# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Dr. Kent Hovind: Evolution, the Foundation for Communism

## FrankRep

*Evolution, the Foundation for Communism*

Dr. Kent Hovind


Evolution the Foundation for Communism Part 1


Evolution the Foundation for Communism Part 2

----------


## sevin

Evolution is not a "world view," it's a scientific theory. Communism would have come along with or without Darwin's ideas.

----------


## FrankRep

> Evolution is not a "world view," it's a scientific theory. Communism would have come along with or without Darwin's ideas.


I dare you to actually watch the video.

----------


## sevin

> I dare you to actually watch the video.


Already seen it, though I admit it's been a few years.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Evolution is not a "world view," it's a scientific theory. Communism would have come along with or without Darwin's ideas.


Communisim is a failed statist ideology, just like theocracy.

You could use an identical logical process as Dr. Hovind to connect creationism to violent theocratic dictatorships that have been rampant throughout history.

It's a waste of time.  Morality is independent of religious or evolutionary theories.

----------


## FrankRep

> Communism is a failed statist ideology, just like theocracy.


Funny thing is that America has the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto already implemented. A rose by any other name...

http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist...to-Planks.html

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Funny thing is that America has the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto already implemented. A rose by any other name...
> 
> http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist...to-Planks.html


I don't reject this, but I'm not going to create an argument out of thin air in order to blame it all on Christianity or religion.

----------


## micahnelson

Kent Hovid, Answers in Genesis, Ken Hamm and his merry men have gotten me closer to atheism than any other group of people ever have. 

They lie, their statistics are designed to manipulate the data, and they make outrageous claims that if you deny 6-day creationism then you deny Christ. I can't stand them or what they claim to support. 

Their jihad against science has driven a deep wedge between intellectuals and religious in this country that may never be mended.

----------


## BenIsForRon

Do we really have a lot of creationists on this forum or do we just have a few obnoxious ones?  I'm shocked at all these anti-evolution threads popping up.

----------


## smhbbag

> Do we really have a lot of creationists on this forum or do we just have a few obnoxious ones? I'm shocked at all these anti-evolution threads popping up.


I certainly don't believe they're anywhere near a majority, but it's not just a select few.

And, since ClayTrainor referenced it, there are also some open believers in theocracy, including myself. 

There are a whole lot of worldviews that come to strong conclusions about limited government.  And so Ron Paul becomes not so much a melting pot (for we all remain quite different), but more of a confederation of folks with some common interests. 

You can be a creationist, and even (gasp!) a theocrat, and recognize the evils of dishonest money, aggressive wars, interventionism, government wars on drugs and poverty, gun control, and the god-state in general.

Our final visions of what society should be like, and even what the civil government ought to be like, can be quite different.  But, the cornerstone ideas of Paul's campaign bring us together.

In any other context, I'm quite sure many here would never purposefully associate with me, and would probably loathe most of what I believe and who I am.  And I can say the exact same about them.  But you'll find us both at C4L events waving the same banners.  

And I think that's pretty cool.

----------


## pacelli

> Do we really have a lot of creationists on this forum or do we just have a few obnoxious ones?  I'm shocked at all these anti-evolution threads popping up.


Am I a creationist if I agree with Hovind on some issues, and disagree on other issues?

----------


## jmdrake

> Do we really have a lot of creationists on this forum or do we just have a few obnoxious ones?  I'm shocked at all these anti-evolution threads popping up.


Creationism on a subforum about religion on sight dedicated to a politician who is a creationist.   Quell surprise?    I have to wonder why threads started by evolutionists pop up on a religion forum.  I mean if it's just about the "science"......

----------


## FrankRep

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

*- John Adams*

----------


## torchbearer

> Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
> 
> *- John Adams*


athiesm is a way of life, a religion.



> a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.


science could be considered a religious pursuit too if you understood that science is a way for us to know ourselves and our universe.

----------


## sevin

> Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
> 
> *- John Adams*


I happen to disagree with John Adams on that one. I agree with the moral part, but you should not have to be religious to live in a free country.

----------


## smhbbag

> I happen to disagree with John Adams on that one. I agree with the moral part, but you should not have to be religious to live in a free country.


I think you misunderstand the quote.  Adams was not suggesting that non-religious people should not be allowed to live in our free country.

He is saying that if the people lose morality and religion, this form of limited government is inadequate to govern them.

And I think he is perfectly right.  In the end, the people get the government they deserve.  If the people are self-governed, religious, moral, and concerned with the principles of right and wrong, then limited government will work and prosper.  If the people are not self-governed, then tyrants will (and must!) arise.  

There will be serious control exerted in society, if humans wish to live together peacefully.  Either that control comes internally in the majority of the people, in which case little or no government is needed, or that control must be forcefully thrust on them to make them behave and not have everyone kill each other.

If I lived in an immoral society, I would much prefer tyranny to liberty, as a practical matter.  With the tyrant, you know exactly who the danger is and how to keep your head low, or fight back.  With limited government and immoral people, there are 10,000 mini-tyrants in every square mile around you.  I'll gladly take the former.

Even now, the backbone of big government in America could be broken immediately, if the majority of the people simply took responsibility for themselves, their families, their churches, and others.  Lack of demand for the welfare state would put it out of business.  America's lawmakers would not see the necessity of such intrusive policies into our private freedoms, because no one is being hurt or abused by them.  If the people simply governed themselves, the teeth would be taken out of tyranny.

I'm sure you still disagree with the quote, but that is what it means.

----------


## Andrew-Austin

I can just look at the frozen screen of the first video to see that it is full of silly nonsense and not worth my time.

$#@! even the title of this thread sounds bat $#@! insane/ignorant.

----------


## sevin

> I think you misunderstand the quote.  Adams was not suggesting that non-religious people should not be allowed to live in our free country.
> 
> He is saying that if the people lose morality and religion, this form of limited government is inadequate to govern them.
> 
> And I think he is perfectly right.  In the end, the people get the government they deserve.  If the people are self-governed, religious, moral, and concerned with the principles of right and wrong, then limited government will work and prosper.  If the people are not self-governed, then tyrants will (and must!) arise.  
> 
> There will be serious control exerted in society, if humans wish to live together peacefully.  Either that control comes internally in the majority of the people, in which case little or no government is needed, or that control must be forcefully thrust on them to make them behave and not have everyone kill each other.
> 
> If I lived in an immoral society, I would much prefer tyranny to liberty, as a practical matter.  With the tyrant, you know exactly who the danger is and how to keep your head low, or fight back.  With limited government and immoral people, there are 10,000 mini-tyrants in every square mile around you.  I'll gladly take the former.
> ...


Actually, no, I don't think I disagree with it anymore. Excellent explanation. Thanks.

----------


## BenIsForRon

> Creationism on a subforum about religion on sight dedicated to a politician who is a creationist.   Quell surprise?    I have to wonder why threads started by evolutionists pop up on a religion forum.  I mean if it's just about the "science"......


You guys are the ones posting the evolution threads.  

Do you have any record of Ron Paul saying he is a creationist?

----------


## FrankRep

> Do you have any record of Ron Paul saying he is a creationist?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
Ron Paul - Religion: Baptist

SOURCE:
http://pewforum.org/religion08/profi...CandidateID=15



*Ron Paul is a Creationist; rejects the theory of evolution.* 

YouTube - Ron Paul on Evolution full recording

----------


## BenIsForRon

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
> Ron Paul - Religion: Baptist
> 
> SOURCE:
> http://pewforum.org/religion08/profi...CandidateID=15
> 
> 
> 
> *Ron Paul is a Creationist; rejects the theory of evolution.*


First, I was at that event in the video, it was in Spartanburg, NC.  I knew about his answer then, and I was wondering if anyone had anything more concrete.  His answer was pretty vague and open ended, with him talking about it as a theory where we haven't gathered all the evidence yet.  He also didn't explain why he didn't raise his hand at the debate when asked if he didn't believe in evolution.

Second, I know many baptists who believe in evolution.

Anways, I feel really silly debating this with you guys, I think anyone looking at this with an open mind can see that evolution is how we got here.

Why would it be so terrible for God to have set up the universe to allow us to arise through evolution?  Just because they didn't mention it in Genesis?  That was written thousands of years ago, people couldn't wrap their heads around it at the time.

----------


## sevin

> Why would it be so terrible for God to have set up the universe to allow us to arise through evolution?  Just because they didn't mention it in Genesis?  That was written thousands of years ago, people couldn't wrap their heads around it at the time.


+1

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> First, I was at that event in the video, it was in Spartanburg, NC.  I knew about his answer then, and I was wondering if anyone had anything more concrete.  His answer was pretty vague and open ended, with him talking about it as a theory where we haven't gathered all the evidence yet.  He also didn't explain why he didn't raise his hand at the debate when asked if he didn't believe in evolution.
> 
> Second, I know many baptists who believe in evolution.


As I have said on many of these divisive, counter-productive threads that FrankRep insists on starting, there does not have to be a contradiction between evolution and religion. And I believe that most mainstream Christians have no problems with evolution. The guy in the video would be kicked out of my mainstream church as a charlatan.

Ron Paul said that the "exact origin" and "precise time and manner" is open to debate. If somebody wants to come out and insist on an answer that includes the 6 day creation and 6000 year old earth, I doubt Ron Paul would give the answer they want. Ron also rightly stated that it was an inappropriate question for the Presidential debate, and said "if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn't be running for public office".

It is another issue that is used to simply divert, divide, and conquer.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Why would it be so terrible for God to have set up the universe to allow us to arise through evolution?  Just because they didn't mention it in Genesis?  That was written thousands of years ago, people couldn't wrap their heads around it at the time.


Oh, you must have missed the video. Evolution has always been around, as it was created by Satan, and has existed in all cultures, even thousands of years ago.

----------


## jmdrake

> You guys are the ones posting the evolution threads.


Not true.  The threads have been posted by both sides.  And for the record I have yet to start a single thread in this sub forum.  I just respond when I see what I view are false arguments from your side.  And I'm sure you'll disagree with me on what is a "false argument".




> Do you have any record of Ron Paul saying he is a creationist?


FrankRep already posted it.  And I think I would have answered the way Ron Paul answered the question both times.  Very few creationists would say they don't believe in evolution.  God would have had no reason to create polar bears.  But buying the complete theory that life spontaneously started and/or man evolved from some single celled organism?  Most Christians don't buy that.  And really, if man evolved up from a single celled organism there's no point in a savior coming to earth to 'redeem" fallen men.  What would be the point?  Fallen from what?  Yes I've seen theologians try to rationalize the two positions but then there are theologians that reject the idea that Jesus was anything but a "good man" or worse a "myth".  So I bet many of those Baptists you met don't believe in evolution to the same extent that you do.  And if they do they are in an extreme minority.  Nothing wrong we being in a minority.

----------


## jmdrake

> Why would it be so terrible for God to have set up the universe to allow us to arise through evolution?  Just because they didn't mention it in Genesis?  That was written thousands of years ago, people couldn't wrap their heads around it at the time.


The point isn't whether or not that's "terrible".  The point is whether or not it fits Christianity.  It doesn't.  But there are other religions where the idea of man "evolving to a higher state" fit perfectly.  Buddhism and Hinduism come immediately to mind.  And there's nothing "wrong" with Buddhists and Hindus.

----------


## BenIsForRon

> But buying the complete theory that life spontaneously started and/or man evolved from some single celled organism?  Most Christians don't buy that.  And really, if man evolved up from a single celled organism there's no point in a savior coming to earth to 'redeem" fallen men.  What would be the point?  Fallen from what?  Yes I've seen theologians try to rationalize the two positions but then there are theologians that reject the idea that Jesus was anything but a "good man" or worse a "myth".  So I bet many of those Baptists you met don't believe in evolution to the same extent that you do.  And if they do they are in an extreme minority.  Nothing wrong we being in a minority.


We're fallen because we're all people with free will who have chosen to sin at many points throughout our lives.  How does evolution, starting with a single-celled organisms, change any of that?

And many Christians I've talked to believe God is the original cause, the cause of the big bang.  I imagine you don't believe that either, even though many physicists, who understand the laws of thermodynamics way more than you and I ever will, believe it.

----------


## EN81

If science is the foundation for communism, we're all in deep trouble. I strongly reject that notion, however.

----------


## jmdrake

> We're fallen because we're all people with free will who have chosen to sin at many points throughout our lives.  How does evolution, starting with a single-celled organisms, change any of that?


That's being fallen on an individual level, not as a race.  Further from an evolutionary point of view "sin" could very well be a "survival mechanism".  (Lying for example).  Lastly, coming to earth to die for a race that will eventually "evolve" to a higher level left to its own devices would be just plain silly.  Man evolving to a higher state fits fine with Buddhism and Hinduism.  In fact that's a mainstay of those religions.  I don't know why you just can't give them their due respect.




> And many Christians I've talked to believe God is the original cause, the cause of the big bang.  I imagine you don't believe that either, even though many physicists, who understand the laws of thermodynamics way more than you and I ever will, believe it.


Apples and oranges.  How the universe was formed has nothing to do with whether or not man has a fallen nature and whether or not man can reach a higher state just by "evolving".

----------


## BenIsForRon

> That's being fallen on an individual level, not as a race.  Further from an evolutionary point of view "sin" could very well be a "survival mechanism".  (Lying for example).  Lastly, coming to earth to die for a race that will eventually "evolve" to a higher level left to its own devices would be just plain silly.  Man evolving to a higher state fits fine with Buddhism and Hinduism.  In fact that's a mainstay of those religions.  I don't know why you just can't give them their due respect.


The fact that sin can play a role in survival doesn't change the fact that there is a moral dimension to our existence.  If Jesus was truly the earthly form of God, then it wouldn't matter how God created us, because we need help.  I don't think that's silly.

I guess if you're a firm believer that we are truly in the "end times", and there's no place left to go for humanity, except to be judged, then I guess that's another way evolution wouldn't fit with your world view.

Lastly, all this irrelevant, because you've shown me in this thread that you aren't truly rejecting evolution from a scientific point of view.  You're rejecting evolution because it doesn't fit with your understanding of the universe from reading the bible, which is everything but scientific.

----------


## jmdrake

> The fact that sin can play a role in survival doesn't change the fact that there is a moral dimension to our existence.  If Jesus was truly the earthly form of God, then it wouldn't matter how God created us, because we need help.  I don't think that's silly.


No we don't.  Not if we can "evolve" to a "higher form of existence" on our own.  All God needs to do is to sit back and wait a few million (billion?) years for everything to work itself out.




> I guess if you're a firm believer that we are truly in the "end times", and there's no place left to go for humanity, except to be judged, then I guess that's another way evolution wouldn't fit with your world view.


Well I certainly see a lot of prophecies that are being fulfilled.  Talk of a one world economic system is now *mainstream news*!  But John predicted that nearly 2000 years in advance.  Was it just a "lucky guess"?  Maybe.  But only a fool would ignore that.




> Lastly, all this irrelevant, because you've shown me in this thread that you aren't truly rejecting evolution from a scientific point of view.  You're rejecting evolution because it doesn't fit with your understanding of the universe from reading the bible, which is everything but scientific.


LOL.    So it's only possible to reject evolution one way?  Did you really mean to type something so ridiculous?  Look at it another way.  I reject communism because it's bad economics.  But I also find it immoral.  Just because I find it immoral doesn't detract from the fact that I find it to be bad economics.

----------


## sevin

> Well I certainly see a lot of prophecies that are being fulfilled.  Talk of a one world economic system is now *mainstream news*!  But John predicted that nearly 2000 years in advance.  Was it just a "lucky guess"?  Maybe.  But only a fool would ignore that.


Don't forget Nostradamus. He made a lot of amazing predictions, too.

----------


## jmdrake

> Don't forget Nostradamus. He made a lot of amazing predictions, too.


That's true.  If I recall correctly one of Nostradamus' prophecy was the lineage of the popes and the current one is supposed to be the last.  Considering how old he is we should see in our lifetimes if Nostradamus got that one right.

----------


## BenIsForRon

> No we don't.  Not if we can "evolve" to a "higher form of existence" on our own.  All God needs to do is to sit back and wait a few million (billion?) years for everything to work itself out.


Evolution is biological.  God didn't send Jesus here to help us biologically, he sent him for spiritual purposes.  Salvation or moral guidance or whatever.  That has virtually nothing to do with biology.





> Well I certainly see a lot of prophecies that are being fulfilled.  Talk of a one world economic system is now *mainstream news*!  But John predicted that nearly 2000 years in advance.  Was it just a "lucky guess"?  Maybe.  But only a fool would ignore that.


I'm not saying it didn't make some legit predictions.  I'm just saying if you take it completely literally, then the world will be ending very soon.  But on second thought, that doesn't negate the fact that he could have used a few billion years of evolution to get us here.  Time is not a problem for God.





> LOL.    So it's only possible to reject evolution one way?  Did you really mean to type something so ridiculous?  Look at it another way.  I reject communism because it's bad economics.  But I also find it immoral.  Just because I find it immoral doesn't detract from the fact that I find it to be bad economics.


It just seems that way, like you decided you didn't believe evolution first, then you went the "mutations can't cause complexity" route.  Which is not true, as I demonstrated in the other thread.

----------


## TonySutton

Sorry didn't really want to watch the video but how do they explain away Karl Marx writing The Communist Manifesto 11 years before Charles Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species?  Was the building built first and then placed on the foundation?

Smells fishy to me...

----------


## jmdrake

> Evolution is biological.  God didn't send Jesus here to help us biologically, he sent him for spiritual purposes.  Salvation or moral guidance or whatever.  That has virtually nothing to do with biology.


The human brain has nothing to do with biology?    And while you're wasting time with arguing with me, you need to do some research on behavioral genetics.

Also you can get "moral guidance" without needed a savior.  Khrishna, Buddha, Confuscious, Mohammed, fill-in-the-blank all provide "moral guidance". 




> I'm not saying it didn't make some legit predictions.  I'm just saying if you take it completely literally, then the world will be ending very soon.  But on second thought, that doesn't negate the fact that he could have used a few billion years of evolution to get us here.  Time is not a problem for God.


I never said time was a problem for God.  You have a knack for throwing in stuff that nobody is talking about.  Anyway, if you don't think there will eventually be a judgment then why on earth would Jesus need to die for people's sins?  Or is that just another part of the Bible that you are ready to throw out?





> It just seems that way, like you decided you didn't believe evolution first, then you went the "mutations can't cause complexity" route.  Which is not true, as I demonstrated in the other thread.


LOL.  No.  All you've demonstrated is that you will doggedly hold onto nonsense despite all evidence to the contrary.  Just like you believe in man made global warming even though Mars and Jupiter have warmed without there being any fossil fuels burned on those planets.  And again you show your knack for dishonest debate.  I've said repeatedly that I believe in evolution.  I just don't believe in the idea that man has evolved up from a single celled organism.  That's a problem both for science (in general entropy just doesn't work that way, even with external energy from the sun or somewhere else) and Christianity (no need for a savior if we're going to evolve to a higher plane anyway.  And definitely no need for a savior if there is no judgment.)

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Sorry didn't really want to watch the video but how do they explain away Karl Marx writing The Communist Manifesto 11 years before Charles Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species?  Was the building built first and then placed on the foundation?
> 
> Smells fishy to me...





> Oh, you must have missed the video. Evolution has always been around, as it was created by Satan, and has existed in all cultures, even thousands of years ago.


The convoluted logic being employed in the video can be boiled down to this: Satan tempted Adam and Eve with giving them "knowledge". Thus any knowledge can be traced back to Satan. And since Satan's a liar, just about any "knowledge" can be called a lie.

