How has darwinism contributed to the world?

[npetreley]

Well, according to one of the two creation myths in genesis. According to the other creation myth in genesis, man was created first, then the animals as helpers - but they didn't work out (oops God made a mistake), then woman.

I can't believe you're bringing up this hogwash again. No, wait a minute, I can believe it. As the Bible points out, "a dog returns to its vomit."

 

[Jerry Smith]

Sequence of events:

"evolution explains why snakes have leg spurs"->"there are no vestigial organs, I challenge you to name one"->"Ok, here are a few"->"What? Did someone say vestigial organs? There aren't any! Here are a few that have some functions!"->"definition of vestigial doesn't mean they don't have function"->"salamanders have vestigial eyes"-> (and here's the stroke of genius) "salamander's vestigial eyes only prove evolution can remove traits. Your whole case is flawed!!"

Yeah. Traits like legs on snakes.

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
 [America] was founded as a country with a secular government. That's the point. 

I don't think the all-Christian founding fathers would've ever created a secular government. Examples of secular governments in recent history are nazi Germany, communist USSR, fascist Italy, etc. People don't want to accept this suggestion because it makes them feel uncomfortable, but it's true.

America is by far the most powerful nation on earth today. But since the people stepped away from God, this can't last long. We need to repent and turn back to God, the way the city of Nineba (i think that's how it's spelled) did when Jonah preached to them.

Alex

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by alexgb00  

I don't think the all-Christian founding fathers would've ever created a secular government.

No, actually the partly Christian founding fathers did have the understanding to realize that creating a religious-based government would harm both religion and government. The only alternative is a secular government.

Examples of secular governments in recent history are nazi Germany,

This one was secular, but tyrannical.

communist USSR

This did not grant freedom of religion, therefore to that degree it was not secular, but had a religious establishment.

fascist Italy,

This one was either secular or Catholic, but, either way, was tyrannical.

etc.

?

Examples of secular governments include the U.S., Canada, Mexico, almost every European state, and many others.

People don't want to accept this suggestion because it makes them feel uncomfortable, but it's true.

Sorry. It isn't.

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
No, he isn't perfect. But the Word of God is without error. If he depends on the Bible, he can't go wrong. You should read your Bible too.

Alex


I have many times Alex.

Where exactly does it state that it is without error?

Lewis, the Bible is inspired by God. It is God's Word. And God doesn't make any mistakes. Every single word in the Bible is precious. If a Christian doen't think of the Bible 100% true, that's pretty sad.

God bless you, brother!

In Christ,

Alex

 

[Satoshi]

Originally posted by alexgb00


I don't think the all-Christian founding fathers would've ever created a secular government.

So what's that pesky Bill of Rights doing there?  Was this inserted by some sneaky secularists while the founders weren't looking?

Examples of secular governments in recent history are nazi Germany, communist USSR, fascist Italy, etc. People don't want to accept this suggestion because it makes them feel uncomfortable, but it's true.

Actually, people don't want to accept these facts because they're incorrect.  In these countries, there was no separation of church and state.  As a result, there was some severe persecution of unbelievers in the respective religions.

America is by far the most powerful nation on earth today. But since the people stepped away from God, this can't last long. We need to repent and turn back to God, the way the city of Nineba (i think that's how it's spelled) did when Jonah preached to them.
Alex

Feel free to be as close to whatever god you wish.  Just don't feel free to force your religion on others.

 

[alexgb00]

Jerry,

Once again, you state that the USA are a secular nation. That may appear to be evident today, but not if you lived even 80 years ago. The founding fathers knew that if their government wasn't in God's will, it would flop. That was expected! But it didn't, because the US were created with God's blessing.

Alex

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by alexgb00

"Separation of Church and State" is nothing more than a popular myth. There's nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Right where this phrase is used. The first time it appeared was in a private letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist friend of his. He said something like, "The First Amendment creates a wall separating Church from state. This one-dimensional wall prevents the government from interfering with matters of religion, but assures that Christian principals will always stay in power. " 

BWAHAHA!!.  Jefferson's letter said no such thing. Here is the text:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between
man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or
his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions
only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that
act of the  whole American People which declared that their
legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a
wall of separation between Church and State.

[...] I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing
of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender for you and
yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high
respect and esteem."

     Thomas Jefferson
     Letter to the Danbury Baptist
     Association
     January 1, 1802


The reason that Jefferson's views on this are important is that Jefferson was the chief architect of the Constitution (along with Madison).  So if you really want to know what the Founders intended in the Constitution, it is vitally important to know what Jefferson and Madison thought.

