New Book - The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator

Oh really! Let me clue you into some rational thought… You assert that that one can still have morals and at the same time not be religious or believe in G-d (this can also include being totally devoid of spirituality). This however is not true, and I will lay emphasis on just why. Sure one can still have MORALS (self laws of quality and regulation), including guidelines and rules based on governmental laws. But what such people fail to realize is that morality still triumphs on a higher order of things, notably FAITH! (the substance of things hoped for, but not seen). Everything is of a “spiritual basis”… if our eyes are open and we are aware of it, one cannot deny what is central to our makeup as human beings.

Thus either way, there is no escaping G-d.

Alphanumeric, I do not respect your intelligence, nor do I have much faith either in your rational processes or your sincerity as a seeker of the truth!

Do you even realize that everything you’ve said to me in all of your previous posts are devoid of realizing one thing… and this has to do with the notion of “FAITH” as I‘ve just pointed out pertaining to “morals“.

Now you may think that this word (faith) is not in your atheist vocabulary, but I will define for you that indeed it is. To be an atheist one also has to have "faith". You’ve told me that you are a “agnostic atheist” and that you acknowledge that there's no way to prove there is no G-d. That is correct, even as an atheist, you don't have the evidence to prove that G-d doesn't exist. Atheism is like a religion in itself, some scientists believe so heavily (almost madly) on the "Theory of Evolution" that it blinds them into believing so strongly that a G-d doesn’t exists. This type of philosophy is actually a whole other religion in itself… that without even realizing it - it too is based solely on “faith” for the mere reason alone that NOT ONE physically tangible (touchable and concrete) true transitional form in the whole history of archeology has ever been found. Nor has anything truly been established in the lab concerning it. Moreover as I’ve also explained with the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy that the laws of physics do not support the Evolution Theory - as I‘ve previously explained that our universe is a closed loop system, for that reason it wins over any open system that may reside within no matter how you choose to look at it. Therefore, evolution is a preconceived notion (involving vague and general ideas) that living things changed and transpired through time without a single shred of evidence, and we are allowing a theory that’s based on misguided faith to be the guiding mechanism of science. So why do I say that the theory of evolution is also a religion? Because it is something that has to be believed (through faith) without visible evidence. Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

The evolution theory CANNOT explain what started that process.



Quantum mechanics is also built on FAITH! Since it requires trying to estimate the actions and behaviors of microscopic particles. This also involves atoms that can be in multiple places at once. (variances of “non locality).

Though, there is still an ultimate question mark that we did not tackle yet. And this is the idea (mentioned in a previous posting here) that in all actuality because we as humans cannot be sure if anything we see is truly “material”, because what we see with our eyes is really only rays of electrical signals (energy) that is transmitted by neurons and deciphered by a tiny part in the back of the brain. Thus the brain is also a material thing in itself, and in truthfulness the room that we are in, is really “within” us, and not the other way around. It is funny how we can dream in sleep, and within our brain still have the sensations to see with our eyes and touch with our hands, yet we have neither eyes nor hands. What is left? Only a incorporeal/spiritual matter - hence FAITH!

Added to all this, time is “relative” (to the speed one is traveling) - it is not something that is absolute, it only exists pertaining to ones conscious point of view or observation. This was one of Albert Einstein’s greatest insights in realizing that time is relative when it speeds up or slows down depending on how fast one thing is moving relative to something else (he termed this “time dilation“). But one of the biggest monumental questions posed by some of the greatest scientific thinkers: Is time really real? Time is of your own making, its clock ticks in your head. The moment you stop thought, time too stops dead - Angelus Silesius.

So if time is relative, and we cant believe what we are even seeing in the scope of all things, EVERYTHING literally becomes moot, and FAITH is the only thing that’s left. IT ALL EQUATES TO G-D! Whether you choose to believe this or not is your own prerogative.

I believe in G-d as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.

book demo:

http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/files/Pictures_and_explanation.pdf

This is the most ridiculous book that I’ve seen. You should be ashamed of yourself. You are either very naïve, and somehow have it in your mind that you are in some way special, or you are greedily taking advantage of people in order to make a buck. There is no evidence that supports that godliness and goodliness are linked in any way but typographically. You are completely incorrect in every thought that you put to paper. You are so naïve in every subject matter that I can’t believe people are wasting their time on you. If you truly believe in God, and feel that your book will provide a clearer understanding, and one will walk away knowing that God really does exist, then why are you selling it for $38.95? You should be giving it away. You call yourself a religious procurement specialist that is absolutely ludicrous. This book is pseudoscience, but your claims should qualify this thread to be moved to religion, where you can tango with people who are more advanced in this area.
 
This is pure bupkis! I know what the fossil record says, and that’s why its wrong about evolution!



A worm is still a worm!



No everything is not well adapted (some creatures are born deformed) and that’s why we should be finding these malfunctioned creatures in the fossil record since perhaps they only had small legs to walk on and could not get food for themselves or fend off predators, but we're not finding these things, and there should MANY of them. The obvious reason we are not finding them is simply because there were no transitional stages.



That’s right, cats coming from cats and humans coming from humans.

Your posts have more rolls than a bakery. At this point in the thread, your posts are officially equivalent to a fossilized wash rag.

No, there should not be many deformed creatures. You seem to be working on a rather childlike understanding of mutation. Deformed creatures would die rather early in their lifetimes.

Transitions didn't happen suddenly with one life form. In fact every creature ever born is almost identical to their parents. The transitions happened very slowly. One would not notice anything special from generation to generation, but after thousands of years change would be evident.

There are in fact creatures that gain some advantage by having small legs. For instance newts.

I don't know why I waste time on you, maybe I just like to waste time. You are ignorant of almost every aspect of evolution.
 
Last edited:
No, there should not be many deformed creatures. You seem to be working on a rather childlike understanding of mutation. Deformed creatures would die rather early in their lifetimes.

Transitions didn't happen suddenly with one life form. In fact every creature ever born is almost identical to their parents. The transitions happened very slowly. One would not notice anything special from generation to generation, but after thousands of years change would be evident.

There are in fact creatures that gain some advantage by having small legs. For instance newts.

I don't know why I waste time on you, maybe I just like to waste time. You are ignorant of almost every aspect of evolution.

