Creation vs. Evolution

[DavisBJ]

Of all the just so stories evolutionists believe, your whale story has to be one of the biggest.
The evidence supports God's Word..."So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird--each producing offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good." Gen. 1:21

And as usual, the evidence you offer on this is an iron-age creation fable handed down from a scientifically illiterate tribe of nomads.

 

[DavisBJ]

it's wail

Yeah, he does that too. Really gets loud.

 

[DavisBJ]

… DavisBJ makes an opposite argument that we shouldn't assume things are always the way we see right now....

I made the point that there has been a lot of variability in the ideas expressed in this thread, and you use that as a basis for claiming an astounding variability in tectonic plate movement? Couldn’t you have possibly come up with a more pathologically strained false analogy?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Hunter raised the topic of Hitlers motivation.

Nope. You brought up Sir Keith saying, that in his opinion, Hitler believed in the theory of evolution. From that you, in a convoluted leap of logic, said that Sir Keith said that Hitler's belief in evolution, in contradiction to every single historian in the world, was the single greatest factor contributing to the Holocaust.

I challenge you to find a quote where Sir Keith said that Hitler's belief in evolution was the single greatest reason for the Holocaust.

I suggeated that a major motivation of Hitler and the Nazi's was false Darwinian beliefs.

Suggested? Had Sir Keith been alive he would be choking on the number of words you were stuffing into his mouth.

They believed some people were less highly evolved.

No they didn't, but they did use that "belief" as a propaganda tool to further denegrate the Jews.

In their own words they admit to trying to assist the natural order/ natural selection by eliminating those they deemed unfit.

How is doing that any different than the selective breeding of cattle and grain?

Science has proved those evolutionary beliefs false...

No, it hasn't. Science affirms them.

... and God's Word correct; we are all one blood. There are no people groups that are unfit, or less highly evolved.

There's nothing easier than affirming your own conclusion, is there?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Jose Fly]

Oh my.... Jose you need to hear answers so many timea before you remember. Ex... Have you ever been supplied with a definition of Biblical kinds?

Re Hitler.... yes, you were answered before. Davis was also answered just a few posts back. Hunter raised the topic of Hitlers motivation. I suggeated that a major motivation of Hitler and the Nazi's was false Darwinian beliefs. They believed some people were less highly evolved. In their own words they admit to trying to assist the natural order/ natural selection by eliminating those they deemed unfit. Science has proved those evolutionary beliefs false... and God's Word correct; we are all one blood. There are no people groups that are unfit, or less highly evolved.

Maybe the problem here is that you don't understand what an "answer" actually is?

Despite your above rhetoric, you still haven't said what your point is when you claim that Hitler cited evolution to justify his heinous acts. How about you complete this sentence?

Hitler cited evolution to justify his heinous acts, therefore........?

 

[Jonahdog]

Maybe the problem here is that you don't understand what an "answer" actually is?

Despite your above rhetoric, you still haven't said what your point is when you claim that Hitler cited evolution to justify his heinous acts. How about you complete this sentence?

Hitler cited evolution to justify his heinous acts, therefore........?

Perhaps 6's position is that absent Charlie Darwin, Hitler would have remained a poor painter.

Then again, Hitler was a Christian, without the Bible perhaps he would have remained that poor painter?

 

[patrick jane]

Michael doesn't want me talking with atheists. He sent me a PM telling me so. He's protecting me

 

[Silent Hunter]

Michael doesn't want me talking with atheists. He sent me a PM telling me so. He's protecting me

Awww. He's such a nice boy. Mad as a hatter, but nice.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[DavisBJ]

Michael doesn't want me talking with atheists. He sent me a PM telling me so. He's protecting me

Can you talk to me if I become a believer in the Great and Only True God Vardoo from the galaxy SY-87?

 

[6days]

And as usual, the evidence you offer on this is an iron-age creation fable handed down from a scientifically illiterate tribe of nomads.

You mean
That iron age creation 'fable' handed down from a scientifically illiterate tribe of nomads has shamed many modern day scientists who thought they knew better. That 'fable' helped bring us out of the middle ages and was largely responsible for the rise of modern science. I love the old old story of my my Creator and His love for us.

 

[6days]

While Hitler may have believed in evolution and that that belief might have been a contributing factor, which you cannot establish beyond assertion and an extremely loose intrepretation of one anthropologist's opinion, it is an irrefutable fact that Hitler was a racist and hated the Jews and that that hatred was the overwhelming reason for the Holocaust.

Its so hard for you to admit your 'religion'/ evolutionism was largely responsible for the holocaust. Yes, Hitler hated the Jews, but the justification for killing 5 million Jews and about 5 million non jews was evolutionism. The Nazi's own propoganda pushes the need to accelerate natural selection. They believed Jews and Gypsies were racially inferior. They replaced God with Nazi ideology, determining who was fit to live. The unfit (homosexuals, Jews, physically and mentally disabled, gypsies, and those who disagreed) were sent to the ovens.

