Creation vs. Evolution

[Silent Hunter]

A prosecutor loves to get a hostile witness on the stand. Of course it's ok to use the words of evolutionists against themselves.

This isn't a courtroom and the witness is not present except in your carefully excised quotes.

Keith was not speaking against evolutionary beliefs, but he did admit that Hitler was an evolutionist, and that those evolutionary beliefs factored in the holocaust.

Sir Keith made no such admission, he drew a conclusion. Key to that conclusion is that Hitler was without question a racist and that society allows, even encourages, the survival of those most detrimental to the gene pool.

Hunter.... To deny evolutionism largely factored for the holocaust, you are either ignorant of history, or a history denier.

Not at all and for the reasons stated above and below.

Evolutionism was the justification of the nazis in sending millions of people to their deaths. Watch very short nazi video.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LiO_c5-6_Hw&client=mv-google&layout=tablet&skipcontrinter=1

I watched the obviously heavily abbreviate video. The Nazi justification of genocide had nothing to do with evolution in principle. The survival of the fittest, a core aspect of evolution was, and still is, being artificially violated. Should the "less fit" be allowed to survive and propagate? The point of the video was to demonstrate why not. You conveniently omitted my main point, "Hitler was concerned with the "racial purity" of the German people. Eliminating "undesirable" traits from the gene pool is core to that sort of "selective breeding" initiative", which stands unrefuted.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Jose Fly]

Ah, but then other counsel gets the opportunity to let the witness explain away the quote mine uses by the prosecutor---exactly what SH did.

The rest of your position is rubbish, but it makes you feel good to continue to post the same silliness.

Any time you see 6days post a quote or cite a paper, it's a good idea to go check it out for yourself. Odds are he's misrepresenting and/or quote mining. He's been busted on that so many times I lost count a while ago.

 

[Jose Fly]

I was speaking generally, but I believe examples can be found about Mount Everest. A brief reference can be found here: http://climbing.about.com/od/Mount-Everest/a/Geology-Of-Mount-Everest.htm (I figured you might prefer an initial reference that was not charged with theological debate.) What that article didn't mention was that the shells are in the closed state meaning that they were killed quickly before being able to open (the normal behavior.)

And that link provides a general answer to your question. What is now the upper strata of the Himalayas was once sea floor and as the Eurasian and Indian continental plates began pushing up against each other 65 million years ago, the Himalayas were formed. This is consistent with the observed rate of plate movement being measured today.

 

[Silent Hunter]

I understand everything I post from other sites on the Internet, feeling that my Christian friends and others might love to be informed of what these articles have to say.

Posting long articles is hardly an effective method of persuading anyone to read them. A short blurb describing the content with a link might work better.

And I have called you a liar perhaps three times, and Satan twice. I guess that makes it a few but not "more than a few."

Calling someone a liar more than ZERO TIMES without evidence is too many. You're up to a self-admitted three.

I know you've been here since 2009 and I notice you haven't posted very often while you've been here. Have you befriended 6days or Stripe during all that time, even under an alias? That's what I was wondering.

I might have few "linked friend" and to be honest, I don't remember if I actually have any, it's not something I keep track of. I post in spurts usually and using a phone isn't very convenient.

And his name is Stripe, not stain. We could call you stain too, like the one a skunk has on it's back. Would you like that?

If you had ever heard the phrase "old yellow stain" you'd understand the insult and the source thereof.

And Hitler is not in heaven now, if you want to know.

How do you know? Did your angel tell you?

The veracity of truth is determined by my personal association and a picture, and accompanied by almost three years of knowing them both.

I'd venture to guess you don't understand why that doesn't work either.

You still think my writing is bipolar? I am a very good writer, except that I don't use 'paragraphs' as often as I should. That is how I am. And we both are running from one post to another, answering each others' questions/posts regardless of whether it seems like ranting or something else unusual. I just do not know how to post here except as I've already learned.

