It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creation/Intelligent Design vs Evolution/Science Your thoughts?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 11:44 PM
link   
I always thought one concept that seperated humans from animals was the concept of individuality. As in egos, superegos, etc. This manifesting from the seperation of us, as a single human, on the inside, and everything else as the outside. Although, this is largely outside the scope of my expertise, I don't have much background in psychology nor have I given it much thought. But its something along the lines of rather than being part of everything, humans perceive the reality they envision. So I think its different in a sense.

Also, my perception of birds making nests, and primates using tools was that this was a learned trait. Or at least something that was passed down through their genes as some sort of "instinct." Humans, on the other hand, are very adaptible and are able to analyze new situations and largely use a sense of reason rather than instinct.

I think the consciousness we ascribe to animals is just that, instinct. While on the other hand, humans are capable of using reason, with the less used trait of instinct. But reason has its downside as well as instinct.

Maybe that should be the subject of a new thread.


Let me clarify a little:
sub-conscious=instinct
conscious=reason
super-ego=man-made control mechanism

I believe that other animals only contain the sub-conscious.

[edit on 7-7-2004 by Jamuhn]




posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Examining the ideas more closely, essentially they represent answers to separate questions. Respectively, creation/intelligent design and evolution/science are the results of asking why and how. Though neither answer is complete as yet, both are representative of a few thousand years of thought regarding universal inception. But are the two concepts mutually exclusive? Must one or the other be accepted a priori to the exclusion of the other? But it is only in creationism such an assertion is made; that, without evidence, acceptance of a singular tome confers all knowledge. On the other hand, if one accepts that all is created by a god, then of course so is the mind and other faculties to be able to discern causes by way of natural law, i.e. logic. Ergo, creationists' argument contramands itself given all that is actually discovered now, while scientific inquiries increase and revise the models of understanding.

Revisiting the question of mutual exclusivity, however, the argument previously presented is moot. Perhaps they are actually consistent axioms. What is it that prevents creation/intelligent design and evolution/science from being operative simultaneously? (The question smacks of Kant's paradoxical arguments of fate vs. free will



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 07:02 AM
link   
James, no need whatsoever for your holier than thou attitude. My reference to 600 (sorry about the 3, typo. I was doing something else at the same time that dealt with KY's statehood in 1792 and crossed it up) years ago was the theory that the earth was flat. Why did they think that? Because the scienctist of their time had "proven" it. It took a new way of thinking and reasoning and finally someone to get out there and do the research to change and then it still took even longer to get those who had been conditioned to accept it. Guess what, for 250 more years, everyone thought the earth was round. It took longer still to discover thats not the case either.

My point isn't in defense of a creationalist theory..to the contrary..my point is, we have just cracked the surface of this type of research and my humble opinion is thats its way to early to go putting your eggs all in one basket. Too many questions are unanswered, thats why its still a theory. I personally do think there is something to adaptation to environment but thats far from explaining the origin of our species.

Your assertion that "they proved it" has been heralded so many times only to fall to new ideas and new knowledge. "They" is a very general term and its used time and again by those without the concrete facts. If this was proven, it wouldn't still be termed a theory and research would not still be underway. Its far from proven but its our best lead yet and with the discovery of the genome maybe we can further it.


As for fossils, you say they prove natural selection in animals but that one elusive link for us still remains a mystery...like it never existed. Let me tell you something about geology and the pressure it takes to cause fossilization. Its far greater than a gradual build up of sediment. Fossils were made, in my professional opinion, by an instant application of extreme pressure such as a huge cataclysm.

The research into DNA has uncovered periods in pre-recorded history of massive population reduction in which all but a few thousand people might have been destroyed. These bottlenecks are contrary to popular belief in the scientific field and thus are discounted by the same "know it all" group of political whores who latch on to their favorite theories and whoa to you if you discover a flaw.

They have proven nothing other than how little we know. fnord

[edit on 8-7-2004 by astrocreep]

[edit on 8-7-2004 by astrocreep]



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 07:23 AM
link   
I definately know what you mean jahmun,

one thing that helps to set humanity apart from other species is that every human in the world is different from every other human. We all learn different skills, we all look different, we are all interested in different things. There is still instinct in humanity but it dosen't control us to the point that it does animals (or does it control us subconsciously.... hmm...) anyways humanity has the ability to create intelligently and it seems that no other animal can make art or music or anything like us.

