Evolution is the Great Apostasy

[Valkhorn]

You do realise no one's actually going to read any of this, yes?

I glossed over it. As soon as I realized it was a cut and paste job (can we possibly even TRY to format it correctly?) and a battle of duelling scriptures I started laughing.

CF doesn't see these every day... oh wait...

 

[nvxplorer]

Just curious...

What kind of title is "Elijah?"

 

[Dannager]

Oh this is great stuff. Nonsense, but great all the same.

 

[Bruce D McKay Elijah]

Just curious...

What kind of title is "Elijah?"

Thank you for your question. Elijah is my real name. At about age 6, I was adoped, and my new parents changed my name to Bruce D McKay. It is like I have been incognito for the last 59 years.

In regard to it being a title, you are right on that. It compares closely to someone being called "Doctor," or having PhD entered at the end of their name, only in this cases it means one who has been "Sent by God" or "Sent From God." More specifically, because there are many with the same name, the term in its proper context is "The Elijah." Spellings also vary, for example, if you go to Thomas Burnet's Sacred Theory of the Earth you will find he has written . . .

"Others expect the coming of Elias to give warning of that day, and prepare the way of the Lord. I am very willing to admit that Elias will come, according to the scene of the Prophet Malachi, but he will not come with observation, no more than he did in the Person of John the Baptist; He will not bear the name of Elias nor tell us he is the Man that went to Heaven in a firey Chariot, and is now come down again to give us warning of the last Fire. But some divine person may appear before the second coming of our Savior, as there did before his first coming: and by giving a new light and life to the Christian Doctrine, may dissipate the mists of error, and abolish all those little controversies amongst good men, and the divisions and animosities that spring from them: enlarging their Spirits by greater discoveries, and uniting them all in the bonds of Love and charity, and in the common study of truth and perfection. Such an Elias, the Prophet seems to point at; and may he come and prepare the ways of the Lord. But at present, we cannot from this Sign make any judgement (as to) when the world will end." (See: Burnet, Thomas, The Sacred Theory of the Earth, 1961 ed. pub by Sothern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL, pages 258 and 259. See also: McKay, Elijah, Bruce D., Science Research Proves Evolution Hoax, The Conflagration, When Parallel Universes Merge, AuthorHouse, 2006, page 2.)

 

[rudenski]

Thank you for your question. Elijah is my real name. At about age 6, I was adoped, and my new parents changed my name to Bruce D McKay. It is like I have been incognito for the last 59 years.

In regard to it being a title, you are right on that. It compares closely to someone being called "Doctor," or having PhD entered at the end of their name, only in this cases it means one who has been "Sent by God" or "Sent From God." More specifically, because there are many with the same name, the term in its proper context is "The Elijah." Spellings also vary, for example, if you go to Thomas Burnet's Sacred Theory of the Earth you will find he has written . . .

"Others expect the coming of Elias to give warning of that day, and prepare the way of the Lord. I am very willing to admit that Elias will come, according to the scene of the Prophet Malachi, but he will not come with observation, no more than he did in the Person of John the Baptist; He will not bear the name of Elias nor tell us he is the Man that went to Heaven in a firey Chariot, and is now come down again to give us warning of the last Fire. But some divine person may appear before the second coming of our Savior, as there did before his first coming: and by giving a new light and life to the Christian Doctrine, may dissipate the mists of error, and abolish all those little controversies amongst good men, and the divisions and animosities that spring from them: enlarging their Spirits by greater discoveries, and uniting them all in the bonds of Love and charity, and in the common study of truth and perfection. Such an Elias, the Prophet seems to point at; and may he come and prepare the ways of the Lord. But at present, we cannot from this Sign make any judgement (as to) when the world will end." (See: Burnet, Thomas, The Sacred Theory of the Earth, 1961 ed. pub by Sothern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL, pages 258 and 259. See also: McKay, Elijah, Bruce D., Science Research Proves Evolution Hoax, The Conflagration, When Parallel Universes Merge, AuthorHouse, 2006, page 2.)

Thus denial is the first tool trotted out. It is the typical “educated response” when a researcher, newsman, or scientist is presented with anomalous evidence and findings that don’t fit neatly into the category of "containment." And likewise today’s academia is comprised of individuals living in intellectual boxes of dishonesty.

I would post your theory as a new thread. Challenge the denial and ignoring of your evidence. Where are all the dissenters when evidence is given? You prepare a whole book to challenge the debators and thier response of silence is deafening.

 

[Chalnoth]

And likewise today’s academia is comprised of individuals living in intellectual boxes of dishonesty.

I take great offense at this. I am currently a graduate student doing research in cosmology, and the scientific culture is the polar opposite of what you are here describing. Scientists are skeptics whose primary responsibility is to the truth, above personal beliefs, above what is fashionable, above what is pleasant. Scientists must be held to evidence, and must be capable of admitting when they are wrong.