I have to learn much more about posting than I know so far. I am quite a novice to this site as well as I was with the previous version that Knight had set up before. Also, I say that you followed the Page# and Post# that I started my post in question with initially. Then you went to the page and post numbers that I had written in my post and got there yourself first and copied them while I was busy editing my post. My guardian angel told me which page it was on and also I found the post in question in less than a minute. So my beliefs about what you say are unchanging. God knows what you did. You can tell Him what you did when you face Him. That is the best advice that I could give to you.

Really? You don't see how out of touch with reality you sound? After being told by other people that page numbers are relative to the software being used you still find it necessary to use them? Is the voice you hear of your angel male or female?

You surely would have posted sooner than almost 3 years of 'following' my thread. I didn't say it was a crime. I just think it is highly improbable that you are telling the truth.

Since I obviously know a considerable amount of trivia in this thread and there being an obvious lack of postings by me before a few weeks ago it stands to reason I did exactly what I said. So your "highly improbable" becomes just another (#4) accusation of me lying without actually using the word.

No, I haven't posted such a thing that I didn't at the time believe in. Yes, my cancer woes. I was quite disappointed to find out that the radiation seemed to have cured me. I was hoping instead to die quickly, so I could go and be with My Father and My Brother, Jesus, in Heaven. Since it is a fact that I am a descendant of Noah and his family, and Adam & Eve, Jesus and I are brothers, just like with everyone else, though some would not want it, like you and B.J. Yes, I can't hardly wait until I die. I know you won't understand, but I'm still getting a lot done down here on Earth before I go to Them. I don't see cancer as a test by God for me and don't think I was healed by a miracle. The radiation did it. I refused to get radiation for almost a year, if you want to know. My close ones and my Physician bugged me into getting it done. So, I finally gave in, figuring it wouldn't work. I guess God is not ready for me to go to Him just yet. I must still have work on this Earth to do reaching others.

I'm very happy that you and your wife got a belly laugh. They laughed at Noah too, until they were killed in the Flood. You don't have the slightest idea of what is going on. We are quickly going to undergo massive changes in this world, including Jesus' Return. You'll find out soon enough! Then, I will want to laugh at you, but I won't because I feel sorry for you.

Yes, that is the same among many scientists and the general public. It still does not mean they are not Christians. They just don't have all of the facts right now. Yes, I am a fundamentalist then.

You will read in Rev. 3:1KJV, "These things saith He that hath the 'seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars...'" This is only one reference to the fact that there are seven Spirits of God in the Bible, I believe. But I'm not going to go and search for them for you. I'm just terrible, aren't I. I am not paranoid, dude. I see at the bottom of my screen who is also online on this Thread while I am, and that is how I knew BJ was there. I have my reason for writing what I did, and no, I won't tell you about it.

Rant much?

One last observation: If there is only one reference in the bible of the "seven spirits of "god"" and you quoted it, what need would you have in doing a search? By the way, there are four references, all found in Revelation. You can look them up yourself. I'm just terrible, aren't I?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

Keith ...did admit that Hitler was an evolutionist, and that those evolutionary beliefs factored in the holocaust.

Sir Keith made no such admission, he drew a conclusion.

Oh... So this famous evolutionist concluded Hitler was an evolutionist, and that those evolutionary beliefs factored in the holocaust. Part of what he concluded was "The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Keith

Sir Arthur Keith so strongly wanted evolution to be true that many believe he was responsible for the Piltdown hoax. Yet... he concluded that evolutionism was a major contributing factor to the holocaust.

You conveniently omitted my main point, "Hitler was concerned with the "racial purity" of the German people. Eliminating "undesirable" traits from the gene pool is core to that sort of "selective breeding" initiative", which stands unrefuted.

