PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     YECs in action...
       THIS angers me..

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester lamented the fact that us evos sometimes get short tempered with the poor, open-minded, golly-we-just-want-the-truth YECs.

Here is a great example of the sort of frustrating behavior employed by creationists.

Note that I quote a YEC claiming to have evidence against evolution.

4 pages and dozens of replies later, the YEC still has not presented any of the evidence he claimed to have and instead takes every opportunity to try to change subjects, hurl acusations, etc.

By the way - that board is more active than this one...


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 4:29 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From the other site (mepatri) says:
Go read how it started. It started with you attempting to show us how smart you are by looking up an subject and asking me to do a thesis on it. You guys are unbelieveable. Always on the offensive, never providing any real substance. Always quoting papers, theories, and abstract notions. Remember when you guys believed, and even "proved" that the sun was inhabited? Today you think naturalistic evolution is true, and you'll do damn near anything to keep it in tact - kind of like us religious type eh? We all worship something - me, the God of the Bible, you guys - science. It's that simple.

Well - play time's over. Gotta get outta here. Thanks for the laughs. You may all go to criticizing me, calling me names, and basically feeling good about yourselves. Have fun -and work on getting that evidence guys!


Hmmm... he never did present the evidence that he said he had that disproves evolution, did he.  Oh, he tried to say that there were no transitional fossils.  That evolution contradicts information theory.  But these were just assertions, not presenting evidence.  

He went down in flames, an ignominious disgrace to his Creationist cause.

But you know what, in all those posts on that thread, I didn't see one other Creationist come to his aid or support.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:48 AM on July 28, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But you know what, in all those posts on that thread, I didn't see one other Creationist come to his aid or support.


Maybe they thought he was doing just fine on his own?
What it all boils down to is that nobody can have evidence for once off past events that can't be observed or repeated -it's history, not science. It's no good saying that the fossils in the earth evolved because it's not happening now -they're just dead bones. It's no good saying it's too slow to observe because that's a faith statement. We all take a leap of faith in what we believe to be true about the past. You think everything evolved by natural processes, we are sure intelligence and information was required and that a creator got the ball rolling. All we have to work with is dead bones and processes occurring here and now.
The difference with us is we believe we have an eye witness account, an historical record for what we believe to be true about the past whereas you guys had to make it all up on your own.
We think the evidence in the here and now is more in line with what we believe to be true and you believe that the evidence in the here and now is more in line with the made up historical events that you believe in.
Even if the Bible were a figment of somebody's imagination, it's certainly no worse than your imaginary happenings of the past and the real point of the whole problem is that we all have a religion -ours is based on an unobservable creation and yours is based on an unobservable evolution -but your religion gets taught at tax payer's expense while Christians have to pay for private schools in order to have their religion taught. Pretty unfair.

Also all we ever see now no matter how you zap an organism to get it to mutate is change within the kind -and please don't sidetrack to ask me what a kind is, that's just dumb, we all know that a bacteria ia a bacteria and a fruit fly is a fruit fly - so our belief that nothing can macro-evolve is far more consistent with the evidence than yours is. We believe in the light of the evidence in the here and now, and you believe despite the evidence in the here and now.  

So yours is a bigger leap of faith than ours. You could call it a more courageous leap if that makes you feel better -but a leap it is.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 02:47 AM on July 28, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:47 AM on July 28, 2009 :
Even if the Bible were a figment of somebody's imagination, it's certainly no worse than your imaginary happenings of the past and the real point of the whole problem is that we all have a religion -ours is based on an unobservable creation and yours is based on an unobservable evolution -but your religion gets taught at tax payer's expense while Christians have to pay for private schools in order to have their religion taught. Pretty unfair.


It is very much worse than faith in science, even though science isn't a religion, but science has saved lives and dramatically increased the standard of living. While historically religion doesn't have that good of a track record, more often than not religion has stunted scientific growth, knowledge and has been used to inspire war, genocide, racism and some of the most violent and disturbing crimes known to humanity.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 3:58 PM on July 28, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A.  Part 1--  Evolution--"Science" of Origins  
By AFJ

No other science but evolution enters into the subject of origins i.e. a Christian can be an excellent chemist with no issues or contradictions against chemistry.  

