Fairytale?

[Schroeder]

No, the Bible says never to question it. The only proof the Bible offers requires that you assume its conclusion at the onset and never test it. Every claim made by any religion can either never be vindicated or disproved, or they have already been disproved both scientifically and in a court of law.
Nostradamos' prophesies failed just like those in the Bible did. But we were talking about evidence. I will never ignore evidence the way all creationists must. So what could you actually show me?

SEe all you do is say they all are liars once this idea is in the head how could you take anything they say seriouse. this is dogmatic thinking which is what i am the one supposed to be doing. the bible does say to test it. giving specific prophecies is begging one to test it. they have been and far as i know they all pass. GO look for your self and give me one that didnt. just one.

What's the difference? There is the fact that it happens, and then there is the theory which explains how it happens; genetic drift, natural selection, etc. Are you saying you have another explanation for how it happens?

Just ignoring it. SO know the theory is explaining evolution not how life arose. NO evolution explains the theory or is used to show the theory. I like you trap guestion that have nothing to do with anything. evolution happens because life wouldnt last long if it didnt. a rather good design. i find it hard to see it as a mistake gone right.

It wouldn't matter how much time you had, because you can't "get it correct" until you find the parts that are "way off". How would you propose to do that?

i dont know maybe the same way the theory has done it. TIME.

And what you could not actually experience, but only assume, and assume with complete conviction without reservation, and without justification.

like your dogmatic view of ALL creationist. once you get it in your head.....its not hard to do it. YOur assuming i am makeing it all up. you've already made your mind up. that my problem i thought.

Once again, you prove that you still don't know what a theory is, despite how many times so many of us have repeatedly explained this to you. A theory is both the study of facts and the explanation of those facts. Is gravity "just" a theory? Is atomic theory a fact?

I am thinking hypothisis i guess. Its a study of facts and a possible explination of those facts.

And your version of "belief" is completely different from mine. You have a desperate, emotional and unreasonable need to believe what you do, and your belief is rigid, never to change no matter how wrong you're proven to be -despite the fact that it is assumed erroneously and entirely without evidentiary support. But everything I "believe" is tentative, subject to obligate change as the evidence demands. I have no special attachment to anything I believe, and all of it is based only on things we are sure about

like your insistance that ALL creationist are liars.

The difference between us is that I want to find out where the errors in my perspective are, and you don't.
Once again, what is the difference? The "theory" explains how certain strains of viruses can develop a resistance to certain drugs. Without the theory, all you would have is a collection of facts which no one understands. Selective breeding would be a crap shoot, and would be fruitless and ridiculous as showing striped patterns to pregnant cows and hoping that will cause them to bare striped calves. See, that's why you need the theory.

Again your NOT rigid in your thinking ecxcept in thinking creationist are 100% wrong and God is not real. that is why i have been on this site for a few years. i have learned a lot but i havent found conclusive evidence to say i am completly wrong. So all those years when we didnt have the theory in tack science was just a wast of time. even though that is what help create the theory. That is why we managed to breed dogs and domestic animals when we didnt have the theory. how we came up with medicine without the theory. HARDLY. I am not saying the theory is completly useless, i said it is not interily needed. and or we could survive and learn without it. knowing about evolution tells us all these things.

So do I. But this isn't really an issue of being smart, but of being honest. There has never been even one claim made in support of creationism that was actually correct, not one -ever. And many creationists claim things they already know are wrong. Doesn't that mean anything to you?

Here you go again.

I think you say that "polls suck" only because they never ever agree with you. Does saying they "suck" count as a valid counter-argument in your world? Yes, they are easy to manipulate. But I listed a series of polls from a number of different organizations which all included the exact questions given. Could you cite or source or conduct a poll to counter what I have already provided? Is there any way you think you defend the notion that creationists are somehow in the majority even though you know already that they cannot be?

again polls are easy to munipulate so whats the point. Besides there are a lot of factors that you cant get in a simple poll. so its useless in such a topic.

And if such a thing really exists, then it likely wrote the Bible to promote its own lies. But then, there was never any reason to believe anything in scripture, and no possible motivation for any such "devil" anyway. So its all too absurd to take any of it seriously.

whatever. It just happens to be the most accurate history writen.

Really? How so? And which scriptures are you talking about? Because I've read the Bhagavad Gita and the Avestas of Zarathustra, and I havent seen anything there which specifically forbids any such apparition. Nor would any man-made fable have that much authority anyway.

Thy shalt not have ANY other god but ME. praying to anyone BUT God or Christ is worshipping a god. Making catholics angry at me.

So you may be experiencing another god, or a deceptive devil, who wants you to believe you're experiencing something or someone else?

SO could you by not believing in God.

You do deny science, and not just the conclusions of science but its methods as well. For example, science is rational meaning that, while many things may be possible, nothing can be posatively stated to exist without substantial objectively-verifiable and posatively-indicative evidence for it. What such evidence do you have for -anything- you believe?

NOT hardly. your just ammusing yourself by constently saying so. your trick unanserable guestions amuse me though. The evedince i have you dont except. And my faith is NOT science so it could NEVER fit into your meaning.

Science insists that every potential explanation also be potentially falisifiable. What experiments could we perform which could disprove anything you believe -if what you believe happens to be wrong?

same as above. faith is NOT science.

