How has darwinism contributed to the world?

[Lanakila]

About the Pilgrims, don't act like you know so much.


I don't.  I just know more than you, because I bothered to educate myself on them.

From both yours and Alex posts it seems you are both misinformed a little about the Pilgrims. They were separatists, who separated from the church of England. For various reasons, mostly because the church of England was alot more liberal than they were (doctrine, practice ect..). The Pilgrims moved to Holland for a while and then decided to come to America. Upon arriving in the New World they set up a very strict governmental system (actually on the boat on the way over). The did not believe in freedom of religion (it was not even dreamed of at this point in history). In practice they set up a system similar to what they had left behind in England (old habits die hard).

I just researched a paper on the Separation of Church and state, and Jefferson was not a "Christian". He was a Diest as were quite a few of the founding fathers. Deists are more comparible to agnostics than Christians (He published his own Bible talking out anything supernatural). There were some Christians among the Founding Fathers, but Jefferson wasn't among them.

Separation of Church and state is a good thing, if applied correctly. I don't want to pay my tithes to a state church and the government should not be involved in church business. Freedom of Religion is part of the separation and we should all be in favor of religious freedom. The freedom clause should always take presidence over the establishment clause, and that is the crux of the debate.

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
... it is irrelavent to claim that strutures are not vestigal if they can do something.

That's your claim, not ours.

So you're saying there are no useless parts, right? That's what i think too. Then how is that supporting darwinism? That just shows that God created animals and us humans correctly from the start. He didn't have to tinker and upgrade us slowly and painfully.

 

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by chickenman
so basically, its just an assertion of yours, that there is some question about evolution which precluded people from going to college - you don't have any evidence?

I tell you here what i heard from a man many years older than me. You are not obliged to listen or believe me -- nor am i obliged to listen to your weak claims of "Lucy" or "Archaeopteryx."

 

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by Lanakila
I just researched a paper on the Separation of Church and state, and Jefferson was not a "Christian". He was a Diest as were quite a few of the founding fathers. Deists are more comparible to agnostics than Christians (He published his own Bible talking out anything supernatural). There were some Christians among the Founding Fathers, but Jefferson wasn't among them.

Yeah, that's the word. I knew he believed in God, but his Bible ends with Christ's burial. So he's not actually a real Christian. But still, the overwhelming majority of the founding fathers were strong Christians. For example, George Washington started each day on his knees in prayer. It's foolish for evolutionists to say the framers put some kind of "separation between Church and state" in the Constitution. That just shows lack of knowledge of the Law of the Land.

Thanks, Lanakila. God bless you!

Alex

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by alexgb00

Good that you have a degree. But why do you disagree with the fact that when it comes to politics, anything goes?

That wasn't your original statement.  You originally made all sorts of bizarre claims about "when communists come to power, the first thing they teach is evolution".  You're wrong.

Scientific examples of real-life? Let me guess -- you'll decide for me what counts as a scientific example. Yep. That's exactly what i want.

Actually, no. The criteria for what constitutes science is well-known, and I didn't invent it.

But OK. I'm convinced. Back when the USSR was a country, this is what took place. To graduate from 10th grade (that's as far as school went), one needed to take an extensive test. At the end of this general test was a question regarding "science." It asked the student whether he or she believed in evolution. If one answered "NO," he was not allowed to graduate from high school. In Russia, if you didn't graduate from school, you can't get into college. This way, the government turned around and freely announced that 100% of all college students believe in evolution.

None of this is proof of anything.  Where are you getting this from?  What is the source?  Who is the author? 

And they were right. But these statistics were fixed -- Creationists weren't allowed to go to college! This shows one thing -- that evolutionists often can't find a way to support their outlandish theory, so they help themselves "make" proof.

More unsubstantiated nonsense.  Claims without any evidence to back them up are just hot air. 

Communists: "Man is formed by accident. He is a collection of chemicals assembled overtime by accident. His life is cheap and expendable. He needs no 'life, liberty, or private property'. "

This is not in communism.  Sorry.

Nazis and KKK: "Survival of the fittest brought about mankind. Therefore, some species of man must be less evolved. Natural selection can only work if the most developed build on the least developed. " (Both groups considered themselves most developed, and both saw Jews and Blacks as the least evolved)

Nazism does not embrace evolution. 

