Creation vs. Evolution

[patrick jane]

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.

Sounds pretty fishy

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear Davis,

I said that based on the blood moon that was to occur. So did MANY churches, so I was not alone.

Michael

Mikey, you have a major problem. You try to minimize and dodge responsibility by shifting blame – “They made me pick a date”, and “Well, others made the mistake too”. Over a hundred years ago Charles MacKay wrote a long volume detailing hundreds of actual examples of masses of people who jumped on nonsensical bandwagons. You are such a small fry you wouldn’t even have warranted mention in his book.

You claim the rapture error was because of a blood red moon issue. Then God made that mistake, because here are your exact words from last year:

Dear zoo22,

…I suppose I will get A LOT of Flack from my belief, but after the end of this year, no one will be laughing at me anymore. I've been a witness for God who has testified to others what I've send and heard from Him. He told me it'd be the end of this year. I asked Him if I could tell others and He said yes….

Michael

 

[gcthomas]

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. …

He didn't say that, and if you read the full quote, you'd see it gives no succour for Christians. You rather entrench your own position with these misquotes.

Here is another quote from Einstein that puts your self-serving paraphrasing into context:

Einstein penned the letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. The letter went on public sale a year later and has remained in private hands ever since.

In the letter, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel's second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God's favoured people.

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."

 

[Lon]

He didn't say that, and if you read the full quote, you'd see it gives no succour for Christians. You rather entrench your own position with these misquotes.

:nono: Nice diversion for some, I'm sure. He's a big boy, doesn't need you.

Here is another quote from Einstein that puts your self-serving paraphrasing into context:

Have addressed this many times. It is the ignorant atheist that quote mines. Einstein, however hard he was on his description of superstition, was incredibly harder on atheists calling them in polite terms: stupid and/or blind. He never claimed atheism and wrote a lot about a younger angst. Einstein wrote more and more deistic/theistic the more enlightened he became. He is on record embracing God as Spinoza and others describe Him. The link was provided in this very thread. It amounts to Einstein being a theist, just not of a superstitious variety. ANY atheist claiming Einstein as their own is inept, petty, dishonest, or ignorant. The latter is an excuse no longer....be enlightened and educated.

 

[Jose Fly]

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?

It creates what Baumgardner referred to as "The Thermal Problem", which brings us back to the whole thing requiring numerous miracles to work, which again puts us back in the realm of religious folklore and out of the realm of science.

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.

No. Why are you trying to argue that this whole flood thing is supported by the scientific evidence? Is it really that important to you that you be able to claim "the flood is scientifically valid"? Do you put that much stock in modern science that you seem to be desperate to get its stamp of approval?

Why isn't it just being in the Bible, which you believe to be the word of God, good enough? Why do you have to seek man's validation?

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.

*sigh*

Ok fine....what is your definition of "transitional fossil"?

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.

The only ones I can recall are Piltdown Man and Archeoraptor (which was never published anyways). What others are you referring to?

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

Like most creationists I've encountered, you seem to think that you just saying something is so, makes it so. IOW, your posts are long on empty assertions but pretty much devoid of actual substance.

 

[Jose Fly]

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?

Who knows? I told you 6days wouldn't answer the question (Hitler cited evolution to justify his heinous acts, therefore........?).

6days and I have (sort of) been around on this before. He argues that the Holocaust was all about Darwinism, despite the fact that Darwin's books were banned by the Nazis, and he ignores the long history of violent antisemitism among German Christians (e.g., Martin Luther's "On the Jews and their Lies"). IOW, 6days is just slinging mud, nothing more.

But then we've seen all sorts of slimy things from 6days here. How many times has he been busted quote mining? How many times has he cited a paper that's all about evolution as somehow being some sort of disproof of evolution? From all that consistent behavior there's one main conclusion to draw....at least when it comes to the subject of evolution, 6days has neither morals nor shame. He simply doesn't care what sort of slimy tactics he has to employ to support his dying cause. He is the epitome of "by any means necessary". If he has to lie, cheat, and steal then that's what he'll do. And I'm sure in his mind it's all just fine because the overall cause is to support what he believes to be the word of God.