The very definition of science also requires that only natural explanations can be given for all natural phenomenon. The principle of methodological naturalism was designed to prevent people from just using magic as an excuse instead of trying to discover the real answers. Consequently, that principle has many many times revealed great truths about the natural world. But you're still insisting that djinni-like magic should count as an explanation, and that all evidence to the contrary should be ignored. This too is forbidden by science.

bla bla bla again same as above. The explination is how it all got here NOT NOT how it all works.

Science also mandates the process of peer-review to scrutinize and test all assumptions and proposed explanations. The purpose of this of course is to be sure that mere subjective opinions be eliminated and that all frauds, falsehoods, fallacies and failures be exposed. If creationists did that, the whole movement would disappear entirely overnight, because that's all your troup ever had.

again this is a mere opinion of yours.

Science rejects authority, questions all assumptions, and is the functional antithesis of faith, the very opposite of everything that creationism is or does. In short, you and other creationists do indeed reject all scientific methodology.

hardly. you amuse me sometimes. your rather DOGMATIC for claiming not to be. when you mix to chemicals i am sure you have faith they do what they are supposed to do and have not evolved and blow up in your face.

You're contradicting yourself here. Faith is an obstacle in the pursuit of truth because it is an insistance that all your initial assumptions are still absolutely right no matter how wrong all of them appear to be.
There's no difference at all. I challenge you to defend your allegation. How is it different? And how are you not excluding science?

hardly. havent you said most christain are evolutionist. they have faith i believe. SO i think your the one that is contradictive. How am i excluding science your the one claiming it not me. All i disclaim is the theory which is HARDLY all of science.

I suppose from your faith-based perspective that anyone trying to reason with you must be dismissed as brain-washing -because that's what creationism is. That's why it relies entirely on fear and false propaganda.

sure.

There isn't any other scientific view. Evolution is the only theory of biodiversity there is or ever was. It is the only option ever proposed with either evidentiary support or scientific validity. There isn't any aspect of creationism which meets any of the criteria required to qualify as theory. In fact, creationism can't even count as an hypothesis. Creationism literally amounts to nothing more than an indefensible assertion with nothing to base it on or back it up. That is the truth. Creationism is neither sustainable nor logical in any sense.

i know it is the only theory of biodiversity. but evolution isnt the theory. the theory claims we all come from ONE ancsestor. but evolution doesnt claim this it merely shows relations and reason for change.

For those desperate to believe, no amount of reason can sway them. And the theory was never supposed to take out God either. But what is there that would ever be "convincing" about God?

Thats something your have to figure out.

No you won't. Its "bla bla bla" to you because you won't let yourself understand any of it. If you ever intend to answer anything, let's be systematic and start with just this simple question, one you keep avoiding; what is an ape?

A hairy looking creature that is similiar to us. that isnt bipedal, has thick hair all over. I would have to look it up for a better answer. i will try and get back to you. Whats different between a cat and dog.

 

[Schroeder]

None of them that I know of. Every one of the nazis I know of who has ever commented either way claimed to be a creationist. Communists and socialists could go either way. I understand there are creationists in Canada's political system too, and they're socialist, are they not?

i thought you knew alot. ever watch the history channel. Are you speaking about current posers or the real ones like hitler and others. read his book. i believe he speaks of it. planned parent hood is a big evo as well, they started it to help clean the gene pool.

 

[Aron-Ra]

you can say all the other stuff but stuff like this is silly. One can be scientifically minded and a christian.

That's true. They're called theistic evolutionists. As I said, all the pioneers of evolutionary science were Christian. But you can't be scientifically minded and be creationist at the same time, because creationism is a denial of science. That's my point.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I will never ignore evidence the way all creationists must. So what could you actually show me?

SEe all you do is say they all are liars once this idea is in the head how could you take anything they say seriouse. this is dogmatic thinking which is what i am the one supposed to be doing. the bible does say to test it. giving specific prophecies is begging one to test it. they have been and far as i know they all pass. GO look for your self and give me one that didnt. just one.

Ezekiel 29:8-12. I know you said "just one", but f you want more, I got lots.

You should probably also look up Deuteronomy 6:16 or Matthew 4:7, or Psalms 78 17-18 where testing God is described as sinful.

Remember though; I asked for evidence in favor of your position. What can you actually show me?

What's the difference? There is the fact that it happens, and then there is the theory which explains how it happens; genetic drift, natural selection, etc. Are you saying you have another explanation for how it happens?

Just ignoring it. SO know the theory is explaining evolution not how life arose.

That's right. Evolution is a matter of population genetics and an explanation of biodiversity only. How life arose is abiogenesis, an entirely different process.

NO evolution explains the theory or is used to show the theory. I like you trap guestion that have nothing to do with anything. evolution happens because life wouldnt last long if it didnt. a rather good design. i find it hard to see it as a mistake gone right.

I don't know what you're talking about, and I think that makes two of us.

It wouldn't matter how much time you had, because you can't "get it correct" until you find the parts that are "way off". How would you propose to do that?

i dont know maybe the same way the theory has done it. TIME.

Time alone doesn't cut it; its what you do in that time. So I will repeat the question. How would you identify errors in your current perspective? And how could you be sure that any changes you make in that are in fact corrections?

And what you could not actually experience, but only assume, and assume with complete conviction without reservation, and without justification.

like your dogmatic view of ALL creationist.

