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
     Evolution theory
       Christians should accept the evolution theory

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JimIrvine at 5:58 PM on September 29, 2009 :
Quote from anti-evolutionist at 11:40 PM on September 29, 2009 :
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1

Unfortunately, the only evidence that you have for that is ... nope, absolutely none whatsoever. (pssst: A fairytale in a storybook doesn't count as evidence)
A fairy tail starts out with the words,Millions and millions of years ago.In a land far away!A fairy tale for grown ups.We are  all people with souls,And an eternal after life.I only wish to convey this to people.Man/woman is more than just the highest animal.The after life through mans culture is a widespread ,And consistent theme.Please note that i do not doubt the intelligence of any person on this forum,Being open to the possibilities does not make one stupid.Anybody in either camp.If i  say,May God bless you all !.Is it an insult to you?.Just in case God exists,And we do have souls.Maybe respect from both sides would do no harm,Intelligent wording and disagreement and respect are compatible.Thanks!peace to all!  



 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 7:44 PM on September 30, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 11:18 PM on September 25, 2009 :
Think Twice
The other 5 kinds of evolution are open theoretical speculation,Therefore cant be proven,Not as yet at least.Science


You might want to think twice about what you say.  Those 'theoretical speculations' all have some pretty strong observational evidence backing them up, not to mention having a pretty good track record of making successful predictions.

But still open to interpretation,And not without some big unanswered questions.Creationist or evolutionist,This forum has the topic- Creationism vs Evolution Debates.It does not specify organic evolution only.So you believe in the beginning dirt,I believe in the beginning God,The big bang can you prove it happened
and tell me where the energy came from.Pure speculation even by the keenest scientific minds.Where did all the stuff come from.Has there ever been a case of something materialising from nothing.In the beginning there was nothing,Nothing really means nothing and then it exploded.And made the universe time space everything!Come on,Really. Ockham's Razor: "the simplest answer is usually the right one".The answer is God.thanks peace all!

 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 8:13 PM on September 30, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 12:46 AM on September 29, 2009 :
In the lab is selective breeding,man having his guided input.

This is not true, man is not guiding all evolution experiments.  Natural conditions are trying to be reproduced.  Yes, in some experimets selective breeding is employed, but the yeast experimets mentioned here is something that could have happened in the wild and evolution resulted from it.  There are numerous experiments like that where natural conditions are replicated and the subject population evolves into new species.  You haven't been able to disprove this.  As stated, new species (macro evolution) is a well established fact.

Think of yeast as a one cell version of
us...


Why, yeasts are NOT one celled.

Like Darwin’s finches, these birds have evolved unique beak structures and feeding behaviours in the absence of competitors

And they no longer breed with their old population, they are a new species, this is macro evolution.  You can't come in here with your own definitions then tell us we're wrong because you've changed science.  As stated, macro evolution has been observed, it's a well established fact.

Natural selection.

A part of evolution.

What was the title of Darwin s book,The famous one?

You mean "Origin of the Species"?  And yes, it has been confirmed.  


THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES

BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION,

OR THE

PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.

BY CHARLES DARWIN, M.A., F.R.S., &c.   Did you mean to abbreviate the title?
Races refers to people,Hmm!! makes feel uncomfortable.God loves all people,And of course Darwin is not God!.thanks peace to all
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 8:32 PM on September 30, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

T-T:

actually, you didn't quite get the title right.  It's -


ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION,

OR THE

PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.


In this case the word 'races' doesn't necessarily mean races of people.  As I understand it, having not read the book yet, Darwin didn't discuss human evolution much in this book.  In fact, I think he only had one or two sentences at the end of the book where he touched upon that subject very lightly - he knew that idea would create a fierce debate.  It wasn't until 12 years later, after having broad acceptance of his ideas by the scientific communicty, that he dealt with the subject of human evolution in his book, 'The Descent of Man'.   I would take it that by 'races' he was more or less referring to 'species'.  

Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.

(Edited by orion 9/30/2009 at 9:25 PM).

(Edited by orion 9/30/2009 at 9:29 PM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:24 PM on September 30, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I really enjoyed "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man", but I could never get more than 20 pages in to "Ulysses".


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:55 PM on September 30, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion

how do you explain the hominid fossil record?


Lester

Well you realize that you have to believe it in order to see it, don’t you?


Apparently you close your eyes to the evidence.  Looking at the hominid fossil record it is quite an obvious trend from ape-like to more human like features as we progress forward in time.  The brain case gets larger, the facial features get flater, the lower jaw becomes more parabolic and less rectangular.  Also, the opening through which the spinal chord connects to the skull becomes more vertical as hominid become bipedal.  

There are other apparent differences also.  The upper leg bone of apes go outward in a bow-legged fashion that is the hallmark of knuckle walkers.  Later huminid fossils, such a Lucy (Australophecus afaransis - 3.2 mya) show femur (upper leg bone) fitting more inward - as in bipedal humans.


The ones that look more ape-like are apes, the ones that look more human, are humans. Even today you have a wide range of physical facial features in humans as well as cranial capacities but in many fundamental ways we are distinctly separate and different from apes. There’s also artistic licence in these evolutionary depictions of cave men.


Lester, reread what you just said.  You can't even present a good argument against hominid evolution.


If we don’t have any definite evidence for the ability of one kind of creature to change into another kind (speciation aside for obvious reasons) then you are relying on philosophy for your interpretation of the evidence.


No, we have the fossils showing that hominid evolution did happen.  You still have yet to explain the fossils that show intermediate traits between apes and humans - those are transitional fossils.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:53 AM on October 1, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

Orion

how do you explain the hominid fossil record?


Another thing to think about is where are all the bones? Leave the few million years and just consider 1 million years of human habitation of the earth. Give them a growth rate of 0,01% just to be way overly fair to evolutionists (that’s doubling every 7000 years) and you get a figure of 10 with 43 zeroes. (Sorry don't know how to superscript here)


Lester, you really don't have a clue, do you?  

1.  Fossilization of bones is not a common event.  Take a walk in the woods, how many bones do you see lying around?  Not many, I'll wager.  Those that you do find will probably soon be gone due to scavengers, bacterial degradation, weathering, etc.  Our hominid ancestors lived in Africa (for the most part).  The conditions during that time were not very favorable for fossilization, plus the small hominid populations that were present did not live in an environment that was fossil friendly.  Yet we have found enough fossils that show that we are descendants from an ape ancestor in the distant past.  An ape ancestor that we share with the chimpanzee, most likely.

2. Where on earth do you get your numbers?  Do you think our early ancestors were thriving in agricultural societies?  They were hunters and food gatherers.  That life style can only support small populations.

By the time the Bible was written, civilization was florishing along the great rivers, such as the Tigris-Eurphrates and the Nile.  These civilizations had already established  agriculture, and animal domestication, which allowed for larger populations.  

Do you think that people 200,000 years ago, or hominids 1 million years ago would automatically know how to farm and raise sheep and goats?  I suppose you do, because that is what you are implying with your comments.

Speaking of the domestication of plants and animals, those are a good example of a selection process in action.  Instead of selection in nature, the domestication of grain crops and animals was driven by human selection.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 02:35 AM on October 1, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

Orion

Of course, you don't believe in the dating of the fossils, so you blithely toss the whole issue aside.  


Not blithely at all. Remember I used to believe all of it. Apart from the many significant problems with dating, you need to use philosophy in your dealing with the evidence in order to see what evolutionists see. It’s a metaphysical belief system and is there’s very little actual science in it.

You say you used to believe in the ToE, but thus far you have shown that you don't understand it, nor have you shown that you understand much of anything having to do with science.  It's not just evolution you dismiss, but you also dismiss basic concepts of outher fields of science if they happen to threaten your Creationist views.  Maybe you don't see that, but it is quite obvious to the rest of us non-Creationists (aka - evolutionists on this forum).

You keep bringing up that there are 'significant problems in dating'.  But you don't actually specify what these problems are.  Your comments are therefore without merit.  

Funny, you keep referring to evolution as a philosophy and/or religion - denying that it is a science.  (which again shows you don't understand what you're talking about)  I wonder why this is so?  Is it because you know that Creationism can never be scientifically validated, so you try to cast evolution down in the pit with Creationism?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 02:50 AM on October 1, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion

You say you used to believe in the ToE, but thus far you have shown that you don't understand it, nor have you shown that you understand much of anything having to do with science.


Well Orion, perhaps I'm just naturally stupid then, like all other people that don't agree that the evidence for evolution is 'compelling' overwhelming' or any of the other fantabulous terms used in support of evolution.

But you're quite wrong about my general understanding of science -I do actually have a doctorate in a field that involves an education in physics, chemistry, material science, as well as general biology, anatomy and physiology. I'm not going to tell you which field as it has nothing to do with you but you'll just have to trust me on this. Some of these subjects I have a more in depth knowledge than others but none of my fields of knowledge include evolution in any particular depth except insomuch as I spend all my spare time reading about it.

At University I was educated in Haeckel's Ontogenic Recapitulation of Phylogeny and other rubbish concepts that were never of any use to me subsequently. Wherever evolution came up, it was unimportant and completely useless to my life and my profession. Lots of people say that, by the way -the evolution part of their education was quite irrelevant. A bit of professional storytelling at best, a little icing on the cake so to speak but important? No.

Now remember I'm not talking about the uncontentious issues like mutation, variation or natural selection which are observable and which have nothing to do with the larger, more disingenuous metaphysical claims of 'evolution'.  The limits of variation and mutation are where we part company in agreement or in other words, where the observational science splits off into a world of fantasy.

I liked Santa Claus as much as anyone else but I don't find the need for evolution at this particular stage in my life and I resent my children being indoctrinated into it at every turn.

You're beginning to sound like Derwood by the way inasmuch as you have the attitude that if I don't believe it there must be something wrong with my brain, my education or something. He continually accuses others of arrogance while indulging in it endlessly. I see you're being more careful with your words but the 'I'm cleverer than you because I have the good sense to believe in rubbish' is coming through.However I must say in general, you are pleasant in debate.

If it makes things any easier for any of you, none of you seem unintelligent to me so I'm not arrogantly self importantly claiming that - but I believe you are, in some sense, blind not to recognize the metaphysical part of your belief system which has a tendency to  override evidence in so many ways.

You keep bringing up that there are 'significant problems in dating'.  But you don't actually specify what these problems are.  Your comments are therefore without merit.


Well the reason I say this is because there are significant problems with radiometric dating and I have actually discussed the problems here and there but I'd need to look back over all my posts to find out where which I'm not about to do.

Very recently I was asked what the assumptions were, which I replied to and it was never pursued and the subject moved on to other things. If you'd like to get into it, I'd be happy to oblige.

Funny, you keep referring to evolution as a philosophy and/or religion - denying that it is a science.  (which again shows you don't understand what you're talking about)


I keep referring to it as a philosophy or religion because it is a philosophy or religion and very little of it is based on actual science. The imaginative stories that have no evidential basis by far outnumber anything intelligent that comes out of the evolutionary camp. Sounding intelligent and coming to intelligent conclusions, I have realized since joining this debate, are quite different things.