Yes.....Hitler and the Nazi's rejected God's Word about caring for the weak and downtrodden. Hitler rejected God's Word telling us we are all "one blood" and descendants of Adam and Eve. The Nazi's claimed that caring for the disabled was a violation of natural laws / natural selection. They used evolutionary beliefs to justify eliminating millions of people they deemed as unfit.

 

[DavisBJ]

Oh... So this famous evolutionist concluded Hitler was an evolutionist, and that those evolutionary beliefs factored in the holocaust. Part of what he concluded was "The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Keith

Sir Arthur Keith so strongly wanted evolution to be true that many believe he was responsible for the Piltdown hoax. Yet... he concluded that evolutionism was a major contributing factor to the holocaust.
Yes.....Hitler and the Nazi's rejected God's Word about caring for the weak and downtrodden. Hitler rejected God's Word telling us we are all "one blood" and descendants of Adam and Eve. The Nazi's claimed that caring for the disabled was a violation of natural laws / natural selection. They used evolutionary beliefs to justify eliminating millions of people they deemed as unfit.

Does the misuse of evolutionary ideas by political leaders have any bearing on whether or not evolution explains how life diversified?

 

[DavisBJ]

So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience Col. 3:12
Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you. Eph.4:32

Trying to make a point by quoting scripture to me? Until you show me that that nomadic creation fable is scientifically credible, you might just as well wrap animal entrails around your neck and paint your body with colored swabs of mud and then chant as you dance around a pentagram you inscribed in the ground.

 

[6days]

Does the misuse of evolutionary ideas by political leaders have any bearing on whether or not evolution explains how life diversified?

Does the misuse of God's Word by theists have any bearing on whether or not Genesis explains how life diversified?

We weren't discussing how life diversifified. We were discussing Hitlers motivation.... and if 6days is more evil than Hitler. This is where we started.....
SILENTHUNTER: "Compared to 6days... Hitler was a saint. I understand Hitler had a strong belief in the christian deity"
6DAYS: "That is debatable....but what is not debatable is that the holocaust was largely inspired by Hitlers belief, and the Nazi belief in evolutionism"

 

[DavisBJ]

Does the misuse of God's Word by theists have any bearing on whether or not Genesis explains how life diversified?

We weren't discussing how life diversifified. We were discussing Hitlers motivation.... and if 6days is more evil than Hitler. This is where we started.....
SILENTHUNTER: "Compared to 6days... Hitler was a saint. I understand Hitler had a strong belief in the christian deity"
6DAYS: "That is debatable....but what is not debatable is that the holocaust was largely inspired by Hitlers belief, and the Nazi belief in evolutionism"

I am well aware of what you were discussing. I take it you agree that the abuse of an idea has no bearing on whether the idea itself is factually correct. Abuses committed under the pretext of being in line with evolution has zero - nada – zip – nothing – to do with whether it is a valid principle of nature.

I think you have made it clear that you have an intense dislike of the idea of common descent, but nothing Hitler did falsifies the fact that science accepts it as the best explanation for how life diversified.

 

[6days]

I think you have made it clear that you have an intense dislike of the idea of common descent, but nothing Hitler did falsifies the fact that science accepts it as the best explanation for how life diversified.

Nobody claimed what Hitler did proves or disproves common ancestry beliefs. The claim simply was that Hitler and the Nazi's justified the holocaust with
Darwinian beliefs that science has proved wrong. Science has shown that all people groups are "one blood"... Other people groups are not less highly evolved than people with white skin.

 

[Rosenritter]

Is it your normal method to enter a discussion and claim that someone is wrong, and then when they ask why, for you to ask them to prove they are right?