But maybe the dinosaurs did all the cave art, ya never know....



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Astro, scientisist have proven evolution. You see it everyday at a supermarket. The apples or oranges you choose are the best made. The reason they are best is because they evolved from the rest, ie my example of a farmer breeding two apple trees that survived a cold snap while the other 50 didn't. Those trees evovled a way to survive cold tempatures. Then when ever you get sick, don't you wonder why? "I took the flu shot 3 years ago." Well, that flu and todays flu are different because todays flu has evolved a defense against the vaccine of 3 years ago, 2 years ago, and even 1 year ago. They have proven that in labs. And when I say they, I don't do it to be vague, I do it because more than one person has done it. If I was to try and list all the scientists who have accomplished Microevolution in labs it would most likely take 5-6 hours that I don't want to waste.(also have a phone line modem, and it charges to the phone bill, and don't need that big of a phone bill)

And why haven't we found the missing link? What are Homo Erectus? Austropiculus(sp?) and Cro Magmum(sp?)? Aren't they missing links into our past? Anthropologists agree that these species were either ancestors or one of them was the breaking point.(Breaking point between wolf and dog would be the species that was first not breedable with wolves and only other dogs)

Anyways, Lockheed, I think dolphins do more than instinct. I find it hard to believe having sex for pleasure or jumping out of the water for fun is instinct. Of course, some people believe that animals and humans are different. We aren't, as said humans are animals to, just a different kind. Like how a dog is different from a fish. They both animals, just not the same.

But we do follow instinct, don't we? Isn't it in our instinct to go forth and multiply? To defend what is ours? To help our offspring? Chimpanzees can and will adopt a baby chimp if it's parents die. They will raise it, take care of it, and teach it as their own. Chimpanzees and Gorillas can learn sign language. Is it instinct to speak sign language? Or is it instinct to learn? Humans learn, and so do chimpanzees. But unlike a chimpanzee us humans learn in more than one way. A chimpanzee if shown how to use a stick to break open a hard shell will learn how to do it. If you tell them how to do something in sign language and they know sign language they will do it. Chimps can learn to speak sometimes better than other humans. If a person goes deaf due to an accident, how long does it take for them to learn sign language? A chimpanzee learns faster in most cases.

So it isn't that humans have left instinct behind, but like Lockheed said, it is doing it subconsciencely. It is our instinct to learn and survive. We have done so and with so much free time we have created by being so well able to survive we have gone farther. If one was to take all the chimpanzees and teach them sign language, teach them how to build houses, wheels, how to farm, read(some can, but only things like See Spot, See spot run) so forth, and do this in an enviroment with no hardships, no enemies, just all the free time needed to learn and practice what is taught, who knows? Maybe we could create a planet of the apes, without all the slavery and things. Humans are lucky, how much free time do you have? Why is it you have free time? For we have evolved well enough to survive well enough to not need spend all the time guarding our cave. We had the time to laern how to make things even easier and therefore more free time. Sure at first it was "Big stick heavy, not go very far, but if we trim it down and make point sharper, it goes farther and still pierces the hide." But you need to start somewhere.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Earlier I was thinking about the lack of right-left brains in animals as opposed to humans...I stumbled upon this website that shows a possible link between humans and monkeys brain activities:
www.hypography.com...
My big question would be why did our brains evolve to have "two sides"...



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 03:20 PM
link   
James, I'm beginning to think this whole thread is nothing but trolling. With all the evidence and argument presented, even by those of us not defending creation but not willing to hitch our horse to evolution either, you have repeated the same tired rhetoric. "They proved it! They proved it! They proved it" Then why oh why is it still the theory of evolution and why is it unable to answer some of the most basic questions..and perhaps most important, why did the father of evolution, after considerable further study, abandon his own theory before his death? There is a great deal missing and it may not be missing. It may just not fit the scientific community's palate.