Re. your comment that evolutionism may have been a contributing factor according to one anthropologist.... that would be Sir Arthur Keith, one of the leading evolutionists of his day. And although some evolutionists are history deniers, its well documented the influence of evolutionism on Nazi ideology.

Should the "less fit" be allowed to survive and propagate? The point of the video you linked was to demonstrate why not.

Exactly! Hitler and the Nazis's had totally bought into Darwinism. They wanted to create a master race ...to further evolutionary progress by eliminating the unfit in the 'struggle for survival'. They had partially prepared the German population by eliminating teaching about creation, replacing it with evolutionism. That belief system fed Hitlers racist ideas.

Sir Arthur Keith so strongly wanted evolution to be true that many believe he was responsible for the Piltdown hoax.

It simply does not follow that because Sir Keith believed in evolution, therefore, he was responsible for the Piltdown hoax.

You are correct... that would be illogical if that was the only piece of evidence..
http://www2.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_prim_suspects/KEITH/Keith_prosecution/apprais_Keith.html

Interestingly.... another evolutionist who manufactured evidence in order to sell Darwinism was German, nazi era evolutionist Ernst Haeckel....The nazis were evolutionists, which largely was responsible for the holocaust.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Mike, when a significant claim is made, such as defining a time limit for the rapture to start, people can support the claim, or they can say silent on the subject, or they can oppose it. I don’t know of anyone at TOL, including the entire YEC crowd, who came out in support of your rapture deadline. I know of several people who said the rapture date was wrong. And you alone supported the date.

So you tell us - of the dozens of active TOL posters - who “did better” regarding the year-end rapture – those who elected to not commit themselves, those few who were correct in saying it would not happen, or that lone solitary poster who turned out to be the only one who was 100 % in error in supporting the claim?

Dear Davis,

I already said that I made some mistakes, didn't I? I said that based on the blood moon that was to occur. So did MANY churches, so I was not alone. We had four blood moons in one year and we thought the last blood moon was the best chance. It looks like God is still taking certain people home to Him. After that is done, then Armageddon shall occur. You should be in no hurry for Jesus to return because He shall say 'Depart from me; you never knew Me.' Since you don't believe in God or Jesus, you will have your day of reckoning, so no rush after all.

Michael

 

[DavisBJ]

You mean
That iron age creation 'fable' handed down from a scientifically illiterate tribe of nomads has shamed many modern day scientists who thought they knew better. That 'fable' helped bring us out of the middle ages and was largely responsible for the rise of modern science. I love the old old story of my my Creator and His love for us.

And indeed, it was in coming out of the Middle Ages and into the rise of modern science that has led to the realization that there really is a time to abandon those childish fables of youth. That is why your ignorant creationist fables are ignored in the world of real science and academia. You could grow up too, if you wanted to.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Awww. He's such a nice boy. Mad as a hatter, but nice.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Dear SH,

I'm not mad in the slightest. That's just your way of getting people to not believe in God and Jesus, and instead believe you. And you don't think I am nice. Who are you kidding? You're the one who is mistaken that there is no God, no Son Jesus, and no Armageddon, and that will be proven soon enough. Who is mad? The one who believes in God and His Son, and the Holy Ghost, or the one who doesn't? Now I know why God made hell. Some place to send the rejects. Go ahead and 'rant' all you want to. You're in for a rude awakening.

May God Give You What You Deserve,

Michael

 

[Rosenritter]

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:


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 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).

I had some of that in mind, yes, but any one analogy is likely to be an over-simplification. As for science, I have no issue with good sound science... it's false science I take issue with, when it starts to veer from observation and testing and instead starts to accept philosophy as fact. I am not being inconsistent, as I also take issue with false Christianity that gives true religion a bad name. Science is the simply the study of our world that God made for us, and an understanding of that world has value.

I understand the limiting factor of traveling. Please talk to me about the solar system when you get back, there's some interesting science to be seen there that does affect the viability of "old earth" theory. Oh, and radiometric dating if you like, too.

 

[Rosenritter]

I saw a Seinfeld where George Costanza pulled a golf ball out of the blow hole of a whale and he called it a "great fish'. Jerry corrected him and said mammal. So i think a whale is not a fish :idunno:

Jesus said that a whale is a type of fish. I figure Genesis 1:26 says that a "fish" is something of the sea. That classification system was in use for a long time before we started trying to average warm blood, hair count, and eggs vs. live birth.

Jonah 2:1 KJV
(1) Then Jonah prayed unto the LORD his God out of the fish's belly,

Matthew 12:40 KJV
(40) For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

It just depends on which set of classification rules you're using.

 

[Rosenritter]

I don't think anyone assumes the rate of plate movement is an absolute constant. We see some level of variability depending on the conditions, but all within a fairly narrow range. Just from observation, we know what devastating effects occur when plates move even just a relatively little bit faster over very short periods of time.

Devastating effects of double-plus-massive plate movement could do things like destroy most of the life on the planet I figure. I think that's called an Extinction Level Event, right? And an ELE of the scale described would lay down the massive layers of sedimentary rock you see all over the world, along with the massive fossil deposits we observe.

