Satanic High Priest's Claim About The Origin Of Evolution

[JSRG]

The problem with Hislop is that he doesn't have any sources for any of his claims. He simply makes things up.

Hislop would have us beleive that Nimrod married Semiramis who then gave birth to Tammuz. Where did he get that information? If you guessed from no where, because he just made that up, you're right.

That's not someone deserving to be taken seriously. Hislop's goal was purely to engage in anti-Catholic polemics. It's a game that has continued until modern times, such as the nonsense one reads in Chick Tracts.

And, frankly, I am being pleasant about this. If I wanted to be unpleasant I'd use more choice language when talking about Alexander Hislop's sloppy nonsense.

I do not think it is fair to say Hislop doesn't have any sources... while there are some points where he just makes claims without any citations, in most cases he offers some kind of source, and his book is extensively footnoted. He's certainly better than those people who say similarly erroneous things (or even more erroneous things) without any citation or evidence at all. The big issue is not really that he lacks sources, but that he has a tendency to misrepresent his sources, pull more out of them than they actually say, or represent them fairly but then speculate wildly on them (sometimes giving the impression that his speculations are actually found in the source).

One particularly bad example of misrepresentation is when Hislop is trying to argue that the 40-day fasting period of Lent was taken from the Babylonian religion. He boldly declares "Such a Lent of forty days was observed in Egypt, as may be seen on consulting Wilkinson's Egyptians." As his citation, he offers "WILKINSON's Egyptian Antiquities, vol. 1 p. 278." If one looks at the work in question (whose actual title is "Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians" so I have no idea why he wrote "Egyptian Antiquities" when the word Antiquities isn't even in the title), you will see this is what it says: "A grand ceremony of purification took place previous and preparatory to their fasts, many of which lasted from seven to forty-two days, and sometimes even a longer period: during which time they abstained entirely from animal food, from herbs and vegetables, and above all from the indulgence of the passions." While forty does technically fall within the range of "seven to forty-two", the work gives no indication whatsoever that 40 days was a specifically important time frame for fasting. Yet he holds it up as proof that they had a Lent of specifically forty days! This is the kind of misrepresentation that makes you wonder if you should take anything he says seriously.

Further, after Hislop's book was written, much additional information was discovered about the Babylonians (as well as other things--many of Hislop's claims on etymologies, already questionable in his time, are demolished by subsequent advances in the field). Even if some of Hislop's errors could be excused for his time period, we are no longer in that time period.

But perhaps what makes it the most puzzling when you see Christians flock to The Two Babylons is the fact that, if it is correct in its assertions, then Christianity (not merely Catholicism) is imperiled, because much of the work's claims can be applied quite easily to attack Christianity in general. Soon after the work was published, The Sunday Review published a short critical review of it (you can see it at The Saturday Review of Politics, Literature, Science and Art) and observed "Mr. Hislop's argument proves too much. He finds not only the corruptions of Popery, but the fundamental articles of the Christian Faith, in his hypothetical Babylonian system. The Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Sacraments, all have their place in it. If we reject the rest of Romanism because it is Babylonish, why do we retain these?" (this quote is near the end of the article, on page 340)

This is not merely hypothetical. I have absolutely found non-Christians use Hislop's claims to allege that Christianity is taken from paganism, because his claims can so easily be applied to Christianity in general. This in fact harkens back to my example of his misrepresentation. Hislop tried to connect the 40-day Lent to paganism, and a subsequent anti-Christian book I read repeated essentially all of Hislop's claims about how it supposedly was found in paganism, and then said it proved that Jesus's 40-day fasting period in the Gospels was taken from paganism!

 

[ViaCrucis]

I do not think it is fair to say Hislop doesn't have any sources... while there are some points where he just makes claims without any citations, in most cases he offers some kind of source, and his book is extensively footnoted. He's certainly better than those people who say similarly erroneous things (or even more erroneous things) without any citation or evidence at all. The big issue is not really that he lacks sources, but that he has a tendency to misrepresent his sources, pull more out of them than they actually say, or represent them fairly but then speculate wildly on them (sometimes giving the impression that his speculations are actually found in the source).