And again, I will reiterate… for evolution to have occurred it is based on “genetic change” and there is no way of studying the DNA of fossils - so we can never have any way of relating fossil organisms to one another or to modern ones genetically. Additionally, just because two fossils look the same does not mean they are the same species. So these are factors that fossils will never tell us.

Additionally there is no solid proof that “variation” can make major changes even over hundreds of years. Example… a wolf is still a dog.

Your imagination about this resembles the the KidsCraft Imagination Shuttle Playhouse. :)
 
And again, I will reiterate…why is anyone even wasting their time on this? It is blatantly obvious that you did little or no research prior to publishing this book. It is extremely irresponsible of publishing houses that helped to propagate this bullѕhit, and once again, you should be ashamed of yourself. Did you do any research using legitimate sources on evolution, any?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10626565
http://news.discovery.com/animals/eggshells-fossils-dna.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4260334.stm
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=DNA+of+fossils&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2001&as_sdtp=on
 
And again, I will reiterate… for evolution to have occurred it is based on “genetic change” and there is no way of studying the DNA of fossils - so we can never have any way of relating fossil organisms to one another or to modern ones genetically. Additionally, just because two fossils look the same does not mean they are the same species. So these are factors that fossils will never tell us.

Additionally there is no solid proof that “variation” can make major changes even over hundreds of years. Example… a wolf is still a dog.

Your imagination about this resembles the the KidsCraft Imagination Shuttle Playhouse. :)

The evidence for evolution would be overwhelming even if we had no knowledge of genetics. Morphological changes in creatures over time prove it. The fossil record presents us with a picture of evolution that records the development of many species including humans. It would be great if we also had the DNA, but we don't need it. (It usually takes more than hundreds of years for a new species to split off from it's ancestral species.)

The scientific definition of species doesn't mean "kind" the way you understand it. If a creature not only can't mate to produce viable offspring, but also doesn't usually engage in that kind of mating due to differences in environment or behavior, that is also a new species. A donkey can mate with a horse, but they wouldn't tend to do so in nature. They are different species.
 
Allegory? No sir - there was a huge regional flood here - backed by other ancient writings and a host of other vindicated historical factors seen in the Genesis story - like the first mention of Mount Ararat?
It claims to be a worldwide flood. Now you're saying it was just a regional one. If the bible isn't literally true on that why should it be taken literally true on anything else?

Bigoted? All animal rights laws come from the Hebrew bibe - exclusively. Is LOVE THE STRANGER bigotry? :confused:
You're picking out irrelevant things. The bible talks about women being less than men, that certain peoples can be enslaved or should be wiped out. Its not a moral guide.

The 10 C's are not the world's greatest laws because America fronts up with it - it is what made America the greatest nation. FYI, there are 613 laws in the Hebrew bible - and all are active and embedded in bona fide institutions of the world - to the extent no laws from any other source are accepted.
You should read up on the Founding Fathers. For the majority they were deists, not Christians. And the 10 commandments aren't enforced in the US. The first one is 'no other gods before me' yet its a fundamental tenant of the US constitution that the government cannot prevent people worshipping other gods. The first commandment is in direct contradiction of that.

Well done on not even knowing the history of your own country. The US was not founded as a Christian nation. Anita tried the whole "What did Jefferson think?" line and Jefferson thought one of the most detestable people in literary history was Moses.

And your claim no other sources for laws are allowed is simply wrong. You should look around the world a bit more.

Stoning in ancient times was like a parking fine today. Its the law of not abusing parents which is the thing you avoid mentioning.
Yes, we've gotten rid of the immoral crap from the bible, for the most part, and the fact even religious people pick and choose what to obey means that the bible isn't the authority they claim it to be.

The reason for the success of the english is it resorted back to the Hebrew mode: the greeks seperated the vowels from the Hebrew alphabets, but the english reversed that error - it made the vowels again as alphabets. This is the reason behind the english's pliability, and also the failure of the greek to hold this position.
Nonsense. Learn some history. Britain started the industrial revolution in the early 1800s and for more than a century was the superpower of the world, controlling an empire which is the largest in history (larger than the Roman, Greek and Mongol empires). You speak English because the UK originally controlled the US. India speaks English as a second language because we controlled it. Most of Africa speaks European languages because we controlled it. The success of English has nothing to do with Hebrew, it has to do with power, technology and money.

Learn some history.
 
Oh really! Let me clue you into some rational thought… You assert that that one can still have morals and at the same time not be religious or believe in G-d (this can also include being totally devoid of spirituality). This however is not true, and I will lay emphasis on just why. Sure one can still have MORALS (self laws of quality and regulation), including guidelines and rules based on governmental laws. But what such people fail to realize is that morality still triumphs on a higher order of things, notably FAITH! (the substance of things hoped for, but not seen). Everything is of a “spiritual basis”… if our eyes are open and we are aware of it, one cannot deny what is central to our makeup as human beings.
You simply assert your position, not provide evidence. You clearly not know what rational thought it.


Alphanumeric, I do not respect your intelligence, nor do I have much faith either in your rational processes or your sincerity as a seeker of the truth!
At least I have intelligence and at least I'm honest. The same can't be (and isn't) said for you.

Do you even realize that everything you’ve said to me in all of your previous posts are devoid of realizing one thing… and this has to do with the notion of “FAITH” as I‘ve just pointed out pertaining to “morals“.
You might not be able to see outside your tiny world of faith but some of us aren't narrowed in our vision by blind faith.

Atheism is like a religion in itself
You obviously failed to understand what I said previously.

Generally an atheist is someone who says "I don't believe that" whenever someone says "Supernatural being X exists". "I do not believe your claims of a god" is different from "I believe no gods exist". The former is a position of rational scepticism, where someone isn't going to believe something until presented evidence (just as with any other claims like unicorns, the Loch Ness monster etc). The latter is an assertive position and requires evidence just as "A god exists" requires evidence.

Religious people conflate these two, thinking that saying "I don't believe your claim" is the same as "I believe your claim is false". Atheism is not a religion because it is nothing more than "I don't believe your claim about supernatural beings". That's it, no dogma, tenants, two atheists can disagree on everything else. In fact, they can even disagree on whether they believe no gods exist. If two people both say "I don't believe you" when you say "A god exists" they are both atheists, even if one say "I don't see any evidence so I don't believe, though a god might well exist" and the other says "I believe a god doesn't exist".