Is it because you know that Creationism can never be scientifically validated, so you try to cast evolution down in the pit with Creationism?


No actually neither can be proven to be fact as they are both part of  history but the evidence supports creation far far better than it does evolution. There is also an historical record of creation while the evolution account is pure invention.The only reason evolution has any popularity whatsoever is that it leads people, temporarily at least, to believe that God does not exist (and if he does exist, thanks in part to evolution, they cannot understand the plan.) On that basis they lose themselves in imagination hoping that ignorance will pass for innocence.




-------
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: 06:47 AM on October 1, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 9:24 PM on September 30, 2009 :
T-T:

actually, you didn't quite get the title right.  It's -


ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION,

OR THE

PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.


In this case the word 'races' doesn't necessarily mean races of people.  As I understand it, having not read the book yet, Darwin didn't discuss human evolution much in this book.  In fact, I think he only had one or two sentences at the end of the book where he touched upon that subject very lightly - he knew that idea would create a fierce debate.  It wasn't until 12 years later, after having broad acceptance of his ideas by the scientific communicty, that he dealt with the subject of human evolution in his book, 'The Descent of Man'.   I would take it that by 'races' he was more or less referring to 'species'.  

Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.

(Edited by orion 9/30/2009 at 9:25 PM).

(Edited by orion 9/30/2009 at 9:29 PM).


Yes the word (on) omitted by me from my post,On that point i stand corrected.Now the word races,It would have to be taken to mean people.Please note i do not imply racism to any individual posting here.It is the book i am posting about,And by inference  the author.Darwin thought the white man most evolved,A doctrine taken to its limits by adolf hitler.Probably the most infamous believer in evolution.And evil doer in modern history.   military and political leader of Germany 1933 - 1945, launched World War Two and bears responsibility for the deaths of millions, including six million Jews.  
race noun COMPETITION
race noun PEOPLE
race verb COMPETITION
race verb HURRY
Thanks love and peace to all !
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 08:43 AM on October 1, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do you know this because you read it?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:08 AM on October 1, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester,

I still haven't heard how Creationism explains the hominid fossil record.  Evolution predicted we would find such fossils.  In fact, it was Darwin himself who suggested that it was Africa where we would find evidence of our hominid ancestors.  Guess what?  He was right.  There it is, observational evidence, just like you demand.  There it is, transitional evidence, just like you demand.  

Except... when you are presented with irrefutable evidence you dismiss it out of hand without any reasonable alternate explanation.  

Hmmm... maybe that's why ToE is the reigning theory explaining life on earth!  No other good SCIENTIFIC explanation has been proposed that can successfully explain what evolution can explain.  

As for evolution being useless - again, you're wrong.  Take a look here - science daily news.  This website lists, and briefly summarizes, some of the major papers being published daily in scientific journals.  

A day doesn't go by when there isn't some new insight or discovery made about evolution.  Useless you say?  Without evolution we wouldn't have the agricultural revolution that helps feed billions of people.  Unfortunately, the result is overpopulation of humanity - the root cause of a lot of our current world problems IMO.  We have to combat insect pests that evolve resistence to insecticides.  And most people know of the continuous battle between medical science and bacteria that grow resistant to antibiotics.  

Evolution has no impact?  You couldn't be more wrong!



 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 09:14 AM on October 1, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:14 AM on September 30, 2009 :
Orion
how do you explain the hominid fossil record?


Well you realize that you have to believe it in order to see it, don’t you?




Amazing...



-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:47 AM on October 1, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Think-Twice at 2:43 PM on October 1, 2009 :
Now the word races,It would have to be taken to mean people.

Why? Please explain why it would have to be taken to mean people.
A doctrine taken to its limits by adolf hitler.Probably the most infamous believer in evolution.And evil doer in modern history.   military and political leader of Germany 1933 - 1945, launched World War Two and bears responsibility for the deaths of millions, including six million Jews.  
Exactly what is it you are trying to say when you point out that Hitler believed in evolution (I'm pretty sure I remember reading here that that isn't in fact true, but I can't find the post at the moment so we'll leave that at the moment) Are you saying that evolution is at fault for Hitler's actions? Do you really want to get into a 'competition' about the atrocities committed in the name of evolution vs religion?
race noun COMPETITION
race noun PEOPLE
race verb COMPETITION
race verb HURRY
what on Earth are you talking about here? I mean, what is the purpose of those 4 lines, what argument are you making? What are you trying to achieve?



-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 11:10 AM on October 1, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:47 AM on October 1, 2009 :

But you're quite wrong about my general understanding of science -I do actually have a doctorate in a field that involves an education in physics, chemistry, material science, as well as general biology, anatomy and physiology.

I do not believe this for one minute.
You are actually going to claim a background in all these things, yet it is trivial to find you making totally CLUELESS assertions isn each of them.
Look at your claims re: cladograms - you could not even begin to interpret them, yet that is general biology material.  You argued against the extensor coccygeus by ranting about a totally different.  You assert that radiometric dating is all fluff, yet claim general background in physics?

Where did you get this 'doctorate' - the ICR grad school?  Patriot University?


I'm not going to tell you which field as it has nothing to do with you but you'll just have to trust me on this.

Your statements on this board give any rational person very little reason to trust you.  If what you write on here is any indication of your level of competence, then the institution from which you supposedly earned this 'doctorate' has some serious problems with its curriculum, when one of their' graduates' demonstrates at best a high-school level of understanding.



Some of these subjects I have a more in depth knowledge than others but none of my fields of knowledge include evolution in any particular depth except insomuch as I spend all my spare time reading about it.

And as you claim to choose your experts according to whether or not they are YEC cultists, I'd say that yours has been a poor educational experience.


At University I was educated in Haeckel's Ontogenic Recapitulation of Phylogeny


Really?

So you graduated with this 'doctorate' prior to the 1970s?

After all, Haeckel's ideas were rebutted around then, and had in fact been severely criticized for decades before that.

Witnessing, I suppose - don't feel too ashamed, I read just a couple of years ago the claims of a creationist that she had been tuaght the same thing in 1999.


You're beginning to sound like Derwood by the way inasmuch as you have the attitude that if I don't believe it there must be something wrong with my brain, my education or something. He continually accuses others of arrogance while indulging in it endlessly.

Your own words demonstrate the viability of my "arrogance" on a daily basis.  I'm not sure why I am considered arrogant, frankly.   I have stated explicitly that there are a number of things that I do not know and have no answer for. You and your fellow YECs, on the other hand, despuite repeated demonstrations of your shallow understanding and ignorance, continue to boast of the 'truth' of your claims.  I refer again as a prime example your laughable antics re: whale evolution, you could not even interpret a simple cladogram, yet here you are claiming a background in biology and accusing me of arrogance.

Who, I ask again, is the more arrogant - the person with a relevant background and educationa nd experience who talks about things that he has actual 'expertise' in, od the person who lacks these things yet declares the experts wrong?

If it makes things any easier for any of you, none of you seem unintelligent to me so I'm not arrogantly self importantly claiming that - but I believe you are, in some sense, blind not to recognize the metaphysical part of your belief system which has a tendency to  override evidence in so many ways.


You written things like this repeatedly, yet EVERY TIME you have been asked for evidence FOR YECism, all you can offer are whines about evolution, when asked for problems with evolution, you give hackneyed recycled already-refuted YEC garbage.
And you actually seem to think that YECs look at things objectively - you wrote this explicitly, remember?  Your truly delusinal claim that creationist 'experts' look at evidence "sans philosophie"?  Rem,ember that little bit of self-delusion?


You keep bringing up that there are 'significant problems in dating'.  But you don't actually specify what these problems are.  Your comments are therefore without merit.


Well the reason I say this is because there are significant problems with radiometric dating and I have actually discussed the problems here and there but I'd need to look back over all my posts to find out where which I'm not about to do.


If you have such an in-depth knowledge of radiometric dating and in fact ALL science as you profess, explaining the sundry problems with radiometric dating that apparently only YECs are privy to should come easy.  
Except for the abstracts that I have presented, everything I have written I have done on my own, in my own words, off the top of my head.


Very recently I was asked what the assumptions were, which I replied to and it was never pursued and the subject moved on to other things. If you'd like to get into it, I'd be happy to oblige.


OK.
And while we are at it, perhaps we can discuss the assumptions that YECs employ.


Funny, you keep referring to evolution as a philosophy and/or religion - denying that it is a science.  (which again shows you don't understand what you're talking about)


I keep referring to it as a philosophy or religion because it is a philosophy or religion and very little of it is based on actual science.

Yeah, that 5 years I spent doing research on it at an accredited major researchuniversity - all religiona nd philosophy. All that lab work I did - sequencing millions of BPs of DNA and running large-scale analyses and sop on, all philosophy.  I do wonder then what sort of work philosophers have to do in grad school..

The imaginative stories that have no evidential basis


Like unicorns in the bible?


by far outnumber anything intelligent that comes out of the evolutionary camp. Sounding intelligent and coming to intelligent conclusions, I have realized since joining this debate, are quite different things.


An assumption, not a realization, premised on your metaphysical beliefs.


Is it because you know that Creationism can never be scientifically validated, so you try to cast evolution down in the pit with Creationism?

There is also an historical record of creation while the evolution account is pure invention.


WHAT historical record of creation, pray tell?


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:10 AM on October 1, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I still haven't heard how Creationism explains the hominid fossil record.


There is no hominid fossil record. I've explained this - we see the evidence then believe, you believe then go looking for the evidence and find it! Surprise surprise. It's all in the interpetation. We don't believe that it is possible to convert one kind of creature into another and there is no evidence for it so bones that are more ape-like, are more than likely apes and bones that are more human- like are humans. Until you can demonstrate macroevolution to be possible (no speciation please, not good enough), we don't believe it and you have to believe it first in advance of the evidence.

In fact, it was Darwin himself who suggested that it was Africa where we would find evidence of our hominid ancestors.  


Great guess Darwin! There are black people in africa - Darwin was a big racist -just look at the title of his book if you don't believe me.
There are more apes in africa -so where do we find our ancestors - in africa, only they're apes, not people. Artistic licence can do a lot for fragments of bones.

Hmmm... maybe that's why ToE is the reigning theory explaining life on earth!


Hmmm -it is popular isn't it. Didn't anybody ever tell you that popularity is no indicator of truth. The majority can often believe things that are wrong.

No other good SCIENTIFIC explanation has been proposed that can successfully explain what evolution can explain.


If you exclude supernatural creation from the realm of possiblity, then there are no contenders. Some materialistic explanation just has to be true, doesn't it. Heads you win, tails, you win. It's philosophy, face it.

Science used to be a search for the truth, not a search for the best naturalistic explanation for everything (whether naturalism explains it or not).

A day doesn't go by when there isn't some new insight or discovery made about evolution.  Useless you say?