Environmentalists: "Animals and plants were all here before humans. Today mankind creates pollution and chops down trees. Man is nothing more than a menace to a utopian world. Therefore, man needs to be liquidated to make sure that nature continues to slowly evolve without interruption. "

Cute.  But this has nothing to do with the environmental movement. 

And, of course, you haven't indicated where any of the above hogwash comes from.  Not surprised. 

Simply put, you'd lose that bet.

On the contrary.  You've just demonstrated why I would win the bet.  Anyone who had actually spent time studying the basics of communism, the national socialist movement, or environmentalism would laugh their head off when they read your cartoon version of what these movements stand for.

  [/B][/QUOTE]

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by alexgb00

What, are you partially blind and ignorant?

I'm not.  I've read Jefferson.  You are wrong about him.

Look at what Nepetreley posted a couple pages back.

Saw it. Nothing special.

You just hope and pray that Jefferson was not a Christian. You are just plain mistaken on this point.

Wrong as usual.  Jefferson was not a christian.  Some quotes for you:



Thomas Jefferson

by John E. Remsburg

Had Jefferson's works been edited by some pious churchman who would have expunged or modified his radical sentiments; or had his works been suppressed after they were published, as some desired, the clergy might with less fear of exposure claim that their author was a Christian. But while his writings are accessible to the public, it adds nothing to their reputation for candor to make the claims respecting his belief which many of them do; for these writings clearly prove that he was not a Christian, but a Freethinker.

The "Memoirs, Correspondence and Miscellanies from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson," edited by Thomas Jefferson Randolph, a grandson of the distinguished statesman, was printed in four large volumes, and published in 1829. From these volumes, and other writings of Jefferson, I have culled some of the most radical thoughts to be found in the whole range of Infidel literature.

In a letter to his nephew and ward, Peter Carr, while at school, Jefferson offers the following advice, which though thoroughly sound, would be considered rather questionable advice for a Christian to give a schoolboy:

"Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than of blindfolded fear. ... Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you" (Jefferson's Works, Vol. ii., p. 217).

The God of the Old Testament -- the God which Christians worship -- Jefferson pronounces "a being of terrific character -- cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust" (Works Vol. iv., p. 325).

In speaking of the Jewish priests, he denominates them "a bloodthirsty race, as cruel and remorseless as the being whom they represented as the family God of Abraham, of Isaac, and Jacob, and the local God of Israel" (Ibid.).

In a letter to John Adams, dated April 8, 1816, referring to the God of the Jews, be says:

"Their God would be deemed a very indifferent man with us" (Ibid., p. 373).

To his nephew he writes as follows regarding the Bible:

"Read the Bible as you would Livy or Tacitus. For example, in the book of Joshua we are told the sun stood still for several hours. Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus we should class it with their showers of blood, speaking of their statues, beasts, etc. But it is said that the writer of that book was inspired. Examine, therefore, candidly, what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension is entitled to your inquiry, because millions believe it. On the other hand, you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the law of nature" (Works, Vol. ii., p. 217).

In this same letter, he thus refers to Jesus Christ:

"Keep in your eye the opposite pretensions: First, of those who say he was begotten by God, born of a virgin, suspended and reversed the laws of Nature at will, and ascended bodily into heaven; and second, of those who say he was a man of illegitimate birth, of a benevolent heart, enthusiastic mind, who set out without pretensions to divinity, ended in believing them, and was punished capitally for sedition by being gibbeted, according to the Roman law, which punished the first commission of that offence by whipping, and the second by exile or death in furea."

His own opinion respecting the above is expressed in a letter to John Adams, written a short time previous to his death:

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" (Works, Vol. iv, p. 365).

In the gospel history of Jesus, Jefferson discovers what he terms "a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticism, and fabrications" (Works, Vol. iv, p. 325).

He continues:

"If we could believe that he [Jesus] really countenanced the follies, the falsehoods, and the charlatanism which his biographers [Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,] father on him, and admit the misconstructions, interpolations, and theorizations of the fathers of the early, and the fanatics of the latter ages, the conclusion would be irresistible by every sound mind that he was an impostor" (Ibid..).

"Create the conclusion and ignore contrary evidence." That sounds EXACTLY like the way the theory of evolution was created. Huh, imagine that?

Except that the theory of evolution was created to explain the evidence.  Creationism exists in spite of the evidence.

By the way, it don't look like you read Jefferson's writing.

By the way, you're flatly wrong again.

 

[kiwimac]

Spent years of my life studying Nazism and its slightly-more-left-wing cousin, Fascism. Nothing you have said is actually part or parcel of Nazism.

