Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...

Since: May 13

Ellijay, GA

#13020 May 23, 2013
I expect we've seen the death of the Boy Scouts today.
I am hearing many have pulled out and are joining the National Royal Rangers.

Very sad.
Evolution

New York, NY

#13021 May 23, 2013
Professor Waldo Sumway, of Stephens Institute of Technology, says that "There is never a time in the development of a mammal when it could have been mistaken for a fish or reptile."

Now we come to the wonderful world of TAXONOMY, where cartoon charts are used to artificially classify bones in order to "prove" evolution. This is where evolutionists develop a "disneyland" mentally and construct a chart which shows the earth to be about 4.5 billion years old. Then they proceed to divide this chart up into various time frames containing hundreds of millions of years each. As new discoveries are found, the scientists conveniently place them at selected places on the chart.

This would be a dandy little system, except for one minor problem: THEY'VE NEVER PROVEN THE ORIGINAL CHART! It's nothing more than blind guesswork. No one has ever proven that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. The chart is NOT scientific. In fact, many scientists believe that the earth isn't over 6,000 to 10,000 years old! Of course, all opposing views are ignored by evolutionary scientists, for they need a nice big time period in which to place their new findings. You've heard of people "buying time?" Well, evolutionists just DREAM IT UP.

Another "proof" for evolution is COMPARATIVE ANATOMY, the belief that similar bone structures prove animal kin through evolution. That is, if two different animals have similar bone structures, then they must have evolved from the same original ancestors. Of course, this is more

nonsense. Any scientist knows perfectly well that many such bone structures are produced by entirely DIFFERENT GENES, thus proving that they are in NO WAY RELATED! In fact, if similar bone structure proves anything, it proves that these animals were created by the same God!

The sixth argument used to support evolution is the so-called FOSSIL EVIDENCE. The evolutionist believes that the fossil record proves a progressive evolution of the species over millions of years, beginning with non-living matter. This non-living matter supposedly evolves into protozoans, and the protozoans evolve into metazoan invertebrates, which evolve into vertebrate fishes. The fishes evolve into amphibians, which evolve into reptiles, which evolve into birds. The birds then evolve into fur-bearing quadrupeds (animals with 4 legs), and these quadrupeds evolve into apes, and the apes evolve into man.

Now for those who actually believe such a fable, we have a question: WHERE ARE THE TRANSITIONAL FORMS? If all of those life forms survived by changing into higher life forms, then would someone please show us one living example of this today? Where can we observe a reptile who is slowly changing into a bird? How about a bird who is turning into a four-legged animal? This is one of the strongest arguments against evolution: NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS. Even Darwin realized this in his "Origin of the Species" when he said that "this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be argued against it." (Vol. 2, 6th Ed. p. 49)

Yes, it certainly is. The more the fossil record builds, the weaker the theory of evolution becomes, because the needed transitional forms are NOT BEING FOUND to link the species! They never will be found, because the species are NOT LINKED (I Cor. 15:38-39).
Evolution

New York, NY

#13022 May 23, 2013
The evolutionist also runs into another problem when he considers WHERE and HOW many fossils are found. The devout evolutionist subscribes to the belief that things are pretty much the same as always. He believes that there have been no major world catastrophes to wipe out animal life, but that various species have become extinct as a result of failing to adapt to their environment. The problem with this is the stubborn fact that there are many burial sites around the world which are literally paved with fossils! Often times such fossils are found in a totally different climate from that in which they once lived. Mammoths have been found frozen, preserved perfectly in ice in Northern Siberia and Alaska. Many of these are very large and strong animals, which evolutionists claim should have survived and overcame any obstacles. BUT THEY DIDN'T! What happened? Why did they die out? How can evolution explain this? Evolution CAN'T explain it. Evolution IGNORES it. It is explained in Genesis chapters 6, 7 and 8--the Flood.

Before moving on to our next section, a few words should be said about the various "ape men" that have been found and placed neatly on the fictional cartoon chart in standard text books. A few simple cases will be more than enough to show the reader that Anthropology is not without it's humor.