I will humor you and mention some of the ways of dating that conflict with a recent creation. But I also require that you present the specifics of whatever prompted your claim that:

Some dating methods:

1) One of the most widely used dating methods is radiological dating.
2) Ice core dating.
3) There was a pretty good Christian who is also recognized as a premier scientist called Lord Kelvin. He opposed Darwinian evolution, partially because the evolutionists were asking for many millions of years. But Lord Kelvin said no way, since his calculations on the thermodynamics of the earth showed it was only tens of millions of years old.​

It is fairly normal in such a conversation for both participants to claim they are right. Surely you recognize this? If one or both of us believed that we were each wrong, the conversation style would be a bit different. However, when you make a claim such as "science has proved" it is appropriate for me to ask you to define your statement. Without definitions, arguments spin in circles for years on end, or more.

What I am looking at (in your reply) is that you aren't actually addressing my question. I asked about the formation of the solar system, with regards to its moons and planets. You responded in regards to radiological dating, ice core dating, and Lord Kelvin. These aren't on the subject that I was asking about.

However, if you are willing to "humor" me then this is the path that follows next:

1) First, I ask you to explain to me the theory behind the radiological dating methods. Hopefully, you then proceed to describe the theory and procedure behind the dating technique(s). I then politely point out the underlying assumptions that reduce the theory into a pool of circular logic.

2) I think I might know what you are referencing but I would want to make sure. In the same pattern as before, I ask you to define what you mean by "ice core dating" and then also point out any problems or mistaken assumptions that would affect the conclusions.

3) Here I say "Lord Kelvin may say whatever he likes, but he isn't here to answer questions that I might ask of him." I would then ask if you wish to present his evidence as having validity, if you would then be willing to answer questions in his stead. This isn't anything personal, I have to ask similarly in theological discussions when people act like "This famous guy said this so that settles it" ...

Then I would suggest that we do not forget the original question about evidence from the moons and planets of our solar system, which is what I had responded to originally. Do you have something that would suggest that the heavenly bodies in our solar system are old as compared to young?

 

[Rosenritter]

And you have been here how long? The last few hundred posts, in a thread that extends back several years and has over 18,000 posts in it? Do you also assume that the weather yesterday must be the same as it has been for the whole year?


No I don’t. Using terms like “sentence and penalty” is cheap silliness, instantly presuming there is some standard that has been violated. Is it due to a sentence and penalty that the cute little raindrop high in the sky finds itself falling towards a muddy stream? Does a rock, high up on a mountain with its commanding view find itself tumbling deep into the valley below because of a sentence and penalty?


Christians say lots of silly things – like snakes and donkeys sometimes gab with people, and you better not drink from rivers that have just filled up with hemoglobin, and that disobedient wives run the chance of turning into a pillar of salt.


Just like you get robbed of an incredible sensual afterlife with the 72 enticing virgins that could have been yours had you only believed what you should.


Yup, you lost the virgins, and it’s your own fault.

I haven't been on this forum very long compared to some of you... probably about four weeks, maybe a little more. There might be a stat somewhere in my user profile. Of course I have not read all 18000 posts, nor should you expect that of someone. No one was using threats at the time I spoke, nor had such threats appeared while I had been watching, at least.

Is it due to a sentence and penalty that the cute little raindrop high in the sky finds itself falling towards a muddy stream?

Yes, it is. That cute little raindrop is subject to laws of physical motion including gravitational pull. It cannot hover in the sky for ever without violating that law. Whomever placed that raindrop there sentenced it to fall.

Likewise, you are also subject to various laws, including laws of entropy. You do not live forever, thus you are under the sentence of death. You may not like this law and may disagree with it strongly, but it will prevail and you will eventually die. Please do not disagree for the sake of disagreeing, because I do not think that you really believe you are immortal.

Now... the rest of your post starts to degrade. I will interpret it that you are using the general "mock the concept of the supernatural or miracle" technique. That doesn't gain you much ground, I'm afraid.

As for your sarcastic "72 virgins" joke, that isn't even congruent with what was said before. Surely you are capable of coming up with an applicable analogy? I had said that IF you were right, you wouldn't know it because you'd be dead. In contrast, if I am correct I will know for sure in the resurrection of the dead... it is if I am wrong that I wouldn't know about it.