You misrepresent atheists because you have an agenda and also because you want to convince yourself of your position. If you were truely honest and you had the evidence you claim you'd not need to lie and misrepresent people, the truth doesn't need to be lied about.

some scientists believe so heavily (almost madly) on the "Theory of Evolution" that it blinds them into believing so strongly that a G-d doesn’t exists.
Evolution and atheism are not tied together. Plenty of theists believe in evolution, including evangelicals. Some atheists don't believe in evolution.

To conflate the two demonstrates you haven't done any real research into the matter. Or you have and you're dishonest.

Moreover as I’ve also explained with the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy that the laws of physics do not support the Evolution Theory - as I‘ve previously explained that our universe is a closed loop system, for that reason it wins over any open system that may reside within no matter how you choose to look at it.
Did you read my previous two explanations? A closed system can contain open subsystems, which themselves will not be obeying the second law of thermodynamics because they are open.

The universe is a closed system but the Earth is an open one. How hard is this for you to grasp? See the giant ball of light and heat in the sky each day?

Seriously, its that easy to disprove you. The fact the Sun appears in the sky is proof you're wrong.

The evolution theory CANNOT explain what started that process.
Misrepresenting evolution again. Evolution is about the development and diversity of life. The origins of life is abiogenesis. The origins of the universe is the big bang cosmology. Creations don't seem to understand the difference.

Yet more evidence you have not done your research.

Quantum mechanics is also built on FAITH! Since it requires trying to estimate the actions and behaviors of microscopic particles. This also involves atoms that can be in multiple places at once. (variances of “non locality).
I have a PhD in theoretical physics, you're not going to get away with just misrepresenting physics. You see the computer you're currently staring at? Built using quantum mechanics. The very fact you're communicating with me is the result of the application of quantum mechanics.

EVERYTHING literally becomes moot, and FAITH is the only thing that’s left. IT ALL EQUATES TO G-D! Whether you choose to believe this or not is your own prerogative.
It might be that god and faith is all you have in your life but some of us aren't tied down by millennia old dogmas written by a bunch of iron age genocidal thugs.

I believe in G-d as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
Ah, so you do know about the Sun. Then you know about the thing which causes the Earth not to be a closed thermodynamical system. Or do you think the Sun doesn't provide heat and light?
 
And again, I will reiterate…why is anyone even wasting their time on this?

A 45-page, ~350,000-word spam with close to 20,000 hits begun by a Bible-based "scientist" whose eternity depends on it (as well as the profits from her $29 book). It rightly belongs in the Pseudoscience forum.
 
Alphanumeric, you are steadily losing ground here… all can see how your posts are becoming more and more nonsensical to my responses. You really should stop before you are totally destroyed.

Its pretty safe to say that I don’t need to reciprocate on the science parts, because its quite obvious how your logic fails. However I would like to follow up on one of your responses to Joseph:

Well done on not even knowing the history of your own country. The US was not founded as a Christian nation. Anita tried the whole "What did Jefferson think?" line and Jefferson thought one of the most detestable people in literary history was Moses.

Alphanumeric you are in for a rude awakening! America is was indeed on founded as a Judeo-Christian nation. Have you ever been to Washington D.C. (the nations capital)? Well if you did you would be able to witness many biblical verses and references commemorating the name of the Jewish G-d etched within granite, marble and brass on federal institutions all over our nations capital.

The U.S. capital building has engravings that say “ what hath G-d wrought!”, and “America! G-d shed his grace on thee”, as well as the famous quotation that is written all over American currency that says, “In G-d we trust“. When one enters the national archives building a bronze depiction of the 10 commandments gilds the entryway floor. Additionally within the capital building there are rotunda paintings… some which include Pocahontas being baptized, and pilgrims praying for G-d’s mercies before sailing to the New World. One can also view above the house chamber’s main door where there are marble relief’s of history’s 22 greatest lawmakers, in which they are all facing Moses. It doesn’t stop there, it continues on into the supreme court building above the eastern pediment (a triangular looking rock area) are histories major lawmakers (carved out in a realistic dimension setting) in which Moses is again in the center holding a copy of the 10 commandments. But to first enter the supreme court one must pass through two oak doors which also have an engraved depiction of the 10 commandments on them, and in the court room itself, above the justices chair benches one can see another engraving of Moses holding the 10 commandments. Additionally, within the U.S. capital building’s chapel there are stained glass windows which portray George Washington praying below the phrase, “This Nation Under G-d”.

Additionally, the Liberty Bell (located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) is inscribed with Leviticus 25:10 that proclaims - Liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.

Furthermore, few people may actually know that the Washington monument cornerstone contains within it a copy of the Constitution, the Declaration, and the “Kings James Bible“. Additionally, the engravings and inscriptions on the monument venerate G-d, stating such things as: In G-d we trust. Moreover, on its top cap it reads “laus Deo” (which means, praise be to G-d). So let us also understand that America was founded on Christian ideals that were based off of the Jewish Old Testament that “ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL”. Many Americans fail to realize that their “freedoms” come about because they were founded on a Judeo Christian based society, yet these rights are used against us by “atheist” when they claim its “unconstitutional” when they are subjected to religion. These people are victims of a society that is losing its grip on the meaning of true “democracy” - for to destroy America one must simply destroy peoples faith. Hosea 4:6 - My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy G-d, I will also forget thy children. The knowledge that is being referred to, is the knowledge of religion that was the “first initiator” of the importance of “liberty and equality“. Democracy cannot work properly without religion backing it. The reason for this is because the notion for what we as humans call “freedom” was first noticed when and only after “sin” crept into the equation (the fall of Adam and Eve), which later in history led to the giving of the 10 commandments on which “liberation“ is a precondition - representing the Jews that were LIBERATED out of Egypt. Later on in history Jesus showed us what equality means by breaking the taboos on fellowship with lepers, prostitutes, Roman soldiers and tax collectors. Even women traveled with him in his larger company of disciples. These Judeo Christian beliefs were later instilled into the 3rd president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson (in his political philosophy) which can be found in the Declaration of Independence. In one brief and fleeting paragraph, Jefferson condensed the essence of “American thinking” concerning human existence and the proper role of government. In effect, these words are the guts, backbone and spirit of America when Jefferson said: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.

