"Evolution is a Lie. Don't Buy It. Read the Bible."

[Lenny]

I was shocked to see a commercial on TV yesterday which flashed this message across the screen and had a narrator say the first three lines:

-------
Evolution is a Lie.
Don't Buy It.
Read the Bible.
Genesis 1:1
-------

It started out talking about Reagan and a plan he had to trick atheists by using chefs and prepared food. Then it said that Evolution is a lie that is taught in schools every day. Then it flashed the above

:eek: I cant believe I saw an commercial like that :confused: I wonder who paid for it

[Niko Bellic]

I was shocked to see a commercial on TV yesterday which flashed this message across the screen and had a narrator say the first three lines:

-------
Evolution is a Lie.
Don't Buy It.
Read the Bible.
Genesis 1:1
-------

It started out talking about Reagan and a plan he had to trick atheists by using chefs and prepared food. Then it said that Evolution is a lie that is taught in schools every day. Then it flashed the above

:eek: I cant believe I saw an commercial like that :confused: I wonder who paid for it

It was the vast right wing zionist conspiracy hacking into the satellite signal.

[Hrolf Kraki]

The Catholic Church now says otherwise. :D

[Uberberserker]

You have never seen a commercial like that?

There is one that is aired around here (paid for by a local baptist church) that starts off with one of those beeping heart monitors... then it flatlines and the commerical says something like "It is appointed that men are under judgement" and goes into being saved.

Sorry I am not into the judgement bit when a monotheistic God could just as easily have created a Perfect World, also I would rather go to Hell with my European Ancestors then to Heaven with the Christians (also I hear that Heaven is Racially Integrated, yuck!)

[Lenny]

The Catholic Church now says otherwise. :DThe Catholic Church says that God didn't create the world?

[jcs]

The Catholic Church says that God didn't create the world?
I think most Catholics are now just saying that evolution via natural selection is under God's control, and that it is His creative mechanism.
It still seems that they're stuck on literalism to some degree. Could Genesis have spiritual significance beyond the lesson that God created us? Could there be an esoteric meaning? I don't mean something hidden within the text, as taught by the Kaballa, but maybe something that's blatantly spelled out which is simply more difficult to grasp. Maybe that book doesn't contain the answers to the question, "Where did we come from?" at all; maybe idiots just like dumb answers, and project their own stupidity into the Bible, and all other works, so as to perceive such texts as imparting simplistic teachings. Hey, if that's all there is to the Bible, we can all be holy men, no? All it takes is a little memorization, it seems...

[6(sic)6]

hehehe....X-tians...
They sure say some funny stuff.

[The Retard]

Evolution has never been proven.

[Hrolf Kraki]

Evolution has never been proven.

It is the most scientifically supported theory in the history of mankind. There is more evidence that backs evolution than evidence that backs the theory of gravity. Seriously.

[Lenny]

It is the most scientifically supported theory in the history of mankind. There is more evidence that backs evolution than evidence that backs the theory of gravity. Seriously.How did life first come about then, it evolved once it existed but it cannot have evolved from nothing in the beginning

Furthermore how can "strict evolutionism" explain the human soul

[Gorilla]

Resorting to 'intelligent design'/creationism, might be a consequence of being a bit 'down the ladder', in qualitative terms of the individual in question.

We need comparitive anatomy classes on creationists, and the decieved, centering on the brain and skull.

[Hrolf Kraki]

How did life first come about then, it evolved once it existed but it cannot have evolved from nothing in the beginning

Furthermore how can "strict evolutionism" explain the human soul

I take it you've never heard of Harold Urey? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

Prove the human soul exists.

Anyways, from all my readings of cosmology I have found that science cannot explain how the "Big Bang" happened. They have ideas, but they are only ideas. I would not be opposed to believing that a higher power created the universe. But science can explain everything since that.

[Lenny]

Prove the human soul exists.There is proof that human consciousness continues after death, therefore the concept that we know as the human soul, exists.

[jcs]

There is proof that human consciousness continues after death, therefore the concept that we know as the human soul, exists.
What proof is that? Because, you know, basic science dictates that human consciousness--as we conceive of 'human consciousness,' at least--is dependent upon something physical going on in our little brains. If all that zapping in your mind ceases, I think your consciousness goes bye-bye, too.

[Lenny]

What proof is that?Ghosts. As proved on "shoutbox" last night :cool:

Also, "near-death experiences" proves consciousness continues

[OVERWATCH]

There is indeed some very strong evidence that consciousness continues after brain function has ceased. The most dramatic case was the one involving Pam Reynolds, who had an NDE experience for some half hour with no measurable brain activity.

Dr. Michael Sabom is a cardiologist whose latest book, Light and Death, includes a detailed medical and scientific analysis of an amazing near-death experience of a woman named Pam Reynolds. She underwent a rare operation to remove a giant basilar artery aneurysm in her brain that threatened her life. The size and location of the aneurysm, however, precluded its safe removal using the standard neuro-surgical techniques. She was referred to a doctor who had pioneered a daring surgical procedure known as hypothermic cardiac arrest. It allowed Pam's aneurysm to be excised with a reasonable chance of success. This operation, nicknamed "standstill" by the doctors who perform it, required that Pam's body temperature be lowered to 60 degrees, her heartbeat and breathing stopped, her brain waves flattened, and the blood drained from her head. In everyday terms, she was put to death. After removing the aneurysm, she was restored to life. During the time that Pam was in standstill, she experienced an NDE
. Her remarkably detailed veridical out-of-body observations during her surgery were later verified to be very accurate. This case is considered to be one of the strongest cases of veridical evidence in NDE research because of her ability to describe the unique surgical instruments and procedures used and her ability to describe in detail these events while she was clinically and brain dead.

http://www.near-death.com/

[daisy]

lenny posted i was shocked to see a commercial on tv yesterday which flashed this message across the screen and had a narrator say the first three lines: evolution is a lie. don't buy it. read the bible. genesis 1:1 glory be to God!__________

[jcs]

Ghosts. As proved on "shoutbox" last night
As discussed on the Shoutbox, the existence of ghosts remains unproven and can be easily explained away.