The scientific ideal is not only to admit when one is wrong, but to be grateful and excited when proven wrong.

Please, lay off the insulting comments and try arguing a specific point.

As for Bruce's post, well, it's nothing more than an ad hominem attack on evolutionary theory, and thus not even worth commenting on. Arguments stand upon logic and evidence, not who proposes them.

 

[Baggins]

Thus denial is the first tool trotted out. It is the typical “educated response” when a researcher, newsman, or scientist is presented with anomalous evidence and findings that don’t fit neatly into the category of "containment." And likewise today’s academia is comprised of individuals living in intellectual boxes of dishonesty.

.

Is this you speaking from a position of knowledge after years working within the scientific community ( an experiance that many on this board actually have ), or is this you telling us what your Pastor told you?

You obviously have little understanding of science or the way it works. If you did have the knowledge you would realise that anomalous eidence is not swept under the carpet, it is sought avidly as that is where reputations are made.

The scientist who finds and explains a piece of anomalous evidence could be on the way to getting a Nobel prize.

Results that confirm the evidential status quo are important, but it is results that seem to counter it that are interesting, now often they are just bad science that can't be reproduced, witness cold fusion, but now we have this company in Ireland with their magnetic energy generator. This breaks the laws of physics, but what if they are right, fame and fortune are theirs, and the laws of physics will be altered to allow this new evidence.

The educated response is not denial, it is skeptical interest.

Denial is for people who are so sure of their truth that they cannot admit error, people like you Rudenski, people with a dogma that is central to their life, I have never met a scientist who is like that, and I guess that you have never met a scientist , so you'll have to take my word for the above.

No one likes overturning the apple cart more than a scientist, because that way lies fame and fortune, it is what Einstein did to Newtonian mechanics and it is what
Stephen Hawking did to Fred Hoyle's steady state universe, and they are probably the two most famous scientists of the 20th century.

What is dishonest is making sweping claims about a body of men and women when you obviously have little idea what they do or how they operate.

No offense

 

[anunbeliever]

#1: Global warming happens because the mantle is getting hotter. Gelogical processes happen fast, the only reason people think the earth is old is because they think they are slow. Lord Kelvin was smart. Also, evil academics have been educated stupid.

#2: Soon, molecular forces will shift. This will cause water to set things on fire. This shift in molecular forces will affect the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

Sounds like something "Dad" would write hey?

 

[h2whoa]

tl;dr

 

[MartinM]

It is the typical “educated response” when a researcher, newsman, or scientist is presented with anomalous evidence and findings that don’t fit neatly into the category of "containment."

Coincidentally, it's also the typical "educated response" when a researcher, newsman, or scientist is presented with utter gibberish.

 

[rudenski]

I was attacked as dogmatic yet where was there even one attempt to debate even one point that Elijah offered? I find Elijah's theory interesting and worth examining. My concern is that a powerful amount of the scientific community are not aligned with Elijah's world-view. It takes extraordinary proof to overthrow the "dogmatic" theory of evolution. The best way to avoid the truth is to ignore it. Then attack the person saying it. While all of these first two have been liberaly tossed around since Elijah posted his hypothesis, all responses simply do not even attempt to challege his claims. Acting more educated or intellectually superior certainly does not impresss me. How about a real debate?

 

[Chalnoth]

What, combining evolution with Nazis? That kind of blind attack doesn't even deserve a response.

 

[rudenski]

If you examine your faith in science then let the road go where it leads...

 

[Chalnoth]

Science cannot be accepted on faith. I question my beliefs at every opportunity.

 

[FEZZILLA]

I do not understand why anyone would deny the obvious fact of global warming? I've found verses in Revelations that could be interpretated has God permitting it to happen in order to get mankind to repent, for His second coming will be soon; but still, the entire argument of global warming has become a debate between the far-right and the far-left (that is: "Politics vs. Science & Religion). Neither side seems to understand that this global warming doesn't disprove God in any way --so whats the big deal? Being a moderate with a conservative slant, I see no logic in party politics when it comes to denying solid science. As a Christian I'm oftened, even worried, that other Christians are so foolish as to not see the reality that maybe those liberals may be right on one or two issues. Just because they're unbelievers doesn't mean that they hate life altogether, or are stupid beyond comment.

In the realm of truth, there is no room for party pride. As a Christian, a knowledge of the Bible is useful in understanding the true message.

(And no, being a Christian doesn't have anything to do with the liberal/Republican goal to continue trashing the earth and then move to Mars).

 

[FEZZILLA]

What, combining evolution with Nazis? That kind of blind attack doesn't even deserve a response.