Like I've said before, I truly think it's impossible to advocate creationism in an honest manner. 6days illustrates that here almost every day.

 

[Stuu]

It is the ignorant atheist that quote mines. Einstein, however hard he was on his description of superstition, was incredibly harder on atheists calling them in polite terms: stupid and/or blind.

There's pot, kettle, black if ever there was.

He never claimed atheism and wrote a lot about a younger angst. Einstein wrote more and more deistic/theistic the more enlightened he became. He is on record embracing God as Spinoza and others describe Him. The link was provided in this very thread. It amounts to Einstein being a theist, just not of a superstitious variety.

And because he claimed that god didn't play dice, that made him a firm follower of biblical creationism, right?

ANY atheist claiming Einstein as their own is inept, petty, dishonest, or ignorant. The latter is an excuse no longer....be enlightened and educated.

Can you name any atheist claiming that Einstein called himself an atheist?

Can you give any behaviour of Einstein that you could definitely call theist?

I have been 'away' for three months now, but you still seem to be stuck on this same page of The Evangelical's Guide to Quote Mining.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

*sigh*

The sigh of the boy with his finger in the dike of education, stemming the flow of religious bigoted ignorance dribbling through and threatening the Netherlands of human achievement, while watching another christian determinedly tunneling yet another hole.

Stuart

 

[Jose Fly]

The sigh of the boy with his finger in the dike of education, stemming the flow of religious bigoted ignorance dribbling through and threatening the Netherlands of human achievement, while watching another christian determinedly tunneling yet another hole.

Stuart

That's funny. But the good news is, on this front we're winning. Support of evolution is around 75% among those under 30 in the US.

 

[Lon]

There's pot, kettle, black if ever there was.

Er, "Einstein" - learn to read better lain:

And because he claimed that god didn't play dice, that made him a firm follower of biblical creationism, right?

It did, if you know why he embraced Spinoza. That's why he said atheists were dull or blind. Go ahead and argue with Einstein if you think you're apt, er, ept lain:

Can you name any atheist claiming that Einstein called himself an atheist?

Yes. I tend to ignore atheists on TOL because you cannot be bothered to actually think and research. TOL is a lazy past-time for most of you. Not mea culpa.

Can you give any behaviour of Einstein that you could definitely call theist?

lain: I really wish you'd do your own homework and not walk away with ignorant bias after you've read a few trivial lines.

I have been 'away' for three months now, but you still seem to be stuck on this same page of The Evangelical's Guide to Quote Mining.

Stuart

Yeah, you jumped in, Einstein lain: Irony is that I've had this discussion AND provided links in this very thread. Ironic, your accusation, no?

 

[gcthomas]

:nono: Nice diversion for some, I'm sure. He's a big boy, doesn't need you.


Have addressed this many times. It is the ignorant atheist that quote mines. Einstein, however hard he was on his description of superstition, was incredibly harder on atheists calling them in polite terms: stupid and/or blind. He never claimed atheism and wrote a lot about a younger angst. Einstein wrote more and more deistic/theistic the more enlightened he became. He is on record embracing God as Spinoza and others describe Him. The link was provided in this very thread. It amounts to Einstein being a theist, just not of a superstitious variety. ANY atheist claiming Einstein as their own is inept, petty, dishonest, or ignorant. The latter is an excuse no longer....be enlightened and educated.

Do you have a reference for your claims about Einstein's opinion of atheists in general? (I know he did criticise fanatical atheists, although not using the language you say.)

He did say "I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." in a letter at the end of WWII. A few years later he wrote "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic." and "Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."