The subject of origins is going to unavoidably intersect with metaphysical possibilities.   Pure scientific evolution must explain origin of life. Contrarily modern evolutionary theory assumes change of organisms from the beginning and then politely excuses  itself from the most important scientific question (not to mention moral) --what caused it?  So in the process of historically dethroning creationist assumptions, they also exclude the question of origin of life or reference to any metaphysical causes.  A very easy debate to win.

Instead they limit our mind to only natural processes, and the present as a ruler for all past occurrence of history and prehistory.  All in the name of "science."  

Actually they are only borrowing from the creditability of empirical science to explain something that is not completely empirical.  That is they observe certain things "in part" and assume the whole to match.

B. Part 2--An Example of Different Interpretations of the Same Evidence
 
I could bring you scientific evidence--the same evidence you have-- and interpret it differently because I start with a different worldview.

For instance, HGT (horizontal gene transfer) in bacteria is mechanism for genetic variation, which supposedly PROVES evolution.

Does it?
Do you know how many species  of bacteria they are finding in every different part of the ocean?  They are in the process of finding 1000s of new species!  But they are all still bacteria with the broadest genetic diversity of any domain or any type of organism on earth.  

Plasmids and viruses work symbiotically together with bacteria to alter the latter's DNA (though technically plasmids and viruses are not biological species).  BUT THEY WORK IN A UNIQUE WAY TOGETHER THAT CAN ALSO BE INTERPRETED AS DESIGNED TO DO SO.

DESIGN--can be an INDUCTIVE, not deductive conclusion where the mathematical improbability of random coincidence is very high, especially more so in symbiotic processes such as plasmids and bacteria. Namely because it is the only possible alternative.

In other words it is not stupid to think that design is a scientific possibility and that evolution is a scientific improbability when it is suggested that something so mega-complex just happens randomly or fits together coincidentally over and over again.  Especially when the mathematical odds against it are beyond imagination.  

It is easy to understand and explain how a key causes a lock to disengage, but there is only one explanation for it's origin.  In principle, the plasmids are incorporating their DNA into the bacterium's DNA, and they fit together.  How can any intelligent person say this does not have intelligent origin??

SO why would it anger you that intelligent people would have faith in an ultimate Cause and Creator and His INTELLIGENT COMMUNICATION with his CREATION, especially in light of the of the results which we are not responsible for?

(Edited by AFJ 8/2/2009 at 3:12 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 2:59 PM on August 2, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 1:59 PM on August 2, 2009 :
A.  Part 1--  Evolution--"Science" of Origins  
By AFJ

No other science but evolution enters into the subject of origins


That's as far as I read.  It's a false statement.  Chemistry, geology, astronomy and so on are all interested in and investigate various sorts of origins.  In particular, it is chemists and geologists that do a lot of the research on abiogenesis.




(Edited by Mustrum 8/2/2009 at 3:05 PM).


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 3:05 PM on August 2, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mustrum,  

You are close minded and obviously indoctrinated by unformitarian and evolutionary hypotheses. I know a creation geologist who worked for an oil company for years and now holds a political position in charge of coastal areas in LA.  He has no problem working within the geologic system.

It is called double paradigm interpretation.  You work within the modern interpretation of data (uniformintarianism) , but have personal option of another interpretation (young earth).

Bones and rocks do not talk.  They must be interpreted.

Because you use chemistry to see if abiogenesis is possible does not negate the fact that evolution is historical science and chemisty is operational science.  Making plastics has nothing to do with origins.



(Edited by AFJ 8/2/2009 at 3:28 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 3:23 PM on August 2, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Bones and rocks do not talk.  They must be interpreted.

No, they must be analyzed and conclusions drawn from that data.  Bones and rocks completely support evolution and an old earth.
You "interprete" them through your primitive fantasies and your interpretations are wrong.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:18 PM on August 2, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 2:23 PM on August 2, 2009 :
Mustrum,  

You are close minded and obviously indoctrinated by unformitarian and evolutionary hypotheses. I know a creation geologist who worked for an oil company for years and now holds a political position in charge of coastal areas in LA.  He has no problem working within the geologic system.