Also, "near-death experiences" proves consciousness continues
A 'near-death experience' is even more unreliable than a ghost encounter. With the ghost encounter, I said that one's mind is interpreting one's perceptions (of electromagnetic blah blah blah or whatever) as something familiar and understandable. Familiar with Lovecraft? If we could fully and properly perceive the world, we would likely go completely insane. Anyway, the 'near-death experience' is less reliable than the ghost encounter because we have definite proof that the mind is going nuts when oxygen stops going to it. Have someone choke you until you pass out and you'll see what I mean.

[Helios Panoptes]

(8) Michael Sabom published a similar account from a 35-year-old woman who underwent an innovative procedure to remove a brain aneurysm. During her 'standstill' procedure, Pam Reynolds' body temperature was lowered to 60 degrees F, her heartbeat and breathing were stopped, blood was drained from her brain, and her aneurysm was removed. After being clinically dead during the procedure, she reported a classic NDE with a vivid OBE, moving through a 'tunnel vortex,' hearing her deceased grandmother's voice, encountering figures in a bright light, encountering deceased relatives who gave her 'something sparkly' to eat, and 'returning' to her body (Fox 209-210).

Many survival proponents point to Pam Reynolds' case as compelling evidence for survival given that only minimal brain activity must have been present during her standstill procedure. While not completely stopped, her metabolism was reduced to the point that her cells required no new oxygen during standstill. Would the standstill condition be accompanied by enough brain activity to sustain vivid hallucinations?

Though difficult to know for sure, it is reasonable to think that it would not. However, the Reynolds case does not provide compelling evidence for survival unless her out-of-body experience was veridical, actually involving some unknown form of perception. As we shall see, aspects of her testimony suggest that her OBE was not veridical. But first I must explain why reporting an NDE after a standstill operation by itself does not constitute compelling evidence for survival.

If we assume that Pam Reynolds' NDE included a veridical OBE, this implies that she actually left her body while in the standstill condition and observed the operation on her aneurysm from a particular location in space. On this assumption, during her OBE she was actually viewing a procedure on her normal physical body as it happened, in real time.

But unless we assume ahead of time that her OBE was veridical, there is no reason to think that her OBE occurred during the standstill condition. In her procedure she must have been unconscious well before her body had reached 'standstill.' For example, a person might undergo a 6-hour surgery to remove an aneurysm but only be in standstill for 14 minutes. So it is entirely possible that her NDE occurred before her metabolism had been reduced to the standstill state, perhaps while her body gradually 'shut down' as her body temperature was slowly cooled. This would make sense of the fact that most people put in the standstill condition report no experience at all upon recovery.

With the expectation of going into brain surgery, Pam Reynolds must have had a general idea of what her procedure would involve. This general idea could have been incorporated into hallucinatory OBE imagery sometime before standstill was reached, or, for that matter, sometime after standstill was over but before she returned to normal consciousness. In fact, out-of-body discrepancies in her account suggest that her NDE was hallucinatory.

During her OBE, Reynolds claims to have viewed the procedure from above the head surgeon's shoulder, describing her out-of-body vision as "brighter and more focussed and clearer than normal vision" (Fox 209). Given such vivid 'perceptual capabilities,' we would expect there to be no confusion about what she saw during her OBE. But details about the instrument she saw during her OBE contained features that were not features of the instrument actually used in the procedure (a Midas Rex bone saw):

How to account for such a remarkable description by an unconscious non-specialist? At first Sabom was baffled, especially when the subject's description of the saw turned out to contain inaccurate details of certain aspects of the groove and its location ... In the end, he was forced to conclude that the case was ambiguous. Whilst for some, he wrote, Reynolds's observations would help clinch the argument for genuine out-of-body experiences in life-threatening situations, for others it would be dismissed together with comparable cases as wholly hallucinatory or simply based on fantasy. In fact, the jury is still very much out over this case (Fox 210).

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html

[The Retard]

It is the most scientifically supported theory in the history of mankind.

Yeah, scientist are always right, remember bloodletting? That was an awesome theory. I think.

[Helios Panoptes]

Yeah, scientist are always right, remembering bloodletting? That was an awesome theory. I think.

He means it's supported by the most empirical evidence. Your post is a non sequitur.

[The Retard]

He means it's supported by the most empirical evidence. Your post is a non sequitur.

Awe me with this most empirical evidence!

[Helios Panoptes]

Awe me with this most empirical evidence!

This is another non sequitur. I said nothing about a preponderance of evidence. That is a relevant question to ask of Thunor the Great.

[The Retard]

This is another non sequitur. I said nothing about a preponderance of evidence. That is a relevant question to ask of Thunor the Great.

Is that your new word? It makes you sound smart. :D

[Helios Panoptes]

Is that your new word? It makes you sound smart. :D

No, I just use it a lot when addressing you because your posts are not relevant to the ones you are responding to.