Einstein approved in some ways of Spinoza's God, but this is a naturalistic, deterministic concept. If you define God as supernatural, then Einstein was most certainly atheist. It depends on how loose your definitions are, as one of the 'feeble souls' he accuses of 'egotism', inventing a God in their own likeness.

 

[Lon]

Einstein approved in some ways of Spinoza's God, but this is a naturalistic, deterministic concept. If you define God as supernatural, then Einstein was most certainly atheist. It depends on how loose your definitions are, as one of the 'feeble souls' he accuses of 'egotism', inventing a God in their own likeness.

lain: Wishful thinking AND selectively convenient. Nobody that knows Einstein would ever say such a thing. It is bias and nothing else. 1) Yes, he was les sdeistic younger, but 2) He certainly called atheists dull and/or blind and he certainly was harsher with atheists than he ever was against Judeo-Christianity AND he changed those sentiments the older he got.

 

[gcthomas]

lain: Wishful thinking AND selectively convenient. Nobody that knows Einstein would ever say such a thing. It is bias and nothing else. 1) Yes, he was les sdeistic younger, but 2) He certainly called atheists dull and/or blind and he certainly was harsher with atheists than he ever was against Judeo-Christianity AND he changed those sentiments the older he got.

I've given quotes, yet you still just assert. He certainly thought Judeo-Christian beliefs those of egotistic 'feeble souls'. Are you sure that you cannot find sources for your claims about Einstein's general view about atheists as opposed to 'fanatical' atheists, a rather more specific criticism.

But you don't have sources for your opinions, just vague and unreliable recollections: So carry on asserting. :carryon:

 

[Stuu]

That's funny. But the good news is, on this front we're winning. Support of evolution is around 75% among those under 30 in the US.

If those were the statistics for Europeans it would be very depressing. But for the US, that is surprisingly encouraging!

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Er, "Einstein" - learn to read better lain:

It did, if you know why he embraced Spinoza. That's why he said atheists were dull or blind. Go ahead and argue with Einstein if you think you're apt, er, ept lain:


Yes. I tend to ignore atheists on TOL because you cannot be bothered to actually think and research. TOL is a lazy past-time for most of you. Not mea culpa.


lain: I really wish you'd do your own homework and not walk away with ignorant bias after you've read a few trivial lines.


Yeah, you jumped in, Einstein lain: Irony is that I've had this discussion AND provided links in this very thread. Ironic, your accusation, no?

No classic hits on this side.

Is there anything on the B side worth hearing?

Stuart

 

[Silent Hunter]

Its so hard for you to admit your 'religion'/ evolutionism was largely responsible for the holocaust.

Yeah, it's hard for me to admit to sometheng that isn't true.

Yes, Hitler hated the Jews, but the justification for killing 5 million Jews and about 5 million non jews was evolutionism.

Not true, for the reasons already given.

The Nazi's own propoganda pushes the need to accelerate natural selection.

Accelerate natural selection? What does that mean? Now, if you think that artifical selection is the same thing as natural selection then you have problems with word definitions that can't be fixed.

They believed Jews and Gypsies were racially inferior.

Yes, the Nazis thought those RACIAL groups were RACIALLY inferior. The Nazis were racists. Hitler was a racist and hated the Jews and that that hatred was the overwhelming reason for the Holocaust. https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/mobile/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007858. How is that connected to evolution?

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.

Euthanasia is another term with which you are unfamiliar. The morality of euthanasia as it relates to humans is a great and ongoing debate, (although, you might find many christians on TOL in full agreement with executing homosexuals), yet, we have little problem euthanasizing a dog or cat under a variety of circumstances.

"The "euthanasia" program was Nazi Germany's first program of mass murder. It predated the genocide of European Jewry (the Holocaust) by approximately two years. The program was one of many radical eugenic measures which aimed to restore the racial "integrity" of the German nation. It endeavored to eliminate what eugenicists and their supporters considered "life unworthy of life": those individuals who, they believed, because of severe psychiatric, neurological, or physical disabilities represented both a genetic and a financial burden on German society and the state." https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/mobile/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005200

The execution/elimination of political dissidents, Jews, and Gypsies is an entirely separate discussion.