All of those fossils, all those distinct life forms, but yet they are still looking for a transitional fossil life form that would lend proper credence to the theory. Darwin said it should have been easy to find, and that it should have been found long ago. Yet so many hoaxes brought forth before they were discredited as frauds.

I'm not trying to rage you here, just putting this in perspective for a moment.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear 6days,

I have learned something new. These atheists are not the people that Jesus said to recruit. He meant those who WANT to learn, not those who don't. What did He say about those who don't receive Him? He said, Cast off the dust on your feet against them. He also said, "Don't cast your pearls before the swine." We are wasting our time trying to help these who are lost to Satan. Name one atheist who has changed since I started this thread. Both Hedshaker and alwight changed from being atheist to agnostic atheist. Everyone else has not changed one bit. We are wasting our pearls away on these. Go to those who WANT to hear the good news of the Lord. That means Muslims, Hindus, those in Africa, etc. who haven't yet gotten the chance to learn about Jesus. This is the hard, long lesson that I have learned from this website. Whatever we tell them, they make up their own story about it instead. They don't believe in God. They believe in evolution instead. Well, let them. They don't believe in Jesus or the Holy Ghost either. Well, let them. They will reap the reward that they sow for themselves. Jesus woke me up, so I'm outta here!!

May God Be With You In Your Choices!!

Michael

:angel: :cloud9: :angel: :cloud9: :angel: :cloud9: :guitar: :singer:


If you want to respond to this, just start here. You don't have to worry about where to respond, before or after the coding.

Mike

 

[Lon]

When you have to resort to asking me a question, and then answering it yourself, then that answer is yours, not mine. If it is an ugly answer, it is your ugly answer.

I disagree. It is a paraphrase of your instances of excusing behavior and previous answers: your rejection of Christ and daily preoccupation of entrenchment isn't mine. You folks just honestly aren't very good at self-assessment. In a nutshell, I agree with Einstein that the "atheist" is dumb and/or blind. It isn't an intellectually (or otherwise) tenable position therefore there is nothing but dubious intention behind it lest one match wits with Einstein. Frankly, nobody comes close to 'being able' to do so, intellectually. I have to agree with Einstein that nobody can intellectually call themselves atheists. It is for some other reason having little to do with intelligence. You couldn't even argue with me unless there is purposeful meaning expressed intelligently in the universe. They cannot exist without 1-purpose 2-meaning and 3-intelligence to comprehend them and pass them along. If you deny any one of these, just one, you automatically and ineptly reject all of them as meaningless contrivances that we cannot understand (understanding being nonexistent without purpose and meaning). It is circular, or self-sustain and intuitive truth, not that the logic falls, it certainly does not. Whoever thought circular reasoning was false, was inept. It never is else we couldn't conduct the scientific method or in any other way verify truth. Because we can verify actuals, we know that intelligence must certainly exist apart from ourselves as is the nature of such else we'd not have it either. Begging the question, is, itself, the proof that it/he/she exists apart from us.

I have seen that same condemnation issued by Christian fundamentalists against the entire Christian community that doesn’t agree with your fanatical type of dogma. I am not much impressed by fanatics like you that claim to know more about are other’s feelings and thoughts than the people do themselves.

1) for you? Doesn't matter in the slightest what version(s) you reject does it? All of them, right?
2) another ugly Q/A that you don't want to own? Or am I correct (and I believe 'again')?
3) your bigotry is showing. If I have 3 fingers, you certainly have six... I've never given you reason to bin me. I'm simply saying by your statements concerning Christianity and Christ: "No, you certainly did not ever understand. Your rejection isn't intellectual buster-brown. Far from it. Think again."

The message I see here is that me being kind and decent and compassionate are just not important to your God. The thing He is most desirous of are people, no matter how despicable, that will kiss up to Him.

Not to me, but examples your woeful Christian education. Sorry, but you really didn't and don't know much about Christianity. Imho? A good thing because you can get off your high-horse and recheck your bigotry and give it up for facts.

Preview: God sent His Son SPECIFICALLY because it was the method He chose AND because it elicits a LOT of truth and also shares an emotion of caring. See, your 'inept' assessment is actually the 'inept assessment.' You are bright enough to catch your mistake. Own it? We'll see... Only stop the 'honesty atheist' charade. You should be sick of lying to yourself, if not to me. I can see the 'reaction' context that would perpetuate it but 1) I'm not God who is able to read your every motive, thought, and emote nor 2) am I the one to convince. I am not the fanatic you think I am. I simply read a few scriptures that say certain things must exist in the atheist and have found them to be intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually true regarding them. One guy I've read said it this way: "If I could prove to you beyond reasonable doubt that God/Jesus Christ exists, would you believe?"

"Yes" - "Then you are about to become a Christian."
"No" - "Then you don't have a problem with your mind/intellect/truth. You have a problem with your desires and will."

 

[Stuu]

These atheists are not the people that Jesus said to recruit. He meant those who WANT to learn, not those who don't. What did He say about those who don't receive Him? He said, Cast off the dust on your feet against them. He also said, "Don't cast your pearls before the swine."

And don't forget:

Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Charming hobby you have there.

Stuart