User Profile: ComradeJ

Member Since: March 18, 2013


  • January 16, 2014 at 12:49pm


    But you do, the Darwian evolution deals with Origin of Species. Where did the first Specieis come from? Out of nothing? Or did it evolve from something?

    I understand you’ve probably been taught they are not connected, but Darwin did try to connect them and he wrote:

    “we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity etc., present that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes”

    (the soup theory has already been discarded by modern scientists as unworkable)

    Responses (1) +
  • January 16, 2014 at 12:41pm

    Claim: “Evolution is proven by DNA”

    “For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life,” says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,” says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change.

    Graham Lawton, “Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life,” New Scientist (January 21, 2009)

    Claim – Evolution is proven by fossil records

    Cambrian Explosion – a burst by a wide variety of animals burst onto the evolutionary scene. Fossils in ‘Cambrian’ rocks have no evolutionary ancestors.
    Charles Darwin on “Explosions”
    “If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory to descent with slow modification though natural selection.”

    Responses (1) +
  • January 16, 2014 at 12:25pm

    Achon, I am sorry, but I am getting tired of posting, because you don not take time to ahem.. read.

    According to Darwin what you just wrote is wrong.
    “If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory to descent with slow modification though natural selection”

    You either need to admit it, or you need non-Darwinian theory of evolution.

    And yes you just lost the last remaining shreds of intellectual honesty.

  • January 16, 2014 at 12:17pm

    Archon, please read carefully. The ORIGIN of species deals with ahem… species, including the original one species that supposedly was at the root. So please stop reducing what little remains of your intellectual honesty.

    Now back to Cambrian Explosion of Life disproving Evolution based on the criteria Darwin himself set forth.

  • January 16, 2014 at 12:07pm

    Fact checked against reality? This sounds like “Global-Warming” scam tactic, – cry it’s-fact-checked, fact-checked, while offering no facts… Al Gore might sue you for using his tactics.

    But here is an actual fact of Pre-Cambrian Explosion of Life. Why is it relevant? Let’s ask Charles Darwin, who wrote:

    “If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory to descent with slow modification though natural selection.”

    Responses (1) +
  • January 16, 2014 at 12:02pm

    P.S.: Bigger point that Deavon chose to ignore (amongst others) – Pre-Cambrian Explosion of Life

    Charles Darwin wrote:
    “If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory to descent with slow modification though natural selection.”

  • January 16, 2014 at 12:01pm

    Your quote:
    “Evolution doesn’t deal with either of those steps”

    Evolution deals with the origin of species. As such they had to come from something, aka first live organism, so yes it does rationally deal with your quote, even though you choose not to see.

  • January 16, 2014 at 11:55am

    One might get an impression that the Mr. Krattenmaker is does not have a very good understanding of what Evolution is supposed to be. He writes:
    “Divine evolution,” anyone? It’s a concept that … evolution as God’s way of orchestrating an on-going process of creation.”


    Francisco J. Ayala, in “Darwin’s greatest discovery: Design without designer,” :
    “Chance is, nevertheless, an integral part of the evolutionary process. The mutations that yield the hereditary variations available to natural selection arise at random…he meaning of “random” that is most significant for understanding the evolutionary process is ) that mutations are unoriented with respect to adaptation;” confirms the definition:
    “For to the best of our knowledge evolution, like all natural processes, is purposeless and unguided.”

    It further writes:
    “So when you hear people who accept evolution nevertheless refusing to admit that it’s unguided and purposeless, you know you’re dealing with someone who is osculating the rump of faith.”

    It is clear that Mr. Krattenmaker is not a believer. So why did write what he did?

    He’s either an ignoramus in respect to what the theory of Evolution is [and what Christianity is],
    he is attempting to deceive the Christians into.accepting Evolution without examining it.

  • January 16, 2014 at 11:25am

    It follows from the post that the one without a PHD in Christianity is uniquely unqualified to offer meaningful comments or relevant questions on the subject. Say like someone’s comment on ‘antichrist’. It just might be a tad… hypocritical and intellectually dishonest.