It is called double paradigm interpretation.  You work within the modern interpretation of data (uniformintarianism) , but have personal option of another interpretation (young earth).

Bones and rocks do not talk.  They must be interpreted.

Because you use chemistry to see if abiogenesis is possible does not negate the fact that evolution is historical science and chemisty is operational science.  Making plastics has nothing to do with origins.



(Edited by AFJ 8/2/2009 at 3:28 PM).



Your opening statement is still false.


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 7:11 PM on August 2, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No it is not false.  Chemistry is not microbes to man evolution.  Chemistry is operational science.  Evolution is historical science.  

But evolution is about life and life contains biological chemistry.  That does not make the field of evolutionary study solely chemistry though.


The point I was getting at is that in evolution you are dealing predominantly with the past and judging it by present rates and scenarios.  In chemistry you are dealing with the present (unless you are dealing with evolution or age of the earth) and judging it by present rates.

 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 8:19 PM on August 2, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 7:19 PM on August 2, 2009 :
No it is not false.  Chemistry is not microbes to man evolution.  Chemistry is operational science.  Evolution is historical science.  

But evolution is about life and life contains biological chemistry.  That does not make the field of evolutionary study solely chemistry though.


The point I was getting at is that in evolution you are dealing predominantly with the past and judging it by present rates and scenarios.  In chemistry you are dealing with the present (unless you are dealing with evolution or age of the earth) and judging it by present rates.




You said that "No other science but evolution enters into the subject of origins."  This is a false statement.  Trying to change the topic doesn't make your statement true.  Why not just admit it and move on?


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 10:51 PM on August 2, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer 27

It is very much worse than faith in science, even though science isn't a religion, but science has saved lives and dramatically increased the standard of living.


Actually evolution is a religion, I didn't say science is a religion. Evolution, specifically macro-evolution, has to do with unobservable past events which have been made up by evolutionists. Scientists, in general, do science, not evolution.

Yes, science has saved lives -there are evolutionists and creationists scientists - they believe in different things -  but evolution and evolutionists have done nothing but put real science backwards and give real 'science' a bad name.

While historically religion doesn't have that good of a track record, more often than not religion has stunted scientific growth, knowledge and has been used to inspire war, genocide, racism and some of the most violent and disturbing crimes known to humanity.


No actually evolution has done more to stunt scientific growth than any other belief system because it's based on an incorrect manufactured history of the world.

As for religion inspiring evil, after a 20th century of multi-millions of deaths due to atheist dictators working according to "survival of the fittest' principles, yes religion inspires evil and the atheist religion is the worst and it is inspired by evolution.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 03:25 AM on August 3, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -
Actually evolution is a religion, I didn't say science is a religion. Evolution, specifically macro-evolution, has to do with unobservable past events which have been made up by evolutionists. Scientists, in general, do science, not evolution.


Sorry Lester, nobody but a Creationist would make such an absurd comment like that.  

but evolution and evolutionists have done nothing but put real science backwards and give real 'science' a bad name.

Again, you haven't a clue what you're talking about.  Just because Evolution directly contradicts what you believe in, you have no recourse but to keep making silly statements - no scientist who is not a Creationist himself would agree with you.

Evolution is observable.  We have provided you with numerous examples.  The fossil record strongly supports it, while Creationists can't even come up with a credible alternative theory to explain what we see.

No actually evolution has done more to stunt scientific growth than any other belief system because it's based on an incorrect manufactured history of the world.


And what 'is' the correct history of the world, Lester?

As for religion inspiring evil, after a 20th century of multi-millions of deaths due to atheist dictators working according to "survival of the fittest' principles, yes religion inspires evil and the atheist religion is the worst and it is inspired by evolution.


utter nonsense.  ToE had nothing to do with Hitler or Stalin.  Hitler was a fanatical and ruthless racist.  Presecution against Jews has historically been perpetrated by Christians.  