----------


## FrankRep

> Sorry didn't really want to watch the video but how do they explain away Karl Marx writing The Communist Manifesto 11 years before Charles Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species?  Was the building built first and then placed on the foundation?
> 
> Smells fishy to me...


Pre-Darwinian Theories of Evolution
http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh1.shtml

Ideas of "Evolution" and "Racism" existed before Origin of Species.


Full book title: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

Favoured Races?

----------


## TonySutton

> Favoured Races?


Race (biology), a group smaller than a species. Members of different races can have sex and make babies, but they are separate (usually because they live in different places) - a large race of birds lives on this island

Race is more than just colors of humans

----------


## FrankRep

> Race (biology), a group smaller than a species. Members of different races can have sex and make babies, but they are separate (usually because they live in different places) - a large race of birds lives on this island
> 
> Race is more than just colors of humans


Charles Darwin just justified Racism. Thanks Darwin. :-(


*Karl Marx's Racism*

Walter Williams
June 21, 2006


*Karl Marx - Racist and the ancestor of modern genocide*
YouTube - Karl Marx - Racist and the ancestor of modern genocide

----------


## TonySutton

> Charles Darwin just justified Racism. Thanks Darwin. :-(


That is a bit of a stretch.

----------


## BenIsForRon

> TAll you've demonstrated is that you will doggedly hold onto nonsense despite all evidence to the contrary.


So I'm holding on to nonsense... Ok.

So what I've gotten from my discussion with you for the past few days is this:

-Fossils that appear to be transitional species, and are said to be by all the archaeologists and biologists, are actually just weird mutants of some "normal" animal that God created.  

-God selectively implements evolution.  He only allows evolution to happen within a group of animals that look the same, but there is no way separate families of animal can share a common ancestor.

-Increasing in complexity is impossible through natural selection, because the DNA is an isolated system, even though the Sun and Earth are bombarding it with energy, which would seem to indicate is not an isolated system, thus not violating the second law of thermodynamics.  But it is an isolated system, somehow, because jmdrake said so.

Am I missing anything here?

----------


## FrankRep

> Charles Darwin just justified Racism. Thanks Darwin. :-(





> That is a bit of a stretch.


Charles Darwin Says Black People Are "Animals" - Video

----------


## TonySutton

> ~snip~


Your comment was that Darwin "just" justified racism when he has been dead over 100 years.  If you just want to say Darwin is a racist you should start a new thread or modify the title.  You are getting off topic in your own thread

----------


## jmdrake

> So I'm holding on to nonsense... Ok.


Yep.  You still think men cause global warming despite all evidence to the contrary.  That's nonsense, and a bigger leap of "faith" than any religious belief.  And you've put forward about 3 or 4 different views on the whole entropy thing.  (You did at least admit at one point that you had confused the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics).  And your idea that biology has nothing to do with morality is just laughable.  Did you go and do the research on behavioral genetics?

Lastly I have to ask, why do you even bother with Christianity when Buddhism is a much better fit for your belief system?  No definite "creator", no "judgment" just a good guy telling you how to be moral.  (Serious question).

----------


## jmdrake

> Your comment was that Darwin "just" justified racism when he has been dead over 100 years.  If you just want to say Darwin is a racist you should start a new thread or modify the title.  You are getting off topic in your own thread


I'm confused as to your point about Darwin being dead over 100 years.  Do you think that someone's ideas can't have an effect long after they are dead?

----------


## TonySutton

> I'm confused as to your point about Darwin being dead over 100 years.  Do you think that someone's ideas can't have an effect long after they are dead?


Yes, but I do not expect someone to "just" come to this conclusion on someone like Darwin who has quite a bit published on his life.  The attempt was to ignore my clarification and heap further disgrace upon Darwin in an attempt to change the subject.

----------


## BenIsForRon

> Yep.  You still think men cause global warming despite all evidence to the contrary.  That's nonsense, and a bigger leap of "faith" than any religious belief.  And you've put forward about 3 or 4 different views on the whole entropy thing.  (You did at least admit at one point that you had confused the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics).  And your idea that biology has nothing to do with morality is just laughable.  Did you go and do the research on behavioral genetics?
> 
> Lastly I have to ask, why do you even bother with Christianity when Buddhism is a much better fit for your belief system?  No definite "creator", no "judgment" just a good guy telling you how to be moral.  (Serious question).


I corrected myself once on thermodynamics, simple mistake, because I was thinking about the "isolated system", which they both use in their definitions.  The moral of the story is: the sun is part of the system, and that is what allows for an increase in complexity over millions of years.

Biology and morality: of course they are related in some ways, but that's beside the point I was trying to make.  Another billion years of evolution doesn't necessitate that we will become more moral.

And why do I bother with Christianity?  For the same reason I look into all other religions:  there is valuable wisdom to be gained.  I think none of us knows how God works on the earth, so I try to get as many opinions as possible.

----------


## pacelli

> Your comment was that Darwin "just" justified racism when he has been dead over 100 years.  If you just want to say Darwin is a racist you should start a new thread or modify the title.  *You are getting off topic in your own thread*


If you have such a problem with people posting off-topic, then why are you posting off-topic?

----------


## TonySutton

> If you have such a problem with people posting off-topic, then why are you posting off-topic?


I don't have a problem with it, I was poking fun.  Notice the winky face after my comment

----------


## Reason

> Evolution is not a "world view," it's a scientific theory. Communism would have come along with or without darwin's ideas.


this.

----------


## jmdrake

> I corrected myself once on thermodynamics, simple mistake, because I was thinking about the "isolated system", which they both use in their definitions.  The moral of the story is: the sun is part of the system, and that is what allows for an increase in complexity over millions of years.


I'm still waiting for the increased positive complexity from Chernobyl.  Should have been a little bit.  Also still waiting all of the missing "transition" fossils.  There should be a lot more than have been found.  Billions of years of incremental change shouldn't have left "gaps".




> Biology and morality: of course they are related in some ways, but that's beside the point I was trying to make.  Another billion years of evolution doesn't necessitate that we will become more moral.


If God set up a system based on survival of the fittest, why is being "more moral" even a goal?  Hyenas steal kills from lions who kill peaceful vegetarians for food.  Maybe lying is a survival mechanism.  Maybe men sleeping with as many women as possible spreads around dominant genes.  




> And why do I bother with Christianity?  For the same reason I look into all other religions:  there is valuable wisdom to be gained.  I think none of us knows how God works on the earth, so I try to get as many opinions as possible.


Fair enough.  It just seemed you were trying to shoehorn a theory onto Christianity that more naturally fits other religions.  Or do you not see it that way?

----------


## pacelli

> I don't have a problem with it, I was poking fun.  Notice the winky face after my comment




Facepalm myself.  Sorry, I didn't catch the humor.

----------


## BenIsForRon

> I'm still waiting for the increased positive complexity from Chernobyl.  Should have been a little bit.  Also still waiting all of the missing "transition" fossils.  There should be a lot more than have been found.  Billions of years of incremental change shouldn't have left "gaps".


I can't believe you're being serious here.  First, most mutations are detrimental.  Second, Chernobyl happened 25 years ago, and increased complexity only occurs in incremental steps over millions of years.

And we've only been collecting fossils for about 100, maybe 150 years.  Do you really think we should have uncovered every step of evolution for the past 500 million years?  I think archaeologists have found enough to show what's going on.




> If God set up a system based on survival of the fittest, why is being "more moral" even a goal?  Hyenas steal kills from lions who kill peaceful vegetarians for food.  Maybe lying is a survival mechanism.  Maybe men sleeping with as many women as possible spreads around dominant genes.


Because even in the bible being more moral is not a goal for hyenas.  Humans are different, for a multitude of reasons I shouldn't have to explain here.




> Fair enough.  It just seemed you were trying to shoehorn a theory onto Christianity that more naturally fits other religions.  Or do you not see it that way?


I'm saying evolution can work within the framework of Christianity, depending on how literally you take the book of Genesis.

----------


## jmdrake

> I can't believe you're being serious here.  First, most mutations are detrimental.  Second, Chernobyl happened 25 years ago, and increased complexity only occurs in incremental steps over millions of years.


If the incremental steps are continuous then something should be observable over a shorter period of time.  Might not be a fish to mammal...but something.




> And we've only been collecting fossils for about 100, maybe 150 years.  Do you really think we should have uncovered every step of evolution for the past 500 million years?  I think archaeologists have found enough to show what's going on.


Enough for you maybe.  Not enough for me.  If there have been these incremental steps over millions of years then the fossil record shouldn't be clustered like it is.  Instead we see major jumps.




> Because even in the bible being more moral is not a goal for hyenas.  Humans are different, for a multitude of reasons I shouldn't have to explain here.


But, according to Darwinism, the only reason humans are "different" is an accident of nature.  Do you actually think God designed the "future human" amoeba to evolve morality?




> I'm saying evolution can work within the framework of Christianity, depending on how literally you take the book of Genesis.


It doesn't work for the framework of any recognizable Christianity.  If you want to throw out the idea of Jesus as a "divine savior" and go with Jesus as an "evolutionary spiritual guide" then I suppose it works.  But that requires doing away with more than just Genesis.  And at that point you might as well call him Khrishna.

----------


## BenIsForRon

I've said everything I can say about DNA allowing for increasing complexity, if you're still denying it then I'm done.  I just $#@!ing HATE you talking to the rest of us like we're $#@!ing ignorant sheep because we believe in a theory that has an incredible scientific backing.  YOU'RE the one who is copying and pasting the parts of evolution you like and leaving out the parts you don't like.

The fossil record is complete enough to see a clear trend, God didn't leave the record to $#@! with us.  I don't pretend to speak for God, but I'm pretty confident in that statement.

And yes, from my limited knowledge, I believe God intended for _**** sapiens_ to develop a moral compass.  We're not perfect, BUT THAT'S PART OF THE PROCESS.  We have to start somewhere so we can understand who we are.

_**** sapiens_ is the only animal who can reflect on its role and significance in the universe.  Yet, even with this uncanny ability, the do incredibly animalistic things, like steal, kill, and subjugate others. Soo yes, if anything in this universe needed a divine savior, it would be them.  Simple as that, whether we were poofed in or evolved in.

----------


## Baptist

Threads like this are why I rarely debate religion online.  Including the religion of evolution.

----------


## pacelli

First humans evolved from apes.  

Now humans evolved from lemurs.

So at some point, a lemur had sex with an ape?

----------


## jmdrake

> .
> _**** sapiens_ is the only animal who can reflect on its role and significance in the universe.  Yet, even with this uncanny ability, the do incredibly animalistic things, like steal, kill, and subjugate others. Soo yes, if anything in this universe needed a divine savior, it would be them.  Simple as that, whether we were poofed in or evolved in.


And you know that because....I mean seriously.  How much research have you done on the intellect of whales and dolphins?  How do you know Koko the gorilla doesn't ponder if there is an afterlife?

----------


## Flash

Darwin: "Ah! This bird could've evolved from _that_ bird!"

Communists: "$#@!. Lets take away all property rights."

----------


## moostraks

> It doesn't work for the framework of any recognizable Christianity.  If you want to throw out the idea of Jesus as a "divine savior" and go with Jesus as an "evolutionary spiritual guide" then I suppose it works.  But that requires doing away with more than just Genesis.  And at that point you might as well call him Khrishna.


How do you figure? Why are these two issues dependant upon one another?(the literal nature of some verses as opposed to the figurative nature of others) Discernment should allow folks to utilize the brain the Creator gave them to pull together evidence and ascertain the Truth.

BTW in order to be a divine savior wouldn't one have to accept him as a spiritual guide?

FWIW I am not so keen on macroevolution but am not hung up on timelines...

----------


## Flash

> It doesn't work for the framework of any recognizable Christianity.


Actually, it does work well within Gnostic Christianity.

----------


## South Park Fan

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
> Ron Paul - Religion: Baptist
> 
> SOURCE:
> http://pewforum.org/religion08/profi...CandidateID=15
> 
> 
> 
> *Ron Paul is a Creationist; rejects the theory of evolution.* 
> ...


YouTube - GOP Debate - Evolution Question

Where's Ron Paul's hand?

----------


## jmdrake

> Actually, it does work well within Gnostic Christianity.


Sure.  That's why I said "recognizable Christianity" versus "Christianity" in general.

----------


## jmdrake

> YouTube - GOP Debate - Evolution Question
> 
> Where's Ron Paul's hand?


Down of course.  Because the question "Do you believe in evolution" is loaded.  You can "believe in evolution" in that you realize polar bears could not have been initially created based on the description of a perfect earth in Genesis.  They had to have "evolved".  Most people who are considered "creationists" believe in evolution to some degree.

----------


## jmdrake

> How do you figure? Why are these two issues dependant upon one another?(the literal nature of some verses as opposed to the figurative nature of others) Discernment should allow folks to utilize the brain the Creator gave them to pull together evidence and ascertain the Truth.
> 
> BTW in order to be a divine savior wouldn't one have to accept him as a spiritual guide?
> 
> FWIW I am not so keen on macroevolution but am not hung up on timelines...


I think I've gone over this too many times already, but I'll do it once more.  The central theme of Christianity is the death and resurrection of Christ to restore fallen humanity.  If humanity is "evolving to a higher plane" then the whole "sacrifice on Calvary" is a bit redundant.  And I'm not saying that Jesus wasn't *also* a spiritual guide.  Rather that if we are evolving to a higher plane we would *only* need a spiritual guide.  That's simply the way I see it.  Others can see it another way.

----------


## sevin

> I think I've gone over this too many times already, but I'll do it once more.  The central theme of Christianity is the death and resurrection of Christ to restore fallen humanity.  If humanity is "evolving to a higher plane" then the whole "sacrifice on Calvary" is a bit redundant.  And I'm not saying that Jesus wasn't *also* a spiritual guide.  Rather that if we are evolving to a higher plane we would *only* need a spiritual guide.  That's simply the way I see it.  Others can see it another way.


Not taking a particular stance here, but you could say that even if humanity is "evolving to a higher plane," no matter how much they evolve they'll still be sinful and in need of redemption, so the sacrifice on Calvary could never be redundant.

----------


## moostraks

> I think I've gone over this too many times already, but I'll do it once more.  The central theme of Christianity is the death and resurrection of Christ to restore fallen humanity.  If humanity is "evolving to a higher plane" then the whole "sacrifice on Calvary" is a bit redundant.  And I'm not saying that Jesus wasn't *also* a spiritual guide.  Rather that if we are evolving to a higher plane we would *only* need a spiritual guide.  That's simply the way I see it.  Others can see it another way.


You seem to believe that your view is the only acceptable view of mainline Christianity. There are various views on this and evolution is not dismissed by all Christian believers. In fact many have reconciled themselves to accepting the unknowness as part of the mystery and allowing limitations to our knowledge rather than arrogantly claiming by faith one must take a side. 

It is believed by many that Jesus came to usher in a new era of existence and his death reconciled mans condition so he may move forward in his spiritual evolution.

----------


## micahnelson

Christianity has come around on the issue of...

...being left handed. 
...being a different race.
...the earth revolving around the sun. 
...equal rights for women. 

Soon it will come around on...

...the age of the earth. 
...the biological aspects of the development of life. 

It will happen when the Kent Hovid's of the world read Titus 3

" 9But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. 11You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned."

----------


## South Park Fan

> Down of course.  Because the question "Do you believe in evolution" is loaded.  You can "believe in evolution" in that you realize polar bears could not have been initially created based on the description of a perfect earth in Genesis.  They had to have "evolved".  Most people who are considered "creationists" believe in evolution to some degree.


FrankRep said that Ron Paul rejected the theory of evolution, so I was just pointing out the obvious ridiculousness of that assertion.

----------


## BenIsForRon

> I think I've gone over this too many times already, but I'll do it once more.  The central theme of Christianity is the death and resurrection of Christ to restore fallen humanity.  If humanity is "evolving to a higher plane" then the whole "sacrifice on Calvary" is a bit redundant.  And I'm not saying that Jesus wasn't *also* a spiritual guide.  Rather that if we are evolving to a higher plane we would *only* need a spiritual guide.  That's simply the way I see it.  Others can see it another way.


Do you not realize that you wouldn't know about evolution if it weren't for the archaeologists and biologists doing the research?

Yet, you incorporate part of their theory into your beliefs, but you reject the idea different families or genii of organisms had common ancestors? 

These people are very confident in the research they've done over the past century.  That's why you're not going to find any marine biologists or ecologists or zoologists that are creationists.  They may believe in God, but they do not reject the fact that all life on this planet evolved from unicellular life in the ocean vents.

----------


## jmdrake

> Do you not realize that you wouldn't know about evolution if it weren't for the archaeologists and biologists doing the research?


You're assuming that even if nobody followed up on Darwin I wouldn't have heard of him.  There are a lot of scientists who's work ended with them that I know about.  And I'm not even sure what your point is.




> Yet, you incorporate part of their theory into your beliefs, but you reject the idea different families or genii of organisms had common ancestors?


You watch the weather channel, but you reject the statement by the founder that Global Warming is the greatest hoax in human history.

----------


## jmdrake

> You seem to believe that your view is the only acceptable view of mainline Christianity.  There are various views on this and evolution is not dismissed by all Christian believers.


Many of them haven't thought out the full implications.  And there are Christians who think salvation is through "Israel" too.  




> It is believed by many that Jesus came to usher in a new era of existence and his death reconciled mans condition so he may move forward in his spiritual evolution.


Sounds like the "Christianity without a final judgment" view Ben subscribes to.  That view has you not only throw away Genesis, but Revelation as well.  (Along with the direct words of Jesus in Matthew 24).

You can also look at Romans 5:12 

http://bible.cc/romans/5-12.htm
_When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned._

or Romans 6:23

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...23&version=KJV
_Romans 6:23 (King James Version)

 23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord._

The idea of death being a result of sin and Jesus death being an atonement for that sin freeing the Christian from the current bondage of sin and eventually from death itself is central to mainline Christianity.  If death was just "part of the process" all along, then Jesus death as an atonement for sin was irrational.

----------


## BenIsForRon

> You watch the weather channel, but you reject the statement by the founder that Global Warming is the greatest hoax in human history.


You have no logical reason to think all bears have a common ancestor, while at the same time thinking all carnivores do not.  Evolutionary biologists know that both are true.  That's my point.

----------


## moostraks

> Many of them haven't thought out the full implications.  And there are Christians who think salvation is through "Israel" too.  
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the "Christianity without a final judgment" view Ben subscribes to.  That view has you not only throw away Genesis, but Revelation as well.  (Along with the direct words of Jesus in Matthew 24).
> 
> You can also look at Romans 5:12 
> 
> http://bible.cc/romans/5-12.htm
> ...


This is a really difficult subject to try to reduce down to an internet discusson but I will try to be as brief as possible.

One can accept the basic concepts as put forth in Genesis as being figurative discussions alluding to deeper concepts. Much as any story you read in the Bible may serve at two levels and argued over historical literalness versus spiritual truth. They are two seperate arguments. One does not necessarily exclude the concept of the other just because one takes issue with the historical accuracy but agrees with the spiritual truth.

Jesus' death was for us-not vengence for a wrathful god. (yes?) His message brings a completeness to a scattered, unfocused humanity. BY taking his message we can reorient previous thought patterns to choose proper responses to bring us into the 'light' rather than drive us further away from it. Whether one accomplishes this in a known lifetime or more than one (spiritual evolution), the act of sacrifice was to give as model to what one is called to do and reconnected the communication that was missing.

If one takes the concept  the wages of sin is death and then further surmises this must mean physical existence wherein death occurs, one could further extend this thought to ponder that one could escape the physical death cycle by 'following Him'. 