It is not a dogmatic view; it is a demonstrable fact that creationism is a faith-based belief, and by definition, that means it is assumed without evidence and maintained against all evidence to the contrary.

once you get it in your head.....its not hard to do it. YOur assuming i am makeing it all up. you've already made your mind up. that my problem i thought.

It is, that and an apparent difficulty communicating.

Once again, you prove that you still don't know what a theory is, despite how many times so many of us have repeatedly explained this to you. A theory is both the study of facts and the explanation of those facts. Is gravity "just" a theory? Is atomic theory a fact?

I am thinking hypothisis i guess. Its a study of facts and a possible explination of those facts.

Very good. You know, I once barged into a "music theory" class in high school and berrated the students for a moment by yelling out that music shouldn't be taught in school because music was "just a theory which has never been proven." The creationists in that class weren't at all amused. I did it again in a class on physics theory, but they didn't get the joke because most of them didn't realize there were that many creationists still around.

everything I "believe" is tentative, subject to obligate change as the evidence demands. I have no special attachment to anything I believe, and all of it is based only on things we are sure about

like your insistance that ALL creationist are liars.

I can list hundreds of examples to prove the point. Can you name a single exception? One that we can't prove to have knowingly and willfully lied against "evolutionists" in defense of his side of this debate?

Can you name one occasion where we could show that any "evolutionist" ever knowingly lied to creationists?

Again your NOT rigid in your thinking ecxcept in thinking creationist are 100% wrong and God is not real.

Don't confuse yourself again. Those are two very different points. Your god may or may not exist. But creationism would still be wrong either way.

that is why i have been on this site for a few years. i have learned a lot but i havent found conclusive evidence to say i am completly wrong. So all those years when we didnt have the theory in tack science was just a wast of time. even though that is what help create the theory. That is why we managed to breed dogs and domestic animals when we didnt have the theory. how we came up with medicine without the theory. HARDLY. I am not saying the theory is completly useless, i said it is not interily needed. and or we could survive and learn without it. knowing about evolution tells us all these things.

The theory explains all how all those things you just listed really work. Remember that only accurate information has practical application, and evolutionary theory has already lent much to agriculture and biotechnology.

But this isn't really an issue of being smart, but of being honest. There has never been even one claim made in support of creationism that was actually correct, not one -ever. And many creationists claim things they already know are wrong. Doesn't that mean anything to you?

Here you go again.

So do you admit that you can't list one single exception? Doesn't that mean anything to you?

 

[Aron-Ra]

I think you say that "polls suck" only because they never ever agree with you. Does saying they "suck" count as a valid counter-argument in your world? Yes, they are easy to manipulate. But I listed a series of polls from a number of different organizations which all included the exact questions given. Could you cite or source or conduct a poll to counter what I have already provided? Is there any way you think you defend the notion that creationists are somehow in the majority even though you know already that they cannot be?

again polls are easy to munipulate so whats the point. Besides there are a lot of factors that you cant get in a simple poll. so its useless in such a topic.

Since you didn't seem to understand the question, let me ask it again. Is there any way you think you defend the notion that creationists are somehow in the majority even though you know already that they cannot be? Because logic alone should tell you that if Catholicism is far-and-away the largest denomination among Christians, and since each of the last three popes promoted evolution while simultaneously ridiculing the creationism movement, already you should realize that the majority of Catholics are going to be evolutionist. Now since the second largest denomination of Christians is Orthodoxy, and some of the leading evolutionary scientists in history were Orthodox Christians or still are, then again, you should realize -without needing any polls at all- that your position is already outnumbered. Now add to that the fact that the most famous and most recognizeable paleontologists is both an outspoken proponant of evolution and an atheist-hating, Bible-believing Pentacostal preacher giving fiery sermons on Sundays, then you ought to put together that even traditionally fundamentalist denominations are coming to accept evolution. And the only reason some do not is because the creationism movement relies entirely on lies, and yes, I can prove that.

whatever. It just happens to be the most accurate history writen.

No sir, not on any point. Historians of all flavors as well as archaeologists have reached a concensus on the point that the Bible is not an historic documet; that Adam & Eve never existed and neither did Moses, and Jesus likely didn't either. But we all know for absolutely certain that the global flood never happened, there were already ancient civilations in place before Ussher's date for the creation of the universe, and they already spoke myriad language mellenia before the fabled tower of Babel. No, the Bible is dead-wrong about damned-near everything back-to-front.

Really? How so? And which scriptures are you talking about? Because I've read the Bhagavad Gita and the Avestas of Zarathustra, and I havent seen anything there which specifically forbids any such apparition. Nor would any man-made fable have that much authority anyway.

Thy shalt not have ANY other god but ME. praying to anyone BUT God or Christ is worshipping a god. Making catholics angry at me.

Catholics have placed Jesus ahead of God just like you do. So you're all idolaters. According to Isaiah 45, you're all idolaters except for Jews and Muslims.

So you may be experiencing another god, or a deceptive devil, who wants you to believe you're experiencing something or someone else?

SO could you by not believing in God.

So could I...what? You're not making sense. By not pretending to "experience" anything I can't prove is really there, then I cannot have the problem you do.

You do deny science, and not just the conclusions of science but its methods as well. For example, science is rational meaning that, while many things may be possible, nothing can be posatively stated to exist without substantial objectively-verifiable and posatively-indicative evidence for it. What such evidence do you have for -anything- you believe?