Sounds like you're being indoctrinated by such movies as 'Expelled', and by right-wing propagandists like Coulter and Limbaugh.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 09:36 AM on August 3, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
As for religion inspiring evil, after a 20th century of multi-millions of deaths due to atheist dictators working according to "survival of the fittest' principles, yes religion inspires evil and the atheist religion is the worst and it is inspired by evolution.


Science does not deal with morality.  Although science and technology certainly do present us with moral choices, and with moral delimna.  But science itself is merely the pursuit of how nature works.  How we use that knowledge, science offers no guidance.

As for religion, it does impose morality upon people.  But people have a choice in how to interpet what that morality should be.  There are some places in the world today where adultery (especially by women) can lead to death by stoning - a cruel judgement passed down through holy writ.  

To suggest that atheists are immoral, or that Christians have better morals than atheists, is simply not true, and frankly, quite a bigoted belief.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:59 PM on August 3, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As for religion inspiring evil, after a 20th century of multi-millions of deaths due to atheist dictators working according to "survival of the fittest' principles, yes religion inspires evil and the atheist religion is the worst and it is inspired by evolution.

And yet, Hitler was a christian.  And I'd love to see any atheist dictator that based his rule on evolution.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:32 PM on August 3, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And Stalin, another favorite that creationists like to trot out, rejected Darwinism.  From here:
Stalin

"Although many blame Stalin for doing what he did because of atheism, why not blame him for his lack of education or rejection of Darwin's theory of evolution?. In fact, most 20th century proponents of communism rejected Darwinian evolution and believed it was biased in favor of The Bourgeois and Capitalism. For them Darwinism was eugenics, Nazism and capitalism. They went on to denounce genetics and Darwinism together as "the whore of capitalism" (ïðîäàæíàÿ äåâêà êàïèòàëèçìà) and tried to supress further research into it. They have been convinced by Trofim Lysenko, that both Darwinian evolution, and the very idea of Mendelian genetics ran counter to party doctrine. In short Stalin oppossed Darwin's theory in favor of Trofim Lysenko's Lamarckianism "

So Lester, what 20th century tyrants based their rule on evolution?


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:41 PM on August 3, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 2:41 PM on August 3, 2009 :
And Stalin, another favorite that creationists like to trot out, rejected Darwinism.  From here:
Stalin

"Although many blame Stalin for doing what he did because of atheism, why not blame him for his lack of education or rejection of Darwin's theory of evolution?. In fact, most 20th century proponents of communism rejected Darwinian evolution and believed it was biased in favor of The Bourgeois and Capitalism. For them Darwinism was eugenics, Nazism and capitalism. They went on to denounce genetics and Darwinism together as "the whore of capitalism" (ïðîäàæíàÿ äåâêà êàïèòàëèçìà) and tried to supress further research into it. They have been convinced by Trofim Lysenko, that both Darwinian evolution, and the very idea of Mendelian genetics ran counter to party doctrine. In short Stalin oppossed Darwin's theory in favor of Trofim Lysenko's Lamarckianism "

So Lester, what 20th century tyrants based their rule on evolution?





Nicely done, Demon.  Another Creationist propaganda ploy, and argument, shot down as incorrect.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 2:52 PM on August 3, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

While studying at the Tiflis Theological Seminary, Stalin began to read the works of Charles Darwin. One of his friends later said in a book—which was published in Moscow while Stalin was still in power—that when Stalin began to read Darwin he became an atheist. At the age of 19, in 1898, Stalin was expelled from the theological seminary.

1.E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1940, p. 8

He may have rejected Darwinism but whatever philosophy he took up was influenced by atheism which he took to by his reading of Charles Darwin. Why do you think such a high proportion of scientists are atheists compared to the general population? That's what Darwinism does. It gives you an alternate atheist creation story on which to base your life and everything you do later on is influenced by the acceptance of naturalism in place of God.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 04:19 AM on August 4, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And what is wrong with being an atheist?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 06:43 AM on August 4, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And what is wrong with being an atheist?


If you don't know, I can't help you but suffice it to say atheism was Stalin's religion thanks to Darwin. Atheist dictators like to eliminate the unfit -it's their creed -they see nothing wrong with it. The unfit are whoever they don't like.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 07:02 AM on August 4, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:02 AM on August 4, 2009 :
And what is wrong with being an atheist?