Useless yes. But its not just me saying so, it's a pretty popular opinion these days and becoming more popular every day wherever logic reins and evolution hasn't been drummed in beyond the threshold frequency for belief.
Scientists in general have been initiated into the evo religion worse than most -they are like the Watchtower society now. If they keep to their own little circles, they will keep the faith. You might be opening yourself to heresy, so be careful!

Without evolution we wouldn't have the agricultural revolution that helps feed billions of people.


No -and how many times must I repeat myself. You people have your eyes so shut tight refusing to see. Now I repeat: We have no problem with variation, nor with mutation, nor with natural selection. We all agree on those points. We, however, do not believe that micro variation leads to macroevolution. You do.

Macroevolution has nothing whatsoever to do with feeding people, nor with antibiotic resistance. So, in other words, the 'evolution' you believe in is useless if you have to look to what we all agree upon to find a use for 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: 11:21 AM on October 1, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

Orion

I still haven't heard how Creationism explains the hominid fossil record.


There is no hominid fossil record. I've explained this - we see the evidence then believe, you believe then go looking for the evidence and find it! Surprise surprise. It's all in the interpetation.  


Have you seen the pictures of the hominid fossils, Lester?  I know you have, because Wisp presented a good image of them in another thread on this forum.  They are easily found on any reputable website.  How do explain them?  They show transitional features between apes and human - a good example, as I mentioned, is Lucy (Australophicus afarensis).  

Funny - Creationists ask for transitional fossils, then when they are presented with them they turn around and ignore them - try to pretend they don't exist.  

And guess what else else - dating techniques places them right in the exact time-frame that evolution predicts.

You ask for proof of macro evolution - hominid fossils demonstrate one superb example.


Darwin was a big racist -just look at the title of his book if you don't believe me.


That's quite an inflammatory accusation, Lester.  From what I've read, Darwin was not a racist - far from it.  He was said to be a very gentle and caring man.  If you present credible proof showing otherwise, then I'll take back  my words.  As I said, he hardly even mentioned people in 'On the Origin of the Species' book.

As for finding hominid fossils in Africa - it is an indisputable fact that they were found there.  The fossils I'm referring to are clearly not 'ape' fossils, and yet they are clearly not H. sapiens.

Your statement is very similar to the disturbing message from the first two videos that Thick Twice pointed to.  In those two videos the author was portraying evolution as evil, with the unspoken implication that those who supprted evolution are also evil.  That was a very disturbing message.  Needless to say, the videos presented no scientific evidence against evolution.  It merely presented a poor (extremely poor) analogy that a pile of car parts could not assemble themselves over any amount of time.  Then it tried presenting the development of a human embryo as proof that evolution can't be possible.  That a human being is too complex to have evolved.

But the scary thing was about those first two videos was that it was trying to connect evolution to the idea that it was evil.  And why was that, do you suppose?  Because ToE threatens the very core of Creationists beliefs - therefore it must be evil.

This is just one more example how Creationists will try every underhanded method that they can to attack evolution, including resorting to scare tactics.  We have shown that they lie and misrepresent scientific statements of others if it can be twisted and distorted to give 'proof' that evolution can't be true.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:19 PM on October 1, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 06:20 AM on September 26, 2009 :
So you are limiting yourself to No. 5 and No. 6 -where 6 is factual and scientific and 5. is proposed, but not a matter of evidence, as an extension of 5.

No, science limits itself to 5 and 6 when discussing evolution, that's how science works.
And macroevolution is an established fact.
Really is it,So why is not called the fact of evolution.Not as it is called theory of evolution?.



 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 2:02 PM on October 1, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 08:13 AM on September 11, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 02:07 AM on September 11, 2009 :

Dating techniques have unprovable assumptions - lots of them -evolutionists would like their precious dating techniques to be true but that does not take away the assumptions. Without those radiometric 'ages,' evolution can't be true, so of course you'll have to fight to keep people believing in them.


The great antiquity of the earth was established in the late 1700's, long before radioactivity was discovered or Darwin was even born.  It was concluded by creationist geologists with a biblical mindset,who went looking for evidence of the flood, and found none.

Go to the John Day Fossil Beds, and see for yourself, layers of forests, complete with roots, animal burrows, earthworm tracks, etc., interlaced with volcanic ash deposits, also with roots growing into them.  Don't bother searching the creationist literature for an explanation of it from a flood perspective, there is none and they stay away from there.

We both have the same facts, go look at them yourself.

Edit: Actually, I'm seeing that the Creation Research Society provides it's own visitor's guide to John Day.  It would be interesting to see how they handle it, if I see it a used book store I'll pick it up.

(Edited by Apoapsis 9/11/2009 at 8:19 PM).

Amazon.com has a good selection of used books,differing conditions reflecting in the price you pay.So if you want a read once,not necessary for your library (throw away if you like).Cheap really.just a suggestion.thanks love and peace to all!!


 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 2:12 PM on October 1, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Think-Twice at 2:02 PM on October 1, 2009 :
Really is it,So why is not called the fact of evolution.Not as it is called theory of evolution?.


It is a fact that we observe speciation (macro-evolution), but the theory of evolution explains how this happens, as that is what scientific theories do. They explain observations made from discovery and hypothesis base science.

There is somewhat of a hierarchy in science, with facts at the bottom and theories at the top, with things like models and laws in-between.


-------
"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: 2:22 PM on October 1, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer

It is a fact that we observe speciation (macro-evolution), but the theory of evolution explains how this happens, as that is what scientific theories do. They explain observations made from discovery and hypothesis base science.


I would certainly agree with that.

Lester

Orion

Hmmm... maybe that's why ToE is the reigning theory explaining life on earth!


Hmmm -it is popular isn't it. Didn't anybody ever tell you that popularity is no indicator of truth. The majority can often believe things that are wrong.


ToE isn't about popularity - it's about being able to explain what we see and making successful predictions - tying everything together that it deals with, which is the history of life and the relationships among organisms today.  Creationism fails to do that.

Lester

Orion

No other good SCIENTIFIC explanation has been proposed that can successfully explain what evolution can explain.

If you exclude supernatural creation from the realm of possiblity, then there are no contenders. Some materialistic explanation just has to be true, doesn't it. Heads you win, tails, you win. It's philosophy, face it.


You just don't get it, do you?  I mean, you just don't understand how science operates.  Science CANNOT deal with supposed supernatural deities because you cannot detect them.  There has been no successful tests made that can infer them.  If there were, it would be earth-shattering news.  

Lacking the ability to detect or infer any supernatural power/entity, science is left with dealing with only natural phenonmena.  Whether God, or any other supernatural being, is responsible for natural phenonmena that we observe, science cannot say.  You can propose that the blue cookie monster was responsible for what we observe.  But science cannot prove nor disprove it.

That is why Creationism cannot be taught in the science classroom - to get down to the bare bones about it.  It is NOT science.

 
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:09 PM on October 1, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

Well the reason I say this is because there are significant problems with radiometric dating and I have actually discussed the problems here and there but I'd need to look back over all my posts to find out where which I'm not about to do.


How about if you present us your evidence why radiometric dating is flawed and can't be trusted.  Without presenting any evidence, or rational arguments showing that you understand the fundamentals of radiometric dating, your assertions are meaningless and specious.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:15 PM on October 2, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:21 AM on October 1, 2009 :
I still haven't heard how Creationism explains the hominid fossil record.


There is no hominid fossil record. I've explained this - we see the evidence then believe, you believe then go looking for the evidence and find it! Surprise surprise. It's all in the interpetation. We don't believe that it is possible to convert one kind of creature into another and there is no evidence for it so bones that are more ape-like, are more than likely apes and bones that are more human- like are humans. Until you can demonstrate macroevolution to be possible (no speciation please, not good enough), we don't believe it and you have to believe it first in advance of the evidence.

In fact, it was Darwin himself who suggested that it was Africa where we would find evidence of our hominid ancestors.  


Great guess Darwin! There are black people in africa - Darwin was a big racist -just look at the title of his book if you don't believe me.
There are more apes in africa -so where do we find our ancestors - in africa, only they're apes, not people. Artistic licence can do a lot for fragments of bones.

Hmmm... maybe that's why ToE is the reigning theory explaining life on earth!


Hmmm -it is popular isn't it. Didn't anybody ever tell you that popularity is no indicator of truth. The majority can often believe things that are wrong.

No other good SCIENTIFIC explanation has been proposed that can successfully explain what evolution can explain.


If you exclude supernatural creation from the realm of possiblity, then there are no contenders. Some materialistic explanation just has to be true, doesn't it. Heads you win, tails, you win. It's philosophy, face it.

Science used to be a search for the truth, not a search for the best naturalistic explanation for everything (whether naturalism explains it or not).

A day doesn't go by when there isn't some new insight or discovery made about evolution.  Useless you say?


Useless yes. But its not just me saying so, it's a pretty popular opinion these days and becoming more popular every day wherever logic reins and evolution hasn't been drummed in beyond the threshold frequency for belief.
Scientists in general have been initiated into the evo religion worse than most -they are like the Watchtower society now. If they keep to their own little circles, they will keep the faith. You might be opening yourself to heresy, so be careful!

Without evolution we wouldn't have the agricultural revolution that helps feed billions of people.


No -and how many times must I repeat myself. You people have your eyes so shut tight refusing to see. Now I repeat: We have no problem with variation, nor with mutation, nor with natural selection. We all agree on those points. We, however, do not believe that micro variation leads to macroevolution. You do.

Macroevolution has nothing whatsoever to do with feeding people, nor with antibiotic resistance. So, in other words, the 'evolution' you believe in is useless if you have to look to what we all agree upon to find a use for evolution.

If you are deceived by the lie evilution!Ooops (evolution),That really is your fault,We are all given our chances to open the gates of heaven.homo sapiens sapiens,Wise wise man. Romans 1:21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Thanks love and peace to all !!

 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 3:22 PM on October 2, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you are deceived by the lie evilution!Ooops (evolution),...

The last refuge of the religiously incompetent!  When you can't argue the facts, resort to fire and brimstone!   Evolution is a fact, virtually all biologists accept this.  Go peddle salvation to someone who gives a crap.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:30 PM on October 2, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 1:19 PM on October 1, 2009 :
Lester

Orion

I still haven't heard how Creationism explains the hominid fossil record.


There is no hominid fossil record. I've explained this - we see the evidence then believe, you believe then go looking for the evidence and find it! Surprise surprise. It's all in the interpetation.  


Have you seen the pictures of the hominid fossils, Lester?  I know you have, because Wisp presented a good image of them in another thread on this forum.  They are easily found on any reputable website.  How do explain them?  They show transitional features between apes and human - a good example, as I mentioned, is Lucy (Australophicus afarensis).  

Funny - Creationists ask for transitional fossils, then when they are presented with them they turn around and ignore them - try to pretend they don't exist.  

And guess what else else - dating techniques places them right in the exact time-frame that evolution predicts.

You ask for proof of macro evolution - hominid fossils demonstrate one superb example.


Darwin was a big racist -just look at the title of his book if you don't believe me.


That's quite an inflammatory accusation, Lester.  From what I've read, Darwin was not a racist - far from it.  He was said to be a very gentle and caring man.  If you present credible proof showing otherwise, then I'll take back  my words.  As I said, he hardly even mentioned people in 'On the Origin of the Species' book.