Following the line of thought literal/figurative- if you belief in the spirtual nature as seperate but entwined with physical then one could look at The Genesis story as saying well first we were spirit- then through our self will we were relegated to a physical existence wherein death entered the world. We stumbled along with parts of the puzzle wherein our intellect and spiritual natures war. When Jesus enters the scene we are given the keys to synthesis these facets of our being and move fully into the light or willingly retard our development and stay bound within a physical nature and death cycle...

----------


## jmdrake

> Jesus' death was for us-not vengence for a wrathful god. (yes?)


Jesus' death was an atoning sacrifice to pay the price for violation of the law that He as God created.  If you are going to try to bypass that one crucial central tenant of Christianity then sure, you can paste anything to it and maybe it will stick.

----------


## moostraks

> Jesus' death was an atoning sacrifice to pay the price for violation of the law that He as God created.  If you are going to try to bypass that one crucial central tenant of Christianity then sure, you can paste anything to it and maybe it will stick.


Because why? Because the Creator needed us to give him a blood sacrifice or we needed to give forth something to appreciate the cost?

Why do you punish a child? Because you need them to suffer or because it trains them to appreciate the consequence of their actions so they make better decisions???

If you miss this crucial tenant of Jesus teaching then sure, you can paste anything to it and maybe it will stick.

----------


## jmdrake

> You have no logical reason to think all bears have a common ancestor, while at the same time thinking all carnivores do not.  Evolutionary biologists know that both are true.  That's my point.


LOL.   You're really hung up on this aren't you?  I've moved on to a different conversation.  The only "point" you are successfully making is that you are a broken record.  Now I know you want to throw out Genesis and Revelation, but for the sake of argument pretend they are true.  If you believe that God created wolves and bears directly (as opposed to having them evolve from some common ancestor) and you believe that before the earth got whacked off it's access we didn't have snow, and you believe that God designed His creation to be able to adapt once the earth went out of whack then it makes total sense that grizzly and polar bears have a common ancestor and grizzly bears and wolves do not.  That doesn't mean that your position is impossible.  But to claim that if someone accepts bears having a common ancestor they must also accept bears and wolves have a common ancestor is just plain wrong.  No ifs, ands or buts about it.

Now if you want to talk "illogical", explain why you think man causes global warming when it has occurred on Jupiter, Mars and Pluto at roughly the same rate it occurred on earth.

----------


## jmdrake

> Because why? Because the Creator needed us to give him a blood sacrifice or we needed to give forth something to appreciate the cost?


Because the law as it was written required the punishment of death.  Adam and Eve were warned from jump that if they disobeyed they would die.  In order to keep things fair someone had to pay the price and so God chose to pay the price Himself.  We aren't the only beings to have fallen remember.  If God had brought Adam and Eve back into eternal life without someone paying the ultimate price (dying without sin) the same being that accused Job would have cried foul.

----------


## moostraks

> Because the law as it was written required the punishment of death.  Adam and Eve were warned from jump that if they disobeyed they would die.  In order to keep things fair someone had to pay the price and so God chose to pay the price Himself.  We aren't the only beings to have fallen remember.  If God had brought Adam and Eve back into eternal life without someone paying the ultimate price (dying without sin) the same being that accused Job would have cried foul.


Your point as it relates to negating evolution would then be?

----------


## jmdrake

> Your point as it relates to negating evolution would then be?


Already stated in the earlier conversation.

_I think I've gone over this too many times already, but I'll do it once more. The central theme of Christianity is the death and resurrection of Christ to restore fallen humanity. If humanity is "evolving to a higher plane" then the whole "sacrifice on Calvary" is a bit redundant. And I'm not saying that Jesus wasn't also a spiritual guide. Rather that if we are evolving to a higher plane we would only need a spiritual guide. That's simply the way I see it. Others can see it another way._

----------


## BenIsForRon

> LOL.   You're really hung up on this aren't you?  I've moved on to a different conversation.  The only "point" you are successfully making is that you are a broken record.  Now I know you want to throw out Genesis and Revelation, but for the sake of argument pretend they are true.  If you believe that God created wolves and bears directly (as opposed to having them evolve from some common ancestor) and you believe that before the earth got whacked off it's access we didn't have snow, and you believe that God designed His creation to be able to adapt once the earth went out of whack then it makes total sense that grizzly and polar bears have a common ancestor and grizzly bears and wolves do not.  That doesn't mean that your position is impossible.  But to claim that if someone accepts bears having a common ancestor they must also accept bears and wolves have a common ancestor is just plain wrong.  No ifs, ands or buts about it.
> 
> Now if you want to talk "illogical", explain why you think man causes global warming when it has occurred on Jupiter, Mars and Pluto at roughly the same rate it occurred on earth.


WTF are you talking about?  Are you saying God knocked earth of its "axis" and started evolution after he created all the different "base types" of animals?

----------


## moostraks

> Already stated in the earlier conversation.
> 
> _I think I've gone over this too many times already, but I'll do it once more. The central theme of Christianity is the death and resurrection of Christ to restore fallen humanity. If humanity is "evolving to a higher plane" then the whole "sacrifice on Calvary" is a bit redundant. And I'm not saying that Jesus wasn't also a spiritual guide. Rather that if we are evolving to a higher plane we would only need a spiritual guide. That's simply the way I see it. Others can see it another way._


Which still makes no sense as to how this negates evolution completely if one is to understand the spiritual being (soul) connected to the physical matter in mankind. Therefore if soul energy attaches, evolves, or  manifests within physical matter and that is what Jesus saves from 'death' by acceptance then how is this relevant to evolution? Or do you conceive of Jesus saving the body?

----------


## jmdrake

> WTF are you talking about?  Are you saying God knocked earth of its "axis" and started evolution after he created all the different "base types" of animals?


 Some people get mad when I use "rolleyes", but posts like this richly deserve it.  What I'm saying is that God realized the earth would change* after the fall and that the creatures He created needed the ability to adapt.  That's not such a difficult concept to understand.  And you are intelligent enough to understand it.

*getting tilted on its axis, perhaps from a comet strike or something else.  I've read 1 report of a slight orbital change just from the Haiti earthquake.

----------


## jmdrake

> Which still makes no sense as to how this negates evolution completely if one is to understand the spiritual being (soul) connected to the physical matter in mankind. Therefore if soul energy attaches, evolves, or  manifests within physical matter and that is what Jesus saves from 'death' by acceptance then how is this relevant to evolution? Or do you conceive of Jesus saving the body?


According to the Bible, man became a "living soul" after God's breath entered the body. (Genesis 2:7)

Further according to Ezekial 18:20 "The soul that sinneth shall die".  

But really, that's irrelevant.  As I've already pointed out, the Bible clearly teaches (in the new testament, not just in Genesis) that death is the result of sin.  If death wasn't a result of sin but just a natural part of God's creative process than not only is the new testament false, but Jesus' death to save from sin and from the penalty of sin (death) was unnecessary.  I don't know what else to say to explain it as this point is quite clear.  If you choose to believe something else that's fine.  It's a free country and you can believe whatever you want.

----------


## BenIsForRon

> Some people get mad when I use "rolleyes", but posts like this richly deserve it.  What I'm saying is that God realized the earth would change* after the fall and that the creatures He created needed the ability to adapt.  That's not such a difficult concept to understand.  And you are intelligent enough to understand it.
> 
> *getting tilted on its axis, perhaps from a comet strike or something else.  I've read 1 report of a slight orbital change just from the Haiti earthquake.


You're just pulling this out of your ass.  Where in the bible does it say this?  Where in evolutionary biology does it say this?  I can't wait to link to this thread next time we're in an AGW thread.

----------


## moostraks

> According to the Bible, man became a "living soul" after God's breath entered the body. (Genesis 2:7)
> 
> Further according to Ezekial 18:20 "The soul that sinneth shall die".  
> 
> But really, that's irrelevant.  As I've already pointed out, the Bible clearly teaches (in the new testament, not just in Genesis) that death is the result of sin.  If death wasn't a result of sin but just a natural part of God's creative process than not only is the new testament false, but Jesus' death to save from sin and from the penalty of sin (death) was unnecessary.  I don't know what else to say to explain it as this point is quite clear.  If you choose to believe something else that's fine.  It's a free country and you can believe whatever you want.


A simple story for a simple people with simple knowledge, a deeper meaning of spirtual truth that remains clear as knowledge grows. A man, a woman, creation in 6 days- a failing- a fall. You argue like a scientist that in order for the spiritual truth to be true one must accept the words as literal. I said it is irrelevant as it could be interpreted as being a simple story but the underlying meaning is true. The same conclusion but two different paths. You state mine has no relevance because for _you_ these verses must be true in order for Jesus' death to have meaning. 

You argue that the Creator must have man's fall avenged by a sacrifice. I argue that man must understand in his soul that reconciliation with our Creator comes at a cost and with sacrifice. We both believe in reconciliation through Jesus but from two totally different viewpoints. For you, with your understanding, it is mandatory that the story of Genesis be literal. 

Why would Jesus speak in parables if we were only to understand the meaning of deeper truths by speaking literally and specifically? Why would the greatest script writer on earth present Himself to the public on a speaking tour and then reach His audience in a completely different manner as if a ghost writer had posessed the knowledge He started His story off with?

He wanted us to get the knowledge in a manner in which we could grasp it and by using parables one is able to clearly grasp and relate to the knowledge He is trying to impart. By reducing it to arguing over semantics and belittling others for grasping the information differently you miss the forest and the tree...

Your choice of snippets of scripture taken out of context only go further to muddy the point. If one is to take literally the death through sin and then literally life through belief then we would not have physical death for those who believe. You are mixing the concept of physical death with soul death and asking for people to follow your train of logic as it leaps around.

----------


## micahnelson

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
      When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [b] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [c] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [d] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man [e] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. 

In this section we have a planet devoid of life, then waters formed. Then from the nonliving materials, a man was formed. After being formed, he was given life and a soul. Yeah- NO WAY anyone could think this was an ancient way of describing the evolutionary process of life. 

If you believe in literal interpretations, how about this....

Revelation 1:16a In His right hand He held seven stars, and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword;

Yar, Jesus is coming back like a pirate with a sword in his mouth. 

Oh and dispense with the dispensationalism. If you are going to take any part figuratively you might include the one that is easily disproven by even the most rudimentary application of logic.

----------


## jmdrake

> You're just pulling this out of your ass.  Where in the bible does it say this?  Where in evolutionary biology does it say this?  I can't wait to link to this thread next time we're in an AGW thread.


I hope you do link it to show your vulgarity and insincerity.  Where in the Bible does it say what?  That things change?  Try the story of the flood.  According to it there had never been rain before.  Anyone who isn't totally stupid would deduce that if it hadn't rained it hadn't snowed.  And if it hadn't snowed then there was absolutely positively no need for a polar bear before that.  And from an evolutionary biology point of view, there have been periods of earths where snow was a rarity and only in the highest elevations if at all.  So again, no need for a polar bear.  Lastly, at least I'm willing to admit my beliefs do rest in a measure of faith.  You believe fantastic nonsense and have the nerve to call it "science".  I'm still waiting for your explanation of global warming on planets besides earth.

----------


## jmdrake

If you believe the creation was "symbolic" then why do you think the crucifixion was "literal"?  Really, what on earth would be the point?  Why die a literal death for symbolism?  And while you might not like my Bible texts, you haven't provided *any* yourself.  Just some rambling statements about "grafted souls" and whatnot.  




> A simple story for a simple people with simple knowledge, a deeper meaning of spirtual truth that remains clear as knowledge 
> grows. A man, a woman, creation in 6 days- a failing- a fall. You argue like a scientist that in order for the spiritual truth to be true one must accept the words as literal. I said it is irrelevant as it could be interpreted as being a simple story but the underlying meaning is true. The same conclusion but two different paths. You state mine has no relevance because for _you_ these verses must be true in order for Jesus' death to have meaning. 
> 
> You argue that the Creator must have man's fall avenged by a sacrifice. I argue that man must understand in his soul that reconciliation with our Creator comes at a cost and with sacrifice. We both believe in reconciliation through Jesus but from two totally different viewpoints. For you, with your understanding, it is mandatory that the story of Genesis be literal. 
> 
> Why would Jesus speak in parables if we were only to understand the meaning of deeper truths by speaking literally and specifically? Why would the greatest script writer on earth present Himself to the public on a speaking tour and then reach His audience in a completely different manner as if a ghost writer had posessed the knowledge He started His story off with?
> 
> He wanted us to get the knowledge in a manner in which we could grasp it and by using parables one is able to clearly grasp and relate to the knowledge He is trying to impart. By reducing it to arguing over semantics and belittling others for grasping the information differently you miss the forest and the tree...
> 
> Your choice of snippets of scripture taken out of context only go further to muddy the point. If one is to take literally the death through sin and then literally life through belief then we would not have physical death for those who believe. You are mixing the concept of physical death with soul death and asking for people to follow your train of logic as it leaps around.

----------


## jmdrake

> Oh and dispense with the dispensationalism. If you are going to take any part figuratively you might include the one that is easily disproven by even the most rudimentary application of logic.


Once again, if you want to assume the crucifixion was "symbolic" also then fine, assume that.  But for Jesus to die a literal death to make some symbolic point is just pointless.  Also it's interesting that you (apparently) want to believe in the literally virgin birth, crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.  Why believe that if you think that everything in the Bible that sounds fantastic is "symbolic"?  Revelation is a prophetic book and all prophetic books are largely symbolic.  In fact in Daniel you even have angels explaining the symbolism to the prophet.  If you truly want to understand literal versus symbolic passages of the Bible I have a book I can recommend to you.

----------


## moostraks

> If you believe the creation was "symbolic" then why do you think the crucifixion was "literal"?  Really, what on earth would be the point?  Why die a literal death for symbolism?  That's just silly.  And while you might not like my Bible texts, you haven't provided *any* yourself.  Just some rambling babblings about "grafted souls" and whatnot.


It has to do with the level of comprehension and the time frame of which the events occured being closer to the time of written documentation.

Where did you get grafted souls from? If you are going to arrogantly dismiss me at least be accurate in your condescending remarks. You are the type of person that runs people away from Jesus' teachings because you hold so jealously onto your beliefs that any attempt to discuss them is reduce to snarky comments. Have you taken a hateful pill recently???

As for dying a literal death-*we* killed him due to our selfishness and arrogance because He challenged our paradigm. The religious institution was training us to keep them afloat and seperating us from our soul life. He died to save us from soul death. His death illuminates where our obsession with laws was driving us. His death was so we could embrace love instead of fear. His death was steeped in nuances that we could only begin to scratch the surface on imo and I hardly think it should be so easily reduced as most tracts do to John 3:16.

Riddle me this:"And as he was passing by, he saw a man blind from birth.  And his disciples asked him,  'Rabbi, who has sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?"  Jesus answered,  'Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents, but the works of God were to be made manifest in him.'" (John 9:1)

When did the man sin if he was born blind? Jesus doesn't call them fools for questioning the concept of sinning prior to his birth. Seems curious...

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, 
       before you were born I set you apart; 
       I appointed you as a prophet to the nations Jeremiah 1:5 (NIV)

So can the soul exist without a body? Does it exist prior to physical manifestation? Is the soul you possess a seperate identifiable being prior to you becoming your physical you that you know now? As such why does he not recall being this seperate being called for this great purpose if part of the plan is the current free will within this physical existence to live in the here and now?

I don't hold my knowledge of any matter except that which I have been directly a party to as being definative. I am not willing to destroy anyones path based upon my beliefs. I try to keep an open mind as to the possibilities that there may be more to the Book than we read at surface level. We each are called in the manner in which He sees fit and by staking claiming to definative understanding of events we were not a party to I believe we are in danger of challenging the Creators right to authority on the issue.

----------


## jmdrake

> It has to do with the level of comprehension and the time frame of which the events occured being closer to the time of written documentation.
> 
> Where did you get grafted souls from? If you are going to arrogantly dismiss me at least be accurate in your condescending remarks.


Oh brother.  If you are going to arrogantly accuse me of arrogance (which you have done repeatedly) at least have the decency to own up to your own words.  Earlier you said:

_Therefore if soul energy attaches_

Now here's the dictionary definition of the word "grafted".

_1 a : to cause (a scion) to unite with a stock; also : to unite (plants or scion and stock) to form a graft b : to propagate (a plant) by grafting
2 a : to join or unite as if by grafting b : to attach (a chemical unit) to a main molecular chain
3 : to implant (living tissue) surgically_





> You are the type of person that runs people away from Jesus' teachings because you hold so jealously onto your beliefs that any attempt to discuss them is reduce to snarky comments. Have you taken a hateful pill recently???


You know what?  You need to take a look in the mirror before you judge anyone else.  Seriously.  At each and every point in this thread I have ended with *THAT'S THE WAY I SEE IT!*  But that's not good enough for you is it?  Unless I agree with your point of view I'm being "hateful"?  Well enough!  If this turns you away from Jesus that's your problem.  I've been patient, respectful and repeatedly gone over my points as nicely as possible but you want to force your views on me.  Worse your doing it without any actual biblical reference.  Worse you attack me for using the Bible.  Worse you aren't even being honest about what you are saying.  I'm only responsible for telling the truth as I see it.  I'm not responsible for making you feel good about your own beliefs.  Believe what you want.  I really don't care.  Jesus said not to cast your pearls before swine, so consider me swine and keep your great wisdom.

----------


## sevin

this thread is still going?

----------


## jmdrake

> this thread is still going?


Yeah.  It's been taken over by theo-evolutionists.  Frankly I think I'm beginning to like atheists better.

----------


## BenIsForRon

> I hope you do link it to show your vulgarity and insincerity.  Where in the Bible does it say what?  That things change?  Try the story of the flood.  According to it there had never been rain before.  Anyone who isn't totally stupid would deduce that if it hadn't rained it hadn't snowed.  And if it hadn't snowed then there was absolutely positively no need for a polar bear before that.  And from an evolutionary biology point of view, there have been periods of earths where snow was a rarity and only in the highest elevations if at all.  So again, no need for a polar bear.  Lastly, at least I'm willing to admit my beliefs do rest in a measure of faith.  You believe fantastic nonsense and have the nerve to call it "science".  I'm still waiting for your explanation of global warming on planets besides earth.


So you're saying that polar bears evolved sometime in the past 5,000 years?  No where in science do they say a new species of bear can evolve that quickly.  Once again, pulling out of your ass.

At the risk of turning this into an AGW thread, mars is warming due to a changing tilt (it has no moon).

----------


## moostraks

> Oh brother.  If you are going to arrogantly accuse me of arrogance (which you have done repeatedly) at least have the decency to own up to your own words.  Earlier you said:
> 
> _Therefore if soul energy attaches_
> 
> Now here's the dictionary definition of the word "grafted".
> 
> _1 a : to cause (a scion) to unite with a stock; also : to unite (plants or scion and stock) to form a graft b : to propagate (a plant) by grafting
> 2 a : to join or unite as if by grafting b : to attach (a chemical unit) to a main molecular chain
> 3 : to implant (living tissue) surgically_
> ...


No your tone is mocking and derogatory. Considering the fact that we are speaking in an open forum with numerous view points I was being rather open ended in my terminology. You intentionally took my words and twisted them to be as derogatory about the concept as possible. Since I am not privy to the exact process by which soul energy is intertwined with physical matter I will stick with the possibility of numerous manners in which it occurs.  

Second, I am not turned away from Jesus but telling you that your attitude is what I have heard recounted numerous times by others who are fed up with the attitude such as you are giving to anyone who dares to challenge or even question your logic. It is this very attitude that drives people to dismiss the idea that the very thing Christians were supposed to value most is love. As for your attitude being not your problem if I turn away from Him you might want to read the Book of Mark more closely...specifically chapter 9.

Furthermore *you asked for scripture and I gave it to you* and you just dismiss any oppportunity to utilize your wisdom in an edifying manner but react as if I have pulled my views out of thin air. Why not attack the scripture you requested I present to substantiate my claim there is a possibility the soul exists prior to physical manifestation?

----------


## moostraks

> *According to the Bible*, man became a "living soul" after God's breath entered the body. (Genesis 2:7)
> 
> Further according to Ezekial 18:20 "The soul that sinneth shall die".  
> 
> But really, that's irrelevant.  *As I've already pointed out, the Bible clearly teaches* (in the new testament, not just in Genesis) that death is the result of sin.  If death wasn't a result of sin but just a natural part of God's creative process than not only is the new testament false, but Jesus' death to save from sin and from the penalty of sin (death) was unnecessary.  *I don't know what else to say to explain it as this point is quite clear.*  If you choose to believe something else that's fine.  It's a free country and you can believe whatever you want.


Case in point of not how you state as your opinion but how ignorant we are as it is clear (apparently to you) by the above^^^

This is not having a discussion. this is not offering an opinion. This is being a condescending individual who allows others to have an erroneous opinion while they remain above the situation looking down on us poor fools. Thanks...

----------


## TrayC

Videos about Kent Hovind and his son Eric, his cult followers DON'T want you to see

(Not all Christians are liars and creationists, but Kent & his son are)

YouTube - Eric Hovind's "Stupidity Minute" - Six Types of Evolution

YouTube - Eric Hovind's "Stupidity Minute" - How Big is Big?

YouTube - Eric Hovind's "Stupidity Minute" - Evolution Formula

YouTube - Eric Hovind's Stupidity Minute - The Age of the Earth

YouTube - Eric Hovind's "Stupidity Minute" - Noah's Flood

FrankRep, jmdrake, we're here to respond to your BS, why doesn't Eric Hovind himself have any scientific rebuttals? (Needless to say, if you have any, we're all ears)

----------


## TrayC

> Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
> 
> *- John Adams*


therefore non-religious, immoral people should not have citizenship, or be locked up? or be deported? What's your point?

----------


## TrayC

> So you're saying that polar bears evolved sometime in the past 5,000 years?  No where in science do they say a new species of bear can evolve that quickly.  Once again, pulling out of your ass.
> 
> At the risk of turning this into an AGW thread, mars is warming due to a changing tilt (it has no moon).


No, he believes polar bears were created by God, because evolution can't happen that quickly.

----------


## TrayC

> WTF are you talking about?  Are you saying God knocked earth of its "axis" and started evolution after he created all the different "base types" of animals?


he can't tell you how many basic types there are!

----------


## Flash

Question: if complex lifeforms need a creator, then wouldn't that mean God needed a creator?

Also, why do manatees have nails? Why do sea iguanas still have scales? You would think an intelligent Creator wouldn't give vestigial body parts to his creations.
I'm curious to know the creationist explanation.

----------


## Theocrat

> Question: if complex lifeforms need a creator, then wouldn't that mean God needed a creator?
> 
> Also, why do manatees have nails? Why do sea iguanas still have scales? You would think an intelligent Creator wouldn't give vestigial body parts to his creations.
> I'm curious to know the creationist explanation.


God, by definition, is uncreated because He is an eternal Being. He created time, so therefore, He is not subject to it (not having a beginning and an end). To ask who or what created God is a silly question, similar to asking if a triangle has four sides. Assuming you believe there is no God, we need to know what you mean when you use the term "God." And if your assumption is that God has to be created in order to exist, then I'm not surprised that you believe in God's nonexistence because *created gods are, by definition, nonexistent.* It is idolatry to presume God was created, and no Christian holds to that view. So you're just arguing against a strawman, and thus, your question is irrelevant.

Your second (false) assumption is that those features of the animals you listed have vestigial body parts. No creationist holds to the view that vestigial body parts exist, so it seems to me you're begging the question when you introduce the word "vestigial" into the argument (based on your own evolutionary assumptions). Maybe God gave them those features as an aesthetic quality of His own design. Just because two animals have similar features doesn't logically deduce that one came from another (especially when we don't observe it in nature). Correlation does not prove causation, after all. So, you have to give up the notion of vestigial organs/body parts if you wish to gain the creationist's perspective.

----------


## TrayC

> God, by definition, is uncreated because He is an eternal Being.


How convenient, by definition.

Then by what definition is the universe caused, created, finite, and uneternal?

----------


## TrayC

> Your second (false) assumption is that those features of the animals you listed have vestigial body parts. No creationist holds to the view that vestigial body parts exist, so it seems to me you're begging the question when you introduce the word "vestigial" into the argument (based on your own evolutionary assumptions). *Maybe God gave them those features as an aesthetic quality of His own design. 
> *


First, you don't know what vestigial means, it doesn't mean useless.

But thanks for having balls to say "it just is".





> *Just because two animals have similar features doesn't logically deduce that one came from another* (especially when we don't observe it in nature). Correlation does not prove causation, after all.


So we have no proof horses and zebras are related.
We have no proof sharks and goldfish are related. 
Then what DOES logically deduce one came from another, or are related by ancestry? 





> *So, you have to give up the notion of vestigial organs/body parts if you wish to gain the creationist's perspective.*


You have to give up what you learned in science to get the ignorant perspective.
Or, you have to forget how you were brainwashed to learn the truth (in the eye of the beholder).

----------


## Theocrat

> How convenient, by definition.
> 
> Then by what definition is the universe caused, created, finite, and uneternal?


God's revelation that He created the universe in six days. For a fuller definition of that (since we're now discussing matters of historical science, not forensic science), I recommend you start in the book of Genesis, Chapters 1-3.

----------


## TrayC

> Question: if complex lifeforms need a creator, then wouldn't that mean God needed a creator?
> 
> Also, why do manatees have nails? Why do sea iguanas still have scales? You would think an intelligent Creator wouldn't give vestigial body parts to his creations.
> I'm curious to know the creationist explanation.


This guy says it best!
YouTube - Questions for people who don't accept evolution.

----------


## TrayC

> God's revelation that He created the universe in six days. For a fuller definition of that (since we're now discussing matters of historical science, not forensic science), I recommend you start in the book of Genesis, Chapters 1-3.


Why is this revelation reliable? How do you know you interpreted it correctly?

Do you read literally every verse in the Bible literally? Or only cherry pick what's convenient for you? Where in the Bible does it say God is uncaused, infinite, eternal?

----------


## Theocrat

> First, you don't know what vestigial means, it doesn't mean useless.
> 
> But thanks for having balls to say "it just is".


There is no evidence that vestigial organs exist. No scientist has observed that in any organism, for it is an assumption not aided by the scientific method. It is a term used to explain how animals could have been connected to each other through evolutionary history. Evolutionists never stop to think that maybe the so-called vestigial organs prove common Designer, not common descent. But, it goes back to one's guiding presuppositions when they look at the raw data in nature.




> So we have no proof horses and zebras are related.
> We have no proof sharks and goldfish are related. 
> Then what DOES logically deduce one came from another, or are related by ancestry?


What would logically deduce that one came from another would be coupled with natural evidence through observation. We never see zebras evolving from horses. We never see goldfish evolving into sharks. We don't even have living transitional organisms between two organisms to suggest that. What you're describing when you correlate relationships between a horse and a zebra as well as a goldfish and a shark is better explained on a creationist's perspective that the two creatures were designed with similar traits.




> You have to give up what you learned in science to get the ignorant perspective.
> Or, you have to forget how you were brainwashed to learn the truth (in the eye of the beholder).


That is exactly what evolutionists are doing in the life and physical sciences today. They are making people turn away from the obvious (using all sorts of scientific jargon and theories to confuse the students) that things in nature have distinct and complex qualities about them which show a personal and consistent design by God. If you don't believe me, then take a look at this documentary:

YouTube - expelled no intelligence allowed (part 1of10) PL

If you don't bow down at the altar of Darwin, you will face the wrath of the scientific gulag today.

----------


## TrayC

> What would logically deduce that one came from another would be coupled with natural evidence through observation. We never see zebras evolving from horses. We never see goldfish evolving into sharks. We don't even have living transitional organisms between two organisms to suggest that. What you're describing when you correlate relationships between a horse and a zebra as well as a goldfish and a shark is better explained on a creationist's perspective that the two creatures were designed with similar traits.


so you admit horses and zebras, goldfish and sharks are UNRELATED AND CREATED SEPARATELY according to the creationist model?

Can you cite ONE creationist saying so on record scientifically?

----------


## TrayC

> That is exactly what evolutionists are doing in the life and physical sciences today. They are making people turn away from the obvious


elaborate please, what's obvious?




> (using all sorts of scientific jargon and theories to confuse the students) that things in nature have distinct and complex qualities about them which show a personal and consistent design by God. If you don't believe me, then take a look at this documentary:


using jargon is a matter of professionalism and education, your ignorance is no complaint that you don't understand things. 




> If you don't bow down at the altar of Darwin, you will face the wrath of the scientific gulag today.


how else are you supposed to react when you've repeatedly, through reason, science, and observation shown somebody is wrong, and they continue to lie, misrepresent and ignore?

if somebody kept asking why you don't accept 10x10=100, are you being a math gulag for censoring his opinion? NO, you're simply not giving patience or credence to their bull$#@!.

----------


## FrankRep

> so you admit horses and zebras, goldfish and sharks are UNRELATED AND CREATED SEPARATELY according to the creationist model?
> 
> Can you cite ONE creationist saying so on record scientifically?


Do you believe all life came from a rock?

----------


## Theocrat

> Why is this revelation reliable? How do you know you interpreted it correctly?
> 
> Do you read literally every verse in the Bible literally? Or only cherry pick what's convenient for you? Where in the Bible does it say God is uncaused, infinite, eternal?


God's revelation is relaible because what we experience and take for granted in our everyday lives comports with God's revelation of both man and the universe, which He both created. For instance, the use of the inductive principle, by which we take past experiences in nature (under the scientific method) and project them into future, unseen cases in nature is based on the Biblical account that when God created the universe, it "stood fast" (Psalm 33:9, among other verses). In other words, we rely on the uniformity of nature because God has regulated it with laws to make it "stand fast." A non-Christian worldview cannot account for why the universe is indeed uniform, especially given the evolutionary paradigm that things change, given enough time.

Sure, my interpretation of the Scriptures could be incorrect, but it would have to be corrected by the Scriptures using diligence and wisdom by God's Holy Spirit in Bible study and fellowship. That is why I, as a Christian, am called into a covenantal community with other believers to ensure my reading and understanding of the Bible is true and faithful, as much as God allows me to in my finite mind.

To give you some passages which prove God is uncaused, infinite, and eternal, let me refer you to a summary of those attributes as laid out by a historic Christian catechism, the Westminster Larger Catechism of 1647. This one has Scriptural proofs, beginning with Q. 6-12:

Westminster Larger Catechism

----------


## TrayC

> Do you believe all life came from a rock?


I believe all life came from a common ancestor, life started from non-life.

Only Kent Hovind says "life came from a rock", no scientist says so, it's a strawman.

*Have some balls to respond to the videos I posted, or can you only  take these cheap punches?*

In case anybody is interested, FrankRep repeatedly posts the same 3 sources
JBS, Kent Hovind, and his lover Chris (creationliberty on youtube) Can you guess why he's STOPPED posting his lover's videos?

Because he's stopped taking criticism YouTube - Why I've Removed Comments From Future Videos (and so has FrankRep)

I have little problem with JBS & TNA as far as political views, but I've posted why Kent Hovind is wrong, and as you see, Chris (creationliberty) only parrots somebody who is wrong. Frankrep (or theocrat, jmdrake for the matter) cannot and have not presented any scientific responses (yet they sit back and try to tell us evolution isn't science).

----------


## Flash

> God, by definition, is uncreated because He is an eternal Being. He created time, so therefore, He is not subject to it (not having a beginning and an end).


Okay so the Abrahamic god is an eternal and omnipotent being, however this still does not explain his becoming. How does one create time? I mean what would have there been before it? Just God living in a non-linear universe that decided to create time one day? It seems a little far-fetched and I would need to see evidence for his existence. 





> To ask who or what created God is a silly question,


I don't think it is because you're asking how this omnipotent all-knowing being came into being. Yet the Bible's only hint towards this would be in the New Testament (I believe at the beginning of the Gospel according to John) where it states "in the beginning there was the Word & God." And that doesn't really explain anything for me.  Now I'm not saying I'm an atheist, at this point in time, however I need to have more evidence of God than "he just was and is."





> Assuming you believe there is no God, we need to know what you mean when you use the term "God."


By God I mean the omnipotent all-powerful God that is mentioned in the Old & New Testaments. 




> And if your assumption is that God has to be created in order to exist, then I'm not surprised that you believe in God's nonexistence because *created gods are, by definition, nonexistent.* It is idolatry to presume God was created, and no Christian holds to that view.


I don't believe in creationism, so I don't think things need to be created by an intelligent designer in order to exist. However if there is an omnipotent God indeed in existence, then how did he come into being? How can something live without time is my question. 





> Your second (false) assumption is that those features of the animals you listed have vestigial body parts. No creationist holds to the view that vestigial body parts exist, so it seems to me you're begging the question when you introduce the word "vestigial" into the argument (based on your own evolutionary assumptions).


But what exact usage does the scaly skin of the marine iguana serve? It would make more sense for the Intelligent designer to give this iguana smooth skin to evade predators better by making it more aerodynamic. But this isn't the case, rather it seems this creature has scaly skin due to the fact its ancestor was only land-dwelling and had no need to have the skin of a seal. 

And a manatee, from my understanding, has no purpose for nails at all. In fact there are species of dugong that have no nails on their flippers (such as the amazonian manatee) almost as if this creature evolved to get rid of these useless body parts.

----------


## TrayC

> God's revelation is relaible because what we experience and take for granted in our everyday lives comports with God's revelation of both man and the universe, which He both created.


It also comports with a worldview that "things just are", and there's nothing supernatural that caused this.
If I can rely on my senses, I don't need God, if I cannot, nor can you.

----------


## Theocrat

> elaborate please, what's obvious?
> 
> 
> 
> using jargon is a matter of professionalism and education, your ignorance is no complaint that you don't understand things.


I posted the video to give you a visual example of what I'm referring to.




> how else are you supposed to react when you've repeatedly, through reason, science, and observation shown somebody is wrong, and they continue to lie, misrepresent and ignore?
> 
> if somebody kept asking why you don't accept 10x10=100, are you being a math gulag for censoring his opinion? NO, you're simply not giving patience or credence to their bull$#@!.


First of all, I think it's laughable that you believe evolution is based on reason, science, and observation. There are plenty of great scientists who do not accept evolution, but nonetheless, continue to use reason, science, and observation in their lives. So I find your comment to be a personal attack, not a rational response.

Second of all, we're not discussing mathematics here; we're talking about natural science. So your analogy is a false one. Just because I don't look at the evidence through Darwin's glasses does not make me a liar, misrepresenting the opposing theory, nor ignorant of it. Whatever happened to "thinking outside the box"? I thought most evolutionists were so-called "free-thinkers," but that becomes less of a truth whenever their precious theory is questioned by another school of thought.

No, they're just as zealous to defend Darwin's theory as they claim Christians are towards the creation account in the Bible. That's really the point. It's religion vs. religion, not science vs. religion.

----------


## TrayC

> I posted the video to give you a visual example of what I'm referring to.
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I think it's laughable that you believe evolution is based on reason, science, and observation.


It is.




> There are plenty of great scientists who do not accept evolution, but nonetheless, continue to use reason, science, and observation in their lives.


Yes, they use it in their lives, not everywhere.
They have zero research to back up their claims,they can't even they their definition of DESIGN OR CREATION straight (so how can they even defend it?)




> So I find your comment to be a personal attack, not a rational response.


Yes, it IS a personal attack, because not only are you not a scientist, you don't even know what you're attacking. 

I don't attack or hate all Christians, I hate ignorant liars and hypocrites and I make no apologies that I'll be hostile to them. 





> Second of all, we're not discussing mathematics here; we're talking about natural science. So your analogy is a false one.


By this logic, you can't make  the analogy of gulag.




> Just because I don't look at the evidence through Darwin's glasses does not make me a liar, misrepresenting the opposing theory, nor ignorant of it. Whatever happened to "thinking outside the box"? I thought most evolutionists were so-called "free-thinkers," but that becomes less of a truth whenever their precious theory is questioned by another school of thought.


yes, you ARE ignorant of it. 

Or else you'd know what is explainable by common ancestry (even to your own definition). 

"Thinking outside the box" is nice, but there are certain rules of science which make it what it is. The fact you exclude mathematics and philosophy from this discussion means you know the BOX has a limit. Science is not about free speech or opinions, it's about observation. 

"free thinkers" is a phrase for describing atheists in their lives and opinions, NOT science or evolution.




> No, they're just as zealous to defend Darwin's theory as they claim Christians are towards the creation account in the Bible. That's really the point. It's religion vs. religion, not science vs. religion.


should I be happy you're not saying it's science vs science?

----------


## Theocrat

> Okay so the Abrahamic god is an eternal and omnipotent being, however this still does not explain his becoming. How does one create time? I mean what would have there been before it? Just God living in a non-linear universe that decided to create time one day? It seems a little far-fetched and I would need to see evidence for his existence. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it is because you're asking how this omnipotent all-knowing being came into being. Yet the Bible's only hint towards this would be in the New Testament (I believe at the beginning of the Gospel according to John) where it states "in the beginning there was the Word & God." And that doesn't really explain anything for me.  Now I'm not saying I'm an atheist, at this point in time, however I need to have more evidence of God than "he just was and is."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All of your questions about God "becoming," "what was before time," "God creating time one day," etc. all assume the very thing I was arguing against concerning false assumptions of God's nature. They assume causality of God, which I explained is nonsensical due to God's inherent eternal nature.

It may be hard for you to grasp the concept of there being no time, but it's only because we are created subject to it in our finite minds. I, too, have struggled with the concept of no time, but that is why God is God. We, in this lifetime, cannot fathom the complete understanding of the facets of His being. That should not lead one to the conclusion, however, that God can't be eternal.

I'm sorry if you find that response unacceptable, but you are not the final authority for what God's character and nature is. He is, as He has expounded in His word.





> But what exact usage does the scaly skin of the marine iguana serve? It would make more sense for the Intelligent designer to give this iguana smooth skin to evade predators better by making it more aerodynamic. But this isn't the case, rather it seems this creature has scaly skin due to the fact its ancestor was only land-dwelling and had no need to have the skin of a seal. 
> 
> And a manatee, from my understanding, has no purpose for nails at all. In fact there are species of dugong that have no nails on their flippers (such as the amazonian manatee) almost as if this creature evolved to get rid of these useless body parts.


It's not up to you to determine what the full utility of anatomic structures should be. Do you see what you're doing? You're imposing your personal tastes upon God's own chosen design for His own creatures. It's like examining a house and concluding that it was not designed because you think the kitchen would be better utilized if it weren't so close to the bathroom. Personal tastes are no substitute for answering the question of whether something was designed. Therefore, I find your argument of the possibility for why vestigial organs exist to be irrelevant and relative.

----------


## TrayC

> All of your questions about God "becoming," "what was before time," "God creating time one day," etc. all assume the very thing I was arguing against concerning false assumptions of God's nature. They assume causality of God, which I explained is nonsensical due to God's inherent eternal nature.


and we don't assume what you assume, end of story.

----------


## Theocrat

> yes, you ARE ignorant of it. 
> 
> Or else you'd know what is explainable by common ancestry (even to your own definition). 
> 
> "Thinking outside the box" is nice, but there are certain rules of science which make it what it is. The fact you exclude mathematics and philosophy from this discussion means you know the BOX has a limit. Science is not about free speech or opinions, it's about observation. 
> 
> "free thinkers" is a phrase for describing atheists in their lives and opinions, NOT science or evolution.
> 
> 
> ...


I understand pretty well the ideas of common ancestry. I just don't agree with their underlying assumptions. I think there is a better way to explain the similarities amongst living things.

Touching on my "excluding mathematics and philosophy from the discussion," I simply stated that your analogy didn't hold because we never were discussing whether 1+1=2 or anything like that.

When I said "thinking outside the box," I was referring to an attitude that, in the natural sciences, we should always be willing to consider the evidences no matter where they lie, even if they go against our own theories. It's been demonstrated many times in the life sciences that Darwin's theory cannot explain the complexity and formulation of something as small as a cell, for instance. Yet, when a creationist or IDer comes up with their explanations or evidences for why that is the case, the evolutionists do not even listen to the opposing side. Instead, they ridicule, threaten, and everything else hateful.

This gets to the philosophical point. I said it's religion vs. religion because both creationists and evolutionists have assumptions they bring to the table when examining and proving their theories about what the raw data suggests. Those assumptions are philosophical in nature, deriving either from naturalism or supernaturalism as true from the start, based on a network of beliefs unaided by empirical methods. Yet, evolutionists, to their own ignorance, fail to see their own religious character when they accept the evidences which favor their theory at the rejection of others.

----------


## FrankRep

> Do you believe all life came from a rock?





> I believe all life came from a common ancestor, life started from non-life.


Life started from non-life? 

Non-life, like a Rock?

----------


## TrayC

> Life started from non-life?


Yes. Life had a beginning.

Life didn't start from nothing though, and just because I don't know all the details doesn't mean you're right.




> Non-life, like a Rock?


*PLEASE CITE ONE SCIENTIST SAY SUCH A THING.*
As far as I know, only Hovind made the claim.

Still hiding from the fact I posted videos pwning your friends Chris, Kent, Eric?
At least Theocrat has more to say!

----------


## TrayC

> I understand pretty well the ideas of common ancestry. I just don't agree with their underlying assumptions. I think there is a better way to explain the similarities amongst living things.


you do? So how many distinct kinds were created?

You said zebras and horses are distincted and not related, correct?

----------


## Theocrat

> you do? So how many distinct kinds were created?
> 
> You said zebras and horses are distincted and not related, correct?


I don't know how many distinct kinds were created, although I've heard some creationists postulate that about 8,000 kinds were there in the beginning.

I would say horses and zebras are related in the same kind of animal. I would not say that a zebra evolved from a horse, though. Within kinds of animals, there is variability in size, shape, color, etc. Their genetic coding allows for that. So I see a horse and a zebra as having those traits of variability while remaining the same kind of animal (horse-kind, if you will).

----------


## TrayC

> I don't know how many distinct kinds were created, although I've heard some creationists postulate that about 8,000 kinds were there in the beginning.
> 
> I would say horses and zebras are related in the same kind of animal. I would not say that a zebra evolved from a horse, though. Within kinds of animals, there is variability in size, shape, color, etc. Their genetic coding allows for that. So I see a horse and a zebra as having those traits of variability while remaining the same kind of animal (horse-kind, if you will).


On what basis do you say they are the same kind? Just because they look alike?

I thought you said they must be observed to have come from one another!

Or must they be able to bring forth viable offspring?

----------


## Theocrat

> On what basis do you say they are the same kind? Just because they look alike?
> 
> I thought you said they must be observed to have come from one another!
> 
> Or must they be able to bring forth viable offspring?


On a very elementary level, yes, it would be based on observation that they look alike. However, we also know that horses can breed with zebras (based on observation), so I would say that's a defining characteristic of their being of the same kind.

The one thing we've never observed is something like an elephant-kind evolving into a horse-kind. There are no living transitional creatures to show us that, for starters. All evolutionists can do to postulate similar ancestry is point to some bones in the dirt, which they've never seen alive.

----------


## TrayC

> On a very elementary level, yes, it would be based on observation that they look alike. However, we also know that horses can breed with zebras (based on observation), so I would say that's a defining characteristic of their being of the same kind.


No, we don't know that.

Not only have you never observed it happen, but there is no evidence every breed of horse is able to breed and reproduce  with zebras. 

If I were to name a horse breed unable to reproduce offspring with zebras, would you say "that's not the same kind"? or "even though they can't mate, they're still the same kind"?





> The one thing we've never observed is something like an elephant-kind evolving into a horse-kind.


No need to run ahead of yourself, let's get your definition of horse kind straight first. 





> There are no living transitional creatures to show us that, for starters. All evolutionists can do to postulate similar ancestry is point to some bones in the dirt, which they've never seen alive.


I agree. You've never seen a zebra come from a non-zebra (nor have you seen a transitional species from a non-zebra to a zebra), so it's gotta be created by God.

----------


## FrankRep

> I agree. You've never seen a zebra come from a non-zebra (nor have you seen a transitional species from a non-zebra to a zebra), so it's gotta be created by God.


(Yeah, you are Pwned)

Horse and a Zebra are the same Kind of Animal.  




*Meet Eclyse - the amazing zebra crossing*

Daily Mail UK
28 June 2007

Her father is a zebra, while her mother is a horse.


*SOURCE:*
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-crossing.html

----------


## TrayC

> (Yeah, you are Pwned)
> 
> Horse and a Zebra are the same Kind of Animal.


You didn't answer my question, what you're showing is a crossbreed FROM a zebra.

Is this still a zebra? If so, you've not shown a non-zebra come from a zebra. 
Nor have you shown what zebras come from. Saying they're the same kind doesn't make it so. 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equus_%28genus%29

Are all Equus able to interbreed?
*
I never doubted SOME can, can they ALL?*

By the way, you never cited me EVEN ONE source outside of Dr. Hovind that "evolutionists believe life came from a rock"
Do you agree  with theocrat there's about 8000 "kinds"?
Are sharks and goldfish related?

*As all can see, FrankRep doesn't answer the tough questions.* He jumped up to post a picture of a crossbreed between a horse and a zebra, like I never questioned it could happen, *I questioned HOW MANY BREEDS OF HORSES CAN (AND HE DOESN'T KNOW, BUT HE'S AFRAID TO TELL YOU THAT)*

----------


## FrankRep

> By the way, you never cited me EVEN ONE source outside of Dr. Hovind that "evolutionists believe life came from a rock"


Evolutionists believe Life was created from Non-Life, correct? 

Non-Life: Rocks and Rain Water.

----------


## TrayC

> Evolutionists believe Life was created from Non-Life, correct? 
> 
> Non-Life: Rocks and Rain Water.


nope, evolutionists don't believe life was CREATED at all (unless you have a definition of CREATED I am not familiar with)

CITE IT
(you can't, you can only keep putting words in people's mouths)

Since when did "non-life" equate to rocks and rain water?

*(anybody interested, go look at FrankRep's public profile, if you don't see the messages I left him he's hiding because he's ashamed of something!)*

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

Jacksonville Florida zoo...a donkey mated with a zebra...it was a donkey with striped legs...they called it a Donzee.  

I have found it is useless to argue Christianity with atheists...they always try to analyze it physically which can't be done because God is Metaphysical...it's all a right brain spiritual happening.  TONES

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

The word derives from the Greek words μετά (metá) (meaning "beyond" or "after") and φυσικά (physiká) (meaning "physical"), "physical" referring to those works on matter by Aristotle in antiquity. The prefix meta- ("beyond") was attached to the chapters in Aristotle's work that physically followed after the chapters on "physics," in posthumously edited collections. Aristotle himself did not call these works Metaphysics. Aristotle called some of the subjects treated there "first philosophy."

Metaphysics - beyond the physical

----------


## TrayC

> Jacksonville Florida zoo...a donkey mated with a zebra...it was a donkey with striped legs...they called it a Donzee.


Donkeys are only ONE subset of Equus, this is no proof that the evolutionist classification of Equus mean anything, can you say all Equus are capable of breeding to produce offspring?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equus_%28genus%29




> I have found it is useless to argue Christianity with atheists...they always try to analyze it physically which can't be done because God is Metaphysical...it's all a right brain spiritual happening.  TONES


So do you admit looking solely at material and physical, God doesn't exist?

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

No I am a christian.  I don't believe the earth is only six thousand years old but I don't get hung up on the religion vs science arguments.  I believe God gave us science as a survival tool.  All things come from God.  In Jesus name, Amen.  Tones

----------


## BenIsForRon

> Evolutionists believe Life was created from Non-Life, correct? 
> 
> Non-Life: Rocks and Rain Water.


Or ocean water.  There are a few different scenarios under which life may have arisen.  Ocean vents were hot and contained enough organic chemicals, and the energy-rich atmosphere may have allowed for it as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Educate yourself.

----------


## FrankRep

TrayC is being Willingly Ignorant. 

AKA: Dumb on purpose.

----------


## TrayC

> TrayC is being Willingly Ignorant. 
> 
> AKA: Dumb on purpose.


again, you cite Kent Hovind, NO SCIENTIFIC REFERENCE AS TO WHO EVER SAID "LIFE CAME FROM A ROCK"

and _I am_ the "willingly ignorant" one?

_(if you simply admit "I trust Kent Hovind, and not scientists", I'll let you off, but calling me willingly ignorant when you can't even cite scientific data, studies or answer questions you claim to know more about? Gotta be kidding me!)_

you gave me a video of Hovind saying "atheists & evolutionists don't want to be held accountable to God", he's not wrong, I agree, and YOU don't want to be accountable to man & man's laws *(but if I were to ask you what laws you break to follow God's laws, you won't dare answer, because you're afraid of man's prisons)*

This guy even made up his own inferences about how God "simply spoke" and things just happened  (no evidence, just his words).

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

Ron Paul is a Christian...he has said it over and over.  Why are some of you in denial about that?  tones

----------


## TrayC

> Ron Paul is a Christian...he has said it over and over.  Why are some of you in denial about that?  tones


I never denied Ron Paul is a Christian, I know he's most likely a creationist too.

So is Pat Buchanan (he's a Catholic creationist).

Not all Christians are the same, many I know are good people, all my attacks on FrankRep and theocrat are PERSONAL and not intended for other Christians (I simply have no patience for lies and hypocrisy).

----------


## FrankRep

*Harun Yahya International

Darwin, Evolution, And The Real Foundation of Communism*

YouTube - Darwin, Evolution, And The Real Foundation of Communism P1/2

YouTube - Darwin, Evolution, And The Real Foundation of Communism P2/2

----------


## TrayC

> [B]Harun Yahya International


Do you mind first explaining in a brief sentence why this is relevant, and why you'd rather not answer my questions???

Why should I watch another video when you can't even defend the ones you've posted?

*I asked you to CITE ONE SCIENTIST WHO EVER CLAIMS "LIFE CAME FROM A ROCK"* but you've been silent. you are so embarassed that I exposed you you can't even allow me to post visitor messages on your profile. Seems like you even disabled it altogether to avoid me.

*are you SO INSECURE ABOUT YOUR BELIEFS?*

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

I do agree that evolution is one of the foundations of communism..or at least was used by the communists to try to destroy religion .  They want you to look to the STATE as your religion.  Communists are usually atheists you know.  Religion was forbidden in russia and probably is forbidden in Red China.  tones

----------


## Pennsylvania

I challenge anyone to explain how socialism or communism has more in common with biological evolution than free markets. Good luck.

I have no idea why people are always so intent on drawing all sorts of analogies to evolution. It is a description, not a presciption. Anyone who believes otherwise is severely lacking in scientific education.

----------


## jmdrake

> So you're saying that polar bears evolved sometime in the past 5,000 years?  No where in science do they say a new species of bear can evolve that quickly.  Once again, pulling out of your ass.


Let's see.  You already know I don't buy the theory of evolution as written.  You asked my position as based on the Bible.  I gave it to you.  And now you're back to "science says such and such"?  Are you really that logically challenged?  I already know the answer to that.  You are.  Also polar and grizzly bears aren't as far removed as you are trying to claim.  There are polar / grizzly hybrids.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly...ar_bear_hybrid




> At the risk of turning this into an AGW thread, mars is warming due to a changing tilt (it has no moon).


Major fail on your part.  Jupiter has moons.  That's why I specifically mentioned Jupiter.  And I'm pretty certain I've pointed this out to you before.

----------


## jmdrake

> Case in point of not how you state as your opinion but how ignorant we are as it is clear (apparently to you) by the above^^^
> 
> This is not having a discussion. this is not offering an opinion. This is being a condescending individual who allows others to have an erroneous opinion while they remain above the situation looking down on us poor fools. Thanks...


You are the one being condescending.  Because I haven't elevated your opinion to be equal to or above scripture *on the topic of Jesus Christ* you have not ceased to attack and insult me.  That's ok.  Jesus said people like you would do that.  He had to deal with those who would set the "traditions of men" above the word of God.  When I gave you a scriptural reference you dismissed it as a "simple story for a simple people".  And you don't think that's being condescending on your part?  There is a parable in the Bible.

_ For seven women will take hold of one man in that day, saying, "We will eat our own bread and wear our own clothes, only let us be called by your name ; take away our reproach !"_

Women in the Bible represent churches.  Wanting to "wear our own clothes" represents people wanting to have their own wisdom.  We live in a day where people want to call themselves Christians, yet they want to substitute their own wisdom for the "simple stories written for simple people" in the Bible.  Well, like I said, you can do what you want.  But it's dishonest of you to call me "condescending" just because I don't agree.

----------


## jmdrake

> I challenge anyone to explain how socialism or communism has more in common with biological evolution than free markets. Good luck.
> 
> I have no idea why people are always so intent on drawing all sorts of analogies to evolution. It is a description, not a presciption. Anyone who believes otherwise is severely lacking in scientific education.


The connection of communism to atheism is this.  Communism requires people to have "faith in the state".  Before someone can generally have "faith in the state" their faith in everything else must be destroyed.  You can have atheism without communism.  But communism requires the "weed killer" of atheism to flourish.  Sure you will find some Christian atheists, just like you will occasionally find weeds in a well kept garden.

----------


## Pennsylvania

> The connection of communism to atheism is this.  Communism requires people to have "faith in the state".  Before someone can generally have "faith in the state" their faith in everything else must be destroyed.  You can have atheism without communism.  But communism requires the "weed killer" of atheism to flourish.  Sure you will find some Christian atheists, just like you will occasionally find weeds in a well kept garden.


Well, I am referring to evolution, not atheism in particular. I don't believe evolution is inherently atheistic. 

Marx believed that societies evolve (we may say this is true in a very liberal sense), yet he believed in a final phase which would require no further societal evolution (i.e. stateless communism). I don't see how this is consistent with biological evolution, which has no direction, and no goal.

----------


## BenIsForRon

> Let's see.  You already know I don't buy the theory of evolution as written.  You asked my position as based on the Bible.  I gave it to you.  And now you're back to "science says such and such"?  Are you really that logically challenged?  I already know the answer to that.  You are.  Also polar and grizzly bears aren't as far removed as you are trying to claim.  There are polar / grizzly hybrids.


I say that because you obviously take some things from modern science with regards to evolution, like the moth story.  You should understand that the speciation of the polar bear and grizzly bear took much longer than in the days since Noah was alive.  You're picking and choosing aspects of evolution to believe in for arbitrary reasons.  You have your own theory of evolution based on nothing but your own attempt to reconcile the science vs "what the bible say".

And you call us sheep.  You're in flat out denial.  You're so good at arguing on the internet, though, that you've convinced yourself that you have some sort of case here.

----------


## jmdrake

> I say that because you obviously take some things from modern science with regards to evolution, like the moth story.  You should understand that the speciation of the polar bear and grizzly bear took much longer than in the days since Noah was alive.


Except "speciation" of the polar bear and grizzly bear to the point where they cannot mate naturally has not occurred.  See the link I posted.  Also you were the one that asked about my position with regards to the Bible and now you are backtracking and making the point that I don't totally agree with the "science" of evolution which is kind of redundant because if I did buy that "science" hook line an sinker we wouldn't even be having this argument would we?  And I bet you don't even see your own logical inconsistency on that do you?




> And you call us sheep.  You're in flat out denial.  You're so good at arguing on the internet, though, that you've convinced yourself that you have some sort of case here.


Still waiting for you to explain why global warming happened on Jupiter which has a moon just like earth.  You're just going to pretend that part of the conversation didn't happen?

----------


## TrayC

> I challenge anyone to explain how socialism or communism has more in common with biological evolution than free markets. Good luck.


And I challenge anybody to explain (especially when they're not a Randian or individualist), how Nazism (racist) and communism (anti-racist) can both be attributed to evolution (unless of course evolution is correct, like gravity).

Kent Hovind is against both capitalism and communism (but never says what he is FOR in terms of economics)




> I have no idea why people are always so intent on drawing all sorts of analogies to evolution. *It is a description, not a presciption.* Anyone who believes otherwise is severely lacking in scientific education.


because they're mostly moralist Christians who wish to push their religious views of morality on others (prescription), so they have to say "your prescription is wrong" to begin the conversation.

----------


## TrayC

> Still waiting for you to explain why global warming happened on Jupiter which has a moon just like earth.  You're just going to pretend that part of the conversation didn't happen?


pick on somebody your own size!

----------


## jmdrake

> And I challenge anybody to explain (especially when they're not a Randian or individualist), how Nazism (racist) and communism (anti-racist) can both be attributed to evolution (unless of course evolution is correct, like gravity).
> 
> Kent Hovind is against both capitalism and communism (but never says what he is FOR in terms of economics)
> 
> 
> 
> because they're mostly moralist Christians who wish to push their religious views of morality on others (prescription), so they have to say "your prescription is wrong" to begin the conversation.


How is communism "anti racist"?  Didn't Stalin oppress minorities just as much as Hitler did?

----------


## TrayC

> Sure you will find some Christian atheists, just like you will occasionally find weeds in a well kept garden.


(sure you'll find Christians who disagree with me, but that's when they're wrong and I'm right!)

I'll find Christian communists and Christian anti-capitalists before i find any Christian atheists.

----------


## jmdrake

> pick on somebody your own size!


lol

----------


## TrayC

> How is communism "anti racist"?  Stalin oppressed minorities just as badly as Hitler did.


Communism isn't anti-racist? Then why do they hate each other?

Did Marx support racism?

Stalin wasn't exactly pro-evolution, since he supported Lysenko, who rejected Mendelian genetics, and supported Lamarckism.

----------


## jmdrake

> (sure you'll find Christians who disagree with me, but that's when they're wrong and I'm right!)
> 
> I'll find Christian communists and Christian anti-capitalists before i find any Christian atheists.


Typo.  I meant to say "Christian communists".  If anybody needed proof that I'm not perfect....

----------


## TrayC

> lol


help me bash your fellow Christian friend FrankRep, who INDEED got his butt kicked and pretends like I never asked him the questions he can't answer.

He even went so far as to hide his visitor messages. Are you for truth & honesty? Or only when your Christian friends win?

----------


## TrayC

> Typo.  I meant to say "Christian communists".  If anybody needed proof that I'm not perfect....


forgiven.

----------


## jmdrake

> Communism isn't anti-racist? Then why do they hate each other?
> 
> Did Marx support racism?


I don't know.  The American Nazi party and the KKK used to hate each other.

I'm not sure if Marx was racist.  He might not have been.  But the term "anti-racist" seems stronger than simply "not racist" as in "someone espousing a philosophy against racism".  Did Marx have anything condemning racism in his writings?

----------


## jmdrake

> help me bash your fellow Christian friend FrankRep, who INDEED got his butt kicked and pretends like I never asked him the questions he can't answer.
> 
> He even went so far as to hide his visitor messages. Are you for truth & honesty? Or only when your Christian friends win?


You need help?  There aren't enough atheists attacking FrankRep already?

----------


## TrayC

> You need help?  There aren't enough atheists attacking FrankRep already?


you're more credible to him

----------


## TrayC

> I don't know.  The American Nazi party and the KKK used to hate each other.


Fair enough, that was based on foundational and ideological details. 





> I'm not sure if Marx was racist.  He might not have been.  But the term "anti-racist" seems stronger than simply "not racist" as in "someone espousing a philosophy against racism".  Did Marx have anything condemning racism in his writings?


I can't say I have a citation of him specifically saying "racism is wrong and I oppose it" but, from what I read by him or about him, he's focused a lot on class, and how racism divides people (and it didn't sound like he was for such a division if he was for any division at all).

http://academic.evergreen.edu/b/bohmerp/marxracism.htm

----------


## FrankRep

> help me bash your fellow Christian friend FrankRep, who INDEED got his butt kicked and pretends like I never asked him the questions he can't answer.
> 
> He even went so far as to hide his visitor messages. Are you for truth & honesty? Or only when your Christian friends win?



How did I get my butt kicked? I can just post your Racist comments you sent to me. Remember what you called Black people? 

You support Evolution because you're a White Racist.

----------


## TrayC

> How did I get my butt kicked?


You couldn't answer my questions. That's why you're embarrassed to keep those visitor messages on your profile! 




> I can just post your Racist comments you sent to me. Remember what you called Black people? 
> 
> You support Evolution because you're a White Racist.


post them! 

I support evolution because it's scientifically sound. (and you've shown nothing to dispute it, you can't even *CITE ONE SOURCE OUTSIDE OF HOVIND THAT CLAIMS "LIFE CAME FROM A ROCK")*

----------


## FrankRep

> You couldn't answer my questions. That's why you're embarrassed to keep those visitor messages on your profile!


Your silly harassments were getting annoying and I ignored your childish attacks.  





> post them! 
> 
> I support evolution because it's scientifically sound.


TrayC, your Racist beliefs aren't scientifically sound. Sorry.

----------


## TrayC

> Your silly harassments were getting annoying and I ignored your childish attacks.


What you can't answer, you call harassment. 

What's beyond your comprehension, you call "childish"







> TrayC, your Racist beliefs aren't scientifically sound. Sorry.


What are my racist beliefs (and how are they not scientifically sound)? What do I call black people that I don't call white people? 
Besides, we weren't talking about me or my beliefs, we're talking about EVOLUTION BEING SCIENTIFIC.
You're afraid to defend your beliefs, so you sit back and say "you said this and you're wrong" but you never say your own position or defend it scientifically. 

Your accusations of me being "willingly ignorant" are not scientifically sound.
Your claim that "life came from a rock" can't even cited.
Your claim that horses and zebras are the same "kind"  can't be defined.

*HAVE YOU MADE EVEN ONE SCIENTIFICALLY DEFENSIBLE CLAIM IN THIS THREAD?*
(no need to "sorry" me, you're the one who's losing your ground)

----------


## Flash

> It may be hard for you to grasp the concept of there being no time, but it's only because we are created subject to it in our finite minds. I, too, have struggled with the concept of no time, but that is why God is God. We, in this lifetime, cannot fathom the complete understanding of the facets of His being. That should not lead one to the conclusion, however, that God can't be eternal.
> 
> I'm sorry if you find that response unacceptable, but you are not the final authority for what God's character and nature is. He is, as He has expounded in His word.
> 
> 
> It's not up to you to determine what the full utility of anatomic structures should be. Do you see what you're doing? You're imposing your personal tastes upon God's own chosen design for His own creatures. It's like examining a house and concluding that it was not designed because you think the kitchen would be better utilized if it weren't so close to the bathroom. Personal tastes are no substitute for answering the question of whether something was designed. Therefore, I find your argument of the possibility for why vestigial organs exist to be irrelevant and relative.



Well this may be your opinion but you can clearly see why I can't accept this. Your argument basically boils down to, _"There is no vestigial parts in an animal's body and every imperfection is designed by God rather than being leftovers by evolution._" But in my opinion, it seems like all these special anatomic "God-Designed" coincidentally correlate with Darwiniam theory. For example, I would say the whale has lungs and not gills for the simple reason that it evolved from a land mammal and is not yet suited for a full-aquatic environment. You or other Creationists would claim God gave this creature lungs just for the fun of it. I think its way too coincidental. Same goes for Seals, Seal lions, manatees. 

Now as for a god or omnipotent being living without time and creating time. I would need scientific evidence to prove such a theory or else I can't believe it. 

I'll break it down like this, in order to believe in Creationism I must have evidence:

1) That God exists and theres only one true god and thats the abrahamic god. Or more specifically the abrahamic god referred to in the Bible. 

2) Proof vestigial parts in the body of animals is there for god's pleasure rather than being evolutionary links to the animal's past. 

3) Explanation on imperfection. Is this god a demiurge of some sort? How come most animals on this planet don't fit in their niche perfectly? Evolution explains it perfectly. Creationism, however, lacks an official explanation other than "God willed it that way."

----------


## BenIsForRon

> Except "speciation" of the polar bear and grizzly bear to the point where they cannot mate naturally has not occurred.  See the link I posted.  Also you were the one that asked about my position with regards to the Bible and now you are backtracking and making the point that I don't totally agree with the "science" of evolution which is kind of redundant because if I did buy that "science" hook line an sinker we wouldn't even be having this argument would we?  And I bet you don't even see your own logical inconsistency on that do you?


You are truly sad.  I'm the one who's logically inconsistent?  All of your recent posts have been complete dodges.  

You don't get to pick which science is valid for arbitrary and personal reasons. My point is valid.  You're suggesting that Polar bears and Grizzly Bears diverged in the past 5,000 years, which you know is bull$#@!.  You know it's bull$#@!, because we would be able to see it in the fossil record.






> Still waiting for you to explain why global warming happened on Jupiter which has a moon just like earth.  You're just going to pretend that part of the conversation didn't happen?


I'm starting another thread for this.  This will be my permanent "see, JM Drake is a dumbass" thread.

----------


## RedStripe

> I'm starting another thread for this.  This will be my permanent "see, JM Drake is a dumbass" thread.


As if there weren't enough already lmao

----------


## jmdrake

> You are truly sad.  I'm the one who's logically inconsistent?  All of your recent posts have been complete dodges.  
> 
> You don't get to pick which science is valid for arbitrary and personal reasons. My point is valid.  You're suggesting that Polar bears and Grizzly Bears diverged in the past 5,000 years, which you know is bull$#@!.  You know it's bull$#@!, because we would be able to see it in the fossil record.


No.  You are the one being logically inconsistent and you know it.  Are starting point is that I don't agree 100% with all of the "scientific" claims of evolution.  And your "proof" of my being "inconsistent" is my very consistency.  Also as I pointed out, grizzlies and polars aren't as far apart as you are pretending they are.  

Again:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly...ar_bear_hybrid

Your debate technique is ignore what doesn't fit what you want to believe and try to twist what the other side is saying to the absurd.  Anyone with a middle school education or better can blow right through your nonsense. 





> I'm starting another thread for this.  This will be my permanent "see, JM Drake is a dumbass" thread.


Your other thread just shows how much of a failure you are.

----------


## jmdrake

> As if there weren't enough already lmao


So says the guy who's against private property but participates in a forum based on private property rights.  I'm still waiting for you to explain how your new private property regime will "emerge" under your socialist regime.

Edit: For those who might wonder what I'm talking about, here's earlier conversation with *red*stripe.  (Emphasis on "red" added by me).




> Ok. What's your plan for protecting property rights. I have a house my wife and I built. My parents own property that was passed down through several generations. Should we all be able to keep that property or no? What mechanism do you propose since you seem to be so against the current one?
> 			
> 		
> 
> I'm not advocating a particular mechanism - I believe that the mechanisms by which rules determining the use and possession are created will themselves arise and evolve in the void left by a retreating state.  I believe that mechanisms not founded on state power will be less likely to have a bias towards the interests of the ruling class.

----------


## BenIsForRon

> No.  You are the one being logically inconsistent and you know it.  Are starting point is that I don't agree 100% with all of the "scientific" claims of evolution.  And your "proof" of my being "inconsistent" is my very consistency.  Also as I pointed out, grizzlies and polars aren't as far apart as you are pretending they are.


They can hybridize... therefore they separated from a common ancestor within the past 5,000 years?  Most bears have an average lifespan of 20-30 years.  So you're saying we got grizzly bears and polar bears in 200 generations.  Sorry, to get two species like that, you're going to need a lot more time.

Your reasoning is completely arbitrary.  You don't believe in evolution if it was between different "types", yet you believe evolution within a family of large land mammals is impossibly fast.  You have no basis for that thought, at all.

----------


## sevin

> Videos about Kent Hovind and his son Eric, his cult followers DON'T want you to see
> 
> (Not all Christians are liars and creationists, but Kent & his son are)
> 
> YouTube - Eric Hovind's Stupidity Minute - The Age of the Earth


Those videos are awesome, especially this one.

----------


## jmdrake

> They can hybridize... therefore they separated from a common ancestor within the past 5,000 years?  Most bears have an average lifespan of 20-30 years.  So you're saying we got grizzly bears and polar bears in 200 generations.  Sorry, to get two species like that, you're going to need a lot more time.
> 
> Your reasoning is completely arbitrary.  You don't believe in evolution if it was between different "types", yet you believe evolution within a family of large land mammals is impossibly fast.  You have no basis for that thought, at all.


Your reasoning is completely dishonest.  I've had the same position all along.  We've talked about this before.  And yet all of a sudden you want to act like you are *shocked* about my position on polar versus grizzly bears.  You're like Nancy Pelosi being *shocked* about torture when she saw the photos long before the story broke.

Here's the bottom line.  You accept what a "majority" of scientists say on just about everything, and I don't.  That's why you accept evolution hook line and sinker and that's why you accept AGW hook line and sinker.  Why you can't simply accept that and move on with your life is beyond me.  It would be silly of me to say "Oh I don't accept the scientific view that man evolved from a single celled organism, but I do accept that it took a gazillion years for polar and grizzly bears to diverge."  Besides, evolutionary scientists themselves debate whether or not there are "jumps" in evolution.

http://www.physorg.com/news4148.html

This isn't some fixed set of unquestionable rules that you want to pretend it is.

----------


## RedStripe

> So says the guy who's against private property but participates in a forum based on private property rights.  I'm still waiting for you to explain how your new private property regime will "emerge" under your socialist regime.
> 
> Edit: For those who might wonder what I'm talking about, here's earlier conversation with *red*stripe.  (Emphasis on "red" added by me).


Yes, I'm "against private property" even though I said nothing of the sort in the quote you posted - yet another illustration of your extremely poor reading comprehension. 

Again, I'm not advocating a particular regime: I'm opposed to particular aspects of our current regime which result in a skewed distribution of economic and political power in the favor of a relatively small elite.  I'd be quite surprised if you've ever even read any of the philosophical debates regarding different potential grounds/mechanisms underlying a system of property (Georgism, Mutualism, etc). 

Just look at how childish you are.  You bold the red part of my name, and then feel the need to state "(Emphasis on 'red' added by me)" as if the reader is as dumb as you are and needs redundant explanations of basic facts that most people can understand after a single reading (such as the fact that I am not "against private property" although I may have a different understanding of it than you do - if you even have any intellectual, and not merely rhetorical, understanding of it at all).

Even more childish is your insinuation that I'm advocating a socialist regime.  You're attempts to discredit me are so flimsy and desperate that they betray the frailty of your own intellect.

----------


## BenIsForRon

Man, you have a knack for misreading your own linked articles.  




> Dr Purnell said: “The new evidence from research into ancient fossil fish reveals that the 'jump' between lampreys and sharks turns out to be nothing of the sort. The major changes in anatomy didn't occur suddenly, as a result of a gene doubling; they took place over 70 million years or more, through a series of intermediate, but now extinct fossil fish.”


Keep in mind that if we're using your logic, then all species evolution has been the result of major leaps since the alleged time of the flood 5,000 years ago.  That's when God changed the Earth's axis, right?  You're pulling it out of your ass.  You have no source, other than your own confused mind.

----------


## jmdrake

> Man, you have a knack for misreading your own linked articles.  
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that if we're using your logic, then all species evolution has been the result of major leaps since the alleged time of the flood 5,000 years ago.  That's when God changed the Earth's axis, right?  You're pulling it out of your ass.  You have no source, other than your own confused mind.


Gee, do you have some gay fetish or something?  Why all of this talk about someone's ass?

Anyway, I haven't "misread" anything.  The point is that evolutionists debate whether evolution always happens at a constant rate.  You know that, I know that, anyone with half a brain knows that.  So if they can debate whether it happened at the same rate for lampreys, I can debate whether it happened at the same rate for other things.  Also I never said God changed earth's axis.  You have a knack for dishonesty.  I said possible comet or something else.  But you feel better about yourself when you lie about what I say and twist it to something I didn't.  I'm not sure why.  But if it makes you feel better keep on doing it.

It's also funny that you only "read" the parts of articles that agree with you.  Here's what you left out.

*The findings will set them on a collision course with geneticists who argue that the evolution of humans and other vertebrates – animals with backbones – was driven by sudden changes in their genes.*

Some geneticists make the argument about "sudden changes" in genes, some don't.  That was my point in linking the article, but since you want to ignore that you quoted only the part you feel fits your worldview.

Really, this whole discussion is getting rather old.

Ben: You believe part of evolution but not the whole thing?
jmdrake: Yep
Ben: But you believe *part* of evolution but not the whole thing?
jmdrake: Yep
Ben: But......

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes, I'm "against private property" even though I said nothing of the sort in the quote you posted - yet another illustration of your extremely poor reading comprehension.


Poor reading skills?  *I gave a direct cut and paste from what you wrote!  You can click the link back and see the original post!  Don't lie!*




> Even more childish is your insinuation that I'm advocating a socialist regime.  You're attempts to discredit me are so flimsy and desperate that they betray the frailty of your own intellect.


It was one of your Darwinist buddies that first pegged you as an anarcho-marxist.  (Redundant term since Marx called for the eventual dissolution of the state).  I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and asked you a serious question.  You gave a non answer then and you've given another non answer now.  Worse you are being dishonest and claiming that my *direct cut and paste quote of your words* is somehow "poor reading skills".  If you want to see childish, look in the mirror.

----------


## RedStripe

> Poor reading skills?  *I gave a direct cut and paste from what you wrote!  You can click the link back and see the original post!  Don't lie!*


Little child, can you point out where, in that quote, I stated any opposition to "private property"?

Of course you can't - because I didn't! . All you can do is say: "look at the quote! don't challenge me! Wahhhh"

*The quote by me did not say that I oppose property rights. PERIOD. You are putting words in other people's mouths, as usual!* 




> It was one of your Darwinist buddies that first pegged you as an anarcho-marxist.


First of all, I don't have "Darwinist buddies" on this forum.  Second, what someone labeled me has absolutely no relevancy to the discussion of the topic: Is jmdrake correct when he states that Redstripe opposes property rights? (the answer is NO, by the way - sorry you can't read well)




> I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and asked you a serious question.


Haha, yea, you giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who disagrees with your own pathetic little agenda. That's rich.  You're perhaps the most disgusting debater on these forums, constantly making insinuations about people's characters and using all kinds of pathetic argumentative ploys (suggesting that someone who says "pull out of your butt" figuratively is obsessed with anal sex; suggesting that people who use a hypothetical involving child molestation to illustrate a point respecting morality are "obsessed with pedophilia"; stating, in response to someone's point that "well, this is the guy that believes X "(regardless of whether that's true) when it has absolutely no logical relevancy to the point at hand; accusing people of using circular reasoning when you don't even know what circular reasoning is; accusing people of using logical fallacies when they haven't; etc).  

I've seen it over and over from you, and it's just sad to think that anyone who hasn't formed an opinion of Ron Paul supporters or libertarians might be unfortunate enough to come into contact with you.  Please don't talk to people outside this forum, ever.   Or if you do, just tell them you're a creationist and leave out the fact that you're a Ron Paul supporter.




> You gave a non answer then and you've given another non answer now.


It's only a non-answer if you're too dumb to understand what I said.  Social systems, such as property rights (which are extremely complicated and involve a lot of issues that depend on the circumstances of a given resource dispute) aren't things you just magically snap your finger to create (unless you're God, naturally).  Someone who actually understands how both informal and formal rule systems are developed in human societies can appreciate the complexity and the difficulty and, indeed, impossibility of "declaring" on a single simple rule that solves everything (unless you are just a dogmatic, uneducated broken record who hasn't actually investigated the issue for yourself *cough*), much less one that actually is adopted, used, and yields positive results. 

Please tell me that is a non-answer, just so I can confirm exactly how dense you really are.  Or just call me/insinuate that I'm an eeeeviiil socialist because you can't understand long sentences and socialists are scaaaarrrrry.  That would also confirm just how dense you are.




> Worse you are being dishonest and claiming that my *direct cut and paste quote of your words* is somehow "poor reading skills".  If you want to see childish, look in the mirror.


I'm *not* claiming that *the fact that you 'direct cut and paste' quoting me is evidence of your poor reading skills*.  I *am* saying that *the fact that you are claiming that the quote supports your assertion that I oppose private property is indicative of your EXTREMELY poor reading skills because I said NO SUCH THING in the given quote.* 

I'm sure you won't understand this either. It's like trying to explain how to cook microwave popcorn to a dog.

E:  Don't feel compelled to respond to this; I'm done with you right now.

----------


## BenIsForRon

> Gee, do you have some gay fetish or something?  Why all of this talk about someone's ass?
> 
> Anyway, I haven't "misread" anything.  The point is that evolutionists debate whether evolution always happens at a constant rate.  You know that, I know that, anyone with half a brain knows that.  So if they can debate whether it happened at the same rate for lampreys, I can debate whether it happened at the same rate for other things.  Also I never said God changed earth's axis.  You have a knack for dishonesty.  I said possible comet or something else.  But you feel better about yourself when you lie about what I say and twist it to something I didn't.  I'm not sure why.  But if it makes you feel better keep on doing it.
> 
> It's also funny that you only "read" the parts of articles that agree with you.  Here's what you left out.
> 
> *The findings will set them on a collision course with geneticists who argue that the evolution of humans and other vertebrates  animals with backbones  was driven by sudden changes in their genes.*
> 
> Some geneticists make the argument about "sudden changes" in genes, some don't.  That was my point in linking the article, but since you want to ignore that you quoted only the part you feel fits your worldview.
> ...


I'm pretty sure you said something about a comet changing the axis, or some other act of God changing the axis.

And if you think I'm being redundant, I'm just getting clarification.  You have no basis for rejecting parts of evolution except "I don't like them, they make my brain hurt".   You have some kind of creationism-evolution hybrid that you made yourself, and believe, for absolutely no $#@!ing reason.

I'm trying to get it through your thick skull that you've been treating "evolutionists" unfairly because it is YOU who is logically inconsistent.

----------


## jmdrake

> Little child, can you point out where, in that quote, I stated any opposition to "private property"?


You said in the thread I was quoting from that private property rights as they now exist need to be done away with and replaced with something new.  It's obvious that you don't want to own up to that so instead you want to belittle others for calling you out on this.  That's ok.  I'm used to people with intellectually bankrupt arguments resulting to name calling.




> E:  Don't feel compelled to respond to this; I'm done with you right now.


You were done before you got started because you came to the argument with no real ideas and just personal attacks.  I'm used to that from you.

By the way red tripe.  Here is the initial quote you made that sent the property rights alarm bells ringing.

_The government interference isn't just regulation, or highly visual efforts to manipulate economic outcomes. More important is the way in which the state establishes the parameters and foundation of the market itself by establishing laws relating to property (which are still based on feudal concepts which were established for the explicit purpose of protecting the land-owning lords), intellectual property, tariffs, the monetary system, etc._

The "laws relating to property" are what current property rights are based on.  I know the rights to my house are save because I have a deed recorded.  Same for my parents property.  Those laws you wish to undo for no obvious reason and you gave no answer of how my *current* property is protected under your new regime.  And no I'm no going to look up some philosopher and read some book just to get what should be a simple answer if you had it.  I also note that in that same thread you referred to others as "child" when them stumped you.  That seems to be your standard defense mechanism when you've been intellectually spanked.

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm pretty sure you said something about a comet changing the axis, or some other act of God changing the axis.


So let me get this straight.  If I say a comet hit the earth that's the same as saying "God did it"?   How so?  You think that every disaster is an "act of God"?




> And if you think I'm being redundant, I'm just getting clarification.  You have no basis for rejecting parts of evolution except "I don't like them, they make my brain hurt".   You have some kind of creationism-evolution hybrid that you made yourself, and believe, for absolutely no $#@!ing reason.


Sure I do.  I've given you my reasons over and over again.  Others have as well.  You just choose not to accept them.  That's ok.  You simply believe "majority rules" when it comes to science.  Your reason for accepting evolution is the same as your reason for accepting AGW.  A majority of scientists say something so you accept it.  My position is 100% consistent.  And no I haven't "made up" any "hybrid model".  Any scientists worth his salt will tell you that while microevolution is well established and well known, macroevolution is still a matter for debate even among your side.  They might agree that it happened, but there are *serious* debates about the mechanisms.  There are debates over whether the rate is constant or if there are "jumps".  You simply ignore any problems, try to explain away what doesn't "fit", and then rely on insults, vulgarities and raw hatred to make up for your deficiencies.  I think your own hybrid theo-evolution makes this take on some religious significance for you.  I say that because I have had much better discussions with actual evolutionists on this sub-forum such as Clay-Trainor.  While he doesn't agree with my position, he at least "gets it".  




> I'm trying to get it through your thick skull that you've been treating "evolutionists" unfairly because it is YOU who is logically inconsistent.


LOL.  Really?  I'm treating evolutionists "unfairly"?  How so?  I guess I'm treating AGW believers "unfairly" to because I point out how in the same thread you can say two *totally* different things about Jupiter?  You take the cake you know that?  I'm not the one trying to force my beliefs on anyone.  I'm not the one being vulgar or name calling or stooping to dishonesty in debate.  If you want to see "unfair" check yourself out.  Believe what you want.  I really don't care.  There are parts of evolution I accept and parts that I don't.  That's the position of most creationists.  Maybe you think all creationists are "unfair" too.  I don't know.  Goodness, it's like you're on a jihad.  "Accept Darwin you infidel!  If you do not accept Darwin in all of his glory I will brand you unfair!"

----------


## BenIsForRon

Just go back and look at your snarky comments over the months throughout the evolution threads (complete with a generous helping of these:  ).  

For example:




> My Pentium shares the exact same basic logic gates as the ENIAC.  The computer must have evolved through natural selection.


You think you're so smart, yet your idea of evolution is something that has no basis in EITHER research OR scripture!  You have no grounds on which to claim that "evolutionists" are the ones being illogical.  You're throwing logic into the wind.

----------


## jmdrake

> Just go back and look at your snarky comments over the months throughout the evolution threads (complete with a generous helping of these:  ).


And that deserves another rolleyes.    My "snarky comments" are quite tame in comparison to the abuse that I've taken from your side and especially from you.  And the comment wasn't "snarky" at all.  Just because two different things have a similar underlying structure is not in itself proof of evolution over creation.  A common designer can use a common template.




> You think you're so smart, yet your idea of evolution is something that has no basis in EITHER research OR scripture!


That's simply not true.  I never said evolution had no basis in science.  And to be clear I never said that evolution *as you believe it* had no basis in science.  I said that there are scientific problems with the theory of evolution.  If you think that's the same as saying "no basis in science" then that's your problem.  There are scientific problems with the theory of relativity too since, according to Stephen Hawkings, it still can't b reconciled with quantum mechanics, yet both theories work.  As far as it being reconciled with scripture *you already said you don't believe Genesis or the scriptural teaching of the judgment which is in the new testament.  So your way of "reconciling" with scripture is to throw out everything you don't believe.*




> You have no grounds on which to claim that "evolutionists" are the ones being illogical.  You're throwing logic into the wind.


The fact that you have to misrepresent my position in order to "win" is proof that you are the one being illogical.  I will restate my position one more time, although I don't think you will "get it".  My position is that there are serious scientific challenges that can be raised to evolution and that belief in evolution is not a prerequisite for being a good scientist.  When you inserted yourself into the discussion your side was dismissing the creationist view a priori based on the end belief rather than the scientific argument.  Some were even suggesting that it was fine to fail students, not based on the number of answers they got right or wrong, *but based on their belief system!*  One person even raised the "fire in a crowded theater" argument which is used whenever some despotic judge wants to strip someone of his first amendment rights.  And against that backdrop you have the nerve, the unmitigated gall to claim *I'm* the one being unfair?  Well if  that's being "unfair" then I'm proud to be unfair.  But I don't think so.

Last point.  You completely missed what I was saying about polar bear / grizzly hybrids.  It's been pointed out time and time again that the current definition of different species is when they can't breed with each other.  Grizzlies and brown bears were once thought to be different species, but now scientists consider grizzlies to be a subspecies.  With the new information about polar / grizzly hybrids, scientists may at some point re-think that taxonomy as well.  Is that absolute proof that the change happened in thousands rather than millions of years?  No.  But it undercuts your premise that we're talking about a different species.  Maybe we are...maybe we aren't.  Maybe the definition of "species" itself will be altered at some point.  Science isn't as fixed as you pretend it to be.

----------


## BenIsForRon

Ugh, but according to what you said about the great flood a few pages back, all speciation that has occurred has occurred in the time since.  So about 5,000 years according to the estimate I've seen on when Noah was on the earth.  Then there's the whole issue about how there is no archeological evidence for such an event.

I'll go ahead and say what I've been thinking the whole time:

The reason you believe in this weird creationism/evolution hybrid is that you most likely grew up in a conservative christian household, and many in your family denounce evolution/ believe it's blasphemous.  When you grew up, you still felt very strongly about those bad anti-God scientists, but you realized that there is quite a bit of evidence for evolution, so you tried your best to reconcile the two without betraying "your roots".

I know other people who have done the same thing, not fully endorsed the idea of evolution because they feel they will be betraying their faith.  You can tell me I'm full of $#@!, but that's the vibe I'm getting.

----------


## moostraks

> You are the one being condescending.  Because I haven't elevated your opinion to be equal to or above scripture *on the topic of Jesus Christ* you have not ceased to attack and insult me.  That's ok.  Jesus said people like you would do that.  He had to deal with those who would set the "traditions of men" above the word of God.  When I gave you a scriptural reference you dismissed it as a "simple story for a simple people".  And you don't think that's being condescending on your part?  There is a parable in the Bible.
> 
> _ For seven women will take hold of one man in that day, saying, "We will eat our own bread and wear our own clothes, only let us be called by your name ; take away our reproach !"_
> 
> Women in the Bible represent churches.  Wanting to "wear our own clothes" represents people wanting to have their own wisdom.  We live in a day where people want to call themselves Christians, yet they want to substitute their own wisdom for the "simple stories written for simple people" in the Bible.  Well, like I said, you can do what you want.  But it's dishonest of you to call me "condescending" just because I don't agree.


I have a saying around our home where I believe when one individual is in the middle of a drama with numerous other individuals who are co-existing then generally the problem lay with the one individual having an attitude problem and needs to learn how to soften their approach. You seemingly have no capacity to approach a conversation without contempt and seem to be alienating yourself from any reasonable further conversations with anyone who has a difference of opinion with you.

I have not attacked you. I reckon your knickers are in a twist because I approached someone else over how you were behaving who pointed out exactly what I was saying previously here in that your lack of Christian kindness is what many who turn their hearts from Christianity cite for alienating them. 

As for my simple story for simple people it is because you refuse to look at the deeper truth that lay beyond the surface story you cling to with such literalism.

I COR 13:9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. 11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. 13 But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

You seem to grasp the physical stories of the bible but fail to take it to the next level. I hope you can soften your heart to find the deeper meaning as well as allow others to let Love work in their hearts as He sees fit. Beating people over the head with your literalism and acting as if you are above the situation of misunderstanding and causing others to harden their heart will be your problem to answer for when the time comes....

----------


## jmdrake

> I have not attacked you.


Yes you did.  Repeatedly.  And you did so when I hadn't attacked you in the least.  You even piled on to someone else's attack.  (When you agreed that I was an *sshole).  That's ok.  I'll pray for you.  You're clearly misguided.  Hopefully someday you will be strong enough to man up to your own shortcomings.  Then your healing can begin.

----------


## moostraks

> Yes you did.  Repeatedly.  And you did so when I hadn't attacked you in the least.  You even piled on to someone else's attack.  (When you agreed that I was an *sshole).  That's ok.  I'll pray for you.  You're clearly misguided.  Hopefully someday you will be strong enough to man up to your own shortcomings.  Then your healing can begin.


You are clearly too high up in your glass house to see....

arrogant:. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others:

I did not pile on I came in to reassure someone else (after Theocrat was piling on him with you!)as well as myself they were not alone in their perception of your bitterness and generally unpleasant demeanor to which you seem to feel it is evidence of your Christian holiness. Go figure...

I have dealt with plenty of folks like you and I would prefer you don't invoke my name with whatever entity you think is guiding your spiritual nature. 

Peace....

----------


## moostraks

> jmdrake
> 
> Riddle me this:"And as he was passing by, he saw a man blind from birth.  And his disciples asked him,  'Rabbi, who has sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?"  Jesus answered,  'Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents, but the works of God were to be made manifest in him.'" (John 9:1)
> 
> When did the man sin if he was born blind? Jesus doesn't call them fools for questioning the concept of sinning prior to his birth. Seems curious...
> 
> Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, 
>        before you were born I set you apart; 
>        I appointed you as a prophet to the nations Jeremiah 1:5 (NIV)
> ...


still waiting...

----------


## jmdrake

> You are clearly too high up in your glass house to see....


Another attack.




> arrogant:. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others:


Because I didn't accept your view that makes me superior?  How about you are acting superior by trying to force your of theistic evolution on others?




> I did not pile on I came in to reassure someone else (after Theocrat was piling on him with you!)as well as myself they were not alone in their perception of your bitterness and generally unpleasant demeanor to which you seem to feel it is evidence of your Christian holiness. Go figure...


When you jumped in Sevin and I had resolved our differences.  I had also told Theocrat to back off by that point.  Sevin and I had "made peace".  Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers".  Yet you tried to stir stuff up for your own selfish reasons.  And you didn't offer Sevin any words of "reassurance".  You offered words of agreement.




> I have dealt with plenty of folks like you and I would prefer you don't invoke my name with whatever entity you think is guiding your spiritual nature.


Talk about arrogance.  Where I have invoked your name at all?




> Peace....


Same to you.

----------


## jmdrake

> still waiting...


Still waiting for what?  For me to continue arguing with you?  Why?

See Mark 6:11.  Do yourself a favor and drop your obsession with me.

----------


## moostraks

> Still waiting for what?  For me to continue arguing with you?  Why?
> 
> See Mark 6:11.  Do yourself a favor and drop your obsession with me.


Obsession-don't flatter yourself? You do your best to villify others by choosing inflamatory language to make them seem the bad guy. I pointed out previously why I chose the phrase arrogant and quoted your text where you insist your view was so clear to see, thus anyone who disagrees is wrong. THAT is why I called you arrogant. It was not unfounded. Then you continue to be disparaging and use inflamatory wording to disparage anyone who disagrees(along with an enormous amount of rolly eyes...)

This was the follow up wherein you demanded I use bible text to validate my point on the existence of soul before physical matter of which you apparently have no intelligent reply or you wouldn't stoop to such commentary. 

As for Mark have no fear you are dust of my feet but if you continue to badger people who have the willingness to be openminded enough to question I will continue to point out gaps of logic in your legalist views... 

May you have the hindsight to know where you've been, The foresight to know where you are going, And the insight to know when you have gone too far

----------


## jmdrake

> Obsession-don't flatter yourself? You do your best to villify others by choosing inflamatory language to make them seem the bad guy.


Yes obsession.  And I'm not at all "flattered".  You are the one seeking me out in threads that didn't even concern you and injecting yourself into conversations that didn't even mention you.  And you are the one that started with the inflammatory language.  I'm happy to leave you to your own opinion.  You feel a need to force your opinion on others.  Sad really.

----------


## moostraks

> When you jumped in Sevin and I had resolved our differences.  I had also told Theocrat to back off by that point.  Sevin and I had "made peace".  Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers".  Yet you tried to stir stuff up for your own selfish reasons.  And you didn't offer Sevin any words of "reassurance".  You offered words of agreement.


I offered him the knowledge he was not alone in his reasoning as I, unbeknownst to his post, *had written the exact same thing* on another thread. That to me would be reassurance. As for telling Theo to back off- you went on to delete a post which was going to be more of the same only because sevin actually stepped up to be a better person and would have really showed how ugly you are when you aren't being coddled.

Some of us can follow a train of thought. I am not stirring up anything but holding my ground. Redstripe agreed with sevin as well fwiw. Guess we are all just picking on you...I am sure you will use this as further evidence you are doing His holy work.

----------


## moostraks

> Yes obsession.  And I'm not at all "flattered".  You are the one seeking me out in threads that didn't even concern you and injecting yourself into conversations that didn't even mention you.  And you are the one that started with the inflammatory language.  I'm happy to leave you to your own opinion.  You feel a need to force your opinion on others.  Sad really.


Really? Why because I can't come on any thread since you are there? Why am I not allowed on a particular thread? You are just ticked that I had the audacity to agree with someone who shows your true colors. I pointed out how two seperate people made the same commentary unbeknowst to them and it smarts. Deal with it...

----------


## jmdrake

> Really? Why because I can't come on any thread since you are there?


I never said that you couldn't.  You can be obsessed all you want.  You just need to "deal with it".

----------


## jmdrake

> I offered him the knowledge he was not alone in his reasoning as I, unbeknownst to his post, *had written the exact same thing* on another thread.


Really?  You had, in effect, "called me an *sshole"?  I thought you said you hadn't attacked me?  Glad you are finally having a bout of honest.

The most important point is that by the time you jumped in Sevin and I were no longer fighting.  And I had asked Theocrat to quit fighting to.  I was playing the role of peacemaker.  What role were you playing?

----------


## moostraks

> Really?  You had, in effect, "called me an *sshole"?  I thought you said you hadn't attacked me?  Glad you are finally having a bout of honest.
> 
> The most important point is that by the time you jumped in Sevin and I were no longer fighting.  And I had asked Theocrat to quit fighting to.  I was playing the role of peacemaker.  What role were you playing?


Peacemaker? Was that when you saw sevin was more of a godly person and deleted your post? You were trying to disengage because you were busted for coming across as your usual aggressive self...

How did I in effect do that? I gave him a smiley face and said "I had not seen this until now. Was a point I was recently making to jm regarding this type of behavior by 'christians'. Glad to see I was on target..." refering to " jmdrake is constantly disrespectful and You have so much "righteous" anger that you can't see past your faith enough to have a calm discussion. 

It's because of Christians like you guys that I realized what a fraud the whole thing is and abandoned my faith years ago."

Guess you are just torqued I didn't take the time to edit his expletive regarding you being a "smartass."

Nowhere did it say you were an @##hole...

Do you want to continue to parse? I am pretty fed up with people like you who come on twisting words to stir up trouble and don't have any accountability for it...

----------


## jmdrake

> Peacemaker? Was that when you saw sevin was more of a godly person and deleted your post? You were trying to disengage because you were busted for coming across as your usual aggressive self...


Again with your accusations.  (Claiming someone is "more Godly" than another).

I was being a peacemaker when I told Theocrat to back off and said Sevin simply didn't understand what I was saying.  Sevin then started being conciliatory.  But before he made his conciliatory post he had made another snarky comment.  I decided to delete my response to the snarky comment that he made because I saw that he had reacted positively to my later comment.  Sorry if I'm upsetting the "boogeyman" image you've constructed yourself for me.




> It's because of Christians like you guys that I realized what a fraud the whole thing is and abandoned my faith years ago."


Ah.  So the truth comes out.  Now this is interesting.  This whole argument started when I pointed out the conflict of the idea that man evolved from some single celled organism to recognizable Christianity.  You tried to make the case that they weren't in conflict.  Yet the truth is you've already abandoned that faith.  So why should it even matter to you if it fits or not?  I also agreed with someone else in the thread that evolution fits fine with gnostic Christianity.  Maybe that's a better fit for you.  





> Guess you are just torqued I didn't take the time to edit his expletive regarding you being a "smartass."


He didn't say "smartass".  He said "*sshole".




> Nowhere did it say you were an @##hole...


I know you didn't.  But then you came back and said that he had said in effect what you had already said.  So that's the whole you dug for yourself.  Anyway, what was your purpose in attempting to restart a flamewar that had already ended?




> Do you want to continue to parse? I am pretty fed up with people like you who come on twisting words to stir up trouble and don't have any accountability for it...


Fine.  Quit answering people like me.

----------


## moostraks

> Again with your accusations.  (Claiming someone is "more Godly" than another).
> 
> I was being a peacemaker when I told Theocrat to back off and said Sevin simply didn't understand what I was saying.  Sevin then started being conciliatory.  But before he made his conciliatory post he had made another snarky comment.  I decided to delete my response to the snarky comment that he made because I saw that he had reacted positively to my later comment.  Sorry if I'm upsetting the "boogeyman" image you've constructed yourself for me.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.  So the truth comes out.  Now this is interesting.  This whole argument started when I pointed out the conflict of the idea that man evolved from some single celled organism to recognizable Christianity.  You tried to make the case that they weren't in conflict.  Yet the truth is you've already abandoned that faith.  So why should it even matter to you if it fits or not?  I also agreed with someone else in the thread that evolution fits fine with gnostic Christianity.  Maybe that's a better fit for you.  But that doesn't mean you have to try to force fit your belief system on everybody else.
> 
> 
> ...


Godly:godly [ˈgɒdlɪ]
adj -lier, -liest
having a religious character

1 John 4:8 (New International Version)
8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

Simple enough???

So you create a situation and the attempt to solve the situation and that somehow makes you the peacemaker?

peace·mak·er (psmkr)
n.
One that makes peace, especially by settling disputes

You said that it was not CHRISTIAN. I pointed out where I took offense to your statement and what was specifically said. It can be, depending upon what your denomination is and your rationalization of the level of literalism to be embraced by scripture. I see you conceed to Gnosticism, but that is by no means the only place as many others have found peace within other denominations so you are wrong.

What faith have I abandoned? Do tell...I am not trying to force my beliefs but was asking you not make such blanket statements as it is not found in christianity (false) and that your views are so clear that anyone who disagrees is wrong (I pointed the post out previously wherein you made the comments). 

I in effect nothing...You were WRONG! I was not restarting anything but letting someone know he was not alone and you are offended. Deal with it and move on. Numerous people have tried to point out you are obnoxious and it defeats your arguments. Human beings crave contact and thrive on reassurance. I checked another thread and was bemused to see an identical issue brought up and I responded. Move on....Take it as healthy criticism or be proud you are obnoxious but quit trying to act like you are being persecuted and this makes you holy. Your attitude in the same sentence as calling yourself a christian is what drives people away from Jesus. Accept it.

BTW I skimmed a previous post wherein you claimed me arrogant for the invoking my name comment...just to clarify you said you would pray for me-DON'T! DO NOT invoke my name in regards to whatever entity you worship. I would rather take my chances without the likes of folks like you drawing upon whatever well you get your spiritual waters from...thanks!

----------


## jmdrake

> So you create a situation and the attempt to solve the situation and that somehow makes you the peacemaker?
> 
> peace·mak·er (psmkr)
> n.
> One that makes peace, especially by settling disputes


I'm ignoring the rest of your post and will zone in on this, because if you can't get this much than you can't understand anything.  Let's start with what a peacemaker is *not*.  A peacemaker is not someone who comes into a situation that has died down and tries (in vain in your case) to get the parties to fight again for his own selfish reasons.  And yes, a peacemaker can be someone who was one of the original belligerents.  Anwar Saddat was rightfully recognized as a peacemaker.  You want to put all of the blame on the spat between myself an Sevin on me because of your own irrational hatred toward me based on other people in your life that I remind you of?  Fine.  Sevin was willing to accept our spat as a disagreement which makes him a bigger man than you.  But for you to try to restart fights after they have ended shows that you have issues that have nothing to do with me that you need to work out.  Look at the other thread.  I said I was happy you found something that works for you.  And you want to call that "attitude"?  Dude, several times I've tried to bury the hatchet and you keep trying to dig it up and stab me in the back with it.  Let it go.  Seriously.  Let it go.  Your hatred will eat you up if you hang on to it.

----------


## Fox McCloud

> and they make outrageous claims that if you deny 6-day creationism then you deny Christ. I can't stand them or what they claim to support.


this is incorrect; I can't speak for Kent Hovind, but Ken Ham is on the record stating that the only thing required to be a Christian is to be a believer in and follower of Christ; he merely makes the argument that those who believe in progressive creationism or theistic evolution are inconsistent as far as the Bible goes. He stated this specifically in a debate he had with Dr. Hugh Ross, a progressive creationist, in a video entitled "The Great Debate".

----------


## M House

What $#@! did I step in. So yesterday I pulled off an "American Dog Tick" offa an area close to my crotch. I began to wonder why $#@! are there so many different species of tick...definitely hoping the area doesn't get too inflamed.

----------


## sevin

> ...definitely hoping the area doesn't get too inflamed.


yeah, good luck with that.

----------


## reillym

Hovind thinks the earth is 6000-10,000 years old. 

Anybody with a speck of intelligence would ignore this fool.

----------


## FrankRep

> Hovind thinks the earth is 6000-10,000 years old. 
> 
> Anybody with a speck of intelligence would ignore this fool.


Reillym should know, he was there at the beginning of time.

----------


## Theocrat

Here is an updated seminar where Dr. Hovind lectures on the dangers of evolution:

YouTube - Creation Seminar 5 - Kent Hovind - Dangers of Evolution (FULL)

----------


## Sola_Fide

I don't agree with everything Kent Hovind says (mainly about KJV-onlyism and eschatology) but he is right on the money here.


Also, the people in this forum should be at least somewhat sympathetic to Kent Hovind because he defied the IRS for many years and was eventually imprisoned by the Statist slavemasters.


If Kent was ANY OTHER person, he would be seen as a hero to people on this board, just like Peter Schiff's dad was.

----------


## Theocrat

> I don't agree with everything Kent Hovind says (mainly about KJV-onlyism and eschatology) but he is right on the money here.
> 
> 
> Also, the people in this forum should be at least somewhat sympathetic to Kent Hovind because he defied the IRS for many years and was eventually imprisoned by the Statist slavemasters.
> 
> 
> If Kent was ANY OTHER person, he would be seen as a hero to people on this board, just like Peter Schiff's dad was.


Believe it or not, Dr. Hovind actually was one of the first theologians who got me turned towards a libertarian view of civil government. It all started with his basis in creationism.

----------


## FrankRep

> Believe it or not, Dr. Hovind actually was one of the first theologians who got me turned towards a libertarian view of civil government. It all started with his basis in creationism.


I first learned about abolishing the Federal Reserve from Kent Hovind.

----------


## reillym

The only danger of evolution is that people refuse to understand it. 

If you reject evolution, you must also reject all of science, all of medicine, all of technology. NO science is a closed box.

Have fun with your medieval technology fools.

----------


## erowe1

Here's another gem from Hovind.
http://freehovind.com/info-should_ch...rriage_license

----------


## torchbearer

Would it be safe to say that the person making the assertion has a biased against both evolution and communism? and that it would be in his interest to start research with the goal of making them connect, than the goal of seeing if their is any correlation?

----------


## Theocrat

> The only danger of evolution is that people refuse to understand it. 
> 
> If you reject evolution, you must also reject all of science, all of medicine, all of technology. NO science is a closed box.
> 
> Have fun with your medieval technology fools.


One testimony that I love to use whenever people make the sort of allegations as quoted above is the physicians at my church. My church is predominantly attended by physicians, and the one thing they all agree on is that evolution has nothing to do with science. None of them utilize it in their respective medical fields, and they all believe in and teach their kids six-day, young-Earth Creationism. As a matter of fact, they love to make fun of evolution because they see it as a silly hypothesis (We had a Men's Study a few months ago where we spent the entire time showing the follies and dangers of evolution.).

So, nothing you've said above is true. I reject evolution vehemently, yet I still enjoy science. Evolution is not a prerequisite to studying the natural sciences, after all. It is a religion. You can have your religious faith in that hypothesis, and you can make a monkey out of yourself in the process. But don't expect others who respect science to go along with your fairy tale. Evolution is utterly useless, and it's even laughable you think technology today has anything to do with evolution.

----------


## reillym

> One testimony that I love to use whenever people make the sort of allegations as quoted above is the physicians at my church. My church is predominantly attended by physicians, and the one thing they all agree on is that evolution has nothing to do with science. None of them utilize it in their respective medical fields, and they all believe in and teach their kids six-day, young-Earth Creationism. As a matter of fact, they love to make fun of evolution because they see it as a silly hypothesis (We had a Men's Study a few months ago where we spent the entire time showing the follies and dangers of evolution.).
> 
> So, nothing you've said above is true. I reject evolution vehemently, yet I still enjoy science. Evolution is not a prerequisite to studying the natural sciences, after all. It is a religion. You can have your religious faith in that hypothesis, and you can make a monkey out of yourself in the process. But don't expect others who respect science to go along with your fairy tale. Evolution is utterly useless, and it's even laughable you think technology today has anything to do with evolution.


That's weird, because most reputable, peer-reviewed scientific researchers support the idea of evolution. All those transitional fossils must have been put here by god to test us! Plus all of our vestigial organs. Some "designer" must have done that for a reason.... weird, huh?

Evolution a religion? LOLZ. Fact != religion. It's all a huge scam to get us to better understand biology and our history! AWWW SO SCARY!

Oh, and anecdotal evidence from your "friends at church" != evidence. Someone interested in science would know that, though.

----------


## erowe1

> peer-reviewed scientific researchers support the idea of evolution.


Why do you pretend to know what you're talking about when you apparently don't even know what the phrase "peer-reviewed" means?

----------


## Brett

> That's weird, because most reputable, peer-reviewed scientific researchers support the idea of evolution. All those transitional fossils must have been put here by god to test us! Plus all of our vestigial organs. Some "designer" must have done that for a reason.... weird, huh?
> 
> Evolution a religion? LOLZ. Fact != religion. It's all a huge scam to get us to better understand biology and our history! AWWW SO SCARY!
> 
> Oh, and anecdotal evidence from your "friends at church" != evidence. Someone interested in science would know that, though.


Peer reviewed scientists believe in global warming.  Then in climate change.

Scientists != Science

----------


## reillym

> Peer reviewed scientists believe in global warming.  Then in climate change.
> 
> Scientists != Science


Because every single scientific organization in the WORLD supports climate change.

Because it is real science based on facts.

The only opposition stems from astro-turf funded groups by big corporate.

----------


## reillym

> Why do you pretend to know what you're talking about when you apparently don't even know what the phrase "peer-reviewed" means?


Peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. ...

http://www.google.com/search?q=defin...ient=firefox-a


Nice try. Big fail.

----------


## erowe1

> Peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. ...
> 
> http://www.google.com/search?q=defin...ient=firefox-a
> 
> 
> Nice try. Big fail.


So in other words, you just did a quick google search and read something that you thought supported your usage of the phrase so that you could reply to me and didn't understand what you read.

People who know what they're talking about don't refer to "peer reviewed researchers," they refer to "peer reviewed research," "peer reviewed articles," or "peer reviewed journals." 

There's no disputing that evolution is the dominant view among all scientists. But who are these "peer reviewed researchers" of whom you spoke? Why did you include that phrase "peer reviewed" when you referred to them? And where did you get your information about them?

----------


## erowe1

> Because every single scientific organization in the WORLD supports climate change.
> 
> Because it is real science based on facts.
> 
> The only opposition stems from astro-turf funded groups by big corporate.


There you are using phrases you don't understand again. This time it's "astro-turf."

But if the funding of the research matters, which source of funding produces less trustworthy results, corporations or governments? And once you exclude government funded scientists, organizations, and research projects, what's left of the so-called consensus about global warming?

----------


## Theocrat

> That's weird, because most reputable, peer-reviewed scientific researchers support the idea of evolution. All those transitional fossils must have been put here by god to test us! Plus all of our vestigial organs. Some "designer" must have done that for a reason.... weird, huh?
> 
> Evolution a religion? LOLZ. Fact != religion. It's all a huge scam to get us to better understand biology and our history! AWWW SO SCARY!
> 
> Oh, and anecdotal evidence from your "friends at church" != evidence. Someone interested in science would know that, though.


Well, I'm not going to play the "Back-and-Forth" game where I say, "Actually, most reputable, peer-reviewed scientific researchers reject the idea of evolution," and then you retort with, "Nuh uh. The real scientists support evolution as fact." I've been through that cycle more times than I can count. Besides, "peer-reviewed" is always qualified by whether the scientists agree with your position, at the start. We can debate the validity of transitional fossils, vestigial organs, etc. until one of us evolves into another species, but neither side is going to agree with the other. So let's just leave those topics as bones of contention, to be pieced together in another thread.

Facts are always interpreted based on one's underlying assumptions about the nature of the universe. They become reflections of what a person expects about the world, filtered though their own worldview. When you say "Facts do not equal religion," you've already missed the point. Facts will always be part of a person's religion, but those facts are only accepted in terms of the person's religion. So, it doesn't shock me in the least that you would believe evolution is a fact. I wouldn't expect you to say it was a falsehood, if you already believe evolution is true.

Finally, I never said that my friends at church equal evidence. The point of sharing that testimony with you is to show the ignorance and falsehood of your statements to which it was addressed:



> The only danger of evolution is that people refuse to understand it. 
> 
> *If you reject evolution*, you must also reject all of science, *all of medicine*, all of technology. NO science is a closed box.
> 
> Have fun with your medieval technology fools.


[Emphasis mine]

Quite appropriately, I mentioned there are physicians in my church (whom I know deeply and see weekly) that have successful careers in medicine, and yet, by their own professions, have rejected evolution as, not only a scientific hypothesis, but also as something which is needed to perform their specializations. Because you want to get on your usual tirade of degrading Christians and bashing their beliefs without facts, you simply missed what I was getting at. But the truth remains, and it remains as a continual refutation of what evolutionists are afraid to admit: *evolution is not needed to be successful in the study and practice of any field of science.*

----------


## low preference guy

what an idiotic OP

----------


## RedStripe

This thread is hilarious. 
Yea, evolution is just another facet of the mind-bogglingly complex communist marxist socialist multicultural liberal leftist immigration globalist conspiracy.

----------


## FrankRep

> This thread is hilarious. 
> Yea, evolution is just another facet of the mind-bogglingly complex communist marxist socialist multicultural liberal leftist immigration globalist conspiracy.


I believe in Satan and his plot to take over the world. 

- My Source: The Christian Bible

----------


## reillym

> Well, I'm not going to play the "Back-and-Forth" game where I say, "Actually, most reputable, peer-reviewed scientific researchers reject the idea of evolution," and then you retort with, "Nuh uh. The real scientists support evolution as fact." I've been through that cycle more times than I can count. Besides, "peer-reviewed" is always qualified by whether the scientists agree with your position, at the start. We can debate the validity of transitional fossils, vestigial organs, etc. until one of us evolves into another species, but neither side is going to agree with the other. So let's just leave those topics as bones of contention, to be pieced together in another thread.
> 
> Facts are always interpreted based on one's underlying assumptions about the nature of the universe. They become reflections of what a person expects about the world, filtered though their own worldview. When you say "Facts do not equal religion," you've already missed the point. Facts will always be part of a person's religion, but those facts are only accepted in terms of the person's religion. So, it doesn't shock me in the least that you would believe evolution is a fact. I wouldn't expect you to say it was a falsehood, if you already believe evolution is true.
> 
> Finally, I never said that my friends at church equal evidence. The point of sharing that testimony with you is to show the ignorance and falsehood of your statements to which it was addressed:
> [Emphasis mine]
> 
> Quite appropriately, I mentioned there are physicians in my church (whom I know deeply and see weekly) that have successful careers in medicine, and yet, by their own professions, have rejected evolution as, not only a scientific hypothesis, but also as something which is needed to perform their specializations. Because you want to get on your usual tirade of degrading Christians and bashing their beliefs without facts, you simply missed what I was getting at. But the truth remains, and it remains as a continual refutation of what evolutionists are afraid to admit: *evolution is not needed to be successful in the study and practice of any field of science.*


I only bash Chrisitans who want to impose their radical beliefs onto others. (you).

Evolution is a part of biology. Modern biology has given us all of our medicine, vaccinations, immunizations, etc. Anything you say already fails miserably. Just like you and your crackpot "religion" that says you have to reject anything based on nothing but your own demented views and preconceived notions of even more FAIL.

Please, PLEASE give me some evidence against evolution. You won't. And can't. Ever.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I only bash Chrisitans who want to impose their radical beliefs onto others. (you).
> 
> Evolution is a part of biology. Modern biology has given us all of our medicine, vaccinations, immunizations, etc. Anything you say already fails miserably. Just like you and your crackpot "religion" that says you have to reject anything based on nothing but your own demented views and preconceived notions of even more FAIL.
> 
> *Please, PLEASE give me some evidence against evolution. You won't. And can't. Ever.*


I'm not a big fan of Theo's style of "reasoning", but to be consistent with science, you must admit that the positive claim (hypothesis) is the one that needs to be proved, not the negative.  It's theoretically possible that evolution happens, but it (especially the classical Darwinist model) seems to violate the laws of thermodynamics.

P.S. I'm cynical about all sides of this debate, so no need to bash me.

----------


## Flash

I still don't understand how Creationists can deny vestigial structures. Like why do they think sea turtles and marine iguanas have scales? Why do manatees still have fingernails? Why would whales still have remnants of leg bones? Did God just put those features on animals for the hell of it? There is no rational explanation except for the theory of evolution. And also, if God was a Creator of all animals he has a very boring imagination. All tetrapods follow the basic formula, and invertebrates are too small to care about. 

And what is the Creationist explanation for things such as Dinosaurs or Archosaurs? I've heard several Christians that I know of refer to these beasts as Dragons. But that's being very unscientific.

----------


## Eric21ND

Didn't he buy his Ph.D from walmart?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Here's another gem from Hovind.
> http://freehovind.com/info-should_ch...rriage_license



That was a great read.  Thanks.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *The only danger of evolution is that people refuse to understand it.
> 
> If you reject evolution, you must also reject all of science, all of medicine,* all of technology. NO science is a closed box.
> 
> Have fun with your medieval technology fools.



LoL.

Ron Paul is a *doctor* who *rejects* Darwinism (or doesn't see it as important to his practice of medicine).

Ron Paul has "refused to understand" evolution, yet he has practiced medicine and delivered thousands of babies even while being a ....Christian (gasp!).

To ReillyM, it must be a wonder how the human race even survived for all these thousands of years without the fairy tale of Darwinism.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

Aqua, you were right that Kent Hovind, BY ANY OTHER NAME, would be a hero to us.  However, it is clear that only a minority of the people on this board (a minority of a minority) understand what he is really talking about when it comes to statism, and especially when it comes to evolution.  Kent Hovind was also one of my first exposures to the idea of limited government (my science teacher used his videos before I even knew about Ron Paul.)  He is an inspiration to me, although, like you, I disagree with him on many things, including the doctrine of eternal torment and the whole Satan vs. God thing.  I just now saw this thread, though, and this is the first time I watched this video of him, and he has reminded me how unimportant it is to debate with a bunch of ignorants online.  I would much rather do it face to face where they can't wiggle their way out of every argument.  However, it has also convinced me of the futility of trying to change others' views without thorough self-examination first.  I'll try to go light on the evolution debate on these forums or any other from now on, although it will be hard not to counter all of the misinformation out there.  You guys are great and I hope some day I have friends like you that I can discuss things like this with and not feel completely alienated by society.

----------


## reillym

> LoL.
> 
> Ron Paul is a *doctor* who *rejects* Darwinism (or doesn't see it as important to his practice of medicine).
> 
> Ron Paul has "refused to understand" evolution, yet he has practiced medicine and delivered thousands of babies even while being a ....Christian (gasp!).
> 
> To ReillyM, it must be a wonder how the human race even survived for all these thousands of years without the fairy tale of Darwinism.


So delivering babies = expert on all things science.

Failed argument, try again.

----------


## reillym

> I'm not a big fan of Theo's style of "reasoning", but to be consistent with science, you must admit that the positive claim (hypothesis) is the one that needs to be proved, not the negative.  It's theoretically possible that evolution happens, but it (especially the classical Darwinist model) seems to violate the laws of thermodynamics.
> 
> P.S. I'm cynical about all sides of this debate, so no need to bash me.


These people are claiming evolution is not true. They have not provided any evidence for it. On the other hand, 200 years of biology says that it is a valid theory. The burden of proof is on these fools, not me.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *These people are claiming evolution is not true.* They have not provided any evidence for it. On the other hand, 200 years of biology says that it is a valid theory.The burden of proof is on these fools, not me.


Yes.  This is a negative claim.  The burden of proof is on you, the one making a positive claim.  (You do realize that the first edition of Darwin's Origin was in 1859, and the last edition was in 1872, yes?  That's not near 200 years old.   Even if it were that old, you would be committing an appeal to authority fallacy-it could also be called _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ or the fallacy of asserting the consequent)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups". -Dr. Louis Bounoure

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> So delivering babies = expert on all things science.
> 
> Failed argument, try again.


Physicians are generally required to read and understand Darwin as undergrads.  Not an entirely failed argument.

----------