    But hey what does one expect from a man who thinks that IRS should be investigating someone else religion, but not his “non-religion”. LOL

  • January 16, 2014 at 11:17am

    If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed[,] which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive[,] slight modifications[,] my theory would absolutely break down.
    -Charles Darwin

    Apparently Charles Darwin thought that it did, Deavon.

  • December 5, 2013 at 12:07pm

    Isn’t it what families do? Provide for each family member’s needs?

    And did not Peter in his rebuke to Ananias and Sapphira (which follows the Acts 4) explicitly state that the selling and sharing were voluntary transactions?

    Hosea 6:6
    ‘For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.’

  • [1] December 5, 2013 at 11:20am

    Interesting point on Acts 2:44-45. Difficult to reconcile until one remembers that the Church is the family of God and as such is to function under family dynamics.

    Responses (2) +
  • December 5, 2013 at 11:04am

    Someone is confusing needs and greeds. The former proceed from the natural and wholesome existence, the latter from lust – aka insatiable desire for satisfaction created by rejection of God and attempting to stuff the infinite emptiness left by this rejection with stuff/sex/pleasures/food.

  • [1] December 5, 2013 at 10:58am

    Very interesting article. Thank you Pastor. It is only natural that one can only highlight one’s idea in a short article, hence I’ll be looking forward to reading your book to understand your full premise.

    So it is entirely possible that your book covers the three points below,

    - Capitalism is in its core [economic] freedom. If one has any doubts about whether God thinks freedom is necessary, one should look no further than the Garden, where He gave the mankind freedom to obey or disobey. [Naturally the Tree of Knowledge was there for other reasons as well, most important - glory of God to be manifested throughout history ], We chose wrong unfortunately. But it was important God to allow mankind exercise of Freedom. It still is.

    - As with any Freedom, Capitalism can be [and is abused] by those who are corrupt/evil. Just like Republican Democracy [political freedom], it is impossible long term without a moral foundation of the nation, and the latter is impossible without Christ. Hence the decay you see now.

    - The corrupt/evil blame Freedom for the abuse of Freedom by corrupt/evil. They propose restrictions of Freedom, without addressing the real cause of the abuse – evil of their own hearts. If the naive agree, corrupt/evil are placed in charged of the enforcing the restriction of Freedom. And then the naive wonder why did the enforcers abused their position.

    Responses (1) +
  • November 20, 2013 at 11:26am

    It is refreshing to see, for lack of better description, neo – fascists (like the ‘Dumpster’ above) being candid in their acknowledgement of the use of deception, lies, cheating. End justifies the means for these people.

    If you were looking for the example of banality of Evil, look no further. If you were looking for what monsters look like, likewise, you have now found out who they are.

    Act accordingly. Rise up against them and shake off all the doubts their lies weight you down with.

    P.S.: ‘Dumpster’ reminds me of another “pro-equality” troll.
    Lesbian activist Masha Gessen:

    ““I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … (F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. “

    In reply to the contribution I Told You So: Obama Really Stole the Election

  • November 11, 2013 at 4:13pm

    @ Lucretius

    A-Theism – a positive BELIEF in the negative. AKA Religion

  • November 11, 2013 at 2:32pm

    LOL, I am sure that’s why you are like a good little fascist, are so eager to tell people what to think and what to speak, because you “won”.

    Using your “logic”, slavery also won because ‘Dred Scott’ won in a court.

  • [1] November 11, 2013 at 2:27pm

    It is not a coincidence that most tyrannical murderous regimes were the followers of the Religion of Atheism.

    Responses (2) +
  • November 11, 2013 at 2:24pm

    If any further example is needed that Atheism is a bigoted religion of self proclaimed thought police was needed, one needs to go no further but to read the comment above.

    What a good little fascist you are to tell people what to believe and what to speak or not to speak.

  • November 11, 2013 at 2:21pm

    Ironic that a person claiming to be a scientifically literate, pretends that atheism is a scientifically sound.

    Science by its very definition is an empirical field. Therefore. atheism’s claim to “scientify” something that cannot be, aka the impossibility of empirical proof that God does not exist. As such, it is evident, that atheism is a Religion for self proclaimed “intellectuals”.

    So keep your illiterate Religion of Atheism out of our State Schools.