As for finding hominid fossils in Africa - it is an indisputable fact that they were found there.  The fossils I'm referring to are clearly not 'ape' fossils, and yet they are clearly not H. sapiens.

Your statement is very similar to the disturbing message from the first two videos that Thick Twice pointed to.  In those two videos the author was portraying evolution as evil, with the unspoken implication that those who supprted evolution are also evil.  That was a very disturbing message.  Needless to say, the videos presented no scientific evidence against evolution.  It merely presented a poor (extremely poor) analogy that a pile of car parts could not assemble themselves over any amount of time.  Then it tried presenting the development of a human embryo as proof that evolution can't be possible.  That a human being is too complex to have evolved.

But the scary thing was about those first two videos was that it was trying to connect evolution to the idea that it was evil.  And why was that, do you suppose?  Because ToE threatens the very core of Creationists beliefs - therefore it must be evil.

This is just one more example how Creationists will try every underhanded method that they can to attack evolution, including resorting to scare tactics.  We have shown that they lie and misrepresent scientific statements of others if it can be twisted and distorted to give 'proof' that evolution can't be true.  


Darwin believed the white man,Had attained higher evolution (Superior),And that the white man would wipe out the black people as they are not a favoured race(inferior).Shame on darwin as we are all brothers and sisters in Gods eyes.Human genome project showed very little variation in the races. Scientists have found that if one were to take any two people from anywhere in the world, the basic genetic differences between these two people, even within the same group, would typically be around 0.2 %. Furthermore, the so-called “racial” characteristics that many people think are major differences (skin color, eye shape, etc.), account for only 6% of this 0.2% variation—which amounts to a mere 0.012 % difference genetically!2 In other words, the so-called “racial” differences are absolutely trivial.The origin of life itself was never addressed, but rather the origin of new “species” which changed over time to better adapt to environmental pressures.  As a life-form would reproduce, the strongest and best-suited to living conditions would survive to reproduce, while the weaker would not due to competition for resources.  This lead to the “science” of EUGENICS, and was applied to human beings in Europe and the U.S. during the 1920’s.  Organizations such as PLANNED PARENTHOOD helped determine reproductive suitability.  Hitler and Nazi Germany used eugenics to “cull” the human population of all “undesirable” traits, and systematically killed those deemed useless.  Hitler believed he was helping “natural selection” and improving the “favoured race”.

Stalin applied Darwin’s principles of natural selection using economics.

  Tens of millions have died as a direct result of the opinions of Darwin, a racist that is celebrated in the halls of public education throughout the world.

 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 3:53 PM on October 2, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 09:14 AM on October 1, 2009 :
Lester,

I still haven't heard how Creationism explains the hominid fossil record.  Evolution predicted we would find such fossils.  In fact, it was Darwin himself who suggested that it was Africa where we would find evidence of our hominid ancestors.  Guess what?  He was right.  There it is, observational evidence, just like you demand.  There it is, transitional evidence, just like you demand.  

Except... when you are presented with irrefutable evidence you dismiss it out of hand without any reasonable alternate explanation.  

Hmmm... maybe that's why ToE is the reigning theory explaining life on earth!  No other good SCIENTIFIC explanation has been proposed that can successfully explain what evolution can explain.  

As for evolution being useless - again, you're wrong.  Take a look here - science daily news.  This website lists, and briefly summarizes, some of the major papers being published daily in scientific journals.  

A day doesn't go by when there isn't some new insight or discovery made about evolution.  Useless you say?  Without evolution we wouldn't have the agricultural revolution that helps feed billions of people.  Unfortunately, the result is overpopulation of humanity - the root cause of a lot of our current world problems IMO.  We have to combat insect pests that evolve resistence to insecticides.  And most people know of the continuous battle between medical science and bacteria that grow resistant to antibiotics.  

Evolution has no impact?  You couldn't be more wrong!



You have never had your hands on a real (genuine hominid fossil)Body part!.Casts and drawings are what you work with.Anybody in this forum has never had hands on a (Real hominid Fossil).Representations are all you work with.If any tell me they have had hands on study of Genuine hominid fossils,Show your credentials they must be good. thanks love and peace to all mankind !!



 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 4:04 PM on October 2, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 01:53 AM on October 1, 2009 :
Orion

how do you explain the hominid fossil record?


Lester

Well you realize that you have to believe it in order to see it, don’t you?


Apparently you close your eyes to the evidence.  Looking at the hominid fossil record it is quite an obvious trend from ape-like to more human like features as we progress forward in time.  The brain case gets larger, the facial features get flater, the lower jaw becomes more parabolic and less rectangular.  Also, the opening through which the spinal chord connects to the skull becomes more vertical as hominid become bipedal.  

There are other apparent differences also.  The upper leg bone of apes go outward in a bow-legged fashion that is the hallmark of knuckle walkers.  Later huminid fossils, such a Lucy (Australophecus afaransis - 3.2 mya) show femur (upper leg bone) fitting more inward - as in bipedal humans.


The ones that look more ape-like are apes, the ones that look more human, are humans. Even today you have a wide range of physical facial features in humans as well as cranial capacities but in many fundamental ways we are distinctly separate and different from apes. There’s also artistic licence in these evolutionary depictions of cave men.


Lester, reread what you just said.  You can't even present a good argument against hominid evolution.


If we don’t have any definite evidence for the ability of one kind of creature to change into another kind (speciation aside for obvious reasons) then you are relying on philosophy for your interpretation of the evidence.


No, we have the fossils showing that hominid evolution did happen.  You still have yet to explain the fossils that show intermediate traits between apes and humans - those are transitional fossils.


Read the book..Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils (Paperback)
Dr Lubenow has a Master of Theology degree (Th.M.) from Dallas Theological Seminary with a major in systematic theology. He also has a Master of Science degree (M.S.) from Eastern Michigan University with a major in anthropology.



 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 4:11 PM on October 2, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 1:19 PM on October 1, 2009 :
Lester

Orion

I still haven't heard how Creationism explains the hominid fossil record.


There is no hominid fossil record. I've explained this - we see the evidence then believe, you believe then go looking for the evidence and find it! Surprise surprise. It's all in the interpetation.  


Have you seen the pictures of the hominid fossils, Lester?  I know you have, because Wisp presented a good image of them in another thread on this forum.  They are easily found on any reputable website.  How do explain them?  They show transitional features between apes and human - a good example, as I mentioned, is Lucy (Australophicus afarensis).  

Funny - Creationists ask for transitional fossils, then when they are presented with them they turn around and ignore them - try to pretend they don't exist.  

And guess what else else - dating techniques places them right in the exact time-frame that evolution predicts.

You ask for proof of macro evolution - hominid fossils demonstrate one superb example.


Darwin was a big racist -just look at the title of his book if you don't believe me.


That's quite an inflammatory accusation, Lester.  From what I've read, Darwin was not a racist - far from it.  He was said to be a very gentle and caring man.  If you present credible proof showing otherwise, then I'll take back  my words.  As I said, he hardly even mentioned people in 'On the Origin of the Species' book.

As for finding hominid fossils in Africa - it is an indisputable fact that they were found there.  The fossils I'm referring to are clearly not 'ape' fossils, and yet they are clearly not H. sapiens.

Your statement is very similar to the disturbing message from the first two videos that Thick Twice pointed to.  In those two videos the author was portraying evolution as evil, with the unspoken implication that those who supprted evolution are also evil.  That was a very disturbing message.  Needless to say, the videos presented no scientific evidence against evolution.  It merely presented a poor (extremely poor) analogy that a pile of car parts could not assemble themselves over any amount of time.  Then it tried presenting the development of a human embryo as proof that evolution can't be possible.  That a human being is too complex to have evolved.

But the scary thing was about those first two videos was that it was trying to connect evolution to the idea that it was evil.  And why was that, do you suppose?  Because ToE threatens the very core of Creationists beliefs - therefore it must be evil.

This is just one more example how Creationists will try every underhanded method that they can to attack evolution, including resorting to scare tactics.  We have shown that they lie and misrepresent scientific statements of others if it can be twisted and distorted to give 'proof' that evolution can't be true.  
Those video's are disturbing,Do you know anything about free masonry.Think that was good intro to the topic.Yes the theory is evil,not the evolutionists themselves.homo sapiens sapiens,,,Romans 1:22-23 (King James Version)  22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.



 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 4:27 PM on October 2, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:47 AM on October 1, 2009 :
Orion

You say you used to believe in the ToE, but thus far you have shown that you don't understand it, nor have you shown that you understand much of anything having to do with science.


Well Orion, perhaps I'm just naturally stupid then, like all other people that don't agree that the evidence for evolution is 'compelling' overwhelming' or any of the other fantabulous terms used in support of evolution.

But you're quite wrong about my general understanding of science -I do actually have a doctorate in a field that involves an education in physics, chemistry, material science, as well as general biology, anatomy and physiology. I'm not going to tell you which field as it has nothing to do with you but you'll just have to trust me on this. Some of these subjects I have a more in depth knowledge than others but none of my fields of knowledge include evolution in any particular depth except insomuch as I spend all my spare time reading about it.

At University I was educated in Haeckel's Ontogenic Recapitulation of Phylogeny and other rubbish concepts that were never of any use to me subsequently. Wherever evolution came up, it was unimportant and completely useless to my life and my profession. Lots of people say that, by the way -the evolution part of their education was quite irrelevant. A bit of professional storytelling at best, a little icing on the cake so to speak but important? No.

Now remember I'm not talking about the uncontentious issues like mutation, variation or natural selection which are observable and which have nothing to do with the larger, more disingenuous metaphysical claims of 'evolution'.  The limits of variation and mutation are where we part company in agreement or in other words, where the observational science splits off into a world of fantasy.

I liked Santa Claus as much as anyone else but I don't find the need for evolution at this particular stage in my life and I resent my children being indoctrinated into it at every turn.

You're beginning to sound like Derwood by the way inasmuch as you have the attitude that if I don't believe it there must be something wrong with my brain, my education or something. He continually accuses others of arrogance while indulging in it endlessly. I see you're being more careful with your words but the 'I'm cleverer than you because I have the good sense to believe in rubbish' is coming through.However I must say in general, you are pleasant in debate.

If it makes things any easier for any of you, none of you seem unintelligent to me so I'm not arrogantly self importantly claiming that - but I believe you are, in some sense, blind not to recognize the metaphysical part of your belief system which has a tendency to  override evidence in so many ways.

You keep bringing up that there are 'significant problems in dating'.  But you don't actually specify what these problems are.  Your comments are therefore without merit.


Well the reason I say this is because there are significant problems with radiometric dating and I have actually discussed the problems here and there but I'd need to look back over all my posts to find out where which I'm not about to do.

Very recently I was asked what the assumptions were, which I replied to and it was never pursued and the subject moved on to other things. If you'd like to get into it, I'd be happy to oblige.