Not just Thomas Jefferson but most if not all of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were in fact religious men. In a literal sense if it were not for the Jews, the founding fathers of the United States of America could not have appropriately made the Declaration and Constitution. But the basis for such inalienable rights and freedoms additionally stem from a source that one might not think. These rights are defined by a clause called the “laws of Nature” and of “Natures G-d”. This was a law directly out of the New Testament Bible. Romans 1:19 - Because that which may be known of G-d is manifest in them; for G-d hath shewed it unto them. Basically the bill of rights states what it considers to be inalienable rights based off of G-d’s design for nature. Such as in the right to keep and bear arms, which is a right that is based off of self defense. G-d put it in nature that we may witness every animal defending its young and know that the same is applied to us.

The first 56 word of the Declaration are noticeably G-d orientated. However, some people assume that the Constitution is separated from the Declaration because there is no mention of G-d. However, the Constitution is not G-dless and it is not a separate document. It may look like a secular document, but the Constitution based on article 7 states that when we ratified the constitution that it was not done as a brand new document, but based under the Declaration. Therefore it was not necessary for the Constitution to repeat what was already there.

However to end this argument for once and for all that the Constitution is wholeheartedly Judeo-Christian orientated… When we go back to the very roots of the Constitution we specifically know from American history that the first main group of people to settle in North America were the “Puritans“. The Puritans were members of the Church of England that wanted to “purify” the English Bible. At that time they were than called the “Separatists or the Pilgrims” who moved to Holland for approximately nine years, and from Holland they sailed to Virginia in 1606 in the famous ship called the “Mayflower”. Now when the people traveling to the New World on this ship realized that they had no government, they assembled together and called it the “Mayflower Compact”, which produced the first document written in the New World which reads: We the herby undersigned having undertaken for the glory of G-d and the advancement of the Christian faith a voyage to plant a first colony on the northern parts of Virginia do form a civil body politic (1620). This was later the blueprint of the Connecticut Constitution which was in turn the famous blueprint for the U.S. constitution which starts off - “We the people” of the United states of America. As Judeo- Christian history progressed throughout the world, all of Europe was Christian, Germany - Lutheran, Switzerland - Calvinist, Holland - Dutch reform, Sweden - sweetish Lutheran, Greece - Greek orthodox, Russia - Russian orthodox, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Poland - roman catholic, England - Anglican and Scotland - Presbyterian.

And for those that continue to argue (and push) their atheist views to separate and even go to the lengths of banning religion from the schools, public places and the country… let these people remember that the founding fathers of America where Judeo Christian Masons with the original intention for a country based off of religion and G-d. This is what truly made/makes America. It will be a sad day when religion is abolished, and all those who fight for religion to be excluded from the subjection of its citizens. In effect we will have lost the true meaning of what it means to be LIBERATED. When we loose touch of religion, we are cut off from all freedoms given to us by our loving creator, for it is only by Him that they are given. Thomas Jefferson as aforementioned: They are endowed by their Creator.

A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday, does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do. We are trying to do a futile thing if we do not know where we came from or what we have been about. - Woodrow Wilson the twenty-eighth President of the United States.
 
America is was indeed on founded as a Judeo-Christian nation.
FALSE

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

Architecture is non-binding as far as law is concerned. It takes 2 seconds to refute your nonsense.

-------------


Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
 
Last edited:
And again, I will reiterate…why is anyone even wasting their time on this? It is blatantly obvious that you did little or no research prior to publishing this book. It is extremely irresponsible of publishing houses that helped to propagate this bullѕhit, and once again, you should be ashamed of yourself. Did you do any research using legitimate sources on evolution, any?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10626565
http://news.discovery.com/animals/eg...ssils-dna.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4260334.stm
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...001&as_sdtp=on

Trooper,

Apparently there is a rumor going around the Internet that “I am in fact a highly respected biologist at a top US university“. One never knows? :rolleyes:

I will comment on those websites that you listed…

Firstly, DNA can be destroyed by light and water, and contaminants can give false readings. Now the recovery of DNA from fossil/bone remains is a weak molecule compared with other biomacromolecules in tissues. They used this method of dating DNA from the bones of Neanderthal man, who is said to have allegedly appeared around 600,000 - 350,000 years ago, (which is a crock)! Geneticists noted that the Neanderthals DNA hasn’t changed a bit! Its DNA is genetically and anatomically consistent with modern humans. It is also known that this MtDNA sequence is still common in modern Europeans. Let me also say that anatomical differences along with minor genetic differences, does not make a human more or less human.

Bottom line… Neanderthals were HUMAN! And this is what they will find when it comes to other DNA testing on fossils that they assume are millions/billions of years old. The same test results will ensue that they carry the same Anatomical DNA as their modern decedents. This genetic information will only provide what we already know. Additionally in the full scope of this science, all living things share what’s called a “tool kit” of genes, meaning, we as humans have similar DNA that can also be found in a Cat, even a lizard. But let me emphasis that this in no way proves that we are related or the same species. All that we have here is the same colors that are used in a painting, but they all paint a different picture.

And please take notice how all these websites that you have supplied do not claim to have linked any of this DNA testing to transitional forms/fossils. They all say it is a future endeavored that is yet to have been reached.
 
Please stop lying. Of course they were human, the Theory of Evolution implies exactly that. But they were a different species, related to us by an ancient common ancestor.


If Neandertals made a significant genetic contribution to modern humans, similarities should exist between DNA of Neandertals and that of people from Europe, where the Neandertals persisted the longest. Pääbo and his colleagues compared the Neandertal DNA to that from five modern populations, but it proved no closer to DNA from modern Europeans than to that from four other groups. While this does not rule out the possibility of Neandertal and modern human mixing, it suggests that the Neandertal genetic contribution to modern gene pools, if any, was small. [source]
 
Last edited:
Posted by Anita Meyer
“ America is was indeed founded as a Judeo-Christian nation.”

Posted by Spidergoat
FALSE

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Architecture is non-binding as far as law is concerned. It takes 2 seconds to refute your nonsense.


Wrong!

We the herby undersigned having undertaken for the glory of G-d and the advancement of the Christian faith a voyage to plant a first colony on the northern parts of Virginia do form a civil body politic (1620). - the “Mayflower Compact”.

Calling you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. :bugeye:
 
Please stop lying. Of course they were human, the Theory of Evolution implies exactly that. But they were a different species, related to us by an ancient common ancestor.