NOT hardly. your just ammusing yourself by constently saying so. your trick unanserable guestions amuse me though.

Its no trick. If you really had evidence, then you could answer the question. The only reason you can't answer it is because you don't have any evidence.

The evedince i have you dont except.

If it is evidence, then I would have no choice but to accept it.

And my faith is NOT science so it could NEVER fit into your meaning.

Then don't talk about what you believe for no reason. Instead, show me a reason to believe.

Science insists that every potential explanation also be potentially falisifiable. What experiments could we perform which could disprove anything you believe -if what you believe happens to be wrong?

same as above. faith is NOT science.

So you admit that you deny scientific methodology, just as I said. Because your explanations aren't supported by evidence and cannot be falsified.

The very definition of science also requires that only natural explanations can be given for all natural phenomenon. The principle of methodological naturalism was designed to prevent people from just using magic as an excuse instead of trying to discover the real answers. Consequently, that principle has many many times revealed great truths about the natural world. But you're still insisting that djinni-like magic should count as an explanation, and that all evidence to the contrary should be ignored. This too is forbidden by science.

bla bla bla again same as above. The explination is how it all got here NOT NOT how it all works.

Wrong again sir. The explanation is how it all works, not how it all got here. You're getting it all backwards.

Science also mandates the process of peer-review to scrutinize and test all assumptions and proposed explanations. The purpose of this of course is to be sure that mere subjective opinions be eliminated and that all frauds, falsehoods, fallacies and failures be exposed. If creationists did that, the whole movement would disappear entirely overnight, because that's all your troup ever had.

again this is a mere opinion of yours.

It would only take one exception to prove my statement wrong. Can you show me one?

Science rejects authority, questions all assumptions, and is the functional antithesis of faith, the very opposite of everything that creationism is or does. In short, you and other creationists do indeed reject all scientific methodology.

hardly. you amuse me sometimes. your rather DOGMATIC for claiming not to be.

But I have no dogma. So you're only trying to project your own faults onto me.

when you mix to chemicals i am sure you have faith they do what they are supposed to do and have not evolved and blow up in your face.

You're talking about a belief based on evidence. Faith is defined as a belief that is not based on evidence.

ITs not excluding science its excluding HOw things came to be. BIG difference.

There's no difference at all. I challenge you to defend your allegation. How is it different? And how are you not excluding science?

hardly. havent you said most christain are evolutionist. they have faith i believe. SO i think your the one that is contradictive. How am i excluding science your the one claiming it not me. All i disclaim is the theory which is HARDLY all of science.

One can believe in things which might exist, even if there's no evidence to support them, especially when there's no possible way to test for such things. Such a person can also put his faith aside to follow the scientifc method on those things which CAN be tested.

I suppose from your faith-based perspective that anyone trying to reason with you must be dismissed as brain-washing -because that's what creationism is. That's why it relies entirely on fear and false propaganda.

Sure.

I'll take that as an admission.

There isn't any other scientific view. Evolution is the only theory of biodiversity there is or ever was. It is the only option ever proposed with either evidentiary support or scientific validity. There isn't any aspect of creationism which meets any of the criteria required to qualify as theory. In fact, creationism can't even count as an hypothesis. Creationism literally amounts to nothing more than an indefensible assertion with nothing to base it on or back it up. That is the truth. Creationism is neither sustainable nor logical in any sense.

i know it is the only theory of biodiversity. but evolution isnt the theory. the theory claims we all come from ONE ancsestor. but evolution doesnt claim this it merely shows relations and reason for change.

The theory of evoluiton actually holds that we "eukaryotes" likely all claim from one ancestor. But other forms of life might not share the same one.

Now how does your comment address my point above?

For those desperate to believe, no amount of reason can sway them. And the theory was never supposed to take out God either. But what is there that would ever be "convincing" about God?

Thats something your have to figure out.

So you admit there is NOTHING convincing about God at all?

 

[Aron-Ra]

Its "bla bla bla" to you because you won't let yourself understand any of it. If you ever intend to answer anything, let's be systematic and start with just this simple question, one you keep avoiding; what is an ape?

A hairy looking creature that is similiar to us. that isnt bipedal, has thick hair all over. I would have to look it up for a better answer. i will try and get back to you.

Yes you will, because many people, (myself included) are "hairy looking". But "great apes" are recognized as having only sparse fur, and none of them have it "all over". Several species (both living now and in the fossil record) are also known to be exclusively bi-pedal; gibbons for example. So an ape can be bipedal and have only sparse fur in some places. And of course your description could apply to dogs and camels too. So we'll need something much more specific. But most important is this; what exactly does "similar" mean?

Whats different between a cat and dog.

There are several owing to the fact they are both in different lineages of the same family tree. If we concentrate only on differences, we can isolate one man from all other men. Such thinking leads to prejudice. So we abserve similarities instead, which much better results. Besides, that's what you have to do whenever you attempt to categorize anything. You can't group collective by what they are not.

 

[Aron-Ra]

None of them that I know of. Every one of the nazis I know of who has ever commented either way claimed to be a creationist. Communists and socialists could go either way. I understand there are creationists in Canada's political system too, and they're socialist, are they not?

i thought you knew alot. ever watch the history channel. Are you speaking about current posers or the real ones like hitler and others. read his book. i believe he speaks of it.