Funny, you keep referring to evolution as a philosophy and/or religion - denying that it is a science.  (which again shows you don't understand what you're talking about)


I keep referring to it as a philosophy or religion because it is a philosophy or religion and very little of it is based on actual science. The imaginative stories that have no evidential basis by far outnumber anything intelligent that comes out of the evolutionary camp. Sounding intelligent and coming to intelligent conclusions, I have realized since joining this debate, are quite different things.

Is it because you know that Creationism can never be scientifically validated, so you try to cast evolution down in the pit with Creationism?


No actually neither can be proven to be fact as they are both part of  history but the evidence supports creation far far better than it does evolution. There is also an historical record of creation while the evolution account is pure invention.The only reason evolution has any popularity whatsoever is that it leads people, temporarily at least, to believe that God does not exist (and if he does exist, thanks in part to evolution, they cannot understand the plan.) On that basis they lose themselves in imagination hoping that ignorance will pass for innocence.


Haeckel a fraudster taken to court by his own university..look into it,i will post details

Apologetics Press :: Sensible Science

Haeckel's Hoax—CONTINUED!
by Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2049

Keep looking you will find refutations to this fact.But stay blind to the truth if you all like,Would better for if you if you looked past your preconceptions of the way you know it is.
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 4:37 PM on October 2, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Think-Twice

Darwin believed the white man,Had attained higher evolution (Superior),And that the white man would wipe out the black people as they are not a favoured race(inferior).


Would you please show us your source of this claim.

T-T:

As a life-form would reproduce, the strongest and best-suited to living conditions would survive to reproduce, while the weaker would not due to competition for resources.  This lead to the “science” of EUGENICS, and was applied to human beings in Europe and the U.S. during the 1920’s.  Organizations such as PLANNED PARENTHOOD helped determine reproductive suitability.  Hitler and Nazi Germany used eugenics to “cull” the human population of all “undesirable” traits, and systematically killed those deemed useless.  Hitler believed he was helping “natural selection” and improving the “favoured race”.

Stalin applied Darwin’s principles of natural selection using economics.

Tens of millions have died as a direct result of the opinions of Darwin, a racist that is celebrated in the halls of public education throughout the world.


Where in the world are you picking up this  garbage?  From those videos you pointed to earlier?

If you believe all of that stuff, you are terribly misinformed.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:41 PM on October 2, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Darwin believed the white man,Had attained higher evolution (Superior),And that the white man would wipe out the black people as they are not a favoured race(inferior).Shame on darwin as we are all brothers and sisters in Gods eyes

I'm really getting tired of your ignorant, misinformed and completely wrong claims.  do you know anything about history?!?!
from here:
Darwin No Racist

"So what about these accusations? Was Darwin a racist? Has evolutionary theory served as a support for everything from abortion to the Holocaust?

Far from it. Darwin was an abolitionist whose scientific work refuted the commonly held racist beliefs of his time and opposed already existing eugenic concepts. It is, in fact, evolution that overturned the widely held belief in the divine superiority of the "white race".

So-called "scientific racism" emerged around the same time that Darwin published his theory of evolution, but from a completely different group of people and for completely different reasons. In the mid-1800s both American slavery and European imperialism were coming under increasing criticism. During this time the idea of white supremacy became popular among those seeking to justify slavery and imperialism. Prior to Darwin, and after Darwin by opponents of evolution, biology was a theologically based field. The primary "scientific racists" were creationists who believed that science supported Biblical scripture, and that scripture supported slavery and the domination of one group over
another."

Also from the same source:

"The very idea that the theory of evolution is responsible for the idea that certain races or groups of people are superior to others is so historically inaccurate that it is almost impossible to believe that anyone today could even make such a claim. As we shall see, however, "God" has been the primary justification for the concept of the superiority of one group over another throughout history, not "Darwinism".
When Christopher Columbus and the Spanish Conquistadores engaged in the conquest of the Americas, they did do so under the direction of the Pope, and their slaughter and subjugation of all natives was justified through Christian theology.  When Spanish conquerors came into contact with new groups of people they were required to read an article to them, in Spanish, called the Requerimiento. The Requerimiento stated that all men were descended from Adam and Eve, that the Catholic Church had been granted the right by God to rule all people, and that there was no way to deny the authority of the Pope. Those who resisted would be slaughtered or enslaved."

Later in the same article:

"There was a growing movement in America shortly before the Civil War, as pressure against slavery was increasing, to justify slavery not just with scripture, but also with so-called "science". At this time, however, most biologists, known then as naturalists, were theologically trained. Biology was still considered to be a Biblically based study of "the creation" before Darwin came along.

In 1853 the Frenchman Arthur de Gobineau published An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, in which he proposed that humans were composed of three races, the most advanced of which was the "Aryan Race". In An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races Gobineau stated that civilizations collapsed due to race mixing. This work was highly influential in Europe and America and is widely acknowledged today as the foundation of so-called scientific racism.

In 1857, one year before Charles Darwin pushed The Origin of Species, Josiah C. Nott and George Gliddon, creationists who argued that science supported the Biblical account of creation, published Indigenous Races of the Earth. Dr. Nott, from South Carolina, had been writing and giving lectures on race for years and his works were highly influential. All of the copies of Indigenous Races of the Earth were pre-sold before they were even printed. The book went on to be published in many languages and was one of the best selling books of the time. An illustration in Indigenous Races of the Earth compared the skulls of "Greeks", "Negroes", and Chimpanzees."

Please note this took place BEFORE "Origin of the Species" was published.  Clearly it wasn't Darwin and evolution that claimed that the white man was superior, it was christianity who supported this dispicable concept.

Do us all a favor and do some research.  it's clear you don't understand evolution and biology, now it's clear that you don't understand history either.  You've claimed that evolution and Darwin are responsible for racism, when in fact, it was the christian church that supported it long before Darwin.









 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:43 PM on October 2, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Think-Twice

You have never had your hands on a real (genuine hominid fossil)Body part!.Casts and drawings are what you work with.Anybody in this forum has never had hands on a (Real hominid Fossil).Representations are all you work with.If any tell me they have had hands on study of Genuine hominid fossils,Show your credentials they must be good.


No, I have never touched any of those fossils.  I'm not an anthropologist.  But I don't have to.  I read work published by real researchers that have examined them.  But that isn't the issue here.  The issue is this:

ToE explains the hominid fossil record very  nicely.  The question is - how does Creationism explain them?

Apparently you are at a loss for an answer.  No surprise there.

Oh, don't bother looking for the answer in the Bible, you won't find it - unless you distort a passage in scripture to suit your needs - like YEC try to distort everything else that threatens their precious beliefs.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 6:15 PM on October 2, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Think-Twice

Those video's are disturbing,Do you know anything about free masonry.Think that was good intro to the topic.Yes the theory is evil,not the evolutionists themselves.


The videos you pointed to are pathetic.  They don't even attempt to disprove evolution other than to make ridiculous assertions, and try to snowball you with awe and wonder.

Additionally, the author tries to use scare tactics in proclaiming evolution is evil, but can't present any evidence showing that evolution is false.  In fact, he tries to categorize everything as either good, or evil.  

Utter nonsense.  And a very dangerous attitude to have, IMO.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 6:57 PM on October 2, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You've claimed that evolution and Darwin are responsible for racism, when in fact, it was the christian church that supported it long before Darwin.


Actually it has everything to do with the inherent selfishness of man. Different justifications for the same horror. If you listen to a cultic church that says only white people are real people; or Darwin offshoots (like Stalin and Hitler) that speak of 'survival of the fittest' and essentially say that some don't  deserve to live. People like these selective philosophies usually because it suits them. It says somewhere in the Bible that people like only what their twitching ears want to hear - love of the truth is not mankind's strong point.




-------
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: 03:06 AM on October 3, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually it has everything to do with the inherent selfishness of man.

So you agree the racism of Darwin's time had nothing to do with evolution and it's unfair to label Darwin a racist.

If you listen to a cultic church that says only white people are real people;

Like mainstream Christianity in the 1800's.

or Darwin offshoots (like Stalin and
Hitler)


And Hitler and Stalin were not Darwin offshoots and didn't use evolution as a justification for their atrocities.
From here:
Hitler

"While Hitler uses the word "evolution" in Mein Kampf, it is clear that he is not referring to Darwin's theory --- indeed, he never mentions the man. In fact, a look at his writings reveals his sentiments on the subject to be those of an orthodox creationist.

Like a creationist, Hitler asserts fixity of kinds:

The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. i, ch. xi
Like a creationist, Hitler claims that God made man:

For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x
Like a creationist, Hitler affirms that humans existed "from the very beginning", and could not have evolved from apes:

From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today. - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)
Like a creationist, Hitler believes that man was made in God's image, and in the expulsion from Eden:

Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol ii, ch. i
Like a creationist, Hitler believes that:

God ... sent [us] into this world with the commission to struggle for our daily bread. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol ii, ch. xiv
Like a creationist, Hitler claims Jesus as his inspiration:

My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them. - Adolf Hitler, speech, April 12 1922, published in My New Order"

Clearly, it was not Darwin's theory of evolution that Hitler used as motive for his evil, it was christianity.  So no, Adolph Hitler was not a "Darwin Offshoot", not by any stretch of the imagination.

Stalin

"Stalin rejected neo-Darwinian evolution in favor of Lamarckism.
Mendeleyev's "periodic system of elements" clearly shows how very important in the history of nature is the emergence of qualitative changes out of quantitative changes. The same thing is shown in biology by the theory of neo-Lamarckism, to which neo-Darwinism is yielding place. (Stalin 1906, 304)
More specifically, Stalin rejected the ideas of August Weismann, a 19th-century German biologist, in favor of Trofim Lysenko, a pseudoscientist who based his ideas on Lamarckism. Weismann, who accepted Darwin's theory of evolution, disproved Lamarckism and proposed that germ cells pass on hereditary information; his work was an early variant of the modern evolutionary synthesis which unites evolutionary theory with genetics. Stalin appointed Lysenko head of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the Soviet Union, where he had great political power. (Rossiannov 1993)

Stalin and Lysenko rejected evolution and genetics for ideological, not biological, reasons. (Stalin was quite ignorant of science in general.) The class struggle of Marxism contradicts the individual competition implied by natural selection. More importantly, genetics, implying that traits were fixed at birth, contradicted the ideal of moulding and improving traits. Stalin proclaimed genetics a capitalist pseudo-science.


Stalin was, first and foremost, a Marxist dictator, far above any allegiance he might have had to any theories concerning the origin of species, whether Lamarckian or Darwinian. Stalin distrusted scientists as being prone to free-thinking. Though his persecution of biologists and biology were particularly egregious (causing appalling damage to Soviet agriculture), he imprisoned and killed thousands of scientists and engineers from all fields.


Oppression and murder have been used as tools of statecraft long before Darwin published his work.


There is no evidence that Darwin's work was used as a justification for oppression and murder. Stalin doubtless accepted Newton's theory of gravity, but creationists do not claim that Newton's theory should be suppressed because Stalin believed it."

So no, Stalin can't be a "Darwin Offshoot" either because he REJECTED evoluiton!