Its weak. It needs a good deal of further study before we can go off half-cocked.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Ksoze, good question on the two part brain. I think the head doctor people have found that while this part of speec is in the front of the brain, it is spread out between both parts. (Good science coming up) This Observation lead to a Hypothesis that the brain, if one half was destroyed somehow, the other half could live on, and therefore the person could live. I will try to google for any Tests done on this theory.(yes, the two brain theory) Another good example to explain the difference between bad acid trip and theory. We know the brain has two main parts. Left and right. The left brain controls this, the right that. If you are one side dominant you will be creative, a great painter. If you are the other side dominant, then you will be dug down in facts, science, so forth.

So the Two Brain Theory is formed. But just like with gravity and evolution, we know parts of it, we don't know all of it. We know gravity happens, drop something, it falls. We know Evolution happens, flu virus changing to become strong against last years vaccine, and we know there are two parts of the brain, the left and the right. All theory, all fact. But why does gravity act like it does? What happens when stronger?(black hole) But why does an animal change and though may seem not as great as the last one, it survives better than the other. We know we have two parts to the brain, but why do we? And yes, some smarter animals like chimps or monkeys may help us solve this theory to.(I wonder if a dolphin has two part brain?)

Astro, are you paying attention? Quote "Then why oh why is it still the theory of evolution" Because the fact the earth revolves around the sun is the Theory of Revolution around the sun. The Fact gravity exists is the Theory of Gravity. Theory does NOT MEAN GUESS, SHOT IN THE DARK, OR A ACID TRIP GONE BAD! Both me AND Aeon have explained what theory means in the scientific world. Read Aeon's first and second post on here, maybe then you will get a better idea of what theory means.

[edit on 8-7-2004 by James the Lesser]



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 03:28 PM
link   
James the Lesser,

If you'd like to debate this topic at length, there is a debate board for such topics at theologyweb.com...

Good luck. They've all been arguing this same topic for a couple years now, with no sign of reaching any mutual conclusions.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Groupies:

You CAN be a Creationist and an EVOLUTIONIST-SCIENTIST at the same time: you just cannot be an Evolutionist Scientist and take the Creation Myths in Genesis as Science literally-verbatim as theyappears in the two Myths: first of all, the two myths contradict each other, and secondly neither one of them were meant to be "modern Science".

And PLEASE don't forget there are well over 3500 Creation Myths in the world, not JUST the two Creation Myths of the Israelites in Genesis !

[Which means one can still be a "Creationist" and NOT be a Jew or a Christian quoting texts most "believers" cannot even read in the original anyway! ]

Possibly the biggest hurdle to overcome for the so-called "Creationists" is that most of them are Judeo-Christian who ALWAYS SEEM ONLY to quote the TWO Hebrew Creation Myths in Genesis (Chapter 1:1 to 2:4a and 2:4b to 4:26) treating them both, especially the first, as "science--ignoring al the other Creation Myths in the world, which are written in the same style (i.e. mythology using mythological language---or do you REALLY think that Serpents stand up right before being "cursed to crawl on their bellies" and also can speak fluent Paleo Hebrew without Vowels?)

There is nothing particiularly UNSCIENTIFIC about saying:

"Evolution may be guided by a Cosmic Intelligence, and is not Blind or Random..." but that is VERY DIFFERENT from saying that some local desert clan god (e.g YHWH the clan god of Israel) made the Universe with his own two little hands then created man in his own image, and then told us all to go out and exterminate the Jebusites and genocide the Amalekites a few chapters later.

So specifically bringing in the Bible or YHWH (the local clan-god of the Hebrews) into Universalist Creationist arguments will certainly not help their case:

The Bible is not a UNIVERSAL document, but localised to a very small part of the globe (written by local inhabitants for their OWN purposes and with their OWN point of view in mind----notice who the heroes are in the story for your first clue----and the purpose of writing the Creation Myths in Genesis the way they are written was to explain the post Exilic political situation in Palestine which has long since disappeared.

If there is ANY SCIENTIFIC TRUTH to a Creation Argument at all it will HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH the RACIST-SEXIST VOMIT PLACED INTO THE MOUTH OF THE CLAN GOD OF THE BIBLE (YHWH) , but will have EVERYTHING to do with a more Universal Mind---and not one who seems to care more about which toe of the High priest must be covered by ritually clean bull-blood, or the length of temple curtains, or whether two different kinds of seed are sown in the same field.