If Neandertals made a significant genetic contribution to modern humans, similarities should exist between DNA of Neandertals and that of people from Europe, where the Neandertals persisted the longest. Pääbo and his colleagues compared the Neandertal DNA to that from five modern populations, but it proved no closer to DNA from modern Europeans than to that from four other groups. While this does not rule out the possibility of Neandertal and modern human mixing, it suggests that the Neandertal genetic contribution to modern gene pools, if any, was small. [source]

No they weren’t a different “species“, they were just a “variation” of humans. These same variations exists today between Caucasian, African, Spanish, Chinese, Aborigine, fat, skinny, short, tall, ugly, pretty, smart… and so dumb in your case I can’t believe that out of 100,000 sperm, you were the fastest! ;)
 
That's what species are, a variation of a previous form. Species is an artifical concept, a human definition. But Neanderthals were far more different from us than the races are from each other. In fact, the variations between the races are less than that between individuals.
 
Alphanumeric you are in for a rude awakening! America is was indeed on founded as a Judeo-Christian nation. Have you ever been to Washington D.C. (the nations capital)? Well if you did you would be able to witness many biblical verses and references commemorating the name of the Jewish G-d etched within granite, marble and brass on federal institutions all over our nations capital.
The Founding Fathers were deists and the engraving of the various bible quotes on government buildings is a violation of the separation of church and state. That fundamental tenant of the constitution is perhaps the one most often violated, probably because the majority of Americans don't mind it being violated, just like slavery was accepted because 'the majority' thought it was okay for the longest time. Doesn't mean it was, even if the bible says its okay.

There's ceremonial deism in many countries which are mostly secular but that's not the same as 'being' a particular religious nation. Here in the UK we have the Queen as the head of the Church of England, which is the 'official' religion but no one takes it as seriously as say Saudi Arabia takes Islam. I'm not religious but I'll still respect churches and I'm quiet during funerals etc. But then I'd respect anyone's property and not 'crash' any event for someone else.

as well as the famous quotation that is written all over American currency that says, “In G-d we trust“.
Which was added in 1954 (If memory serves, US history is not my thing), partly due to the whole "Red scare" where the USSR was depicted as a godless nation and the whole 'religious right' or 'moral majority' thing was strong in the US. State endorsed prayer in school wasn't there originally, neither was 'God' (ie the Judeo-Christian God*) involves in oaths of office or the pledge of allegiance, which always seemed a weird one to us Brit. A vague comment on that is how in all TV shows about US government agencies (FBI etc) there's always a US flag in the corner. Are you all insecure about your patriotism or something?

* I find it funny that Christians and Jews disagree on so many things, such as Christ being divine or worth listening to (hence the name Christian) yet whenever it suits someone's purpose suddenly its the 'Judeo-Christian God', when infact there's much more similarity between Islam and Judaism than either with Christianity. Things like having a lot more ceremonies and day-to-day rules, such as food rules. Christianity is the odd one out but no one wants to say 'Judeo-Islamic God' !! God forbid! (which each religion seems to think he did!).

When one enters the national archives building a bronze depiction of the 10 commandments gilds the entryway floor. Additionally within the capital building there are rotunda paintings… some which include Pocahontas being baptized, and pilgrims praying for G-d’s mercies before sailing to the New World. One can also view above the house chamber’s main door where there are marble relief’s of history’s 22 greatest lawmakers, in which they are all facing Moses. It doesn’t stop there, it continues on into the supreme court building above the eastern pediment (a triangular looking rock area) are histories major lawmakers (carved out in a realistic dimension setting) in which Moses is again in the center holding a copy of the 10 commandments. But to first enter the supreme court one must pass through two oak doors which also have an engraved depiction of the 10 commandments on them, and in the court room itself, above the justices chair benches one can see another engraving of Moses holding the 10 commandments.
Things built in the last 150 years have nothing to do with the Founding Fathers. I know America has a short history but it goes back further than that.

Additionally, within the U.S. capital building’s chapel there are stained glass windows which portray George Washington praying below the phrase, “This Nation Under G-d”.
Individually some people were religious but they deliberately founded a non-religious government. The first wave of people from Europe came because in Europe there were official state religions and plenty of people were persecuted because of it. By founding a secular government which couldn't promote one religion over another (and there's 30,000 different Christian churches so 'Christianity' doesn't count as just one. Ask a mormon!) so that religious belief of anyone would be unhindered by the government.

The fact the US government gives tax exempt status to 'valid' religions is a flagrant violation of the Establishment Clause, as it puts the government directly in the business of saying "You're a real religion, you're a cult, you're a cult, you're valid".

So the fact you can point to things now which violate the constitution doesn't support your case, it just means that people of a particular belief hold enough power and enough of a majority to let certain things slide. But if any single sect of Christianity got too much power in the US the other sects would be suppressed in some way so its in their best interest to keep a vague truce. After all if you go too far you end up with a theocracy and despite the bible not having any issues with that there's enough trouble in the Middle East from such things.

Democracy cannot work properly without religion backing it. The reason for this is because the notion for what we as humans call “freedom” was first noticed when and only after “sin” crept into the equation (the fall of Adam and Eve), which later in history led to the giving of the 10 commandments on which “liberation“ is a precondition - representing the Jews that were LIBERATED out of Egypt.
Except that the Greeks invented (or at least applied it on a wide scale) and they either were before the events you mention (if those events even occured) or at the very least didn't believe in the god of the bible.

And the whole "Let my people go" thing doesn't promote democracy. Moses wasn't voted in, he was 'choosen by god' and if the people didn't like that tough. The bible preaches "I'm god, so as I say or I'll burn you". Yeah, real democratic. Please point me to the passage where 'God's choosen people' held an election to decide who among them would be their leader.

These Judeo Christian beliefs were later instilled into the 3rd president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson (in his political philosophy) which can be found in the Declaration of Independence.
The same guy who considered Moses the most detestable figure in literary history? Yeah, I'm really sure he was following the bible's lead on that one....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.
All people save the black ones cos they don't count and that's not what 'the Creator' (which by no means means the god of the bible, deists don't have to believe in that god to believe in a god) was referring to, right? Right? Because as everyone knows the US didn't have slavery on the books ever, right? And it was always the deeply religious Deep South who were most accommodating to blacks, right?