Hitler only ever declared himself to be a creationist. He said so several times both publicly and privately, as did each of his followers. Some of them were Helenists, Asatru, or Hindu, and some of them claimed to be Catholic Christians including Hitler himself. But all of them were creationists and none of them expressed even the slightest understanding or support of evolution. The closest you'll ever find is a reference to "social Darwinism" which is a political reference not related to anything Darwin either studied or proposed.

planned parent hood is a big evo as well, they started it to help clean the gene pool.

I doubt that very much. Nor would it be at all relevant even if it were true. But I do admit that something should be done about our gene pool. The best and brightest among us have few children or none, which makes sense because we're so grossly overpopulated. But the Jerry Springer contestants with the least to offer drop another welfare case, future criminal crack baby at least once per year. Logically, what will that do to our gene pool a dozen generations from now, assuming we last that long?

 

[LittleNipper]

You wouldn't know truth if it hit you in the head.

Actually, I believe that if you were speaking of the plank in your own eye, you'd be speaking quite candidly....

 

[Schroeder]

Hitler only ever declared himself to be a creationist. He said so several times both publicly and privately, as did each of his followers. Some of them were Helenists, Asatru, or Hindu, and some of them claimed to be Catholic Christians including Hitler himself. But all of them were creationists and none of them expressed even the slightest understanding or support of evolution. The closest you'll ever find is a reference to "social Darwinism" which is a political reference not related to anything Darwin either studied or proposed.

can you show proof of this because i very much doubt it. What was all there cruel test on jews for to prove creationism. what was killing off lesser groups doing proving creationism. i doubt it.

I doubt that very much. Nor would it be at all relevant even if it were true. But I do admit that something should be done about our gene pool. The best and brightest among us have few children or none, which makes sense because we're so grossly overpopulated. But the Jerry Springer contestants with the least to offer drop another welfare case, future criminal crack baby at least once per year. Logically, what will that do to our gene pool a dozen generations from now, assuming we last that long?

sounds bad but its true. again that is what hitler was trying to do clean the gene pool. I would think teaching them morals like say from religions, especially ones that dont make cast groups, seeing how a dogmatic view that we just happen to be here to live and then die, what part of that idea makes one moral.

 

[Schroeder]

Since you didn't seem to understand the question, let me ask it again. Is there any way you think you defend the notion that creationists are somehow in the majority even though you know already that they cannot be? Because logic alone should tell you that if Catholicism is far-and-away the largest denomination among Christians, and since each of the last three popes promoted evolution while simultaneously ridiculing the creationism movement, already you should realize that the majority of Catholics are going to be evolutionist. Now since the second largest denomination of Christians is Orthodoxy, and some of the leading evolutionary scientists in history were Orthodox Christians or still are, then again, you should realize -without needing any polls at all- that your position is already outnumbered. Now add to that the fact that the most famous and most recognizeable paleontologists is both an outspoken proponant of evolution and an atheist-hating, Bible-believing Pentacostal preacher giving fiery sermons on Sundays, then you ought to put together that even traditionally fundamentalist denominations are coming to accept evolution. And the only reason some do not is because the creationism movement relies entirely on lies, and yes, I can prove that.

Seeing how i have a big problem with what catholics teach i will disagree. which shows what i am saying about polls. I dont see how saying a pentecostal preacher who is a famous paleontologists makes your point.

No sir, not on any point. Historians of all flavors as well as archaeologists have reached a concensus on the point that the Bible is not an historic documet; that Adam & Eve never existed and neither did Moses, and Jesus likely didn't either. But we all know for absolutely certain that the global flood never happened, there were already ancient civilations in place before Ussher's date for the creation of the universe, and they already spoke myriad language mellenia before the fabled tower of Babel. No, the Bible is dead-wrong about damned-near everything back-to-front.

i would say your dilusional.

Catholics have placed Jesus ahead of God just like you do. So you're all idolaters. According to Isaiah 45, you're all idolaters except for Jews and Muslims.

Again you dont know your bible as well as you assume.

Its no trick. If you really had evidence, then you could answer the question. The only reason you can't answer it is because you don't have any evidence.

again If God is supernatural how could i, except in personal experiences.. which is why ITs not my job to prove Him to you. Its God' job.

If it is evidence, then I would have no choice but to accept it.

above.

Then don't talk about what you believe for no reason. Instead, show me a reason to believe.

above

So you admit that you deny scientific methodology, just as I said. Because your explanations aren't supported by evidence and cannot be falsified.

above. I dont deny it.

Wrong again sir. The explanation is how it all works, not how it all got here. You're getting it all backwards.

the theory explains how what we have NOW got here. thats what i mean. Its obviouse abiogenesis is wrong. something from nothing doesnt happen unless there is a GOD.

It would only take one exception to prove my statement wrong. Can you show me one?

a bit loadded i would say. i dont think i can actually go and do this. NOr can you go and show me EVERY thing which shows they are 100% liars and wrong.

But I have no dogma. So you're only trying to project your own faults onto me.

sure.

You're talking about a belief based on evidence. Faith is defined as a belief that is not based on evidence.
One can believe in things which might exist, even if there's no evidence to support them, especially when there's no possible way to test for such things. Such a person can also put his faith aside to follow the scientifc method on those things which CAN be tested.

like proving what happened in the past millions of years ago, but it doesnt stop us from doing it. BUT no TEST as shown that the theory is correct.