In 1922, a bunch of bones were found in Nebraska by a man named Harold Cook. After studying the upper and lower jaws and the teeth of some thirty animals, a complete ape known as Ramapithecus was constructed on the basis of ONE TOOTH! Years later, the entire skeleton from which the tooth came was found. It turned out to be an extinct species of pig.

Dr. Eugene Dubois discovered the famous Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus) in 1891. This "great discovery" consisted of a small piece of the top of a skull, a fragment of a left thigh bone, and three molar teeth. But, instead of being found all together, these remains were found in an area of about seventy feet, and they were found over about a year's time. They were also found in an old river bed with other assorted extinct animal bones. This, of course, presents a number of problems for Java Man. How can the "experts" be so sure that these remains all came from the same being? Better yet, how do such bones survive for 750,000 years without decaying? Where's the EVIDENCE to PROVE these theories? We know what the scientists want to believe about these findings, but WHERE'S THE PROOF?

Piltdown man was discovered by Charles Dawson in 1912. Dawson claimed to have found some bones, some teeth, and even some primitive implements in a gravel pit in Piltdown, Sussex, England. He took them to a British museum where anthropologists claimed that they were 500,000 years old. Textbooks throughout the world then proclaimed Piltdown Man as the greatest find to date. Then in October of 1956, Reader's Digest EXPOSED this finding as "The Great Piltdown Hoax." The bones where found to be fraudulent. The jaw bone was proven to have belonged to an ape which had died only FIFTY YEARS before (not 500,000). The teeth had been filed down, and both, teeth and bones, had been discovered with bichromate of potash to cover up their true identity! So much for Piltdown Man.
Evolution

New York, NY

#13023 May 23, 2013
The so-called Neanderthal Man was discovered around 1900 in a cave in the Neanderthal Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany. Naturally, he was hailed as another great "missing link." Since that time, it has been proven that Neanderthal wasn't an ape-man at all. He turned out to be a fully erect human being with a cranial capacity of over 13% more than that of normal man. Today, he is classified as "Homo Sapiens" (completely human). The "missing link" is still missing.

Finally, we come to Lucy, a 40% skeleton found in Ethiopia by D.C. Johanson in the 70's. Johanson claimed that "Lucy" had walked on two legs, because of the "angle of the thigh bone and the flattened surface at it's knee joint" (National Geographic, December, 1976). However, the knee joint was badly crushed; so Johanson's conclusion is mere speculation. Anatomist Charles Oxnard said the "Lucy" did NOT walk upright, at least not in the same manner as humans. The chimpanzee DOES spend some time walking upright, so this was probably just another ape.

Now this is the kind of "evidence" which supports evolution. This is what a child is taught in the public school system and in the state universities as "scientific fact." This is what the Bible labels as "science falsely so called" (I Tim. 6:20).
Evolution

New York, NY

#13024 May 23, 2013
HOW OLD IS THE UNIVERSE?

Evolutionists generally use five different methods in determining the age of matter: salt content in the oceans, deposition of sediments, rate of soil erosion, disintegration of radioactive materials, and Libby's Carbon 14 experiment. Problems can be found with all of these methods, but the biggest problem of all is the method that they've chosen to ignore--the study of Half Lives.

This is where one figures the current rate of decay or deterioration of something and then figures backwards to see how long this process has been going. For example, if one fills his gas tank up with gas and drives for 100 miles, you can figure that he's driven 100 miles if you know how may miles his car will travel per gallon.

The dating of matter works the same way, except in science this is called the study of Half Lives. Evolutionists tend to steer away from this field of study, for it is very capable of demolishing their religious conviction that the universe and the earth is billions of years old. Let's look at a few examples:

The sun is continuously burning out at a rate of 5 feet per hour. This means that the sun would have been TWICE the size that it is now only 100,000 years ago! Only 20,000,000 years ago, the sun would have been so large that it would be touching the earth! Yet evolutionists insist that the universe, including the sun, is billions of years old.