One particularly bad example of misrepresentation is when Hislop is trying to argue that the 40-day fasting period of Lent was taken from the Babylonian religion. He boldly declares "Such a Lent of forty days was observed in Egypt, as may be seen on consulting Wilkinson's Egyptians." As his citation, he offers "WILKINSON's Egyptian Antiquities, vol. 1 p. 278." If one looks at the work in question (whose actual title is "Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians" so I have no idea why he wrote "Egyptian Antiquities" when the word Antiquities isn't even in the title), you will see this is what it says: "A grand ceremony of purification took place previous and preparatory to their fasts, many of which lasted from seven to forty-two days, and sometimes even a longer period: during which time they abstained entirely from animal food, from herbs and vegetables, and above all from the indulgence of the passions." While forty does technically fall within the range of "seven to forty-two", the work gives no indication whatsoever that 40 days was a specifically important time frame for fasting. Yet he holds it up as proof that they had a Lent of specifically forty days! This is the kind of misrepresentation that makes you wonder if you should take anything he says seriously.

Further, after Hislop's book was written, much additional information was discovered about the Babylonians (as well as other things--many of Hislop's claims on etymologies, already questionable in his time, are demolished by subsequent advances in the field). Even if some of Hislop's errors could be excused for his time period, we are no longer in that time period.

But perhaps what makes it the most puzzling when you see Christians flock to The Two Babylons is the fact that, if it is correct in its assertions, then Christianity (not merely Catholicism) is imperiled, because much of the work's claims can be applied quite easily to attack Christianity in general. Soon after the work was published, The Sunday Review published a short critical review of it (you can see it at The Saturday Review of Politics, Literature, Science and Art) and observed "Mr. Hislop's argument proves too much. He finds not only the corruptions of Popery, but the fundamental articles of the Christian Faith, in his hypothetical Babylonian system. The Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Sacraments, all have their place in it. If we reject the rest of Romanism because it is Babylonish, why do we retain these?" (this quote is near the end of the article, on page 340)

This is not merely hypothetical. I have absolutely found non-Christians use Hislop's claims to allege that Christianity is taken from paganism, because his claims can so easily be applied to Christianity in general. This in fact harkens back to my example of his misrepresentation. Hislop tried to connect the 40-day Lent to paganism, and a subsequent anti-Christian book I read repeated essentially all of Hislop's claims about how it supposedly was found in paganism, and then said it proved that Jesus's 40-day fasting period in the Gospels was taken from paganism!

At the end of the day, however, Hislop's work is still entirely without merit, except as a curiosity in the study of 19th century Anglo-American anti-Catholicism.

As far as people using Hislop to discredit Christianity in general. That doesn't surprise me whatsoever. Hislop's work is basically in the same vein as Frazier's work has been used in much the same way.

But I don't think that die-hard anti-Catholics really care. It's more important to demonize Catholicism than to engage in anything resembling real historical inquiry.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Phoneman-777]

If an atheist considers Christianity a myth, and thus not worth their time learning about, would you take that atheist seriously in a debate?

I don't make arguments from authority - I ask them to explain the one thing that abounds in Scripture, yet is virtually completely absent from all others - and if you knew, then you'd know why their is a common denominator among all false religions: Satan as their author and deciever.

I grew up on Young Earth Creationism. Which is also how I know that Creationism isn't science. Creationism is a theological position, and I am still a theological creationist.

Young Earth Creationism is truth - open your Bible and read Genesis 1. Making each day count for millions of years is ridiculous. Did the flowers wait millions of years for the bees to come along and pollinate them? Is death the result of sin or "survival of the fittest? We simply cannot fit millions of years in a Biblical description of origins.

Every Sunday I confess these words from the Apostles' Creed: "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth."

"Have you ever read, "For He spake, and it was done. He commanded, and it stood fast"? That's not millions of years: that's short chronology as we find in Genesis 1.

Because God is the Creator of all things. When you say "Creationism" you mean Young Earth Creationism, and the pseudo-science peddled by people like Kent Hovind.

How is Hovind, Behe, Meyer, Veith, etc., peddling pseudoscience? Anyone who's willing to examine evolution critically will agree that the theory is wholly inadequate to account for the data. As for you, I don't see youhe answering any challenges, except to appeal to "evidence" by the same science fraternity that defiantly proclaims as truth something today, only to do a complete 180 tomorrow.