I'll take that as an admission.
The theory of evoluiton actually holds that we "eukaryotes" likely all claim from one ancestor. But other forms of life might not share the same one.

holds doesnt PROVE.

Now how does your comment address my point above?
So you admit there is NOTHING convincing about God at all?

ONLY God can convince you he exsists. I would say there is alot. ALl of creation to me, BUT, that doesnt work for you so he will have to try something else if he is still trying.

 

[TheOutsider]

the theory explains how what we have NOW got here. thats what i mean. Its obviouse abiogenesis is wrong. something from nothing doesnt happen unless there is a GOD.

Why do people always say that? Abiogenesis has never said that something came from nothing. That is spontaneous generation which was disproved centuries ago. Abiogenesis says that organic chemicals to polymers to self-replicating polymers to hypercycle to protobiont to life. If you are going to criticize a scientific theory you should at least learn what it says first. Building strawmen just makes you look silly.

 

[gluadys]

can you show proof of this because i very much doubt it. What was all there cruel test on jews for to prove creationism. what was killing off lesser groups doing proving creationism. i doubt it.
sounds bad but its true. again that is what hitler was trying to do clean the gene pool. I would think teaching them morals like say from religions, especially ones that dont make cast groups, seeing how a dogmatic view that we just happen to be here to live and then die, what part of that idea makes one moral.

What makes you think that notions of "superior races" and "pure blood" only arose with evolution? People thought in those terms for millennia before evolution was discovered.

If anything, evolution has shown how meaningless such ideas are. We are all one family, genetically.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

can you show proof of this because i very much doubt it. What was all there cruel test on jews for to prove creationism. what was killing off lesser groups doing proving creationism. i doubt it.

I believe Aron-Ra is making the point that Hitler's Creationist beliefs were purely incedental to his atrocities. This is similar to the (erroneous) claims that atheism is bad simply because Hitler was an atheist (he wasn't, fyi).

the theory explains how what we have NOW got here. thats what i mean. Its obviouse abiogenesis is wrong. something from nothing doesnt happen unless there is a GOD.

Uhh... abiogensis is "life from non-life", not "life ex nihilo". Non-life isn't nihilo, it's amino acids.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Hitler only ever declared himself to be a creationist. He said so several times both publicly and privately, as did each of his followers. Some of them were Helenists, Asatru, or Hindu, and some of them claimed to be Catholic Christians including Hitler himself. But all of them were creationists and none of them expressed even the slightest understanding or support of evolution. The closest you'll ever find is a reference to "social Darwinism" which is a political reference not related to anything Darwin either studied or proposed.

can you show proof of this because i very much doubt it.

OK, but you could find this easy enough yourself.

"A Jew is for me an object of disgust. I feel like vomiting when I see one. Christ could not possibly have been a Jew. It is not necessary to prove that scientifically – it is a fact."
--Joseph Goebbels

"God gave the saviour to the German people. We have faith, deep and unshakeable faith, that he was sent to us by God to save Germany."
--Hermann Goering [speaking of Hitler]

And more specific references from Adolf Hitler himself:

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
[speaking privately, quoted in the diary of SS Adjutant Gerhard Engel, October 1941]

"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work."
[Reichstag speech, 1936]

"The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge."
[Mein Kampf]

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
[Mein Kampf]

"Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the 'remaking' of the Reich as they call it."
[Mein Kampf]

Think about that one for a while, and think about where America is heading.

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith … we need believing people."
[from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant, 26 April 1933]

Wow that sounds familiar, don't it? Like I heard it again recently.

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognised these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."
[My New Order]

"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfil God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.
[Mein Kampf]

"The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude. The various substitutes have not proved so successful from the standpoint of results that they could be regarded as a useful replacement for previous religious creeds. But if religious doctrine and faith are really to embrace the broad masses, the unconditional authority of the content of this faith is the foundation of all efficacy."
[Mein Kampf]

I could go on, but I trust I've made my point.

Now could you find me anything Hitler or any other nazi ever said about evolution?

What was all there cruel test on jews for to prove creationism. what was killing off lesser groups doing proving creationism. i doubt it.

They weren't trying to "prove" creationism. They never even questioned it. It was for them as much an assumed conclusion as it is for you. What they did to the jews was based on a creationist mythology which is still being purpetrated by Christian nazis and terrorists still today.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]"The Christian Identity Movement was identified as a right-wing terrorist group. This group's ideology combines religious concepts with elements of racism. Jews, blacks and other nonwhites are regarded as unequal to the white race. According to this Identity group, Jews are the children of Satan and the enemies of God. The Identity message is one of racial hatred behind the guise of religion."[/SIZE][/FONT]
--U. S. Federal Bureau of Investigation​

again that is what hitler was trying to do clean the gene pool.

No he wasn't. He didn't even know what a "gene pool" was. He bred purebred dobermans, and believed in "pure" bloodlines. This is a religious idea which flies against evolution. Evolutionists understand that the mut is the mightiest species specifically because it has the advantage of a larger gene pool, where purebreds are subject to sickly defects.