People like these selective philosophies usually because it suits them.

But Hitler and Stalin didn't like evolution, so you and the rest of the creationist mob are lieing when they claim that evolution inspired Hitler and Stalin.  

Darwin was far more enlightened than most of the world he lived in at the time.  He was an abolitionist and abhorred slavery.  The theory of evolution did much to counter racism since it showed that all men were one species.
I also think it's funny that some creationists latch onto Darwin's use of the word "race" and fail to understand that it doesn't mean races of man, but means species and sub species in the plant and animal kingdom.  Every claim Think-twice made about Darwin being racist was completely wrong.  Think he'll admit it or correct his mistakes??  Of course not.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:03 AM on October 3, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fantastic post Demon, informative, interesting, easy to read.
Every claim Think-twice made about Darwin being racist was completely wrong.Think he'll admit it or correct his mistakes??  Of course not.

Then I would suggest that every single one of his posts is met with a request to address this very point until he finally has the intellectual honesty to do so.


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 04:52 AM on October 3, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon 38

So you agree the racism of Darwin's time had nothing to do with evolution and it's unfair to label Darwin a racist.


No I'm afraid I can't do that.

The full title of his 1859 masterwork: 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.' That last half of the title sounds like it comes straight from a Ku Klux Klan manual.

It’s not surprising that Darwin is accused of supporting eugenics. His first cousin, Francis Galton, was the one who coined the term. Galton justified it by Darwin’s evolutionism.

From Quinn, P., The Gentle Darwinians: What Darwin’s champions won’t mention, Commonweal 134(5), 9 March 2007

‘Darwin played a prime role in bringing about a fateful confusion between cultural and racial differences, conferring new scientific authority and intellectual legitimacy on theories of human inferiority central to eugenics, the most destructive medical movement in history.’

‘Darwin’s work is filled with references to the work of those involved in creating a radical new “scientific” justification for labeling races, classes, and individuals as “inferior”. … Darwin writes in The Descent of Man that “a most important obstacle in civilized countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class” is the tendency of society’s “very poor and reckless”, who are “often degraded by vice”, to increase faster than “the provident and generally virtuous members”.’

In the 'Descent of Man'
Darwin envisions a far grimmer future for races or sub-species less fit than the Anglo-Saxon. “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world,”

“At the same time the anthropological apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state … even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”’

Unfair to label Darwin a racist? I think not.



-------
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: 06:41 AM on October 3, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That last half of the title sounds like it comes straight from a Ku Klux Klan manual.

Yes, I guess it would to someone who's ignorant of history, or never read "Origin of the Species".  As I said above, race in the title refers to species of plants and animals and isn't about human "races".  So we see you're wrong because you've made a major mistake in understanding.

It’s not surprising that Darwin is accused of supporting eugenics.

Yes, dishonest creationists have been trying to twist evolution for years, so your tactics are not surprising.

It's funny how you have to bring in Darwin's cousin, you just can't seem to find Darwin proclaiming any of your fevered claims.  Darwin formed a scientific theory, an acurate, valid scientific theory that has been tested extensively for the last 150 years and found to be valid.  Eugenics came and went, whether Galton based it on the TOE doesn't change evolution's validity one iota.  The theory of evolution says that mankind is one species, that there is no superior race, therefore, it says racism is not natural, that it is a man made construct.  Christianity, on the other hand, continually proclaimd that the white man was superior, that slavery, as supported in the bible was acceptable.  It overwhelmingly propped up racism.  

Never heard of this P. Quinn and I question many of the claims he presents, seems like typical creationist history revision to me.
"‘Darwin played a prime role in bringing about a fateful confusion between cultural and racial differences, conferring new scientific authority and intellectual legitimacy on theories of human inferiority "

Where did Darwin talk about human inferiority?  How did he confer "scientific authority" on this?  You don't support these claims anywhere.

‘Darwin’s work is filled with references to the work of those involved in creating a radical new “scientific” justification for labeling races, classes, and individuals as “inferior”. … Darwin writes in The Descent of Man that “a most important obstacle in civilized countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class” is the tendency of society’s “very poor and reckless”, who are “often degraded by vice”, to increase faster than “the provident and generally virtuous members”.’

How is this about race???  Where does Darwin describe the race of the very poor and reckless?  I see no mention of it here.  I see no evidence that this supports the claim that Darwin is racist.

In the 'Descent of Man'
Darwin envisions a far grimmer future for races or sub-species less fit than the Anglo-Saxon. “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world,”


Is this from P. Quinn's book?  If it is this is nothing more than the standard creationist tactic of quote mining to twist a quote to dishonestly back their skewered claim and indicates that P. Quinn isn't worth reading by any serious person.  Why didn't he present the ENTIRE quote:  From here:
"Project quote Mine

"The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies -- between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae -- between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. (Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. 2nd edn., London, John Murray, 1882, p. 156, which can be found at The writings of Charles Darwin on the web.)

First of all, Darwin is making a technical argument as to the "reality" of species, particularly Homo sapiens in this case, and why there should still be apparently distinct species, if all the different forms of life are related by common descent through incremental small changes. His answer is that competition against those forms with some, even small, advantage tends to eliminate closely related forms, giving rise to an apparent "gap" between the remaining forms. Whether or not Darwin was right about that is irrelevant to the use of this quote mine, of course, since that is part of the context that the creationists using it have assiduously removed."

And from the same site:

"
In short, there is nothing in Darwin's words to support (and much in his life to contradict) any claim that Darwin wanted the "lower" or "savage races" to be exterminated. He was merely noting what appeared to him to be factual, based in no small part on the evidence of a European binge of imperialism and colonial conquest during his lifetime."

So we see P. Quinn is guilty of the same tired old tactics creationists are forced to fall back on when reality gets in their way.

Unfair to label Darwin a racist? I think
not.


No, Darwin was not a racist, and evolution led the way to the horrible racist edicts of christianity.  

Oh, no comment on your mistakes about Hitler and Stalin being "Darwin Offshoots"
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 09:37 AM on October 3, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nice post, Demon.  

Yes, Creationists can only quote mine and distort those quotes simply because they have no other avenue to support Creationism.  They are left to lying and distortion.  It's pretty sad, really.  And it's a practice that is in direct contradiction of their Christian faith, I think.

Lester - we're still waiting for your explanation of the hominid fossil record.  You and Think Twice seem to be ignoring it.  How does Creationism explain those fossils?

Evolution has no problem explaining them.  The fossils fit nicely with the measured date results - just as ToE predicts.  The trend we see in more human like features over the timeline is as ToE predicts.  

Now let's see what Creationism predicts ....

Oh, nothing at all.  It can't do it - surprise, surprise.  Oh, it can't explain the fossils either?  What a shame.   Not a very good scientific theory, is it.

Another reason why it shouldn't be taught in the science classroom.

(Edited by orion 10/3/2009 at 09:41 AM).

(Edited by orion 10/3/2009 at 10:18 AM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 09:39 AM on October 3, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 04:03 AM on October 3, 2009 :
Actually it has everything to do with the inherent selfishness of man.

So you agree the racism of Darwin's time had nothing to do with evolution and it's unfair to label Darwin a racist.

If you listen to a cultic church that says only white people are real people;

Like mainstream Christianity in the 1800's.

or Darwin offshoots (like Stalin and
Hitler)


And Hitler and Stalin were not Darwin offshoots and didn't use evolution as a justification for their atrocities.
From here:
Hitler

"While Hitler uses the word "evolution" in Mein Kampf, it is clear that he is not referring to Darwin's theory --- indeed, he never mentions the man. In fact, a look at his writings reveals his sentiments on the subject to be those of an orthodox creationist.

Like a creationist, Hitler asserts fixity of kinds:

The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. i, ch. xi
Like a creationist, Hitler claims that God made man:

For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x
Like a creationist, Hitler affirms that humans existed "from the very beginning", and could not have evolved from apes:

From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today. - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)
Like a creationist, Hitler believes that man was made in God's image, and in the expulsion from Eden:

Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol ii, ch. i
Like a creationist, Hitler believes that:

God ... sent [us] into this world with the commission to struggle for our daily bread. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol ii, ch. xiv
Like a creationist, Hitler claims Jesus as his inspiration:

My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them. - Adolf Hitler, speech, April 12 1922, published in My New Order"

Clearly, it was not Darwin's theory of evolution that Hitler used as motive for his evil, it was christianity.  So no, Adolph Hitler was not a "Darwin Offshoot", not by any stretch of the imagination.

Stalin

"Stalin rejected neo-Darwinian evolution in favor of Lamarckism.
Mendeleyev's "periodic system of elements" clearly shows how very important in the history of nature is the emergence of qualitative changes out of quantitative changes. The same thing is shown in biology by the theory of neo-Lamarckism, to which neo-Darwinism is yielding place. (Stalin 1906, 304)
More specifically, Stalin rejected the ideas of August Weismann, a 19th-century German biologist, in favor of Trofim Lysenko, a pseudoscientist who based his ideas on Lamarckism. Weismann, who accepted Darwin's theory of evolution, disproved Lamarckism and proposed that germ cells pass on hereditary information; his work was an early variant of the modern evolutionary synthesis which unites evolutionary theory with genetics. Stalin appointed Lysenko head of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the Soviet Union, where he had great political power. (Rossiannov 1993)

Stalin and Lysenko rejected evolution and genetics for ideological, not biological, reasons. (Stalin was quite ignorant of science in general.) The class struggle of Marxism contradicts the individual competition implied by natural selection. More importantly, genetics, implying that traits were fixed at birth, contradicted the ideal of moulding and improving traits. Stalin proclaimed genetics a capitalist pseudo-science.


Stalin was, first and foremost, a Marxist dictator, far above any allegiance he might have had to any theories concerning the origin of species, whether Lamarckian or Darwinian. Stalin distrusted scientists as being prone to free-thinking. Though his persecution of biologists and biology were particularly egregious (causing appalling damage to Soviet agriculture), he imprisoned and killed thousands of scientists and engineers from all fields.


Oppression and murder have been used as tools of statecraft long before Darwin published his work.


There is no evidence that Darwin's work was used as a justification for oppression and murder. Stalin doubtless accepted Newton's theory of gravity, but creationists do not claim that Newton's theory should be suppressed because Stalin believed it."

So no, Stalin can't be a "Darwin Offshoot" either because he REJECTED evoluiton!

People like these selective philosophies usually because it suits them.

But Hitler and Stalin didn't like evolution, so you and the rest of the creationist mob are lieing when they claim that evolution inspired Hitler and Stalin.  

Darwin was far more enlightened than most of the world he lived in at the time.  He was an abolitionist and abhorred slavery.  The theory of evolution did much to counter racism since it showed that all men were one species.
I also think it's funny that some creationists latch onto Darwin's use of the word "race" and fail to understand that it doesn't mean races of man, but means species and sub species in the plant and animal kingdom.  Every claim Think-twice made about Darwin being racist was completely wrong.  Think he'll admit it or correct his mistakes??  Of course not.