If you don't know, I can't help you but suffice it to say atheism was Stalin's religion thanks to Darwin. Atheist dictators like to eliminate the unfit -it's their creed -they see nothing wrong with it. The unfit are whoever they don't like.



This is so funny, because you don't have any real evidence for this, but on top of that, it's ironic in light of the crusades and the witch hunts.

killing the unfit, whoever they don't like?

How about killing out a whole population (or trying at least) for being a different religion, or people for being different in general. Christians can't claim some kind of moral high ground, they willingly murdered people that didn't want to be Christians. It's a bit of history that needs no weird connections, noone to point out 'well, in this letter, this guy said this, and thus he was a darwinist, and thus atheism leads to genocide'

Christians were parading the killing of other people, it was all in the name of God. They celebrated it.

Your argument in sense of that doesn't even make sense, because it says nothing about "evolution" or "atheists". Because even if you are right, then basically what you are saying "because that atheist murdered a lot of peoplpe, all atheists are bad and lead to murder".

But you can't say that, and meanwhile go around and be a good Christian, because the Christian history is filled with mass murder, you'll be condemning yourself more then anyone else.

(Edited by Zucadragon 8/4/2009 at 07:27 AM).
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 07:25 AM on August 4, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

While studying at the Tiflis Theological Seminary, Stalin began to read the works of Charles Darwin. One of his friends later said in a book—which was published in Moscow while Stalin was still in power—that when Stalin began to read Darwin he became an atheist. At the age of 19, in 1898, Stalin was expelled from the theological seminary.

And he wasn't a Darwinist.

He may have rejected Darwinism but whatever philosophy he took up was influenced by atheism which he took to by his reading of Charles Darwin. Why do you think such a high proportion of scientists are atheists compared to the general population? That's what Darwinism does. It gives you an alternate atheist creation story on which to base your life and everything you do later on is influenced by the acceptance of naturalism in place of God.

But he rejected evolution, said it was wrong and paid the price for it when the Soviet Union's farm production was disasterously affected.  

He may have rejected Darwinism but whatever philosophy he took up was influenced by atheism which he took to by his reading of Charles Darwin. Why do you think such a high proportion of scientists are atheists compared to the general population? That's what Darwinism does. It gives you an alternate atheist creation story on which to base your life and everything you do later on is influenced by the acceptance of naturalism in place of God.

Ah, but that wasn't your original claim, you said:

"As for religion inspiring evil, after a 20th century of multi-millions of deaths due to atheist dictators working according to "survival of the fittest' principles"

And you were wrong.  Stalin DIDN'T kill millions based on "survival of the fittest" principles and evolution played no part in his philosophy.  What he read or didn't read is inconsiquencial unless you are claiming that there science should be supressed based on religious intolerance again.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 1:07 PM on August 4, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And he wasn't a Darwinist.


How do you know that? He became an atheist after reading Darwin. Reading Darwin gave him all the excuse he needed to get rid of the creation story of his seminary. He rejected God's existance so he had to believe in some form of evolution, whether Darwinism or not.
Believing that evolution is possible gives people the excuse they need to get rid of God and his influence over their lives. Another creation story, another path in life.

But he rejected evolution


So you say he rejected evolution but he clearly rejected God so what did he have left as an explanation for what he was doing on the planet? Everybody beleives something about their origins. What did he believe then?

By the way rejecting evolution won't affect anybody's farming production - rejecting repeatable genetics and variability (the observable stuff) might affect your farming but not evolution as such. That only affects your inner world of imagination about the past. You might feel a bit lost at first but you'd get over it.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:12 AM on August 5, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:02 AM on August 4, 2009 :
And what is wrong with being an atheist?


If you don't know, I can't help you but suffice it to say atheism was Stalin's religion thanks to Darwin. Atheist dictators like to eliminate the unfit -it's their creed -they see nothing wrong with it. The unfit are whoever they don't like.




This is the old kitchen sink offense.

No data?  No evidence?  Try emotion and nonsense.


We are told that Stalin became what he was because of Darwin (never mind that the Stalinist regime actually disavowed Darwinian concepts in favor of Lysenkoism).