Oh, hang on, it was precisely the opposite. 'The Bible Belt' were the states during your civil war which supported slavery. Maybe they weren't 'true Christians', as they obviously didn't get the message of democracy and equal rights for all you seem to think is a natural inevitability of the bible. It wasn't until the much more secular Europe said "This is wrong" and the idea spread that slavery was stopped. And it only took about 1800 years of Christianity. Yep, that message really rang loud and clear out of the bible!
The first 56 word of the Declaration are noticeably G-d orientated. However, some people assume that the Constitution is separated from the Declaration because there is no mention of G-d. However, the Constitution is not G-dless and it is not a separate document. It may look like a secular document, but the Constitution based on article 7 states that when we ratified the constitution that it was not done as a brand new document, but based under the Declaration. Therefore it was not necessary for the Constitution to repeat what was already there.
You really do need to learn what 'deism' means.

The Puritans were members of the Church of England that wanted to “purify” the English Bible.
Is that a bit like Conservapedia wanting to expunge all 'liberal bias' from the King James version?


And for those that continue to argue (and push) their atheist views to separate and even go to the lengths of banning religion from the schools, public places and the country…
Strawman. Kids in school can still pray. They can still pray in parks. They can still go to church. All that happened was government lead prayer was stopped and government funded things could not be religious in nature, precisely as the Constitution you just rambled on about says!

I'm atheist and I don't want to ban churches or religion. In my ideal world people wouldn't need the crutch of religion, they'd employ critical thinking skills (something too many people lack) and realise that there's no evidence for a god. Doesn't mean there is not god, personal faith I don't have much of an issue with. What I have issue with is all the dogmatic crap and the whole "My believe X therefore I'm going to enforce that on you". Its only in the last few years Sunday trading laws have been weakened here in the UK. I remember shops only being allowed to be open for 4~6 hours on a Sunday and not before 11am. Two people of the same gender want legally recognised association? Fine. They want to call it 'marriage'? Fine. Its not harming anyone. The notion of banning religion is as stupid as 'banning' homosexuality. As just about every law in existence shows banning something doesn't mean some people won't do it. Education, information and honesty is the way to do with a lot of things, be you a Christian who dislikes homosexuality or an atheist who dislikes religion.

This is what truly made/makes America.
Nothing to do with vast resources, a strong economic foundation and the fact you didn't have the shit bombed out of you last century then? The UK is officially Christian and we've gone from the most powerful country on Earth to just another European country. China is officially atheist and it'll overtake the US in economic power, its only a matter of time. The US has the largest prisoner population, per capita, of any country and even then a higher proportion than the population at large is religious. The UK has a population of about 65 million and a prison population of about 85,000. The US has a population of about 5 times that but a prison population around 20~25 times that. Having faith obviously doesn't make you automatically behave in a particular way, so just sticking the 10 commandments on a few government buildings isn't going to make your country's issues go away.

It will be a sad day when religion is abolished, and all those who fight for religion to be excluded from the subjection of its citizens.
Strawman. If you bothered to ask a couple of atheists or secular people you'd find that very very few want religion banned. It should not be helped via tax breaks or government funding or through legislature

In effect we will have lost the true meaning of what it means to be LIBERATED.
Liberated in what sense? Liberated from having to think for yourself? Liberated from having to work out how the universe works? Liberated from questions on morality and justice? Your god, if he exists, is everywhere at all times, seeing and knowing everything. To paraphrase Christopher Hitchins, your god is like big brother and makes the entire universe into something akin to North Korea, where he must be praised endlessly, regardless of what he does (or doesn't) do and since he's always watching you he knows when you think anything 'against the state' (or in this case religion). The book of revelations talks about how god is endlessly praised by those weird creatures in heaven and sits on a golden thrown. Is he that insecure that he needs someone to keep telling him how awesome he is? Just because he created them? And he can send anyone who doesn't to a place of eternal torment because he's god, we're here because of him and what he says goes (the whole 'might makes right' concept of the god of the bible is anti-democratic and immoral)? My parents made me but they wouldn't be allowed to lock me in the basement and have someone constantly torture me, yet god gets away with it!

If your morals work in the fashion that if an act is sinful if I do it but just if a god does then you don't have any notion of what morality is. Personally I wouldn't want to spend an eternity with such a being, heaven for me would not having to kiss ass to someone 24/7. In fact the very notion of living forever I think would be a punishment, not a reward. That's not to say I don't like living, living healthily for say 500 years and then dying quickly would be nice, enough time to see the world (and maybe even other planets if technology keeps going) and try my hand at lots of things. Living forever would be terribly boring after the first trillion millennia or so.

When we loose touch of religion, we are cut off from all freedoms given to us by our loving creator, for it is only by Him that they are given.
Its sad you have such a narrow view of existence, that you need someone else to define it for you. Perhaps this is part of the reason to cling to faith so hard, you have completely defined yourself and your view of the world through the eyes of 'there's a big man in the sky watching everything and if you're bad he'll burn you forever'. Now you're in so deep you can't bear to let go or even consider letting go of your security blanket.
 
As usual you retort to the things I have said about the founding of the U.S. which was based off of Judeo-Christian beliefs, and by saying Judeo-Christian, I am saying that Christianity was based off of Judaism. However the facts still remain no matter how you tried to refute them, that the U.S. from the very beginning of its origins was built on Judeo-Christian beliefs. I’m not saying that we have a perfect system here, but for the most part it works for the better. I don’t like debating idiosyncrasies it is futile and pointless (for instance the subject between Church and State), which apparently you do.

If your morals work in the fashion that if an act is sinful if I do it but just if a god does then you don't have any notion of what morality is. Personally I wouldn't want to spend an eternity with such a being, heaven for me would not having to kiss ass to someone 24/7. In fact the very notion of living forever I think would be a punishment, not a reward. That's not to say I don't like living, living healthily for say 500 years and then dying quickly would be nice, enough time to see the world (and maybe even other planets if technology keeps going) and try my hand at lots of things. Living forever would be terribly boring after the first trillion millennia or so.

Its sad you have such a narrow view of existence, that you need someone else to define it for you. Perhaps this is part of the reason to cling to faith so hard, you have completely defined yourself and your view of the world through the eyes of 'there's a big man in the sky watching everything and if you're bad he'll burn you forever'. Now you're in so deep you can't bear to let go or even consider letting go of your security blanket.