Because of meteors and meteorites, interplanetary dust falls upon the earth at a rate of at least 14 million tons per year. The evolutionists claim that the earth, the moon, and the various planets are at least 4.5 billion years old. This means that there should be a layer of space dust on the moon over 500 feet thick. However, when the astronauts landed on the moon, LESS THAN THREE INCHES of dust were found. Three inches could have accumulated in less than 8000 years.

Radioactive helium is generated by decaying uranium atoms. Dr. Melvin Cook, a former Nobel-prize nominee, says that this helium is constantly being released into our atmosphere, and that there are currently about a million-billion grams of this helium in our atmosphere. Yet, this is a very small number compared to what it would be if the earth were over 4.5 billion years old. According to Cook's measurements, the earth can't be over 10,000 to 15,000 years old.

The half life of the earth's magnetic field is believed to be less than 1400 years. That is, 1400 years ago, the earth's magnetic field would have been twice as strong as it is today. Only 10,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field as strong as the sun! WHO KNOWS what it would have been like 4.5 billion years ago!?

You see, these are the things that are commonly ignored by "serious scientists." The theory of evolution is an UNSCIENTIFIC theory, which is made up of blind guesswork and outright lying. It cannot be proven by the scientific laws of observation and experimentation. Darwin's theory is nothing more than a religious faith for high-minded people who think they're too smart for God. The Lord Jesus Christ was a Creationist (Matt. 19:4; Mark 13:19), and when we compare His life work to the life work of Darwin and his followers, we find a much better Way in Jesus Christ and in the written word of God.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#13025 May 23, 2013
bored monitor wrote:
<quoted text>
U missed the point where BillofDville said he wasn't posting the name bcuz the author would be targeted not what he said. Does it change what Mr. Conrad wrote? What is the name of the book or article?
You have to realize that the liberaces will respond to different questions or avoid answering questions/comments when they are nailed to the wall.

Bam, liberace down...

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#13026 May 23, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
It's interesting that THE POSTER was too embarrassed to even name his source.
It's even more interesting that this poster missed my point of not using the author's name. Why? Does the points made by the author change anything based on where he used to work (or perhaps still does)?

I imagine the poster, or his/her circle jerk buddies, still can't debate the points made by the author. So, go to plan B and complain about the author...

Too easy.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#13027 May 23, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
POT-KETTLE-BLACK
We get a lot of that around here. The hypocrisy and irony is amazing...
Informed Opinion

Lehigh Acres, FL

#13028 May 23, 2013
columbus native wrote:
<quoted text>Informed Opinion, you did the best you could explaining the truth to this very disturbed confused angry woman but unfortunately there is no hope trying to reason with these kind of republicans. The positive side is that her and many like her are now in the minority of the voting population!
Thank God, there average chronological age is 117, even if there mental age and maturity level is about 9.

How ironic it is that they are alive because of the very programs they hate.

Kind of like that Right Wing Wacko battle cry: "Let's meet at the Social Security office to protest socialism."
Indeed

Abbeville, GA

#13029 May 23, 2013
Death Panel wrote:
I expect we've seen the death of the Boy Scouts today.
I am hearing many have pulled out and are joining the National Royal Rangers.
Very sad.
It is very sad. But we know God is in control so worry not.
The WB