Let's broaden this discussion AWAY from "biblical" creation myths v. Evolutionary Science into "Universal Creation from The Divine Mind" (which we cannot hope to fully understand) "using "Scientific Evolution as a Mechanism to create Universes and the life forms in them. "



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
We know we have two parts to the brain, but why do we? And yes, some smarter animals like chimps or monkeys may help us solve this theory to.(I wonder if a dolphin has two part brain?)
[edit on 8-7-2004 by James the Lesser]


James, apparently dolphins have two similar sub-brains each having two hemispheres...So to answer your question, yes
they have the two part brain...

www.innerx.net...

This is fascinating...I wonder how many animals have the two part brain?...



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Amadeus,

You said:

RACIST-SEXIST VOMIT PLACED INTO THE MOUTH OF THE CLAN GOD OF THE BIBLE (YHWH)

My response:

What a racist thing to say. (BTW, go read and answer my response to you on the "Noah's Ark and the CIA" thread)



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Amadeus, I like your energy and all, but the problem is Dwayne Gish doesn't recognize any other religon/theory than his. If you were to bring the same arguement to him he would call you a loon and have you thrown out of the ICR building.

But true, the Norse gods had a different belief of creation. Greeks/Romans have a different belief of creation and how man advanced. But the reason most evolution/science vs creation/intelligent design is with christians is because you don't hear to many Norse followers saying they are right, we have no proof, but we are right and want our belief taught as science. I know about Thor, Loki, the Midgard Serpent. I know about Zues, Hera, and how Hades got screwed over by his brothers.(And change the names to whatever the Romans called them ie Jupiter and Pluto instead of Zues and Hades) But science does not debate creation, creationists debate evolution. Creationists spend all their time trying to disprove evolution while evolution is proven, but there is always more to ask. "Yes the flu virus changed, but how? How did it 'realize' it needed to change to keep last years vaccine from killing it?"

And thanks Ksoze for the info on dolphins. See, the smarter animals have more than "one" brain. And again, doesn't the fact that dolphins will play, and not just because humans have taught them to like dogs and cats, but wild dolphins play with each other and even other species. A dolphin will save a human if the human is drowning.(This also led to reports of mermaids) A dolphin will play with other dolphins of other races and groups. I highly doubt instinct told them to play. So they are smart, maybe as smart as we are, they are just smart in a different way. Why does a dolphin need to spend time on making a wheel or car? It doesn't so it never needed the smart to create such a thing. So maybe the "spark" us humans have is just the ability to survive well enough to not need to worry about survival? We are not worried about food, predators, life, for we know the store will sell food, most live in areas where they can not be preyed upon, and they have enough freetime to do what they want when they want. Does the "spark" come from having more than "one" brain? Who knows, science hasn't discovered it yet. Maybe they will, or maybe Amadeus's higher being will show us why/how/what.

Thanks for that great post Amadeus, it was a little, shall we say energetic, but a great post. And Ksoze, again, thanks for the dolphin info.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 04:30 PM
link   
James the Lesser,

It isn't a case of different beliefs. They all experienced the same exact events and time and culture modified the oral histories into what we read today.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Undomiel, thanks for the link. But what are your beliefs/feelings/thoughts/opinions? Do you think that christian creation is right no matter what evidence is provided? Or that creation is correct because it is in the bible. Or a mix of things? Or evolution is correct. You give us these little nitbits, but nothing to fill our minds with. What do you think is correct/could be correct?



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 05:03 PM
link   
James the Lesser,

I think creation is correct. I think micro-evolution is correct. I disagree with macro-evolution. I believe the planet has been here alot longer than some christians think, but I also believe there were other creations here in times past. I believe there was a creation, a devastation and another creation. I believe this is supported by archaeology and even in some evolutionary theories. I'm more of a believer in limited "survival of the species" than straight up evolutionary theory.