It is your right to believe what you want, and since you don’t believe in G-d does that mean when you die, all consciousness dies and that’s it, just blackness? If so, what would be the purpose of all life then? Why live to die? If we are conscious beings and can perceive life after death, then maybe consciousness caries over to somewhere else. You are really shorting yourself here if you deduce yourself down to just blackness.

If the Good Book is right, it gives us the answer to our origins and what life is all about, and it even informs us of life after death. There are two places we are told about… either Heaven or Hell. This being the case (if it is correct, which I believe it to be) a person is judged by the way the Good Book says and if you don’t meet that criteria, its hell for you.

My question for you Alphanumeric is… The mind is its own place, and in itself, can make heaven of hell, and a hell of Heaven. You can say to yourself, that there is no Heaven or hell and that its all pure gibberish - a product of the demented imagination of faith believing people. However, what if you are wrong? Why take that chance? If I am wrong then I have nothing to lose. Now I know you’ve said that you don’t want to kiss ass 24/7 nor do you even want to live forever since you think it is punishment. If it is correct that hell does exist, these negative motives will sink you to a shallow grave, which is hell. The Bible says that it is a place of torment and burning pain FOREVER! How does the notion of living in this kind of torment forever sound, as apposed to living happily at ease 24/7 kissing glorious ass in Heaven.

I suppose one day we will all find out, but until then you’re 100% right, I am never letting go of my security blanket - EVER! :)
 
However the facts still remain no matter how you tried to refute them, that the U.S. from the very beginning of its origins was built on Judeo-Christian beliefs.
Historical facts say otherwise. The notion of "Don't kill, rob or rape" isn't religious in origin, its a necessary set of rules for people to live in groups. The notion of "Be good to people and they are more likely to be good to you" did not originate with the bible but rather the bible simply states basic principles of any civil society.

Yes, the population of the US at its beginning was mostly of Christian persuasion but that doesn't mean the bible is the only possible way to arrive at the laws and principles set out in your constitution. Yes, perhaps long ago the rules of the bible helped rein in the more violent and unpleasant parts of societies but that doesn't imply that without the bible there'd be no laws or we'd be without the notion of good deeds and helping others for the purposes of fostering a stable society. Cultures like the native Americans or native Australians had similar principles of not killing one another in day to day life and not to steal other people's property, despite being utterly isolated from any kind of Abrahamic religion until the Americas and Australia were discovered. Clearly people can conclude "Thou shall not kill" without the bible, so in fact its more reasonable to conclude that the bible got many of its basic rules from society, not the other way around.

I’m not saying that we have a perfect system here, but for the most part it works for the better.
So would a secular morality and secular laws. People realise that certain actions have unpleasant consequences for some people or everyone and thus say "In order to get along no one should.....".

I don’t like debating idiosyncrasies it is futile and pointless
You'd rather we go back to your ignorance on thermodynamics?

(for instance the subject between Church and State), which apparently you do.
No, I just care about what is true. I'm not American so this isn't some kind of patriotic thing, I see you saying things which are either false or unjustified or utterly illogical and I say so. You failed to present any evidence for your claims, you trotted out laughably stupid creationist ignorance and when all of that failed you've moved on to simply trying to assert that without religion we'd lack things like laws. You move from point to point, each time failing to justify your claims or making a different claim when you have your current one disproven.

It is your right to believe what you want, and since you don’t believe in G-d does that mean when you die, all consciousness dies and that’s it, just blackness?
To say 'its just blackness' implies that somehow my consciousness is aware of itself yet gets no sensory input. No, I experience nothing. Ever had anaesthetic or gotten really drunk or fallen asleep without realising it? You don't experience anything during those times, that's what I would imagine death would like, ie its not 'like' anything. The thing which is 'me' is a highly complex electrochemical pattern within my brain maintained by the input of chemical energy and oxygen. Should either of those stop for a protracted period of time 'I' stop. Once the pattern is gone 'I' am gone and I experience nothing whatsoever.

If so, what would be the purpose of all life then?
Why should live have a purpose, in the sense you mean? There's no reason to think life must have a grand purpose, it exists to continue its existence. Of course I can give myself purpose, to learn and experience things, to helps others or to somehow leave my mark in our society but even that eventually vanishes as humans won't be around forever and even a few generations from now its likely no one will remember anything about it. That doesn't make my life utterly vacuous without any reason to carry on, atheism isn't some kind of nihilistic emo point of view. If you want a purpose in life, give yourself one. Better someone else's life or contribute to society, as that's the only way you'll do anything which won't be immediately forgotten.

Certainly doing something like helping society is a much better purpose than the one Christianity promotes, that we're going to an afterlife to either be tortured or be stuck saying "Wow, you're fucking awesome" every 5 seconds to some bearded guy on a throne. What's the purpose in that? Who'd want to spend eternity give god metaphorical handjobs?

Why live to die? If we are conscious beings and can perceive life after death, then maybe consciousness caries over to somewhere else. You are really shorting yourself here if you deduce yourself down to just blackness.
And if you're wrong you really waste your one and only life praising someone who doesn't exist. Pascal's wager fails on so many levels because the notion that belief costs you nothing is evidentially false. You, Anita, have shut your mind to rational thought and intellectual curiousity, which is one of the biggest prices a person can pay.

If the Good Book is right
There's little or nothing 'good' about 'the good book'.

it gives us the answer to our origins and what life is all about, and it even informs us of life after death.
So what is life all about? It seems nothing we do matters here in this life provided we accept Jesus etc etc and then when we get to the next the only purpose is to be a sycophant to some guy who claims to be 'loving' and 'caring' but threatens people with infinite torment for a single 'crime' of not believing, independent of what else they do.

If someone can murder 20 people and then be 'born again' and get into heaven while someone who works all their life bettering the lives of the poor and needy, but doesn't think there's enough evidence to believe, gets tormented forever then there's absolutely zero reason to call god moral, just, merciful, honourable, kind or in any way good. If god exists and the bible is an accurate representation of his character then he doesn't deserve worship.

and if you don’t meet that criteria, its hell for you.
And the one and only criteria seems to be "Do you honestly believe?". If someone's actions don't come into it then its an unjust way of judging people, as my comment about a murderer highlights. The Christian god rewards ignorance and gullibility over kindness and charity. What's the justice in that?