We are told that Hitler became what he did because of Darwin (never mind that Darwin is never mentioned in Mein Kampf, but God is given credit for Hitler's beliefs many times).

We are told that Columbine and any tragedy that occurs is the reulst of evolution (never minf all of the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity).

It is the argument of one with nothing left to fall back on.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:27 PM on August 5, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 2:59 PM on August 2, 2009 :
A.  Part 1--  Evolution--"Science" of Origins  
By AFJ

No other science but evolution enters into the subject of origins i.e. a Christian can be an excellent chemist with no issues or contradictions against chemistry.  

The subject of origins is going to unavoidably intersect with metaphysical possibilities.   Pure scientific evolution must explain origin of life.



You lose.

A scientific theory need not explain everything.  That is not what theories are for.


Whats next - claiming that because evolution cannot explain gravity that it is no good*?



*Ben Stein, world-class imbecile, actually said this on FOX news...








-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:29 PM on August 5, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:25 AM on August 3, 2009 :
Actually evolution is a religion, I didn't say science is a religion. Evolution, specifically macro-evolution, has to do with unobservable past events which have been made up by evolutionists. Scientists, in general, do science, not evolution.


Because it happened in the past you can't do science on it? How closed minded of you.

Yes, science has saved lives -there are evolutionists and creationists scientists - they believe in different things -  but evolution and evolutionists have done nothing but put real science backwards and give real 'science' a bad name.


Yes, all those flu shots are done by creation scientists because we all know those flu shots have nothing to do with evolution.

No actually evolution has done more to stunt scientific growth than any other belief system because it's based on an incorrect manufactured history of the world.


Exactly what has it stunted?

As for religion inspiring evil, after a 20th century of multi-millions of deaths due to atheist dictators working according to "survival of the fittest' principles, yes religion inspires evil and the atheist religion is the worst and it is inspired by evolution.


Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of religion. Hitler was a Christian, sang in the church choir when he was a kid, and in his auto biography he stated that he believed himself to be on a mission from God.

While Stalin was an atheist, and as it has already been said, he didn't kill people in the name of atheism or for survival of the fittest. I think most historians believe that Stalin had a psychological condition making him paranoid, and his fellow Russians hate him so much more than Hitler.

Meantime there have been so many religious wars and crimes committed in the name of Christianity including the thirty years war, the crusades, the inquisition, KKK, witch burnings, and so much more. And this is only Christianity, now imagine how much suffering was caused by other religions on top of that.    
Edited because of quote code mess up.

(Edited by Fencer27 8/5/2009 at 6:18 PM).


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 6:16 PM on August 5, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As for religion inspiring evil, after a 20th century of multi-millions of deaths due to atheist dictators working according to "survival of the fittest' principles, yes religion inspires evil and the atheist religion is the worst and it is inspired by evolution.


Hitler, for example, was motivated not by Darwin, but by Martin Luther, a fact the Nazis freely admitted.   About 90% of Hitler's "final solution" for the Jews is found in Luther's "The Jews and Their Lies."

Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan had shown that Hitler's racial purification schemes were impractical long before the Third Reich began.  And Darwin claimed such things were an "overwhelming evil." (Descent of Man)



 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 09:01 AM on August 7, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How do you know that? He became an atheist after reading Darwin. Reading Darwin gave him all the excuse he needed to get rid of the creation story of his seminary. He rejected God's existance so he had to believe in some form of evolution, whether Darwinism or not.

How do I know he wasn't a "darwinist"?  Because he publicly rejected it, he imprisioned scientists who supported it!  Don't you read what is posted here?!?!  HE REJECTED DARWIN!  He didn't believe in evolution!  So all the people he killed, all his repressive meausres, were NOT based on evolution.
And it wasn't "origin of the Species" that turned him into an atheist, it was the cruel punishments he suffered at the hands of the priests when he was in school, from here:
Stalin

"During his time at the seminary, Stalin and numerous other students read forbidden literature that included Victor Hugo novels and revolutionary, including Marxist, material. He was caught and punished numerous times for this. One teacher in particular - Father Abashidze, whom Stalin nicknamed "the Black Spot" - harassed the rebel students through student informers, nightly patrols and surprise dormitory raids. This personal experience of "surveillance, spying, invasion of inner life, violation of feelings", in Stalin's own words, influenced the design of his future terror state. He became an atheist in his first year."

