Nixak*77* Sarah 4 days ago
There you go w the same lame atheist trope, trying to deny atheism is a world-view- Which of-course it is, & it along w Darwinism, strict-materialism & scientism are all inherently A-Moral world-views, to-boot! That's why it's so disingenuously lame for you & your anti-theistic 'chums' / ilk to then try to resort to rhetorical moralizing against the Bible & God. The fact that most of your ilk deny there's even a such thing as objective moral truth(s), show you-all ain't got a true moral leg to even stand on!! Your ilk's idea of morality is all about what your ilk 'feels' may be 'right' at any ole particular time.
- That's why you [Tara, Tyler, etc] can keep quoting the likes of Sam Harris [& Chris Hitchens too] as you-all's New-Atheist 'moral gurus', even tho Harris & 'Hitch' were big cheer-leaders for Bush-Cheney-Bliar's Iraq Attack Pt2 [based on LIES], & then Harris upped that ante' by justifying the Bush-Cheney-'Rummy' regime's use of torture, & even 'mused' over the possible 'need' of the US & west to launch a nuclear 1st strike against an Islamic country [ala Iran] if it should ever get even 1 / a few [crude] nukes. Such that your 'guru' Harris let his real inner 'Trump' show thru!!
________________________
Nixak*77* David_R 11 days ago
You're conflating Judaism / 'Jewishness' to be equivalent to race- It Ain't!! It's a religion &/or religious heritage. Just like if one is born to Xtian or Muslim parents but later rejects being Xtian or Muslim, then no-one still calls them Xtian or Muslim due to their parents, since they've now rejected their parents' religion. Ditto for one born to atheist or agnostic parents but later on have decided to become a person of faith, at that point you don't insist they still must be atheist-agnostic because their parents were / are.
________________________________
Nixak*77* Nixak*77* 17 days ago
New Scientist [NS] claims to shoot-down Behe's IDea of 'irreducible complexity' [IC] by breaking-down the bacterial-flagellum [Note: Behe cited more examples of IC than just the flagellum]- But did NS actually succeed in that assertion??! From April 16, 2008 NS article Evolution Myths: The Bacterial Flagellum is Irreducibly Complex [see @ www.newscientist.com/articl... ]: NS states E-Coli's flagellum is made from 40 different proteins, 23 of which are common to all other bacterial flagellum. Then NS states that only 2 of these proteins are unique to bacterial flagellum: 'The others all 'closely resemble' proteins that carry out other functions in the cell.' [Note: 'closely resemble' don't mean they are exactly the same & thus can perform the exact same function(s). FYI: I resemble my mother, but I am NOT my mother nor can I do exactly same things in the exactly the same way my mother could do].
- NS then says: 'It's been shown that 'some' components that make up that flagellum... can perform other useful functions in the cell....' - Note 'some' don't mean all, nor even most - in-fact 'some' may well mean just a 'few'. But unless it's shown that all [or at-least most] of the flagellum parts can be used to do other functions in the cell, what NS is trying to sell effectively becomes a moot-point!!
But Here's the 'kicker' from NS: } 'It has been 'proposed' that the flagellum [may-have] originated from a protein export system. Over time, this system 'might have' been adapted to attach a bacterium to a surface by extruding an adhesive filament. An ion-powered pump for expelling substances from the cell 'might then have' mutated to form the basis of a rotary motor.... - In some bacteria flagella [may have] become linked to an existing system for directing movement in response to the environment.... -BUT- Without a time machine it may never be possible to prove that this is really how the flagellum evolved...' { [Thus NS's effectively assuming & asserting that the flagellum must have 'evolved' via Darwinian means, which is the very thing NS was supposed be proving, but admits that can't actually be proven.]
- So despite the hype to the contrary, New Scientist FAILED to disprove Mike Behe's IDea that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex. NS' so-called 'proof' is full of 'perhaps / maybe's / may have's / maybe so_maybe NO's', etc, etc, etc... But in the end NS kinda-sorta admits it can NOT be proven that what it's hyping is even actually how the flagellum did 'evolve'. It's all just a bunch of unproven HYPE-O-Theticals!!
Nixak*77* Anthony66 22 days ago
Uhm Ant666 the historical fact is You Brits bought into the racist slave-trading project before America was even founded! In fact YOU Brits colonized N.America [Canada, but especially New 'ENGLAND' [ala New 'YORK'] & 'Virginia' {so named in honor of the UK's so-called 'virgin' queen, Elizabeth} spanning along the Altantic coast of the USA, along w the Caribbean] in order to compete w France, Spain & Portugal by instituting slavery & the Atlantic slave-trade in the service of their racist colonial project in N.America! That's in-fact how the USA was 'born', why the official language of the US is ENGLISH & why most of the US' so-called 'founding-fathers' [IE: the Pilgrims, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Madison, etc - many who owned slaves themselves] fore-fathers were British!!
Nixak*77* Anthony66 21 days ago
Darwinian Theory <-> Social Darwinism aka Eugenics [based on Darwin's cousin Francis Galton's ideas]. Galton founded the UK's Eugenics society & his immediate successor was none other than Leonard Darwin = Charles Darwin's son- Humm... Might there be a connection there??? IMO it's pretty d__ obvious, 'It's a Family Affair' / 'All in the Family'!!!
Nixak*77* Anthony66 23 days ago
Ahh the so-called 'Curse of Ham'. Racist so-called 'Xtian' enslavers spun it to justify enslaving Africans... But the first thing to note is there is NO 'Curse of Ham' in the Bible [FYI: Gen 10: 25 says 'Cursed be Canaan'..., NOT KHam- Thus the so-called 'Curse of Ham' is at-best a misnomer].
- BTW 'KHam' in Hebrew means 'hot / warm' &/or 'sunburnt' / 'burnt &/or darkened by the Sun', thus KHam was born 'sunburnt,' thus he was NOT 'cursed' black.
- So what did it really mean that KHam 'uncovered his father's [Noah's] nakedness'? See Lev 20: 11 for the answer to that 'riddle'.
The disingenuousness of 'Xtian' racists re the so-called 'Curse of Ham' [NOT!] to justify enslaving Africans... The Bible goes on to say the 4 sons of Kham were Kush = ancient Ethiopia; ancient Egypt; Punt-land = ancient Somalia; & Canaan = ancient Phoenicia [= ancient Israel & Lebanon]; & also that a son of Kush = ancient Ethiopia [aka Nimrod] conquered virtually all of Mesopotamia [And he was a mighty hunter before God in the Earth] & thus founded ancient Sumeria. Yet Euro-Xtians of this same type of mindset steadfastly denied that the ancient Egyptians were actual 'African' Africans & that the ancient Phoenicians were Black, let alone the ancient Sumerians / Akkadians- Humm...