However, what if you are wrong? Why take that chance? If I am wrong then I have nothing to lose
As I just said, Pascal's wager fails on every level. First you assume the criteria you think god uses to judge you are the actual criteria. You assume that 'god' is the Christian god, if he's Allah then you're just pissing him off by not praying 5 times a day, so meeting your god's criteria doesn't mean you've met some other god's criteria. You're assuming thoughts matter more than actions. You're assuming your faith costs you nothing when it seems to have cost you your intellectual honesty and curiosity. And you're also assuming that faith is subject to the will. I can say "Jesus is my saviour" but is that enough? If someone is a Christian just to avoid hell is their god not all knowing? Can he not tell if someone is just 'going through the motions' out of fear?

Not all religions can be right, so you jumping through the hoops for the Christian god doesn't mean you'll not end up in the hell of some other god. Some religions, including some sects of Christianity, dislike the believes of other religions but those who don't believe in other gods (aka atheists) are okay. For instance, I'm not breaking the 1st commandment, I have no other gods before the Christian god. But then I have no gods at all. And if I die and find myself in front of St. Peter and he says "Despite you being a good person and being rational and intellectually honest your lack of faith in god, for which you never saw any evidence for, means He is condemning you to hell" then god is, quite frankly, a dick. If god is actually this kind, merciful intelligent benevolent father figure than if I'm a good person and I am intellectually honest and he knows that I didn't see sufficient evidence to make a reasonable conclusion that he exists then he'd not condemn me to eternal torture. After all, he knows everything and the honesty of each and every persona and the very notion of hell is the antithesis of being merciful and benevolent. But it might well be the case that god isn't a moral and just person and then he might just torment everyone, including people who believed in him. You have no reason to think your religion's view of him is right or that he/she/it/they dislike anyone not in that religion.

You and plenty of theists have this "If there's a god then its certain to be my god" train of logic, in that if I'm wrong then you must be right. I can be wrong and you can be wrong, if there's deities which aren't the Christian one. As I said, not all religions can be right but they can all be wrong.

If it is correct that hell does exist, these negative motives will sink you to a shallow grave, which is hell. The Bible says that it is a place of torment and burning pain FOREVER! How does the notion of living in this kind of torment forever sound, as apposed to living happily at ease 24/7 kissing glorious ass in Heaven.
Is this your plan now, you've tried arguing nonsense, you've tried the creationist talking points, you've tried lying about science and history and now you're onto the emotional blackmail. Its the Mafia boss situation, god says "Do as I say or I break your legs" or "It'd be a shame if something bad happened to you but if you pay me I'll protect you".

God has the power to prove to everyone he exists, if he exists. He would know precisely what it would take to convince me in such a way that I don't think I've gone nuts. So why doesn't he? Why does he play this game where he used to be a burning bush or a column of fire but now he just works 'in mysterious ways'. Ways so mysterious 70% of people don't believe the stories about him (ie non-Christians) and no one, despite plenty of people wanting to, can provide clear evidence he exists. And he's come up with a game where people who aren't gullible and who use the mind he's given them to ask questions like "Why should I believe this thing without evidence?" are tormented forever while those who turn their eyes away from the universe he created for them get rewarded.

According to your theology he made the universe and knows all things, past, present and future, so he knew that humans would 'fall' and stop believing in him and rather than do as he (supposedly) did in the past and come down and demonstrate himself he keeps quiet and then burns those who didn't believe a copy of a copy of a heavily edited synopsis of a story passed down via here-say from people who weren't eye witnesses to the last time he supposed demonstrated himself openly.

If god wants people to believe why doesn't he demonstrate himself? Why rely on a book which has been heavily edited by people with agendas and which isn't even an eye witness account in the vast majority of it (and those which might be are suspect)? Why did he stop demonstrating himself? If we're so much more sinful and whatnot now why is he more silent than he used to be?

I suppose one day we will all find out, but until then you’re 100% right, I am never letting go of my security blanket - EVER! :)
Then you waste the one life you're certain to have in the hope there might be another. Its like buying a lottery ticket, winning and then throwing it away because the next ticket might be a bigger prize. I suppose you can liken it to the Nigerian 419 scams. They promise you $20 million but need a small up front fee. What's $1000 when you'll get $20 million? Then there's some problem and they need another $5000. Then $8000. Then $10000. Then before you know it you've lost all your money and all you have is empty promises.
 
Last edited:



Absolutely true the Consitution was derived exclusively from the Hebrew laws - to the extent at the time it was a direct rebuff to medevial Europe's clergy ruled criminalities. This has been reiterated by the archives of early American presidents, while there is nowhere else it could have come from. The seperation of state and religion also comes frm Israel [ch. King David and Nathan]. America owes 90% of its super power status and ethical judiciary law elevations to Jews, including America's discovery by a morano Jew Columbus.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

Architecture is non-binding as far as law is concerned. It takes 2 seconds to refute your nonsense.

-------------


Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

The laws of liberty and inalienable human rights are seen only in the Hebrew bible, and antithetiized in the Gospels and Quran. It is the underlying reason for Europe/Islam's anti-Americanism.

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

Than you have to read more anscient history. Where else will you find a great king [David, representing the state] being impeached by a prophet [Nathan, representing the law] before the nation - and the King accepting the verdict? Go do some googling.
 
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government.


Here you are - from a 3000 year historical archive:


2 Samuel Chapter 12

1 And the LORD sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him: 'There were two men in one city: the one rich, and the other poor. 2 The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds; 3 but the poor man had nothing save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and reared; and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own morsel, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter. 4 And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him, but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.'

5 And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan: 'As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this deserveth to die; 6 and he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.' {S}

7 And Nathan said to David: 'Thou art the man. {S} Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel: I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8 and I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that were too little, then would I add unto thee so much more. 9 Wherefore hast thou despised the word of the LORD, to do that which is evil in My sight? Uriah the Hittite thou hast smitten with the sword, and his wife thou hast taken to be thy wife, and him thou hast slain with the sword of the children of Ammon. 10 Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from thy house; because thou hast despised Me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. {S} 11 Thus saith the LORD: Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For thou didst it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.' {S}


13 And David said unto Nathan: 'I have sinned against the LORD.'
 
Back
Top