If you mean to poke at Islamic faith and belief I don't think we have a representative here to speak for it, and thus it is irrelevant to this conversation.

 

[Rosenritter]

Baumgardner very specifically says the reason the slab sinks is because it has a higher density than the mantle material below it. I take it you haven’t read Baumgardner’s paper?

If you would like, let’s assume the slab starts to descend for whatever undefined reason you had when you said “When one part starts to bend down water goes .... Down.” Now let the water flow in on top. How far does this accumulating overburden of water force your “bend” down into the mantle?

I haven't read the paper you are referring to, but I had assumed you were still running your thought experiment. It doesn't seem to be simulating a world wide flood very well, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove exactly. Your question seems contradictory, because first you were pressing an entire plate straight down that had no other connections, and now you are bending it. Why is it bending when it isn't attached to anything else and is otherwise (as per your definition) free floating?

 

[Rosenritter]

And that link provides a general answer to your question. What is now the upper strata of the Himalayas was once sea floor and as the Eurasian and Indian continental plates began pushing up against each other 65 million years ago, the Himalayas were formed. This is consistent with the observed rate of plate movement being measured today.

Jose, no one debates that that section called mountain today was once sea floor. The "65 million" figure you used, however, was based on an assumption that everything has always moved at the rate you notice right now. DavisBJ makes an opposite argument that we shouldn't assume things are always the way we see right now....

Do you also assume that the weather yesterday must be the same as it has been for the whole year?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Sorry Mikey, but you will have to whale on me at some later time. Kinda busy right now.

Dear DavisBJ,

How about now? Can't you say anything in your defense? I'm tired of being seen in a bad light while you and SH mess with my posts, and you know what I mean. Regarding your Post #18831 on Page 1256:


Quote Originally Posted by DavisBJ View Post
SH replying to Cadry:

Dear SH,

Thanks much for assuming my former position of being Cadry’s target. It’s not something I would wish on anyone, but someone apparently has to feed Michael’s ongoing need to be illogical and threaten damnation. Although Michael thinks he swings a big club, you will notice it is actually just a big soft ostrich feather. Glad to know your dog is on our side too, just like the fencepost that I named Cadry behind my house.

You like trashing my name? And Davis, it is 'wale' on you, not 'whale' on you. Whale is a fish.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

I posted:

You will read in Rev. 3:1KJV, "These things saith He that hath the 'seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars...'" This is only one reference to the fact that there are seven Spirits of God in the Bible, I believe. But I'm not going to go and search for them for you. I'm just terrible, aren't I. I am not paranoid, dude. I see at the bottom of my screen who is also online on this Thread while I am, and that is how I knew BJ was there. I have my reason for writing what I did, and no, I won't tell you about it.

Reply from S.H.:

Rant much?

One last observation: If there is only one reference in the bible of the "seven spirits of "god"" and you quoted it, what need would you have in doing a search? By the way, there are four references, all found in Revelation. You can look them up yourself. I'm just terrible, aren't I?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


Dear Silent Hunter,

I tried to use a Reply with Quote, but it was too much info to move. I just want to say that you left out a lot on Post #18845, Page 1257. If you want to really find out what was said, then check out the original post on Page 1256, Post #18834. Quite a difference, eh?

There you go, S.H. Don't tell me I'm ranting too much without including your own replies in the original post. And if you look again here, I did not say it only said it once, regarding the Seven Spirits of God! I said that was just one instance of more. Read things more carefully. You conveniently like to leave out a lot of things that are said, for your own benefit. I hope this clears things up a bit. Well, I feel a lot better. My mama don't like you, and she likes everyone.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear 6days,

What is going on with this thread. We've got about 5 or 6 atheists trying to beat up on 4 theists. The odds are unfair, but God will win EVERY TIME. No one wants to sit here and banter with some out-of-their-mind atheists who are so screwed up in their thinking that they make up answers to any questions asked of them. That's really what is going on here.