The Nazis believed (among other things) that they were superior because[/b[ God had created them that way!

Kiwimac

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Lanakila
About the Pilgrims, don't act like you know so much.


I don't.  I just know more than you, because I bothered to educate myself on them.

From both yours and Alex posts it seems you are both misinformed a little about the Pilgrims. They were separatists, who separated from the church of England. For various reasons, mostly because the church of England was alot more liberal than they were (doctrine, practice ect..).

I already indicated this.  They had very strict ideas, and they wanted to enforce them on the entire Church of England.  When the C of E resisted their attempt to enforce their views on the entire church, the Pilgrims grew frustrated and left.

The Pilgrims moved to Holland for a while and then decided to come to America. Upon arriving in the New World they set up a very strict governmental system (actually on the boat on the way over). The did not believe in freedom of religion (it was not even dreamed of at this point in history). In practice they set up a system similar to what they had left behind in England (old habits die hard).

Indeed.  So the claim that they left England in search of freedom of religion is nonsense.  They actually left England because the Church of England wouldn't permit them to set up the kind of authoritarian theocracy that they wanted to have. 

Once they arrived here, they became intolerant and autocratic.  There is nothing admirable or praiseworthy about that - they were little tinhorn religious dictators that needed some subjects to rule.  So they decided to create their own society in the New World. 

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Sauron

Jefferson was not a christian.

I am incapable of knowing the hearts of the living, let alone the dead.  But based on his letters, I would have to agree that he was not a Christian, at least at the time of those writings.

 

 

[alexgb00]

OK, here we go.

Originally posted by Sauron
That wasn't your original statement.  You originally made all sorts of bizarre claims about "when communists come to power, the first thing they teach is evolution".  You're wrong.

Man, you're stubborn. Come on, give me a scientific source to support that communists don't teach evolution. Either you understand where i'm getting at and know that it hurts your theory, or you really don't know anything about communism.

Actually, no. The criteria for what constitutes science is well-known, and I didn't invent it.

Whatever.

None of this is proof of anything.  Where are you getting this from?  What is the source?  Who is the author? 

Like i said above (you obviously didn't bother to look), i get this from people who've been there. I can tell you've never been in a situation where you had to decide between your morals and your career. If i wanted to make up some dirt for evolution, i couldn't because lying is wrong. On the other hand, i wouldn't have to dig far.

It's hard to believe that your beloved darwinist comrades would make up "evidence" to push their theory along, isn't it?

More unsubstantiated nonsense.  Claims without any evidence to back them up are just hot air. 

This is an emotional statement, not scientific. You dismiss it without even thinking, but urge people like me to read into your indoctrination material. That's plain idiotic.

This is not in communism.  Sorry.

Hmm. That's the most scientific that's come out of your mouth all day.

That was a joke. You can't win on this point, so why not stick your tail between your legs and run.

Nazism does not embrace evolution. 

Outright, they didn't. But if you believe in evolution, thoughts like those will eventually cross your mind. Hitler believed in evolution and its tools, like "natural selection." It only makes sense that he'd try to adhere to these and aid natural selection by killing the least fit. Another point which you blindly dismiss because you can't find a good foothold to defend your theory.

Cute.  But this has nothing to do with the environmental movement. 

Again, you're dismissing a good argument. Why? Because you know you're losing on this point. Good tactic, but not so stoic of you.

And, of course, you haven't indicated where any of the above hogwash comes from.  Not surprised.

It's called studying. Why don't your go wash your hogs somewhere else.

You've just demonstrated why I would win the bet.  Anyone who had actually spent time studying the basics of communism, the national socialist movement, or environmentalism would laugh their head off when they read your cartoon version of what these movements stand for.

I can see that happening. Nazis laughing their heads off at the thought of killing people for the sake of "racial cleansing." Think what you're saying, boy. Your arguments have been based on technicalities, and when you're faced with a good question, you shrug it off to avoid embarrassment. 

I'll get back to you tomorrow. Stay tuned.

 

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by kiwimac
The Nazis believed (among other things) that they were superior because God had created them that way!

The nazis were a funny bunch. They had their own nazi baptisms, nazi altars, along with other crazy stuff. They didn't believe in God Almighty, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Joseph. They didn't believe in Jesus Christ. They had their own "god" who was a blood-thirsty, evil idol. It's obvoius satan was their "god." Their worshipped satan.