This is a continuation of an essay dealing with slavery in early Christianity



Christian attitudes towards slavery: 5th to late 17th century CE:

The Christian movement gradually reversed its stance on slavery, starting early in the 4th century CE. This reversal may have been influenced by the establishment of  Christianity as the only allowable religion in the Roman Empire by the late 4th century. This subsequently created a close integration of church and state. Since the Empire was dependent on slave labor, it was reasonable for the church to support the institution. The church became generally supportive of slavery, even as a very few of its theologians wrote in opposition to it:

Circa 400 CE: St. Augustine [354 - 430 CE] speaks of the granting of freedom to slaves as a great religious virtue, and declares the Christian law against regarding God's rational creation as property.
595 CE: Pope Gregory dispatched a priest to Britain to purchase Pagan boys to work as slaves on church estates.
Circa 610: Isidore of Seville wrote: "I can hardly credit that a friend of Christ, who has experienced that grace, which bestowed freedom on all, would still own slaves." In his writing "Regula monachorum" which describes the monastic life, he wrote that "God has made no difference between the soul of the slave and that of the freedman." 1
Circa 600 CE: Pope Gregory I wrote, in Pastoral Rule: "Slaves should be told...not [to] despise their masters and recognize that they are only slaves."
655 CE: In an attempt to persuade priests to remain celibate, the 9th Council of Toledo ruled that all children of clerics were to be automatically enslaved. This ruling was later incorporated into the canon law of the church.
13th century CE: Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) accepted the teachings of the ancient Greek Pagan philosopher, Aristotle, that slavery is "natural."
1404 CE: After Spain discovered the Canary Islands the Spanish colonized the islands In 1435 Pope Eugene IV wrote a bull to Bishop Ferdinand of Lanzarote titled "Sicut Dudum." In it, he noted that the black inhabitants of the Islands had been converted to Christianity and either baptized or promised baptism. Subsequently, many of the inhabitants were taken from their homes and enslaved. He commanded that all enslaved Christians who were inhabitants of the Canary Islands be freed from slavery. The Pope's concern appears to have been over the enslavement of Christians by Christians, not the institution of human slavery itself. 2
1452/4 CE: Pope Nicholas V wrote Dum Diversas which granted to the kings of Spain and Portugal the right to reduce any "Saracens [Muslims] and pagans and any other unbelievers" to perpetual slavery.
1519: Bartholomew De Las Casas, a Dominican, argued against slavery. "No one may be deprived of his liberty nor may any person be enslaved" He was ridiculed, silenced and ignored. 3
1537 CE: Pope Paul III wrote in Sublimis Deus about the enslavement of persons in the West and South Indies. He wrote that Satan:
"... the enemy of the human race...has thought up a way, unheard of before now, by which he might impede the saving Word of God. ... Satan has stirred up some of his allies ... who are presuming to assert far and wide that the Indians be reduced to our service like brute animals. And they reduce them to slavery, treating them with afflictions we would scarcely use with brute animals. ... Rather, we decree that these same Indians should not be deprived of their liberty…and are not to be reduced to slavery."  only  hostile non-Christians, captured in just wars, could become slaves.   4


 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 2:59 PM on October 3, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Think-Twice at 2:59 PM on October 3, 2009 :
Quote from Demon38 at 04:03 AM on October 3, 2009 :
Actually it has everything to do with the inherent selfishness of man.

So you agree the racism of Darwin's time had nothing to do with evolution and it's unfair to label Darwin a racist.

If you listen to a cultic church that says only white people are real people;

Like mainstream Christianity in the 1800's.

or Darwin offshoots (like Stalin and
Hitler)


And Hitler and Stalin were not Darwin offshoots and didn't use evolution as a justification for their atrocities.
From here:
Hitler

"While Hitler uses the word "evolution" in Mein Kampf, it is clear that he is not referring to Darwin's theory --- indeed, he never mentions the man. In fact, a look at his writings reveals his sentiments on the subject to be those of an orthodox creationist.

Like a creationist, Hitler asserts fixity of kinds:

The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. i, ch. xi
Like a creationist, Hitler claims that God made man:

For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x
Like a creationist, Hitler affirms that humans existed "from the very beginning", and could not have evolved from apes:

From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today. - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)
Like a creationist, Hitler believes that man was made in God's image, and in the expulsion from Eden:

Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol ii, ch. i
Like a creationist, Hitler believes that:

God ... sent [us] into this world with the commission to struggle for our daily bread. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol ii, ch. xiv
Like a creationist, Hitler claims Jesus as his inspiration:

My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them. - Adolf Hitler, speech, April 12 1922, published in My New Order"

Clearly, it was not Darwin's theory of evolution that Hitler used as motive for his evil, it was christianity.  So no, Adolph Hitler was not a "Darwin Offshoot", not by any stretch of the imagination.

Stalin

"Stalin rejected neo-Darwinian evolution in favor of Lamarckism.
Mendeleyev's "periodic system of elements" clearly shows how very important in the history of nature is the emergence of qualitative changes out of quantitative changes. The same thing is shown in biology by the theory of neo-Lamarckism, to which neo-Darwinism is yielding place. (Stalin 1906, 304)
More specifically, Stalin rejected the ideas of August Weismann, a 19th-century German biologist, in favor of Trofim Lysenko, a pseudoscientist who based his ideas on Lamarckism. Weismann, who accepted Darwin's theory of evolution, disproved Lamarckism and proposed that germ cells pass on hereditary information; his work was an early variant of the modern evolutionary synthesis which unites evolutionary theory with genetics. Stalin appointed Lysenko head of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the Soviet Union, where he had great political power. (Rossiannov 1993)

Stalin and Lysenko rejected evolution and genetics for ideological, not biological, reasons. (Stalin was quite ignorant of science in general.) The class struggle of Marxism contradicts the individual competition implied by natural selection. More importantly, genetics, implying that traits were fixed at birth, contradicted the ideal of moulding and improving traits. Stalin proclaimed genetics a capitalist pseudo-science.


Stalin was, first and foremost, a Marxist dictator, far above any allegiance he might have had to any theories concerning the origin of species, whether Lamarckian or Darwinian. Stalin distrusted scientists as being prone to free-thinking. Though his persecution of biologists and biology were particularly egregious (causing appalling damage to Soviet agriculture), he imprisoned and killed thousands of scientists and engineers from all fields.


Oppression and murder have been used as tools of statecraft long before Darwin published his work.


There is no evidence that Darwin's work was used as a justification for oppression and murder. Stalin doubtless accepted Newton's theory of gravity, but creationists do not claim that Newton's theory should be suppressed because Stalin believed it."

So no, Stalin can't be a "Darwin Offshoot" either because he REJECTED evoluiton!

People like these selective philosophies usually because it suits them.

But Hitler and Stalin didn't like evolution, so you and the rest of the creationist mob are lieing when they claim that evolution inspired Hitler and Stalin.  

Darwin was far more enlightened than most of the world he lived in at the time.  He was an abolitionist and abhorred slavery.  The theory of evolution did much to counter racism since it showed that all men were one species.
I also think it's funny that some creationists latch onto Darwin's use of the word "race" and fail to understand that it doesn't mean races of man, but means species and sub species in the plant and animal kingdom.  Every claim Think-twice made about Darwin being racist was completely wrong.  Think he'll admit it or correct his mistakes??  Of course not.

This is a continuation of an essay dealing with slavery in early Christianity



Christian attitudes towards slavery: 5th to late 17th century CE:

The Christian movement gradually reversed its stance on slavery, starting early in the 4th century CE. This reversal may have been influenced by the establishment of  Christianity as the only allowable religion in the Roman Empire by the late 4th century. This subsequently created a close integration of church and state. Since the Empire was dependent on slave labor, it was reasonable for the church to support the institution. The church became generally supportive of slavery, even as a very few of its theologians wrote in opposition to it:

Circa 400 CE: St. Augustine [354 - 430 CE] speaks of the granting of freedom to slaves as a great religious virtue, and declares the Christian law against regarding God's rational creation as property.
595 CE: Pope Gregory dispatched a priest to Britain to purchase Pagan boys to work as slaves on church estates.
Circa 610: Isidore of Seville wrote: "I can hardly credit that a friend of Christ, who has experienced that grace, which bestowed freedom on all, would still own slaves." In his writing "Regula monachorum" which describes the monastic life, he wrote that "God has made no difference between the soul of the slave and that of the freedman." 1
Circa 600 CE: Pope Gregory I wrote, in Pastoral Rule: "Slaves should be told...not [to] despise their masters and recognize that they are only slaves."
655 CE: In an attempt to persuade priests to remain celibate, the 9th Council of Toledo ruled that all children of clerics were to be automatically enslaved. This ruling was later incorporated into the canon law of the church.
13th century CE: Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) accepted the teachings of the ancient Greek Pagan philosopher, Aristotle, that slavery is "natural."
1404 CE: After Spain discovered the Canary Islands the Spanish colonized the islands In 1435 Pope Eugene IV wrote a bull to Bishop Ferdinand of Lanzarote titled "Sicut Dudum." In it, he noted that the black inhabitants of the Islands had been converted to Christianity and either baptized or promised baptism. Subsequently, many of the inhabitants were taken from their homes and enslaved. He commanded that all enslaved Christians who were inhabitants of the Canary Islands be freed from slavery. The Pope's concern appears to have been over the enslavement of Christians by Christians, not the institution of human slavery itself. 2
1452/4 CE: Pope Nicholas V wrote Dum Diversas which granted to the kings of Spain and Portugal the right to reduce any "Saracens [Muslims] and pagans and any other unbelievers" to perpetual slavery.
1519: Bartholomew De Las Casas, a Dominican, argued against slavery. "No one may be deprived of his liberty nor may any person be enslaved" He was ridiculed, silenced and ignored. 3
1537 CE: Pope Paul III wrote in Sublimis Deus about the enslavement of persons in the West and South Indies. He wrote that Satan:
"... the enemy of the human race...has thought up a way, unheard of before now, by which he might impede the saving Word of God. ... Satan has stirred up some of his allies ... who are presuming to assert far and wide that the Indians be reduced to our service like brute animals. And they reduce them to slavery, treating them with afflictions we would scarcely use with brute animals. ... Rather, we decree that these same Indians should not be deprived of their liberty…and are not to be reduced to slavery."  only  hostile non-Christians, captured in just wars, could become slaves.   4




See the truth is always what you see (from my perspective) (IMO).Do you know anything about the Holy bible?.See i can fund things on the internet and other sources.To support my point of view,And you can your point of view.Regarding the life of darwin,we both have facts that do not concur to our respective out look on the subject.To link to the website that has the message you want to be preached about the matter.Who is right?we will go in circles.Religion, Christianity is my religious denomination,As you know there are many denominations.I have my views,And boy are you guys touchy about Charles Darwin.Check my posts i have never personally remarked to any of you in a derogatory way.Yet you guys have remarked (derogatory remarks)About the bible God and individuals.Maybe your not so grounded in your truth,As you may think.One of greatest thoughts of the greatest minds is, perhaps I'm wrong.Love and peace all !!  