What I believe is what the Church has always believed: God is the Creator of all things.

When He created them, did He miraculously preserve flowering plants on day 3 for millions of years until the bees came along to pollinate them?

I don't attribute devil-worship to people of other religions. The follower of Asatru or Wicca isn't worshiping Satan, they are simply worshiping false gods--gods that I don't believe exist. That is defined in Christianity as idolatry, not devil-worship.

Of course other "gods" don't exist. God says "I am God and there is none else, I am God and there is none liek Me"...what these poor deceived ones are worshipping is Satan who's masquerading as these gods. Don't you know Satan said "I will be like the Most High"?

The problem with Hislop is that he doesn't have any sources for any of his claims. He simply makes things up.

I've got his book - he's got the receipts. But, how much "sourcing" is required to look at pagan symbols and rituals of Sun worship religions and then see the exact same things right there in the harlot of Babylon? I mean, Dagon's priests wore the "fish miter" and "cleansed" the people with hyssop and "holy" water - do we see that anywhere today? Where is the largest Solar Disc - dedicated to the Sun god - located? You guessed it.

Hislop would have us beleive that Nimrod married Semiramis who then gave birth to Tammuz. Where did he get that information? If you guessed from no where, because he just made that up, you're right.

Uh...the science of Archaeology? I'm amazed at your willingness to believe the unobserved pseudoscientific nonsense of evolution, but Hislop's many arguments made by what the spade digs up is to be rejected?

That's not someone deserving to be taken seriously. Hislop's goal was purely to engage in anti-Catholic polemics. It's a game that has continued until modern times, such as the nonsense one reads in Chick Tracts.

What's wrong with being "anti" against the papal AntiChrist of Bible prophecy? Do you realize the papacy claims all the names and titles of Jesus also belong to the pope...so that makes the pope "savior", "the mighty God", "the everlasting Father", etc.? Do you know the papacy teaches not a single drop of Jesus' blood accomplishes forgiveness for sin, but that "the sentence of the priest precedes, and God subscribes to it"?

To quote Spurgeon: "It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is, NO SANE MAN ought to raise the question. If it be not the popery in the church of Rome, there is nothing that can be called by that name."

If this offends you, please don't be angry with me, but direct it at Spurgeon - I'm just quoting a well respected, theological heavyweight.

And, frankly, I am being pleasant about this. If I wanted to be unpleasant I'd use more choice language when talking about Alexander Hislop's sloppy nonsense.

-CryptoLutheran

I don't think it's "nonsense" to condemn papal teachings that claim praying to relics (body parts of dead "saints") will get them time off in purgatory. Don't you care about your fellow Christian brethren who are trapped in such a system?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't make arguments from authority - I ask them to explain the one thing that abounds in Scripture, yet is virtually completely absent from all others - and if you knew, then you'd know why their is a common denominator among all false religions: Satan as their author and deciever.

This doesn't even come close to addressing the point I was making.

Young Earth Creationism is truth - open your Bible and read Genesis 1. Making each day count for millions of years is ridiculous. Did the flowers wait millions of years for the bees to come along and pollinate them? Is death the result of sin or "survival of the fittest? We simply cannot fit millions of years in a Biblical description of origins.

Genesis 1:

1) Doesn't say when the universe came into existence, or the earth for that matter.
2) Is written poetically.

Further, I'm not claiming each day was millions of years. The way I understand Genesis 1 is that the days are a poetic device. Flowering plants didn't evolve until the Cretaceous, and bees evolved alongside them. Bees are also not the only pollinators for flowering plants.

"Have you ever read, "For He spake, and it was done. He commanded, and it stood fast"? That's not millions of years: that's short chronology as we find in Genesis 1.

It's neither. It's a statement about God's power to create and to declare what is. See also Isaiah 55:11 and Romans 4:17)

How is Hovind, Behe, Meyer, Veith, etc., peddling pseudoscience? Anyone who's willing to examine evolution critically will agree that the theory is wholly inadequate to account for the data. As for you, I don't see youhe answering any challenges, except to appeal to "evidence" by the same science fraternity that defiantly proclaims as truth something today, only to do a complete 180 tomorrow.