So your claim that evolution made him an atheist is wrong also.

So you say he rejected evolution but he clearly rejected God so what did he have left as an explanation for what he was doing on the planet? Everybody beleives something about their origins. What did he believe
then?


I don't know, you're the one who claimed that he did everything he did because he was an evolutionist, and now you are admitting you don't know why he did what he did.  I disproved your claims he based his evil regime on evolution and that it wasn't evolution that made him an atheist.  I don't have to speculate on why you got it wrong and what you don't know.

By the way rejecting evolution won't affect anybody's farming production

Wrong again, China's great famine, where 10s of millions of people died is a direct result of a rejection of evolution, from here:
Lysenkoism

"Jasper Becker in Hungry Ghosts traces the foolishness of close planting to the fraudulent science of the Soviet Union. T.D. Lysenko was a quack who got the support of Joseph Stalin and ruled over Soviet genetics for twenty five years. Among the many erroneous notions promoted by Lysenko and which had to be accepted in Marxist countries was his Law of the life of species which said that plants of the same species do not compete with each other but instead help each other to survive. This was linked to the Marxist notion of classes in which members of the same class do not compete but instead help each other survive. So Marxist ideology seemed to support the notion that the denser grain is planted the better it is for the grain. But in reality this close planting led to whithering of the plants after the initial germination phase. Lysenko was responsible for many other foolish notions most based upon the precept that environment not genetics determine plant characteristics. Lysenko argued that if you grew plants a little farther north each year they would adapt to the climate and eventually you would be able to grow oranges in the arctic. All of the Lysenko nonsense had to be accepted in the Soviet Union and promoted in propaganda as scientific truth. The Marxists in China apparently believed it was the truth. The reality was that this nonsense resulted in diminished production of food under conditions of bare survival."

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?




 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:47 PM on August 7, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No answer?

Because i have a couple more...
What it all boils down to is that nobody can have evidence for once off past events that can't be observed or repeated -it's history, not science.
Do you think that History is not science?
It's no good saying that the fossils in the earth evolved because it's not happening now -they're just dead bones.
What about Jesus?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:31 AM on October 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why do you think such a high proportion of scientists are atheists compared to the general population?
Because mainstream theism is not smart.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 01:04 AM on October 16, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:02 AM on August 4, 2009 :
And what is wrong with being an atheist?


If you don't know, I can't help you but suffice it to say atheism was Stalin's religion thanks to Darwin.

Actually, atheism is not a religion.
For a religious fanatic, you do not even seem to understand what a religion is.  Which is actually quite typical.

Atheist dictators like to eliminate the unfit -it's their creed -they see nothing wrong with it. The unfit are whoever they don't like.


Like witches or heretics?




(Edited by derwood 10/20/2009 at 08:35 AM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:35 AM on October 20, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Atheist dictators like to eliminate the unfit -it's their creed -they see nothing wrong with it. The unfit are whoever they don't like.


Like witches or heretics?


The Bible says nothing about burning witches and heretics - so those who did that in the name of God or any other name must have really been following somebody else -maybe the pope or some other megalomaniac church leader. The devil and his followers love to quote the Bible you know. They also like to keep the people away from the Bible so that they follow the words of men. A lot of innocent people get misled by false churches.
"You will know them by their fruits..."

That's why it is best to read it yourself.





-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 11:13 AM on October 20, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:13 AM on October 20, 2009 :
Atheist dictators like to eliminate the unfit -it's their creed -they see nothing wrong with it. The unfit are whoever they don't like.


Like witches or heretics?


The Bible says nothing about burning witches and heretics - so those who did that in the name of God or any other name must have really been following somebody else -maybe the pope or some other megalomaniac church leader.



Ah, the old No True Scotsman defense of Christianity.

Can I try - um, Stalin was not a real atheist, because a real atheist would not have done what he did.

Hey - works for you!