I also believe the various creation "myths" of all the various ancient religions are recounting the same exact events, from their own perspective. Time and culture modified the names, shapes and so on, but the features are strikingly the same across the entire globe. I believe the bible is telling the truth. I also believe many of the other supposed "myths" on the planet are telling the truth as they see it or as far as they are able to recount it. I think some "myths" better detail the events than others due to the "Evolution" as it were, of their histories and cultures. If you look past the labels and examine the events, they agree with each other, again and again, and inevitably support each other's "myths"!



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Alright, good point though. The creation stories other nation/religons are from their perspective, maybe. Or maybe humans are more similar than we think and all wanted a explanation and a supernatural explanation made sense.

Thanks for your input though. But this does give one something to consider in all the arguements. Creation stories vary, but not by much. Usually it is just the names or situation, but all the ones I know of besides Christian involve more than one god/goddess. The christian one is the only one I know of that involves only one god. Norse, greek/roman, egyptian, mayan, all have more than one god. Well, thats all for now, goodbye people.



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Ok, so. to recap, does everyone now know what a scientific theory is? I know it took a couple times to teach Astrocreep the difference between bad acid trip and theory, but me and Aeon should have made it clear.

Now, this topic has gotten kinda off course with all the dolphin and spark of life talk. Not that this is bad, great discussion, but not really what I was looking for. I was looking more for arguements of creationists that have better arguements then Dwayne Gish who thinks the Grand Canyon is proof of creation. And of course arguements of people who believe in evolution that counters or moves the discussion along.

Now, with the different creation stories, yes there are many creation stories, but with them there is a god of rain, fertility, war, water, sky, fire, so forth that we know don't exist. We know rain, fertility, fire, so forth have been explained either scientifically or just proven not to be magical. But also said, with more and more things explained, we have lost the mutiple gods. Now we have mainly one question left, why us? And so that only needs one supernatural being, not the dozens to explain every little thing. But when we find out "why us?" will this god to be lost in the next hundreds of years?



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 12:35 PM
link   
If your belief is so strong, then why do you jump to personal insults so quickly. If you must know, I hold bachelor of SCIENCE degree and have for 12 years. I understand fully what you mean but choose to question a theory who's foundation lies on more faith based assumptions than does the one believed by those you're trolling for.

1. The first assumption is that when non-living things gave rise to living material, spontaneous generation occurred.

2. The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

3. The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals are all related.

4. The fourth assumption is that protozoa (single-celled life forms) gave rise to meats (multiple-celled life forms).

5. The fifth assumption is that various invertebrates’ phyla are interrelated.

6. The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.

7. The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to amphibia, and amphibia gave rise to reptiles, and the reptiles to birds and mammals.

The law of probability does not support this theory. For all those things to happen by random chance, even with infinite time, is not probable.


In order to believe the universe has always been here, you must admit that your belief defies the II law of thermodynamics or the basic law of entropy. The law of entropy states that every energy system has had the tendency to run down.


The simplest law of nature proves that disorder comes from order, and not order from disorder over time. Much in the way a metal tries to revert back into it's basic elements and as is the way of man as well.

Law of Entropy: Order + Time = Disorder

Evolution theory: Disorder + Time = Order

Since evolution states that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and the laws of nature acknowledge that our evidence of entropy is true, there would be nothing left of the Earth by now.


“For our lives to be maintained, we must have exactly the correct amounts of oxygen, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, sunlight, magnetic field, speed of rotation and revolution of the earth, distance from the moon, distance from the sun, ozone, water, gravity, temperature, etc., etc., etc. All of these factors must be in the correct amounts, in the right places, at the right times, and in exact relationships with each other. For instance, if our earth’s gravity were weaker, our atmosphere would thin out and be unable to support life. If gravity was stronger, undesirable gases like ammonia would be held in higher concentrations and be detrimental to life. That means our earth has to have been made exactly the right size to generate the perfect amount of gravity to support our atmosphere. But it also had to be the right size to hold our moon in orbit—that means the moon had to be made the right size so it wouldn’t drift off into space or crash into the earth—and stay under control. We could go on and on with this, but the fact is that the evolution model is grossly lacking!"
-Joe Baker






"Why then is not every geological formation full of such intermediate links. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic change, and this is the most obvious and serious objection that can be urged against the theory". -Charles Darwin



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Undomiel:

Why would you say that by pointing out the RACISM in the TORAH, I myself am therefore a RACIST? Do you even know what RACISM is?