 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 3:24 PM on October 3, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

See the truth is always what you see (from my perspective) (IMO).

And what you see has been proven to be incorrect.

Christian attitudes towards slavery: 5th to late 17th century CE:

Yes all very nice but what about christian attitudes in the 1800s on slavery?  You failed to comment on them.  As I claimed and you ignored, slavery in America was supported by bible wielding, scripture quoting christians,
from here:
Christianity and Slaves

"Passages in the Bible on the use and regulation of slavery have been used throughout history as justification for the keeping of slaves, and for guidance in how it should be done. Therefore, when abolition was proposed, many Christians spoke vociferously against it, citing the Bible's acceptance of slavery as 'proof' that it was part of the normal condition. George Whitefield, famed for his sparking of the so-called Great Awakening of American evangelicalism, campaigned, in the Province of Georgia, for the legalisation of slavery[97][98]; slavery had been outlawed in Georgia, but due to George's campaign it was legalised in 1751.

In both Europe and the United States many Christians went further, arguing that slavery was actually justified by the words and doctrines of the Bible.

[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts - Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America [99]
Every hope of the existence of church and state, and of civilization itself, hangs upon our arduous effort to defeat the doctrine of Negro suffrage - Robert Dabney, a prominent 19th century Southern Presbyterian pastor
... the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example - Richard Furman, President, South Carolina Baptist Convention[100][101]
Some members of fringe Christian groups like the Christian Identity movement, and the Ku Klux Klan (an organization dedicated to the "empowerment of the white race"), and Christian Reconstructionists still argue that slavery is justified by Christian doctrine today."

And from the same site:

"The nearly universal consensus throughout the ages has been that Christians must not keep other Christians as slaves[citation needed]. The Christianisation of Europe in the Dark Ages saw the traditional slavery disappearing in Europe and being replaced with feudalism[citation needed]. But this consensus was broken in the slave states of the United States, where the justification switched from religion (the slaves are heathens) to race (Africans are the descendants of Ham); indeed, in 1667, Virginia's assembly enacted a bill declaring that baptism did not grant freedom to slaves. The opposition to the U.S. Civil Rights movement in the 20th century was founded in part on the same religious ideas that had been used to justify slavery in the 19th century."

You are the one claiming darwin was a racist, but he abhorred slavery.  Here we see christians using their religion to justify not only racism but slavery.  You tell me who is the more evil here, you tell me who the racists are.






 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:01 PM on October 3, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

See the truth is always what you see (from my perspective) (IMO).

So you're idea of the truth is to spread lies about Charles Darwin and then deny all evidence that disproves your claims...
How very christian of you.

Do you know anything about the Holy bible?.

Read it cover to cover many times.  I would ask if you ever read "On Origin of the Species" but we already know you didn't otherwise you wouldn't have made that glaring error about what "races" means as in "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."  By the way you never did correct this mistake, you know, the one where you thought "races" meant races of man, and used your mistake to claim Darwin was racist.  Even though you've been shown by numerous people that Darwin was referring to species and sub species, you've chosen to ignore these corrections.  

See i can fund things on the internet and other sources.To support my point of view,And you can your point of view.

Yes but when we've shown you where your point of view was wrong, you' ve cut and run and ignored the information.

Regarding the life of darwin,we both have facts that do not concur to our respective out look on the subject.

But your "facts" have been proven wrong, and in the face of being proven wrong, you ignore your mistakes and move on to your next fallacy without a second thought.

To link to the website that has the message you want to be preached about the matter.Who is right?we will go in circles.

Well the web sites I'm linking to have verifiable facts, you can check them.  the claims I've made are valid and the ones you've made have been proven false.  doesn't seem circular to me.

I have my views,And boy are you guys touchy about Charles Darwin.

Not really, just tired of creationists making false claims and when shown where they are wrong, refusing to retract them.

Check my posts i have never personally remarked to any of you in a derogatory way.Yet you guys have remarked (derogatory remarks)About the bible God and
individuals.


do you consider being proven wrong being treated in a derogatory way?  If you do, then give up debating, you don't have the disposition for it.

Maybe your not so grounded in your truth,As you may think.

Respond to your mistakes, then we'll see who's grounded in truth.

One of greatest thoughts of the greatest minds is, perhaps I'm wrong

Very true.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:18 PM on October 3, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To be fair, while some people may have pointed to the Bible to justify slavery in the past, it would be mistake to say that every Christian shared that view.  Obviously many did not.

From what I have read, Darwin was certainly not a raciest person.  Quite the opposite, in fact, as Deamon points out.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:20 PM on October 3, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To be fair, while some people may have pointed to the Bible to justify slavery in the past, it would be mistake to say that every Christian shared that view.  Obviously many did not.

You're right, of course.  Many Christians did oppose slavery and I don't mean to paint all of Christianity as racist slavers.  but I just find it hypocritical to claim Charles Darwin was a racist when, in fact, he was a particularly enlightened man for his time who opposed slavery and then fail to aknowledge that organized christianity's official position at different times through out history was one of racism.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:57 PM on October 3, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 9:57 PM on October 3, 2009 :
To be fair, while some people may have pointed to the Bible to justify slavery in the past, it would be mistake to say that every Christian shared that view.  Obviously many did not.

You're right, of course.  Many Christians did oppose slavery and I don't mean to paint all of Christianity as racist slavers.  but I just find it hypocritical to claim Charles Darwin was a racist when, in fact, he was a particularly enlightened man for his time who opposed slavery and then fail to aknowledge that organized christianity's official position at different times through out history was one of racism.
It's me back again.the darwin issue,I concede i was out of line and not fair to the man,Who am  i to judge the man.And i apologise to the memory,The man Charles darwin,As i cant state facts (irrefutably).So i admit the things said unfairly in regards to darwin,Deserve an apology.So sincere apologies  from me to charles darwin.



 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 09:08 AM on October 4, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Think-Twice at 09:08 AM on October 4, 2009 :
Quote from Demon38 at 9:57 PM on October 3, 2009 :
To be fair, while some people may have pointed to the Bible to justify slavery in the past, it would be mistake to say that every Christian shared that view.  Obviously many did not.

You're right, of course.  Many Christians did oppose slavery and I don't mean to paint all of Christianity as racist slavers.  but I just find it hypocritical to claim Charles Darwin was a racist when, in fact, he was a particularly enlightened man for his time who opposed slavery and then fail to aknowledge that organized christianity's official position at different times through out history was one of racism.
It's me back again.the darwin issue,I concede i was out of line and not fair to the man,Who am  i to judge the man.And i apologise to the memory,The man Charles darwin,As i cant state facts (irrefutably).So i admit the things said unfairly in regards to darwin,Deserve an apology.So sincere apologies  from me to charles darwin.



Me again attempting to clear up another issue.As a Christian,I should not defend myself when i am in the wrong!.This post will be long,Its a chapter from a book i am reading.Title- A woman rides the beast (The roman catholic church and the last days) author Dave Hunt.So here goes.Adolf Hitler, Chosen by God?(heading).Surely Mein Kampf must also have been known to many of the 30 million Roman Catholics in Germany as well as to the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church both there and in Rome.Yet the church hierarchy praised Hitler,sometimes in the most extravagant terms.Pope pius XI told Vice-Chancellor Fritz von Papen,himself a leading Catholic,'how pleased he was that the German Goverment now had at its head a man uncompromisingly opposed to communism...No word of reproof against the evil that Hitler had loosed upon Germany.Bishop Berning published a book stressing the link Catholicism and patriotism and sent a copy to Hitler''as a token of devotion.Monsignor Hartz praised Hitler for having saved Germany from  ''the poison of Liberalism...[and] the pest Communism .Catholic publicist Franz Taeschner praised  ''the Fuehrer,gifted with genius''and declared that he had ''been sent by providence in order to achieve the fulfilment  of Catholic social ideas.Most German catholics were in a state of euphoria after the 1933 concordat between Hitler and the Vatican was signed.Catholic young men were ordered ''to raise their right arm in salute,and to display the swastika flag...The Catholic Youth organization,Neudeutsche Jugend...called for the full and close cooperation between the totalitarian state and the totalitarian Church.  

To be continued  !!



 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 09:52 AM on October 4, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Think-Twice at 09:08 AM on October 4, 2009 :
It's me back again.the darwin issue,I concede i was out of line and not fair to the man,Who am  i to judge the man.And i apologise to the memory,The man Charles darwin,As i cant state facts (irrefutably).So i admit the things said unfairly in regards to darwin,Deserve an apology.So sincere apologies  from me to charles darwin.


A very gracious apology.  Do you learn from this that the sources you are using cannot be trusted?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:26 AM on October 4, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A very gracious apology.  Do you learn from this that the sources you are using cannot be trusted?


I do believe this has absolutely nothing to do with sources being trusted or not. The Roman Catholic church is a cult, the most wealthy well supported cult of all time. I read that Dave Hunt Book quite some time ago and it was impressive on exposing the cultic activities and history of that church. I know Hitler was involved with the RC church but he was also an evolution supporter. Remember it has been mentioned that the RC church is not opposed to evolution?

I'm afraid I'll be offending a lot of theistic evolutionists (often Roman Catholics)here but the devil has always used cults to bend Christianity's message and keep people in ignorance preferably till they shuffle off their mortal coil never knowing the truth that could set them free. Wherever you find a pseudo-Christian cult that does all the thinking for you and does not encourage you to read the Bible for yourself (the Bible is the final authority ) and to hold them accountable to the words of the Bible, you get error creeping in and tradition taking over. I was a bored and disinterested member of the Anglican church.(that's about as close to the RC church as you get). I went as seldom as possible because it was clearly a dead church putting on a performance. At the time I didn't understand -I just went there for weddings and funerals and Christmas if absolutely pushed. Now I understand why the place was dead -it was all empty words and tradition -once again keeping the members busy so that they'd die in ignorance preferably not ever once meeting the Lord.

By the way, Hitler also had to do with a woman that is often quoted in the New Age movement -Blavatsky, I think it is. He just put a whole bunch of errors together and did what felt right in his own demented brain.  


-------
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: 03:50 AM on October 5, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:50 AM on October 5, 2009 :
I know Hitler was involved with the RC church but he was also an evolution supporter. Remember it has been mentioned that the RC church is not opposed to evolution?


Hitler grew up Catholic and sang in the Church choir, and was forced to do so. The RC church doesn't have a doctrine related to evolution other than that the two can co-exist; most Catholics are evolutionists, but some are creationists. If I'm not mistaken you have been shown several times that Hitler wasn't in favor of Darwinian evolution, and Darwin would have been opposed to what Hitler did if he was alive at the time.

I'm afraid I'll be offending a lot of theistic evolutionists (often Roman Catholics)here but the devil has always used cults to bend Christianity's message and keep people in ignorance preferably till they shuffle off their mortal coil never knowing the truth that could set them free.


I'm not Catholic, but I view them as part of Christ's family.

Do you consider Christmas tree's the devil's work? Or Christmas in general? As they are both founded on pagan beliefs.


-------
"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: 05:37 AM on October 5, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
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.