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:30 AM on October 20, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
The Bible says nothing about burning witches and heretics
Kill Witches
   You should not let a sorceress live.  (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Fortunetellers
   A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.  (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death to Followers of Other Religions
   Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed.  (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

Kill Nonbelievers
   They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.  (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)


Hum... You seem to be right this time, Lester. No burning mentioned.

so those who did that in the name of God or any other name must have really been following somebody else
In some cases the Bible offers no specifications. Like "You should not let a sorceress live". Burning does the job.

The devil and his followers love to quote the Bible you know.
No, we don't know. Show us the evidence.

They also like to keep the people away from the Bible so that they follow the words of men.
Well, i think people should read the Bible more. Specially Christians (there would be less of them if more of them did).
A lot of innocent people get misled by false churches.
"You will know them by their fruits..."
That pretty much says nothing. Churches boast about their fruits. Do they not?

Do you know any "non false" churches?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:07 PM on October 20, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Atheist dictators like to eliminate the unfit -it's their creed -they see nothing wrong with it. The unfit are whoever they don't like.
Like witches or heretics?
The Bible says nothing about burning witches and heretics
On a closer look, NOBODY said anything about burning. Only you.

Was that a strawman?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:12 PM on October 20, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp


Lester
The Bible says nothing about burning witches and heretics


Kill Witches
  You should not let a sorceress live.  (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Fortunetellers
  A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.  (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death to Followers of Other Religions
  Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed.  (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

Kill Nonbelievers
  They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.  (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Hum... You seem to be right this time, Lester. No burning mentioned.


Jeez - I'm glad I'm an atheist.  

It looks like Derwood is right one more time - the man knows what he's talking about.  He does his homework.

Gee Wisp, how do you find all that stuff?  But sure enough, I googled those phrases and they do appear to be in the Bible.  Boy, I have to feel sorry for all those kids who are dragged to Sunday school to have those violent images/thoughts put into their heads.  Of images of a God to be feared.  A God who acts like he's in his TERRIBLE TWO's!

I'll bet Christianity set Western civilization back 1500 years!  And it's still stunting people's minds, even today.

But hey, it looks like Lester needs to read up on his Bible some more too.  Been skimpin' on your Bible Studies Lester?  Been slackin' off?  You're proving as poor a Biblical scholar as you are a science scholar!  

Lester

maybe the pope or some other megalomaniac church leader.


Hmmm... from what I have seen/heard of the Bible, God seems to do pretty well himself at being a megalomaniac.

Lester

The devil and his followers love to quote the Bible you know.


You really believe in the devil too?  Heaven and Hell, and all that stuff?

I'm glad I'm an atheist!

(Edited by orion 10/20/2009 at 10:54 PM).

(Edited by orion 10/20/2009 at 10:59 PM).

(Edited by orion 10/20/2009 at 11:14 PM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:45 PM on October 20, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:13 AM on October 20, 2009 :

"You will know them by their fruits..."



Oh, we do...

We do...





-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:21 AM on October 21, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
No actually evolution has done more to stunt scientific growth than any other belief system because it's based on an incorrect manufactured history of the world.




Lester
As for religion inspiring evil, after a 20th century of multi-millions of deaths due to atheist dictators working according to "survival of the fittest' principles, yes religion inspires evil and the atheist religion is the worst and it is inspired by evolution.
timbrx
Is it? If it's right than murder is okay as long as I'm in charge (survival of the fittest a la Hitler, Stalin, Mao)
If evolution is the only answer to the question "why am I here" than the only answer is whatever I want it to be.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:00 AM on January 12, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:




-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:49 AM on January 13, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:




-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:54 PM on January 16, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Is Timothy 2:11 another example of words of wisdom from the wonderful Biblical God?  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 4:30 PM on January 16, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's all about the cultural context. Or so they say.

But, of course, if you have to check the cultural context of everything the Bible says, then it's quite useless as a guide of anything.

Why not going directly to the cultural mandates?


They just say they have faith in the Bible. But faith in the WHOLE Bible is quite unhealthy. Natural selection disposes of that amount of faith.




-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:24 PM on January 16, 2010 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.