Abbeville, GA

#13031 May 23, 2013
Evolution wrote:
HOW OLD IS THE UNIVERSE?
Evolutionists generally use five different methods in determining the age of matter: salt content in the oceans, deposition of sediments, rate of soil erosion, disintegration of radioactive materials, and Libby's Carbon 14 experiment. Problems can be found with all of these methods, but the biggest problem of all is the method that they've chosen to ignore--the study of Half Lives.
This is where one figures the current rate of decay or deterioration of something and then figures backwards to see how long this process has been going. For example, if one fills his gas tank up with gas and drives for 100 miles, you can figure that he's driven 100 miles if you know how may miles his car will travel per gallon.
The dating of matter works the same way, except in science this is called the study of Half Lives. Evolutionists tend to steer away from this field of study, for it is very capable of demolishing their religious conviction that the universe and the earth is billions of years old. Let's look at a few examples:
The sun is continuously burning out at a rate of 5 feet per hour. This means that the sun would have been TWICE the size that it is now only 100,000 years ago! Only 20,000,000 years ago, the sun would have been so large that it would be touching the earth! Yet evolutionists insist that the universe, including the sun, is billions of years old.
Because of meteors and meteorites, interplanetary dust falls upon the earth at a rate of at least 14 million tons per year. The evolutionists claim that the earth, the moon, and the various planets are at least 4.5 billion years old. This means that there should be a layer of space dust on the moon over 500 feet thick. However, when the astronauts landed on the moon, LESS THAN THREE INCHES of dust were found. Three inches could have accumulated in less than 8000 years.
Radioactive helium is generated by decaying uranium atoms. Dr. Melvin Cook, a former Nobel-prize nominee, says that this helium is constantly being released into our atmosphere, and that there are currently about a million-billion grams of this helium in our atmosphere. Yet, this is a very small number compared to what it would be if the earth were over 4.5 billion years old. According to Cook's measurements, the earth can't be over 10,000 to 15,000 years old.
The half life of the earth's magnetic field is believed to be less than 1400 years. That is, 1400 years ago, the earth's magnetic field would have been twice as strong as it is today. Only 10,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field as strong as the sun! WHO KNOWS what it would have been like 4.5 billion years ago!?
You see, these are the things that are commonly ignored by "serious scientists." The theory of evolution is an UNSCIENTIFIC theory, which is made up of blind guesswork and outright lying. It cannot be proven by the scientific laws of observation and experimentation. Darwin's theory is nothing more than a religious faith for high-minded people who think they're too smart for God. The Lord Jesus Christ was a Creationist (Matt. 19:4; Mark 13:19), and when we compare His life work to the life work of Darwin and his followers, we find a much better Way in Jesus Christ and in the written word of God.
Thank you for speaking truth.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#13032 May 23, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhmmm, even without knowing who the author is my first impression was why is only the cost of union labor the source of this problem, why are management salaries and compensation not part of the equation. Then we learned who the author is and it all became very clear.
What do you think has more impact on the cost of something, management salaries/compensation or "worker" salaries/compensation?

Does it really matter who the author is? Can you refute/debate the points? No, I didn't think so...

Have you EVER been in a position where you could analyze both of the items in the first paragraph? Perhaps you're the typical "non-management" person complaining about "management" because you can't "get there"...
Informed Opinion

Lehigh Acres, FL

#13033 May 23, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
Now let's think about this --

Would Bain Capitol be pro or anti union?

Union contracts might interfere with firing people for no reason before you send their jobs off to Indonesia.

On the other hand, Union Contracts might make it harder to fire people, loot the company, and claim bankruptcy and cash in the pension accounts.

So.. Bain union or anti-union?

Gee that's a head-scratcher.
Bain Capital -

Buy company with borrowed money;
Loot same;
File Bankruptcy;
Screw creditors;
Void union contracts;
Screw employees;
Dump pension liabilities on taxpayers;
Give bonuses to management;
Bankruptcy Trustee sells off remnants.

Buy company;
Repeat above.

Buy company;
Repeat above.

Looted

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#13034 May 23, 2013
Former Bain wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you care what Bain's stance is re unions? They would find it more interesting when there is someone named Chicknbut trashing them online. So, they fired people for no reason and shipped their jobs to Indonesia? Really? Bain raids pension funds? Really?
When Bain acquired a company where the employees were unionized, it was much easier for Bain to negotiate with a union rep than several hundred employees. However, corruption always seemed to come to the surface when the union rep demanded extra incentives for himself so as to get the membership to "go along". Bain would not participate in a shakedown of that nature.
+1

There's so many posters that have never been involved in anything like the above, yet they know so much, it's laughable.

Yet, still, they can't refute the points...

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#13035 May 23, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting how within about an hour of mentioning Bain Capitol in a dinky little forum like this we SUDDENLY have some new poster we've never heard from, within the hour, show up to defend Bain.
One would almost think that a registered poster logged out and is trying to defend himself under an assumed name.
One would almost think that.
/waves at Bill
Interesting "concept", I'm sure the poster has done it before, but how would I get a Dawsonville ISP? Hmmm...