If you take the time to read the “OLD TESTAMENT” very thoroughly (and with unprejudiced eyes) you might begin to discover what I am talking about:

Even if you cannot cope with the Paleo Hebrew you should be able to find a good translation in English to read which should capture something of the flavour of the original.

For example, an Ammonite or a Moabite may not come into the “assembly” of YHWH, namely, assimilate himself to the Israelite amphyctionies---a prohibition based on his ethnic race.

Such a one is, by virtue of his ethnic background excluded for ever. This is racism, pure and simple.

Edomites and Egyptians were subject to a less severe rule, but it is racist nevertheless.

Normally by the third generation such a stigma of non-belonging to a special exclusive group starts to fade away. Till then, they too were excluded.

How can Jews and Christians today read this hokkum placed into the mouth of Moses in the Torah and still manage justify such rules?

Yes, there are overtly “racist laws” in the Torah: they are part of Israelite history and Israelite tradition. The Evidence is right there in the texts.

Those clinging to the racist doctrines espoused in the Torah and in the Talmud are not doing their religions any favours.

Even “Iesous” was said to have spoken words that we today would regard in the 21st century as “racist”: for example: Matthew Chapter 15.
He tells a SyroPhoenecian woman (i.e. a gentile) that she is unfit to receive his healing:

“Go away-- for the Son of Man cometh ONLY to save the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel… and anyway, since when is it right to take the Bread of the Children out of their mouths and throw it to the Dogs under the Table?” (Matthew Chapter 15)

According to the Dead Sea Scrolls,(many of which WERE STILL BEING COPIED OUT WHEN R. YEHOSHUA SUPPOSEDLY PRONOUNCED THIS LITTLE GEM OF A SAYING) the Goyim ("Gentiles" or "Heathens") were commonly referred to as "unclean" DOGS, the lowest form of animal life in the Middle east.

So much for "Jeeeeezuzzzz".

Those who point to the bad Greek at the End of Matthew forget that the message to the disciples was “to preach the Kingdom of heaven to the Lost Sheep of the Elect of Israel scattered among among the Gentiles”---a far cry from “preaching the Gospel among all nations” which is clearly a re-working of the original exclusivist Zionist message (after all one of the Duties of the Messiah was to Ingather all the Israelites who were Scattered among the Goyim: so he had sheep “not of this fold” to tend to, and bring back in order to usher in the Tiqqun, or “regeneration” when all the Gentiles would burn in Flames on Judgement Day).

All of this is what I mean when I say RACIST VOMIT--- something you DID NOT ADDRESS in your long, pseudo-historical and pointless-rambling post on the Noah/CIA discussion.

You did NOT discuss or debate my comments on the Racism inherent in these texts in that dribble.

Again, I tell everyone on this post: Read the TEXT for yourself and you will find that the Torah is one of the most racist and sexist collections ever (re-)written, but the average person has to READ it first to wake himself up to the fact, because this aspect of Judeo-Christianity is glossed over in Churches and Synagogues and rarely discussed in the press as well.

But it is all right there in the text.

Even the modern tiny “state” of Israel (which calls itself a “Jewish State”, far from calling itself a “Democracy” ) bears witness to its own inherent racism borne out by the heinous apartheid Buntas in the Territories: over the past 40 years.

And nobody talks about that much in the US press either. The Durban Conference on Race was a real eye opener in this regard.

In fact, The "modern Jewish state of Israel" has clearly become one of the most racist countries in the world, which is a far cry from its original aspirations (it was founded after all mainly by secular Jews who had survived WWII). Any state based on the Old Testament Racist Torah Laws makes a mockery of equality and human rights.

The Old Testament deity (YHWH) commanded the Jews to annihilate all the inhabitants of the land of Canaan (Palestine) as well the nation of Amalek --- men, women and children, oh, and animals too.. And several other nations were to be exterminated and genocided, as you will have gathered from my posts.

My question to you UnDomiel is: how on earth can you ever condone such material as being inspired by any “god” that purports to have any relevance in the 21st century for the general masses of earth's population i.e. the 99.999% who are not "Chosen"?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join