I would think teaching them morals like say from religions, especially ones that dont make cast groups,

They did. Unfortunately many religions did and do teach many forms of prejudice. Hitler was raised with a hatred of Jews instilled in him from his lessons in Catholocism as a schoolboy. Protestant Christians were the same. Hitler cited rev. Martin Luther as the inspiration behind many of his attrocities against the Jews.

"If I had to baptise a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone around his neck and push him over with the words 'I baptise thee in the name of Abraham'."
--Martin Luther; The Jews and thier Lies

Martin Luther was a creationist too!

seeing how a dogmatic view that we just happen to be here to live and then die, what part of that idea makes one moral.

I would think that one fact alone aught to do it. As Carl Sagan said; "It underscores our responsability to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the only home we've ever known."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pfwY2TNehw
Its not a "dogmatic view", nor can it be precisely because it is deliberately opposed to dogma and the assumption of authority, at least from the atheist perspective. But of course atheists are a minority even among evolutionists. You keep [deliberately?] forgetting about the many many many Christian evolutionists who assume some other purpose than evidence alone can indicate. From Gluady's perspective, for example, God manipulated the circumstances of time and events such that humans emerged as social animals, dependant on each other to make sacrifices of ourselves on one another's behalf. Humans emerged as the dominant species on this world not because we were smarter than anything else. But because we would martyr like nothing else. We will surrender our time, our goods, our pleasures, and even our lives in service of fellows in need.

That's what human society is from a secular standpoint too, except that we see religion trying to destroy that. Look at yourself, for example. You've been conditioned to execrate any keyword relating to the evolutionary position, and you've been trained to hate non-believers simply because they don't believe. You despise us for our attributes, and what you claim as an attribute yourself is in fact your greatest flaw and weakness, and the thing that makes you so easily manipulated; your faith.

 

[Aron-Ra]

So you admit there is NOTHING convincing about God at all?

ONLY God can convince you he exsists. I would say there is alot. ALl of creation to me, BUT, that doesnt work for you so he will have to try something else if he is still trying.

Interesting. I didn't realize you believed in a fallable god, one who would try, fail, and have to try again. With that as your theology, it is indeed odd that you won't accept the obvious trial-and-error mechanisms evolution reveals. Of course the only option is that if God is infallable, then he obviously does not want me to believe in him.

I would love to continue deflecting all your false accusations, correcting your misunderstandings, and proving you wrong on every point you ever try to assert. But the truth is I really don't have any more time for this right now. I must apologize, but I have to attend a fossil dig out-of-town this week-end, and I have two exams pending immediately after that which I haven't adequately prepared for. I honestly hate to duck out with such excuses, but I have no choice right now. Sorry.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Is there any way you think you defend the notion that creationists are somehow in the majority even though you know already that they cannot be?

..........

I guess not.

Because logic alone should tell you that if Catholicism is far-and-away the largest denomination among Christians, and since each of the last three popes promoted evolution while simultaneously ridiculing the creationism movement, already you should realize that the majority of Catholics are going to be evolutionist. Now since the second largest denomination of Christians is Orthodoxy, and some of the leading evolutionary scientists in history were Orthodox Christians or still are, then again, you should realize -without needing any polls at all- that your position is already outnumbered. Now add to that the fact that the most famous and most recognizeable paleontologists is both an outspoken proponant of evolution and an atheist-hating, Bible-believing Pentacostal preacher giving fiery sermons on Sundays, then you ought to put together that even traditionally fundamentalist denominations are coming to accept evolution. And the only reason some do not is because the creationism movement relies entirely on lies, and yes, I can prove that.

Seeing how i have a big problem with what catholics teach i will disagree. which shows what i am saying about polls.

It doesn't matter whether you disagree with Catholocism or not; theirs is still the largest denomination among Christians, and they're largely evolutionist. The same goes for Orthodoxy. They outnumber you too, and they're largely evolutionist as well. Whether you go by polls or simple logic looking at all these figures, the fact remains that creationists are the minority among Christians, and that's why every single poll anyone ever takes always reflects that.

I dont see how saying a pentecostal preacher who is a famous paleontologists makes your point.

It means that there are evolutionists even among the most "fundamentalist" denominations. It also means that the evolution v. creationism contraversy is not an argument over atheism v. religion. For most people, its an argument over how God created, and whether he did that by using a series of intricate natural systems he seemingly designed, or whether he said something like "abra-cadabera" like the Bible says. The central falsehood of creationism is that doctrine be worshipped as deity. But you see, the Bible is not God, nor is it infallable, because it is not the "word of God" either. Like all the world's other religious books to other gods of other religions, the Bible too is the work of men. God never wrote anything. But, if you believe in God, then you believe that he created the earth, and that includes all those mountains of fossils and genetic evidence and myriad clues left behind to show us how everything happened. So the question is whether you believe God controls all the seemingly random events in this world? Or do you worship man-made mythology as though that were God?

Historians of all flavors as well as archaeologists have reached a concensus on the point that the Bible is not an historic documet; that Adam & Eve never existed and neither did Moses, and Jesus likely didn't either. But we all know for absolutely certain that the global flood never happened, there were already ancient civilations in place before Ussher's date for the creation of the universe, and they already spoke myriad language mellenia before the fabled tower of Babel. No, the Bible is dead-wrong about damned-near everything back-to-front.

i would say your dilusional.

And I would say that you evidently haven't studied the Bible as much as you think you have.