Alex

 

[alexgb00]

Hello, Nick!

Out of curiosity, do you live anywhere near Portland, Oregon? I noticed you live in the same time zone as me.

Good night everyone!

Alex

 

[chickenman]

unfortunately logic seems to elude you alex

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by alexgb00
Hello, Nick!

Out of curiosity, do you live anywhere near Portland, Oregon? I noticed you live in the same time zone as me.

Good night everyone!

Alex

Nah, I'm (unfortunately) in California, where the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional.   

 

 

[LewisWildermuth]

quote:
Where exactly does it state that it is without error?

Proverbs 30:5

quote:
Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

Only in the NIV is it "flawless" mostly it seems to be translated as pure.

And although this is a different topic, it seemed appropriate in this context.

Hebrews 4:12

quote:
12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

I see nothing about error here...

Yes they canmean deep things but there is nothing here stating that they are error free.

So are Bats actualy birds and do rabits chew cud?

If these are not facts then the bible is not without error.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Communists: "Man is formed by accident. He is a collection of chemicals assembled overtime by accident. His life is cheap and expendable. He needs no 'life, liberty, or private property'. "

And a wacked political system effects the science of evolution how?

Nazis and KKK: "Survival of the fittest brought about mankind. Therefore, some species of man must be less evolved. Natural selection can only work if the most developed build on the least developed. " (Both groups considered themselves most developed, and both saw Jews and Blacks as the least evolved)

The KKK was mostly a Christian offshoot of the Southern churches that believed slavery was biblicaly correct. They offten sited the mark of Cain as causing the darker skin and did not pick up on evolution untill long after they were founded.

The Natzi beliefs were a strange mix of christianity and old germanic religions with a few atlantean myths thrown in. All had a creationist point of view, they were better because God made them better.

Environmentalists: "Animals and plants were all here before humans. Today mankind creates pollution and chops down trees. Man is nothing more than a menace to a utopian world

Where the heck did you get this!?!?!?! Now there is some argument that we are outstripping the natural resourses but I have yet to see a plan to kill of the human race or even drasticaly cut the numbers by any other means then trying to discourage population growth through education.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

quote:
Environmentalists: "Animals and plants were all here before humans. Today mankind creates pollution and chops down trees. Man is nothing more than a menace to a utopian world"
Now, I am no tree hugger but to see them compared to nazis, well that is just too much.
I once had the opportunity to be "saved". One of the things that really turned me off was this particular church's attitude towards environmental issues. I just could not stomach hearing stuff like "nature preserves and conservation are wrong". Apparently, setting aside natural areas and conserving natural resources are bad because we "not trusting God's word" that "He will provide" and that man was made to have dominion over the earth (I was actually told all that).

 

[Lanakila]

I am far from an environmentalist myself late, but I think the answer lies somewhere between the extreme (tree hugger) and the tree chopper,lol. If you believe that God created the earth and gave man dominion that just means stewardship. Mankind in general hasn't been a good steward of the earth and has poluted among other things. Stewardship is the balance that needs to be sought, not the extreme environmentalists or those who are doing major environmental damage without a care.

 

[DrLao]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
Only in the NIV is it "flawless" mostly it seems to be translated as pure.[/ QUOTE]It is not too difficult to look up the meaning of words in the Bible if you use Strong's Concordance at Bible.Crosswalk.com. The word translated to "flawless" in NIV, and to "pure" in most other versions is "Tsaraph". This word seems to be closer to "refined" and it is often used in when talking about smelting and metal making. In the KJV it is never translated to "flawless" anywhere that it appears, nor is it translated to a synonym of "flawless."

 

[npetreley]

This is pointless, because you wouldn't accept anything but a verse like:

1 Bogus 5:10 "The Bible is entirely without grammatical, factual or spelling errors, so says God, whose original signature follows, call (000) 555-0000 for a notarized copy of this statement or order you copy online at www.proofthebibleiswithouterror.org."

Besides, I don't know why you even want such a verse. That would be the Bible testifying about itself, which would be meaningless.

But just because it's easy to recall these verses, here are some more you won't accept:

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God

1 Timothy 2:3
For our exhortation didn't come from error or impurity or an intent to deceive.

2 Peter 1:20
First of all, you should know this: no prophecy of Scripture comes from one's own interpretation

James 1:17
Every generous act and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights; with Him there is no variation or shadow cast by turning.