6days, Stripe, Rosenritter, and myself, are true Christians. Like I said. The Axe shall fall soon enough. Just like the Flood. So have fun for now, atheists. This is what we all get from trying to lead you down a better path than the one you are on, which ends tragically. I'm going to go and post to Alwight. I'll send our regards. He gave me his email address. Not to any of you atheists. Isn't that special?? Sounds like the Church Lady!! I tried being a good Christian and not raising my voice to anyone, but I finally had no other choice, and now I'm the bad guy, eh? Give me a break!!

Good Night,

Michael

 

[patrick jane]

now I'm the bad guy, eh? Give me a break!!

Good Night,

Michael

Everybody look at the bad guy ( Al Pacino Scarface)

 

[DavisBJ]

Rose,

Similar to the situation you are in (or were in), I am in travel status right now, and thus have very limited access to my library in the US. (I typically spend about 10% of my time in the Far East, in travel segments lasting several weeks at a time. Right now I am living about 70 km SW of Mount Fuji in Japan.) I do have a laptop with me, so I can view most internet material, and I often try to take kindle versions of several dozen of the books I anticipate I may need with me. But still the vast majority of my library is 5000 miles away. Consequently, I will defer delving very deeply into discussions that would require materials I don’t have ready access to.

Succinctly stated, I am confident that “mainstream science” is substantially correct. Some (probably most) scientific fields I have no particular qualifications in, but looking at such evidence as has been put in front of me, I see no issues that lead me to suspect they are seriously in error.

I try to evaluate the ideas I am given from a scientific perspective, and so it would be mutually beneficial to try to use accurate terminology, and to be clear in expressing objections and comments. Specifically, a number of posts ago you said:

… You may try to interpret the evidence differently (and the humanistic religion insists that you must…

In tens of thousands of hours of working in science, I have never once seen the scientific community refer to itself as a religion. Science is simply a methodology for studying how the world works. And when speaking of rain, do you really think it is scientifically accurate to refer to “Whomever placed that raindrop there sentenced it to fall.” Who is this nebulous “whomever” you allude to? If you want to pretend to understand science, then try to talk like a scientist.

Now on to recent subject matter – in rereading this:

I get the impression that you aren't understanding why mass amounts of water weight on flat plates could cause deformation, when you are asking why our water isn't causing fast effects now.

When one part starts to bend down water goes .... Down. That means weight force Increases in the weakest spot that started to break. And it accelerates in that pattern. Water does not flow uphill.

When one part is pushed down other connected portions are pushed up. So not only does water start to run off but oceans form deep while ridges get pushed higher….

I see now where you are not simply commenting on Baumgardner’s explanation for a global flood, but you are discussing how you propose a mechanism for ridges (mountains?) to be thrust up. It sounds like you are proposing a sort of teeter-totter effect, where water pushes one end of a plate down, and the other will rise. Am I more on track now?

If I understand what you are proposing, then to see if it is really a valid explanation, I will want to look at some issues (like the change in gravitational potential energy involved).

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear DavisBJ,

How about now? Can't you say anything in your defense? I'm tired of being seen in a bad light while you and SH mess with my posts, and you know what I mean. Regarding your Post #18831 on Page 1256:


Quote Originally Posted by DavisBJ View Post
SH replying to Cadry:

Dear SH,

Thanks much for assuming my former position of being Cadry’s target. It’s not something I would wish on anyone, but someone apparently has to feed Michael’s ongoing need to be illogical and threaten damnation. Although Michael thinks he swings a big club, you will notice it is actually just a big soft ostrich feather. Glad to know your dog is on our side too, just like the fencepost that I named Cadry behind my house.

You like trashing my name? And Davis, it is 'wale' on you, not 'whale' on you. Whale is a fish.

Michael

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/whale-on

This is the 66th mistake Mikey has made