Catholics have placed Jesus ahead of God just like you do. So you're all idolaters. According to Isaiah 45, you're all idolaters except for Jews and Muslims.

Again you dont know your bible as well as you assume.

Why do you say that? Does not the Bible say that none can get to God unless they go through Jesus first?

If you really had evidence, then you could answer the question. The only reason you can't answer it is because you don't have any evidence.

again If God is supernatural how could i, except in personal experiences.. which is why ITs not my job to prove Him to you. Its God' job.

Then God has failed his job, and you should never have implied that there was any evidence for God if you knew already that there couldn't be any.

If it is evidence, then I would have no choice but to accept it.

above.

Right, evidence is a set of factual circumstances supportive of, or explicable by, one scenario over another. Because your personal emotional desires are entirely subjective, by your own admission, then they cannot be considered factual circumstances. Facts are objectively determinable.

Then don't talk about what you believe for no reason. Instead, show me a reason to believe.

above

So you have no reason to believe, just as I said; faith is a belief in that which is impossible according to everything we know about anything at all, which is assumed without evidence, and maintained against all evidence to the contrary. Why would you even argue this if you're only going to turn around and prove my point?

So you admit that you deny scientific methodology, just as I said. Because your explanations aren't supported by evidence and cannot be falsified.

above. I dont deny it.

You're contradicting yourself again. You have already admitted that your explanations aren't supported by evidence, and that they cannot be falsified. Can you name even one element of scientific methodology that you haven't denied with that admission alone?

the theory explains how what we have NOW got here. thats what i mean. Its obviouse abiogenesis is wrong. something from nothing doesnt happen unless there is a GOD.

But (1) abiogenesis isn't "something from nothing." Its a very complicated progression of replicative polymers leading through various stages of protobionts and so on. (2) God IS "something from nothing." Not that God makes 'something from nothing', but that God himself is made out of nothing, and this would still be true even if such a thing exists!

It would only take one exception to prove my statement wrong. Can you show me one?

a bit loadded i would say. i dont think i can actually go and do this. NOr can you go and show me EVERY thing which shows they are 100% liars and wrong.

Must I really list every lie every evangelist ever told in order to prove that evangelists lie? Just one lie from each of the famous ones would do that. But wouldn't it be infinitely easier for you to name just one among them whom I cannot prove to have knowingly and deliberately misrepresented the truth?

One can believe in things which might exist, even if there's no evidence to support them, especially when there's no possible way to test for such things. Such a person can also put his faith aside to follow the scientifc method on those things which CAN be tested.

like proving what happened in the past millions of years ago, but it doesnt stop us from doing it. BUT no TEST as shown that the theory is correct.

Yes sir, many tests from many different fields have all shown that our theories of the past are correct. If you would like to argue that point, be specific.

The theory of evoluiton actually holds that we "eukaryotes" likely all claim from one ancestor. But other forms of life might not share the same one.

holds doesnt PROVE.

Science has a rule that nothing can ever be proven in the posative sense. Still, the arguments for evolution can be, and already have been proven in the sense that a court of law would use that word. In science, you have what is supported and what is not supported, or has already been disproved. Creationism fits both of the latter categories. BUT, (and if I could get you to understand only one thing in this whole discussion, this would be it) the existence of God has not been disproved, but Biblical creationism has been. So even if God really does exist and really did create everything, the Biblical literalists would still be wrong about how he did it.

I still don't have much time for this forum. This semester is the most demanding I've had so far, and I have a couple of hours per day in which to squeeze in several hours of study. But I'd still like to see your response to the nazi's claims of creationism, because all my life, I've heard creationists say the nazis were evolutionists, and those claims were never justified. I'd also like to see your response to what an ape is. I haven't followed the other thread about that because I don't have time to get into another thread. But a one-on-one discussion with a once-per-day post, I might be able to do, since my job allows me that much. So, looking forward to your replies.

 

[Schroeder]

Why do people always say that? Abiogenesis has never said that something came from nothing. That is spontaneous generation which was disproved centuries ago. Abiogenesis says that organic chemicals to polymers to self-replicating polymers to hypercycle to protobiont to life. If you are going to criticize a scientific theory you should at least learn what it says first. Building strawmen just makes you look silly.

when do chemicals evolve. Or where did the first organic chemicals come from.

 

[Schroeder]

What makes you think that notions of "superior races" and "pure blood" only arose with evolution? People thought in those terms for millennia before evolution was discovered.

If anything, evolution has shown how meaningless such ideas are. We are all one family, genetically.

why are you harping on me. i agree with you. the fact is hitler used the idea to do what he did. I was making a point that He did believe in the theory and tried to use it to create a super race.

 

[Aron-Ra]

when do chemicals evolve. Or where did the first organic chemicals come from.

There are myriad organic chemicals available in many places, and even visible in space right now. But chemicals do not "evolve" in the sense that life does. Biological evolution requires genetic inheritence. How the first genes came to be is obviously a different process, since there are no ancestors to inherit those genes from.

 

[Aron-Ra]

the fact is hitler used the idea to do what he did. I was making a point that He did believe in the theory and tried to use it to create a super race.

Prove it. Because I say he didn't know squat about evolution and didn't believe it, and was only following religious incentives, and I've already shown ample evidence of that. What can you show to prove otherwise?