dem·o·crat: one who subverts authority; unpleasant, destructive, hateful, vile, malicious, vicious, heinous, ugly, bad, nefarious, villainous, corrupt, malevolent, hideous, wicked, harm, pain, catastrophe, calamity, ill willed, a reviler; a defamer; a slanderer; a detractor; a carper; a calumniator; a muckraker; a vilifier; a disparager; a slanderer; a maligner; a detractor; a denigrator; a traducer; a vituperator; a castigator; a libeler; a defiler; a traitor; a debaser;
dem·o·crat: one who subverts authority; unpleasant, destructive, hateful, vile, malicious, vicious, heinous, ugly, bad, nefarious, villainous, corrupt, malevolent, hideous, wicked, harm, pain, catastrophe, calamity, ill willed, a reviler; a defamer; a slanderer; a detractor; a carper; a calumniator; a muckraker; a vilifier; a disparager; a slanderer; a maligner; a detractor; a denigrator; a traducer; a vituperator; a castigator; a libeler; a defiler; a traitor; a debaser;
You should learn to take God at his word. By and large, there no allegory in the bible.
And the view of Satan is NOT rooted in Medieval mythology (let me guess, you are Game of Thrones fan?)
It's rooted in a much older book called the Bible. You are wrong on all accounts, my friend.
p.s. no such thing as a liberal Christian.
dem·o·crat: one who subverts authority; unpleasant, destructive, hateful, vile, malicious, vicious, heinous, ugly, bad, nefarious, villainous, corrupt, malevolent, hideous, wicked, harm, pain, catastrophe, calamity, ill willed, a reviler; a defamer; a slanderer; a detractor; a carper; a calumniator; a muckraker; a vilifier; a disparager; a slanderer; a maligner; a detractor; a denigrator; a traducer; a vituperator; a castigator; a libeler; a defiler; a traitor; a debaser;
Mason Michaels (01-13-2020)
Of course, this particular narration of the southern strategy is alive and well amongst the liberal democrats.
Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never"switched" on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to asubversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible ongovernment to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a cynicalsmear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy asgreedy racists.http://russp.us/racism.htm
Source:
Let's do our best not to derail this thread with a democrat vs republican pissing match.
dem·o·crat: one who subverts authority; unpleasant, destructive, hateful, vile, malicious, vicious, heinous, ugly, bad, nefarious, villainous, corrupt, malevolent, hideous, wicked, harm, pain, catastrophe, calamity, ill willed, a reviler; a defamer; a slanderer; a detractor; a carper; a calumniator; a muckraker; a vilifier; a disparager; a slanderer; a maligner; a detractor; a denigrator; a traducer; a vituperator; a castigator; a libeler; a defiler; a traitor; a debaser;
"Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals." -- Mark Twain
christiefan915 (01-15-2020)
christiefan915 (01-15-2020), ThatOwlWoman (01-12-2020)
dem·o·crat: one who subverts authority; unpleasant, destructive, hateful, vile, malicious, vicious, heinous, ugly, bad, nefarious, villainous, corrupt, malevolent, hideous, wicked, harm, pain, catastrophe, calamity, ill willed, a reviler; a defamer; a slanderer; a detractor; a carper; a calumniator; a muckraker; a vilifier; a disparager; a slanderer; a maligner; a detractor; a denigrator; a traducer; a vituperator; a castigator; a libeler; a defiler; a traitor; a debaser;
MAGA MAN (01-13-2020)
That’s not only irrelevant it’s also an urban legend that isn’t true. The Lady Hope story was debunked by Darwin’s children shortly after his death. According to Darwin’s children, who were present when he died, not only did Darwin not renounce evolutionary theory, Lady Hope wasn’t even there. Nor was she present during his illness or any illness. In fact Darwin had never even met Lady Hope. In short, Lady Hope lied.
Hell even the ICR debunks that urban legend as untrue. It didn’t happen.
It’s irrelevant because Darwin didn’t formulate his famous theory in a vacuum. It was long known by geologist that the earth’s origin was far more ancient than had been believed and naturalist before Darwin had observed and noted how the geological record gave evidence of species changing over time. There were also peers to Darwin in his own time who made the same conclusion independently. Notably Alfred Wallace.
What Darwin did was piece the evidence painstakingly together to provide a functional predictive model of speciation that he published in a scientific and literary masterpiece “On The Origins of Species”. That is why evolutionary theory is named after him.
The point being that the principal of evolution was known before Darwin and the evidence that we’ve learned since then has supported Darwin’s observation and, more importantly, the theory has been updated and revised with these additional discoveries like the laws of genetics, nucleic acids (RNA/DNA), protein structures and synthesis. All of which could have easily have falsified evolutionary theory but haven’t. They have, in fact, provided stronger support and deeper understanding of evolutionary theory which has been correspondingly revised to account for this new knowledge.
Darwin in his own time did not know what the physical mechanism of natural selection was and understood that it was a weakness in his theory. He just observed natural selection and how it functioned. We now know from later discovery that genetics and the biological properties of nucleic acids are the underlying mechanism of natural selection.
Darwin did not know what this mechanism was in his time but had faith that it would be discovered. What is ironic is that even as Darwin wrote it that very discovery had already been made by a cloistered Austrian Monk. Ironic ehh?
You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!
domer76 (01-13-2020)
Fair enough. I’ll put to you starkly. Creationism is as valid as any other human mythology or mysticism or philosophical/religious belief as an origins story. This does separate Creationism from Evolutionary theory as evolution has nothing to say about ultimate origins. Evolutionary theory is limited to modeling speciation.
As science Creationism has no merit what so ever, and meets absolutely none of the tenets for being considered science. It’s not based on empirical observation. It doesn’t model natural phenomena ( quite the opposite it models supernatural phenomena). It makes no useful testable predictions that can be independently verified. It isn’t, in principle, falsifiable and it has not once published any peer reviewed research or discoveries.
You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!
Iron-Merc (01-13-2020)
Isaiah 6:5
“Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”
MAGA MAN (01-13-2020)
MAGA MAN (01-13-2020)
Creation and Evolution can
Coexist!
AM I, I AM's,AM I.
What day is Michaelmas on?
Bookmarks