Well, truth be obviously known, Naziism was based on the pagan Norse religion (and a little mysticism from other pagan religions). Evolution is an ancient pagan religion and Hitler knew this. He used evolution as a typical excuse to wipe out the so-called "weak" (meaning: Jews and Christians --theist) and build a new world of perfect German species that are evolving at a higher rate then the other countires. His view of natural selection lead to the mass slaughter of millions of lives in a very short timeframe in our history.

The major contrast between Naziism and Marxist-Communism is that Naziism was the view that natural selection could increase through eliminating the inferior races, while the Marxist believed that natural selection would excel through economic sanctions by restricting religious conduct until the inferior weak-species (i.e., "Theist") or bred-out and eliminated through eugentical and social selection...like what is now happening in America. Both the Nazis and Commies used brainwashing in order to create the environment that would increase a social conditioning that would eliminate the weak. Much of this brainwashing was done through the study of the occult, an alchemy of dangerous lies design to drive deep down into the human conscience and fool a person into believing that s/he was not human, but an ancestor of apes.

Right now our country is under attact. Oh, it's not just the threat of Islamic terrorist that wage war against freedom--nay, it's our own leaders who deliberately lie and lie and do everything they can to change this country into an all atheist country and ban free-thought, speech, and Christianity* from true practice and exalt Social Darwinism above the Lamb of God. There end will be what there actions deserve.

 

[Chalnoth]

Right now our country is under attact. Oh, it's not just the threat of Islamic terrorist that wage war against freedom--nay, it's our own leaders who deliberately lie and lie and do everything they can to change this country into an all atheist country and ban free-thought, speech, and Christianity* from true practice and exalt Social Darwinism above the Lamb of God. There end will be what there actions deserve.

The United States is turning more religious, not less. How can the US be under attack from atheists when atheists make up a tiny minority of the country?

And the most prosperous and healthy nations on Earth are also the least religious. The US alone is highly religious and still quite wealthy, but it also has problems no other wealthy nation has: high rates of homocide, abortion, teen pregnancy, STD infection and infant mortality. If all of this is because we are turning into a godless society, why is it that societies more godless than our own have fewer of these problems?

Your conclusions are absurd to the extreme. The problem with the Nazis wasn't Norse mythology or atheism. The problem with the Nazis was Christianity.

 

[dad]

The United States is turning more religious, not less.

Really? So I guess God is taught to all children there? Prayer rings the corridors of schools? God'e love, rather than torture centers are the arms of the government? Rather than a so called 'way of life' that supposedly needs defending, the country seeks only to defend the weak, the oppressed, the fatherless, and the widows? Or might you be referring to the lipservice of the leaders?

How can the US be under attack from atheists when atheists make up a tiny minority of the country?

I'm with you there. The attack is pretty well over, and God was booted out.

And the most prosperous and healthy nations on Earth are also the least religious.

Like...? Which of the g8 are you refering to here? Russia? Canada? Britain? Do tell.

The US alone is highly religious and still quite wealthy,

Really? I thought Christian faith was rampaging around the globe in Africa, and etc? What makes the 'God is not allowed in school, or gov't' US so "religious"?

but it also has problems no other wealthy nation has: high rates of homocide, abortion, teen pregnancy, STD infection and infant mortality.

No abortions in Russia?? No homicide in France? No young pregnant gals in Germany? No sex diseases anywhere but the US? My, my. Better think about your wild claims here.

If all of this is because we are turning into a godless society, why is it that societies more godless than our own have fewer of these problems?

Where is there more WOMD? Where is God MORE kicked out of the schools?

...
The problem with the Nazis was Christianity.

False. They rounded up Christians as well as others there. You ought to tone down your hate crimes here.

 

[shernren]

Evolution is an ancient pagan religion ...

I'm pretty sure Darwin wasn't an ancient pagan, so I have no idea why you claim this. And Chalnoth is right in that historically far more anti-Semitism was inspired by Christianity than by Nazism or evolutionism.

 

[dad]

I'm pretty sure Darwin wasn't an ancient pagan, so I have no idea why you claim this. And Chalnoth is right in that historically far more anti-Semitism was inspired by Christianity than by Nazism or evolutionism.

Lest we forget in assigning blame here, who was it that yelled to crucify Jesus? Would this be anti-Christism? Who paid Judas? Who bribed false witnesses, and released a full fledged terrorist, rather than the Prince of Peace? Seems like anti-Christianity was inspired by Judaism here as well, no?
Was Jesus anti-semetic to have sent the Roman legions to wipe out the temple, leaving not a stone upon another? Was He anti-semetic to have prophesied it would happen as well?
Jesus never told us to hate Jews, so those doing that are NOT able to use Christian belief, or the bible as any excuse.