England was a country where most Christians couldn't practice their faith.

Total, absolute NONSENSE.  There was no such law in England.  Christians were perfectly free to practice their faith. 

The Pilgrims and most of the settlers in New England after them came to have a place to worship God freely.

Boy, are you in for a history lesson.

The Puritans came over from England, because the Church of England would not allow them to use the law to enforce their views over the entire English population.  In many ways, the Puritans are like modern fundamentalists:  they want to use the govt. to help their religion along. 

And, having once settled here, the Puritans began to create a theocracy in Massachusetts.  They enforced their own views, and punished those who disagreed.  One such individual who disagreed was banished from the colony.  His name was Roger Williams. He went south and started a new colony, and thus Rhode Island was born.

Oh - and the heretical belief that was so bad, that it got Roger Williams banished - guess what it was? 

Roger Williams believed that church and state should be separate, with the magistrates having no authority in religious affairs.  From Britannica:



Invited by the church at Salem to become pastor in 1634, <B>Williams</B> was banished from Massachusetts Bay by the civil authorities for his dangerous views: besides those on land rights, he held that magistrates had no right to interfere in matters of religion. Consequently, in January 1636 <B>Williams</B> set out for Narragansett Bay, and in the spring, on land purchased from the Narragansett Indians, he founded the town of Providence and the colony of Rhode Island. Providence became a haven for Anabaptists, Quakers, and others whose beliefs were denied public expression. <B>Williams</B> was briefly an Anabaptist but in 1639 declared himself a Seeker. He remained a steadfast believer in Calvinist theology. <B>Williams</B> went to England in 1643 to obtain a charter for Rhode Island and again in 1651-54 to have it confirmed, during which visit he became a friend of the poet, John Milton. He was the first president of Rhode Island under its charter and until his death always held some public office. He was of constant service to Rhode Island and neighbouring colonies as a peacemaker with the Narragansett Indians, whose language he knew and whose trust he had earned, although he helped defend Rhode Island against them during King Philip's War (1675-76). From 1636 until his death he supported himself by farming and trading.

All of the founding fathers were Christians.

More nonsense.&nbsp; The Founders were of very different backgrounds, religiously.&nbsp;

I hope that answers your objection.

Not hardly.&nbsp; All it does is show how&nbsp;desperately uneducated you are about American history.

 

[Satoshi]

Originally posted by alexgb00


Lewis, the Bible is inspired by God. It is God's Word. And God doesn't make any mistakes. Every single word in the Bible is precious. If a Christian doen't&nbsp;think of&nbsp;the Bible 100% true, that's pretty sad.

God bless you, brother!

In Christ,

Alex

Repetition doesn't make something true.&nbsp; One could just as easily say that Star Wars is inspired by God--it is God's word, and therefore every scene, every line of dialog, is precious.&nbsp; If you want to convince people of your position, why not try giving some miraculous knowledge that could only have come from God?&nbsp; For example, does the Bible every give some details into germ theory?&nbsp; Universal Gravitation?&nbsp; Genetics?

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by Satoshi
So what's that pesky Bill of Rights doing there?&nbsp; Was this inserted by some sneaky secularists while the founders weren't looking?

Sorry, dude, you've got to quote from the Bill of rights where it says "separation of Church and state" or whatever load of bull you want to throw at me. I won't hold my breath, since you'll never find it. Unless they bring it some new amendment...

Actually, people don't want to accept these facts because they're incorrect.&nbsp; In these countries, there was no separation of church and state.&nbsp; As a result, there was some severe persecution of unbelievers in the respective religions.

I assume by "people" you mean yourself. OK, don't accept&nbsp;them. And&nbsp;don't accept evolution while you're at it. There was persecution, but not because of lack of "separation" between things.

Feel free to be as close to whatever god you wish.&nbsp; Just don't feel free to force your religion on others.

OK, but you feel free to spread your blind belief in darwinism, right? That's fair, of course. Silly me!&nbsp;&nbsp;

 

[A Sheep]

Prophecies, round/spherical globe, 8th day circumcision, Jesus walking on this earth (scientific fact), disciples taking torture instead of denying Jesus, flood stories from around the world (too many stories, that are too similar, and from all over the globe for them all to have made them up).

 

[Satoshi]

Originally posted by alexgb00


Sorry, dude, you've got to quote from the Bill of rights where it says "separation of Church and state" or whatever load of bull you want to throw at me. I won't hold my breath, since you'll never find it. Unless they bring it some new amendment...

Do you want the actual term "separation of Church and State" or do you want the concept?

I assume by "people" you mean yourself. OK, don't accept&nbsp;them. And&nbsp;don't accept evolution while you're at it. There was persecution, but not because of lack of "separation" between things.

By "people," I mean&nbsp;myself, my teachers, the authors of history books, and so on.&nbsp; I rather think that the Jews would have benefitted just a little bit had Nazi Germany adhered to separation between Church and State.&nbsp; But, that's just me.&nbsp; And a few others who've heard of this little incident known as the "Holocaust."

OK, but you feel free to spread your blind belief in darwinism, right? That's fair, of course. Silly me!&nbsp;&nbsp;

And just how&nbsp;does an acceptance of a scientific theory based on facts fall under "blind belief?"

 

[npetreley]

show how evolution benefits communists, nazis

Hitler was nuts and/or demon possessed, so it doesn't really matter much where he got his ideas.

But it appears he got them from both camps. He believed in a false Christian doctrine that the Jews were cursed (an abominable doctrine started probably by Chrysostom, if I recall correctly). He also got many of his most infulential ideas from Nietzsche.

The latter is especially ironic because Hitler phrased his defense for trying to create a superior race in religious terms, but that was an idea he got from Nietzsche. Nietzsche formulated that idea based on Darwin's works! So Hitler simply took an idea born out of atheistic evolution and tried to prop it up by defending it in "godly" terms.

But nobody could ever accuse Hitler of being a Christian. On the one hand, Hitler was so big on Nietzsche that he issued a copy of Friedrich "God is dead" Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" to every soldier in his army. On the other, he was scalp-deep in the occult.

So invoking the name of God in defense of his ideas didn't reveal his motive. It was nothing more than political bluster to get the approval of the German people.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by A Sheep
Prophecies,

Which ones?

round/spherical globe,

Which contradicts the view in the Bible;

8th day circumcision,

Which proves what?

&nbsp;Jesus walking on this earth (scientific fact),

It is?&nbsp; Show me&nbsp;where this "scientific fact" is documented.&nbsp;

disciples taking torture instead of denying Jesus,

1.&nbsp; There is no evidence for this;

2.&nbsp; Even if true, what do you think it proves?&nbsp; People die for mistaken beliefs all the time.

flood stories from around the world (too many stories, that are too similar, and from all over the globe for them all to have made them up).

1.&nbsp; They aren't from all over the globe;

2.&nbsp; They contradict each other;

3.&nbsp; Copying stories from each other is not the same as "making them up";

4.&nbsp; Every culture in the world believes in ghosts - so by your argument, ghosts of the dead are a reality as well.

 

[alexgb00]

Satoshi,

Here's the text: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. That wall is a one dimensional wall. It keeps government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government."
- www.jeremiahproject.com/ch_state.html
- www.wallbuilders.com
- www.eurekanet.com/~brendonnell/newmoral.html
- www.devotions.com/7-6-96.htm
- www.electgop.net/Christ/

I searched for the text you used, and that is a letter from the Pastor to Jefferson.

"Total, absolute NONSENSE. There was no such law in England. Christians were perfectly free to practice their faith."

The idea of an establishment is seen in England, when the Anglican Church was the "best" Christian denomination. I don't know what their exact beliefs were, but they didn't let other Christians, like Puritans, practice their faith. Have you heard of John Bunyan? The man who wrote "The Pilgrim's Progress?" He suffered for preaching in England and not being an Anglican. He two terms in prison, where he wrote this story on scraps of paper that came from his lunch.

About the Pilgrims, don't act like you know so much. They had no political power, nor did they have influence on the government. They wanted freedom of speech and to exercise their faith. I don't understand why you think you're so much educated than me.

Anyway, what was your objection? What did i say incorrectly to move you to correct me?

Not hardly. All it does is show how desperately uneducated you are about American history."

Yeah, i'm desperately uneducated. Almost like you.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley
The latter is especially ironic because Hitler phrased his defense for trying to create a superior race in religious terms, but that was an idea he got from Nietzsche. Nietzsche formulated that idea based on Darwin's works! So Hitler simply took an idea born out of atheistic evolution and tried to prop it up by defending it in "godly" terms.

Hitler justified his actions by borrowing a philosophy. According to you, the philosophy justified itself by borrowing from science. Science is value neutral. If the philosophy thought it found justification for a value system in value-neutral science, then the philosophy was wrong on that point. (I doubt that it did, Nietzche died not long after&nbsp;Origin of Species was published.)

If further Hitler had not Nietzche's philosophy to justify himself, he most likely would have picked some other.

Hitler's actions are an indictment of Hitler, and not of Nietzche's philosophy or Darwin's science.

If there is a philosophy of evolution, it must make its own case. I am here to make a case for the science of evolution - as I believe all the other science-advocates are.

&nbsp;

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by alexgb00 &nbsp;
Here's the text: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. That wall is a one dimensional wall. It keeps government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government."
- www.jeremiahproject.com/ch_state.html
- www.wallbuilders.com
- www.eurekanet.com/~brendonnell/newmoral.html
- www.devotions.com/7-6-96.htm
- www.electgop.net/Christ/

Someone has pulled the wool over your eyes. That is NOT how the text reads. I didn't bother checking all of your web refs, but I did check the first. It does not include the text as you quote it, but it does include Justice Black's comments on the wall of separation. The phrase comes from one of Jefferson's letters:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man &amp; his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Please note the major differences between what Black wrote &amp; what you quoted. Or if you intended to quote Jefferson, please note the major differences between what you quoted &amp; what Jefferson wrote (quoted above).

 

[Morat]

&nbsp; Alex, you should be careful with your resources. If I'm not mistaken, wallbuilders still uses the bogus Madison quotes from Burton.

&nbsp;

 

[Jerry Smith]

I cannot believe my eyes!
www.eurekanet.com/~brendonnell/newmoral.html
actually "quotes" Jefferson's letter the way alex does above:

"The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. That wall is a one-dimensional wall. It keeps government from running the church but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government."

There is no e-mail link - I cannot even inform them of the error (if indeed it is error).

Incredible! Alex, if you know the person who posted that web-site or know how to contact them, please send them a correction!

&nbsp;

Edited to add:

http://www.devotions.com/7-6-96.htm

This site had it as well. They have contact info, so I will likely e-mail them in the near future and ask that they post a correction.

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by Sauron
Which ones?

For starters, prophecies about Jesus Christ (read Jeremiah Ch.50-53) being the messiah, prophecies about Israel being destroyed ("no stone left upon a stone"), then prophecies of Israel coming together to form a nation again. Prophecies about "chariots", descriptions of which resemble cars. In general, the Bible is full of prophecies which have come true and are already coming true.

Which contradicts the view in the Bible;

The Bible doesn't teach a flat earth! God created the earth. Don't you think He'd know its geometric shape? Many people are fooled into believing that folks in Columbus' time didn't know that the earth was a sphere. But they believed in the Bible, and knew that it was spherical. The question was the relative size of it, and Columbus believed it to be much smaller than in reality.

It is?&nbsp; Show me&nbsp;where this "scientific fact" is documented.&nbsp;

The Bible. In all of the New Testament, prophesies from the Old Testament, and even books like Koran support that Jesus lived. Don't pick an argument on this point.

1.&nbsp; There is no evidence for this;

And there's no proof that people died in September 11. Yeah right! The Romans burned the first Christians at the stake, crucified them, threw them to hungry animals... How can you deny that? You're just a head-strong, stubborn&nbsp;man.

2.&nbsp; Even if true, what do you think it proves?&nbsp; People die for mistaken beliefs all the time.

You're right that people might be willing to die for a mistaken belief, but NEVER for what they know to be a lie. There were over 500 people who saw Jesus Christ ascend to heaven. Most, if not all of them were killed for preaching this fact.

1.&nbsp; They aren't from all over the globe;

He's right, man. There are too many legends of the flood to ignore. Legends from ancient China, Hawaii, Central-America (if those&nbsp;three aren't from opposite places...) Greek&nbsp;and Roman myths, and all of them state the same -- that a giant flood destroyed the old world and that one family was saved in a big&nbsp;boat or canoe.

2.&nbsp; They contradict each other;

People slowly turned to idol-worshipping overtime. Of course eventually, these legends began to include the names of idols, like "Zeus." But they are not all wrong. This fact is a testament to the flood and its credibility.

3.&nbsp; Copying stories from each other is not the same as "making them up";

Right! They didn't make them up. They slowly branched off from the actual event -- the flood. What is your argument?

4.&nbsp; Every culture in the world believes in ghosts - so by your argument, ghosts of the dead are a reality as well.

That's a bold statement, that everyone believes in ghosts. I'd not say that. But on the other hand, there are things like that in real life. Moses did miracles with God's power, but the pharao's warlocks did a couple of those miracles with satanic power. Solomon (i think) even went to a witch to call up a dead man's spirit. Thinking that if you can't see something then it doesn't exist is a 2-year-old's logic.

OK, That's all for now. I look forward to your reply.

&nbsp;