingdoms have not overlapped since they came into existence, because the first kingdom existed in it's singular form ?
See how ignorant you are,with your idiotic minutia ?
LOL
the first kingdom existed in
April 9, 2007 - 05:06 ET by