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 someevolutionists are history deniers, its well documented the influence of evolutionism on Nazi ideology.

Well, I'm aware of the "documentation" of the influence of evolution on Nazi ideology that can be found in creationist books and web sites but can't say I've ever seen the same documentation anywhere else.

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'.

While it is true the Nazis thought of the German people as the master RACE and wanted to strengthen that RACIAL identity through the eugenic principle of selective breeding, which necessarily, in their view, included ridding the gene pool of deleterious influence, how that equates to evolution is anyone's guess.

They had partially prepared the German population by eliminating teaching about creation, replacing it with evolutionism. That belief system fed Hitlers racist ideas.

Citation please. This is something that can be found in creationist books and web sites but not, to my knowledge, anywhere else.

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

You have the most peculiar logic.

It simply does not follow that because Sir Keith is a "prime suspect" (arrived at through an extremely long and complicated explication), therefore, he was responsible for the Piltdown hoax.

Interestingly.... another evolutionist who manufactured evidence in order to sell Darwinism was German, nazi era evolutionist Ernst Haeckel....

Poison the well much or do you just like lying? Ernst Haeckel was a biologist and naturalist. Had he not been in Asia for such long extended times, what you call Darwinism might have been called Haeckelism. He died in 1919 so I have trouble with your "Nazi era" claim, which, of course, calls into question your "manufactured evidence in order to sell Darwinism" claim as well.

The nazis were evolutionists, which largely was responsible for the holocaust.

I know it is impossible to outlast a schizophrenic because they will always come back claiming the same nonsense one post later. Here goes...

The Nazis were racists. Hitler was a racist and hated the Jews and that that hatred was the overwhelming reason for the Holocaust. https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/mobile/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007858.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Silent Hunter]

I'm not mad in the slightest.

Sane people don't hear voices and talk to angels and make predictions about snow and armageddon because their guardian angel told them.

That's just your way of getting people to not believe in God and Jesus, and instead believe you.

How does me pointing out to you that you are one elephant short of a circus lead you to that conclusion?

And you don't think I am nice. Who are you kidding?

You're insane, Mike. That doesn't equate to me not thinking you're not well intentioned or not a "nice guy".

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,

And you don't/can't see you have a problem? Maybe I should reevaluate your "nice" status on my christmas list.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Lon]

No classic hits on this side.

Is there anything on the B side worth hearing?

Stuart

There you go. Your soul on the line and you punt.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Place mountain at the bottom of a lake, lift the mountain out of the lake with a crane.

Darwinist: Ah, the water will boil away.

Oh Stripe, every time I think you can't get any dumber you manage to top yourself.

Well played. :thumb:

You know, Jose, there's a reason Stripe taught English and not Physics. While he barely undestands English, he knows absolutely nothing about Physics.

I suppose there is no fiction or any other work being performed that would produce heat in his scenario. Certainly not the crane. :kookoo:

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Lon]

I've given quotes, yet you still just assert.

Er, 1) gave links 2) and quotes and 3) you are to lazy/insincere to find them or even ask 'please.' Your loss entirely. Any real reader of Einstein wouldn't need them. He wrote to Pinceton Theological Seminary. Find it. Or not.

He certainly thought Judeo-Christian beliefs those of egotistic 'feeble souls'.

Confidently right looks like egotism. "Soul" automatically enters the realm of God. Interesting, no?

Are you sure that you cannot find sources for your claims about Einstein's general view about atheists as opposed to 'fanatical' atheists, a rather more specific criticism.

Easily. What troubles me, is your own academic prowess :noway: Lets revisit ignorant egotism...

I've But you don't have sources for your opinions, just vague and unreliable recollections: So carry on asserting. :carryon:

Happy being this ignorant? :wave: