Why Evolution is True (2)

[justlookinla]

I was responding to your dishonest post

Can't post much without your typical 'yer a liar' shtick, can you?

 

[dad]

Wrong. If you had any "proof" you would have posted them. In fact there is no "proof" for the Bible.

If you thought the bible needed re proving forget it. That is known and not a matter of debate here. Your denial really amounts to hot air.

People have been realizing that now that information flows so much more easily thanks to the internet. That is why atheism has been growing at such a rapid pace recently.

Voices tell you that? Maybe you think you invented the internet too?

 

[dad]

No, not Jesus. According to your Bible your God did that.

If the son shall set you free you are free indeed.

Joh 8:34 Jesus replied, "I assure you that everyone who sins is a slave of sin.

John 8:36 - If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

And there was no changing of the law. Even in the New Testament slaves are told to obey their masters

As free men!


Ro 6:6 -Our old sinful selves were crucified with Christ so that sin might lose its power in our lives. We are no longer slaves to sin.


Ro 8:15 -So you should not be like cowering, fearful slaves. You should behave instead like God's very own children, adopted into his family – calling him "Father, dear Father."

Ga 4:5 -God sent him to buy freedom for us who were slaves to the law, so that he could adopt us as his very own children.


To tell those employed as slaves to try to still do their job, rather than revolt, or become criminals is not much different than telling folks who work at Walmart to give 2 weeks notice if they want to quit! Many 'master's were converted when they saw their slaves were the free ones, and happy ones, and rich ones!

But I am not walking opposite of the way of the godly. I knew that slavery was wrong when I was a Christian and I still know it is wrong.

So? The world has lots of wrong. All of it is the result of sin, which believers are set free from. Death too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yep, this is true. Notice the frequent 'liar' references instead of actual discussion.

Been going on for quite a while now.

There is a simple solution and you know it:

Tell The Truth.

It is the Christian thing to do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can't post much without your typical 'yer a liar' shtick, can you?

It is hard to do when the side that you are arguing against is constantly lying.

Once again there is a simple solution:

Tell The Truth.

It is the Christian thing to do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If the son shall set you free you are free indeed.

Joh 8:34 Jesus replied, "I assure you that everyone who sins is a slave of sin.

John 8:36 - If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
As free men!


Ro 6:6 -Our old sinful selves were crucified with Christ so that sin might lose its power in our lives. We are no longer slaves to sin.


Ro 8:15 -So you should not be like cowering, fearful slaves. You should behave instead like God's very own children, adopted into his family – calling him "Father, dear Father."

Ga 4:5 -God sent him to buy freedom for us who were slaves to the law, so that he could adopt us as his very own children.

dad, we are talking about real slavery. Not metaphoric slavery.

You failed. try again.

To tell those employed as slaves to try to still do their job, rather than revolt, or become criminals is not much different than telling folks who work at Walmart to give 2 weeks notice if they want to quit! Many 'master's were converted when they saw their slaves were the free ones, and happy ones, and rich ones!

You have no evidence for this claim. Try again.

So? The world has lots of wrong. All of it is the result of sin, which believers are set free from. Death too.

We are talking about how the Bible failed in regard to real slavery. It is such a foul deed that even the Bible recognized it by calling people "slaves to sin" but you cannot find anywhere that the Bible is opposed to actual slavery.

Another epic fail brought to you by dad!

 

[dad]

dad, we are talking about real slavery. Not metaphoric slavery.

So was God. Nothing is more real that slavery to sin and death. The Son made us free. Society of old had employment called slavery. Many people who were so employed wanted to remain in the job even when they had a choice. In the US decades ago, many people wanted to leave the military, which they were forced to be in. Slavery is just a name that is selectively applied, usually by those unable or unwilling to admit they are not free.

We are talking about how the Bible failed in regard to real slavery.

Only the bible deals with real slavery.

It is such a foul deed that even the Bible recognized it by calling people "slaves to sin" but you cannot find anywhere that the Bible is opposed to actual slavery.

That is foul nonsense.


Obviously you seek to fight God's word and insult believers and Him. You don't care about truth or backing up your libelous charges and slander such as saying the bible says the earth is flat etc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So was God. Nothing is more real that slavery to sin and death. The Son made us free. Society of old had employment called slavery. Many people who were so employed wanted to remain in the job even when they had a choice. In the US decades ago, many people wanted to leave the military, which they were forced to be in. Slavery is just a name that is selectively applied, usually by those unable or unwilling to admit they are not free.


Only the bible deals with real slavery.

That is foul nonsense. Hows them apples?

You failed again. Of course I am not surprised.

The subject was real slavery. Not metaphorical slavery. Slavery that is real whether god is real or not.

Your Bible is pro and not anti-slavery even though it recognizes it as a great evil. How hypocritical is that?

 

[dad]

The subject was real slavery. Not metaphorical slavery.

Nothing is more real that slavery to sin and death. The Son made us free.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So was God. Nothing is more real that slavery to sin and death. The Son made us free. Society of old had employment called slavery. Many people who were so employed wanted to remain in the job even when they had a choice. In the US decades ago, many people wanted to leave the military, which they were forced to be in. Slavery is just a name that is selectively applied, usually by those unable or unwilling to admit they are not free.


Only the bible deals with real slavery.

That is foul nonsense.


Obviously you seek to fight God's word and insult believers and Him. You don't care about truth or backing up your libelous charges and slander such as saying the bible says the earth is flat etc.

I see that you have your meal loaded up for the weekend.

I am more than happy to give you the Flat Earth verses. There is still the matter of you admitting you were wrong when I responded to your demand for stationary Earth claims and then you forgot that demand and totally messed up.

A simple apology on your part will get the ball rolling.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing is more real that slavery to sin and death. The Son made us free.

Is that your first course? It does not look to tasty to me.

The subject was real slavery, not metaphorical slavery. Your Bible is for it. I am against it.

Whose morals are better? If you say the Bible then you are in effect saying that you are pro-slavery.

 

[dad]

I am more than happy to give you the Flat Earth verses.

You had your chance. You are here to sling stuff.

There is still the matter of you admitting you were wrong when I responded to your demand for stationary Earth claims and then you forgot that demand and totally messed up.

The verses you spammed were talking about when God reigns on earth. Now you must wear it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You had your chance. You are here to sling stuff.

The verses you spammed were talking about when God reigns on earth. Now you must wear it.

Doubly wrong. The verses merely stated that the Earth was stationary. You could not justify your claim.

As usual you lost. You had to use your own errant interpretation of the Bible and that is not worth anything in a debate.

Wait, I take that back. It is always good for a few laughs but the joke is wearing thin.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yep, this is true. Notice the frequent 'liar' references instead of actual discussion.

Been going on for quite a while now.

true

 

[createdtoworship]

I just got back from a rather long Google search. I was wondering about the claims of gradyll through his sources about Haeckel. I could find only two possible sources for the claim that Haeckel had ever joined the Thule society. They were both from anti-evolution history professors. Not the best of sources. One has been totally discredited since he took money from the Discovery Institute an extremely dishonest anti-evolution group that has been shown to be behind the formation of ID by making it creationism with a cheap suite on.

At any rate the claim is very poorly supported and fairly well debunked in this article:

http://home.uchicago.edu/rjr6/articles/Haeckel--antiSemitism.pdf

Where the author points out among other things that Haeckel was sick and bed ridden the year that he supposedly joined Thule according to Daniel Gasman (And I am sorry but the juvenile in me cannot help but laugh at that extremely appropriate and rather anal retentive name):



The work as a whole dissects and debunks the false claims against Haeckel.

well your sources are expressly anti ID and taking money from non ID sources and therefore untrustworthy. (thats how you sound when you dodge the evidence given after I have done extensive research into the matter, frustrating aint it?)

 

[createdtoworship]

All right gradyll, I have pulled up a copy of "The Evolution Handbook" and I see that quite a few of his quote are of other creationists. The problem is that those are bogus quotes on the face of them. Always go to the source. The fact that your lying sources openly quotes other liars only buries the ultimate sources of their misquoted works another layer deeper.

But here is a start. On page 16 he claims:



This is a freebie for you. Obviously this is a reference to the Big Bang. The problem is that it was not nothing, and there was no explosion. Second more properly that should be called the beginning of the universe as we know it. Stellar evolution covers the formation and growth of stars. It is simply an idiotic mistake by the author.

He starts with that lie and builds upon it. Do you need links to sites that accurately describe the Big Bang or are you willing to admit that the author of that work has already been shown to be a liar?

What is amazing as I scan down the pdf is that the writer got almost everything about science wrong. Second, he loves to use the appeal to emotion fallacy also known as "poisoning the well". As you know you falsely tried to tie evolution with Nazism, even though Hitler banned the work of Darwin. You went out found invalid sources that supported you. In fact you went out of your way to use invalid rather than valid sources, or did you forget how you linked to an author who was paid by the D.I.? That could not have been a coincidence.

And when I looked back at your post that was what you mainly had. I got so used to you quote mining that when ever I see a quote of yours I assume that is what you have. But in the post in question you did much worse:

""He [Haeckel] convinced masses of his countrymen they must accept their evolutionary destiny as a ‘master race’ and ‘outcompete’ inferior peoples, since it was right and natural that only the ‘fittest’ should survive. His version of Darwinism was incorporated in Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf (1925), which means ‘My Struggle,’ taken from Haeckel’s German translation of Darwin’s phrase, ‘the struggle for existence.’ "—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 207 [also 312-313].
"In 1918, Darwin’s apostle Ernst Haeckel became a member of the Thule Gesellschaft, a secret, radically right-wing organization that played a key role in the establishment of the Nazi movement. Rudolf Hess and Hitler attended the meeting as guests (Phelps, 1963)."—Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men (1987), p. 488."

This is an unsupported claim by your post that was based upon Haeckel joining a conservative German party in 1918. In that post your hero quoted another bogus work, the "Encyclopedia of Evolution". You can't support a bogus work by quoting from another bogus work. That is a false appeal to authority. The writer of that pieced of garbage had no authority either.

So that's one, unless you want to go into it more. Here is the link to your extremely messed up post:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-84/#post66197513

I am ending this one here since it may get too long if I continue.

I address this in my last post.

 

[createdtoworship]

The statement under discussion: "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" from the Discovery Institute

DizreduxGrady You do understand that natural selection does not provide genetic variability, it reduces variability. If you do not understand this that I can see where some of your problems are. You are fighting against a TOE that does not exist in reality.

DizGradyThat concept only exists in you mind, not in reality. Macroevolution has been shown to you a number of times but you reject all that does not agree with you. No, they are saying that "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged". Do you really think that the evidence has not and is not being carefully examined and reexamined?

DizGradyAre you really and truly unaware that mutation and natural selection are not the only mechanisms involved with evolution? You couldn't possibly be so the only thing I can think of is strongly selective willful denial.

DizGradyDiz And you did just what I predicted. At least you didn't disappoint.

GradyYou have been given examples of macroevolution over and over and you, with great determination, find ways of rejecting them all.

GradyWhat on earth does this have to do with Christianity?

GradyOK, I don't see much of a problem here but since you do I will try hard not to do it in responses to you in the future.

Dizredux

thank you for taking the time to respond, I will get to your post shortly. However I believe you have missed this post.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-6/#post66208491

let me know when you have answered this so we both know where you stand on theistic evolution.

 

[Dizredux]

well your sources are expressly anti ID and taking money from non ID sources and therefore untrustworthy. (thats how you sound when you dodge the evidence given after I have done extensive research into the matter, frustrating aint it?)

You may consider your research to be extensive but it is really *very* limited in scope in that you only seem to be looking at research that agrees with you.

Good research (at least involving science) looks for things that can invalidate one's viewpoint. The idea is to try to show yourself wrong and when your idea holds up to many attempts to falsify it, then you may be onto something solid.

This is part of the fun of studying science, being shown wrong.

Dizredux

 

[Subduction Zone]

well your sources are expressly anti ID and taking money from non ID sources and therefore untrustworthy. (thats how you sound when you dodge the evidence given after I have done extensive research into the matter, frustrating aint it?)

Wrong, my sources are pro-science. Your sources are not. That is why your sources are untrustworthy. Have you ever seen the pledge that people have to take to work at creationist sites? They have to promise to abandon the scientific method.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I address this in my last post.

No, you didn't.

You are still wrong.

You are listening to people that are willing to lie for Jesus. There testimony is of no use for anyone.