BTW, I don't need another person posting to support my comments, quite contrary to you and your circle jerk friends...

Interesting that this poster still hasn't addressed the points made previously. Perhaps "Chicken" is the correct name...

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#13036 May 23, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
Did Bill not state that you wouldn't accept the book?
That doesn't make what he posted not true. You just don't agree with it. That's all. As a capitalist, I think it's totally true.
Typical response of the poster you're referencing, isn't it?

The little dogs should stay on the porch until he/she can play with the adults...
Informed Opinion

Lehigh Acres, FL

#13037 May 23, 2013
Former Bain wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you care what Bain's stance is re unions? They would find it more interesting when there is someone named Chicknbut trashing them online. So, they fired people for no reason and shipped their jobs to Indonesia? Really? Bain raids pension funds? Really?

When Bain acquired a company where the employees were unionized, it was much easier for Bain to negotiate with a union rep than several hundred employees. However, corruption always seemed to come to the surface when the union rep demanded extra incentives for himself so as to get the membership to "go along". Bain would not participate in a shakedown of that nature.
Thanks for the laugh.

Later you can explain to us all how those corrupt coal miners interfered with honest management by getting black lung disease, and sabotaging the company machinery by intentionally letting their body parts get blown into the machinery when the coal dust explosions occurred.

Or you can explain to us how those worthless factory workers in Bangladesh destroy company property by letting their skin get welded to the parts during those fires that kill a few dozen or a few hundred at a time.
Informed Opinion

Lehigh Acres, FL

#13038 May 23, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>You are absolutely clueless. No excuse. Obama owned them. He threw it away. He never had any plans. He needed an excuse and in the midterms, he got it. Case closed. Now you're mad because you are doing EXACTLY what he knew you would do....blame the republicans. HOW DO YOU GET THAT DUMB????????
Guess he wasn't doing such a great job because the republicans took the House in the midterms.
That's so educational.

And here I thought Mitch "I want the country to fail so badly I filibuster my own legislation" McConnell meant it when he bragged that the Republicans were able to stop any and all legislation.

I should have known - my bad - he's a Right Wing Wacko - and so if his lips were moving - he was lying.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#13039 May 23, 2013
And after getting through all of the posts made after I went to dinner (adding 2 to the Brewniversity count), none of the liberaces have been able to address the comments posted (copied from Ed Conard's book).

Interesting how they can attack the messenger, but not the message. Typical liberaces...
Evolution

New York, NY

#13040 May 23, 2013
Evolution: Fact or Fiction?” by John Blanchard

Definitions

Evolution

“Origination of species by development from earlier forms, not special creation.”

Micro-evolution

The theory that in organisms of the same kind of different characteristics emerge as the result of adaptation to their particular environment.

Macro-evolution

The natural processes produce new species without limitation, and that all species can be traced back to a single common ancestor.

Natural selection

Populations of organisms develop new characteristics in reponse to ‘selective pressures’ in their environment (more simply, in order to survive) and that when these new characteristics become permanent, new species emerge.

Fossils

The fossils should indicate that there were countless transitional stages between the different species. However, the lack of evidence made Darwin realize this was ‘the most obvious and serious objection against the theory [of evolution].’

Since the fossil record was not agreeing with the theory of evolution some evolutionists invented the idea of punctuated equilibrium, which suggests that millions of more or less static years (equilibrium) were occasionally interrupted by worldwide cataclysms (punctuations) that resulted in wholesale extinctions made way for radically new life-forms.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Blackshear Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Is Greg Sweat your biological father? 11 hr LJS 6
The Bizarre Story of What Happened to Gram Pars... Thu WayxInsider 1
Danielle Duncan Sep 19 Bob burgers 1
Missing Waycross Woman-Nancy Stewart Wilke (Jan '09) Sep 18 Irishpompano 33
Girls Name Who Work At The Easy During The Day???? Sep 18 Nasty Nate 6
Do you like living in Waycross? (Mar '07) Sep 17 Angelin 78
dope boys (Jun '15) Sep 15 Kicksrt64 15

Blackshear Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Blackshear Mortgages