You just got done saying that you won't even bother to learn about evolution to be able to examine it critically. So which is it: Should a person examine the theory critically to see what it actually says and if it holds up under scientific scrutiny, or no?

When He created them, did He miraculously preserve flowering plants on day 3 for millions of years until the bees came along to pollinate them?

Straw man.

Of course other "gods" don't exist. God says "I am God and there is none else, I am God and there is none liek Me"...what these poor deceived ones are worshipping is Satan who's masquerading as these gods. Don't you know Satan said "I will be like the Most High"?

If you said that turning to false gods is deceptive and diabolical, I'd agree with you. But I don't share your opinion that the non-existent things are given existence by some kind of demonic power. Odin isn't Satan in disguise. Odin just doesn't exist.

I've got his book - he's got the receipts. But, how much "sourcing" is required to look at pagan symbols and rituals of Sun worship religions and then see the exact same things right there in the harlot of Babylon? I mean, Dagon's priests wore the "fish miter" and "cleansed" the people with hyssop and "holy" water - do we see that anywhere today? Where is the largest Solar Disc - dedicated to the Sun god - located? You guessed it.

And let me guess, time traveling Jesuits who invented Islam on behalf of the Vatican, and you also believe Allah in Islam is a moon god?

I'm honestly unsure whether it's even worth taking the time to explain to you just how wrong you are. Because it's just going to fall on deaf ears.

Uh...the science of Archaeology? I'm amazed at your willingness to believe the unobserved pseudoscientific nonsense of evolution, but Hislop's many arguments made by what the spade digs up is to be rejected?

Oh? All that archeological evidence that Nimrod and Semiramis were married and had a child named Tammuz? This should be interesting. go on, let's see it.

What's wrong with being "anti" against the papal AntiChrist of Bible prophecy? Do you realize the papacy claims all the names and titles of Jesus also belong to the pope...so that makes the pope "savior", "the mighty God", "the everlasting Father", etc.? Do you know the papacy teaches not a single drop of Jesus' blood accomplishes forgiveness for sin, but that "the sentence of the priest precedes, and God subscribes to it"?

I'm a Lutheran. You may have heard of us. We had this whole Reformation thing about five hundred years ago, kind of a big deal at the time. I'm plenty capable of having legitimate criticisms of Catholicism, and the Papacy in particular. But I don't need to believe lies and conspiracy theories.

Just curious, how does Hislop deal with the existence of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches? How do you?

To quote Spurgeon: "It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is, NO SANE MAN ought to raise the question. If it be not the popery in the church of Rome, there is nothing that can be called by that name."

If this offends you, please don't be angry with me, but direct it at Spurgeon - I'm just quoting a well respected, theological heavyweight.

I don't think it's "nonsense" to condemn papal teachings that claim praying to relics (body parts of dead "saints") will get them time off in purgatory. Don't you care about your fellow Christian brethren who are trapped in such a system?

Pretty sure Spurgeon also knew better than to think that a monstrance is sun worship, or that a bishop's mitre is a "Dagon fish hat".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Barbarian]

Do you not think that there are secret societies or an elite class of humans who do worship demons and the devil?

There are always secret societies. And there are always losers in them who like to think of themselves as "the elite." Maybe some of them worship demons and the devil.

But no one with any sense imagines that they have any kind of control over society.

 

[The Barbarian]

To quote Spurgeon: "It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is, NO SANE MAN ought to raise the question. If it be not the popery in the church of Rome, there is nothing that can be called by that name."

When people try to push other people away from God, they only succeed in removing themselves from God. Poor foolish little man. Hopefully, he repented before his death.

BTW, Spurgeon denied that the Earth was young, supposing it to be millions of years old. So perhaps you shouldn't be touting him in support of YE creationism.

 

[ViaCrucis]

When people try to push other people away from God, they only succeed in removing themselves from God. Poor foolish little man. Hopefully, he repented before his death.

BTW, Spurgeon denied that the Earth was young, supposing it to be millions of years old. So perhaps you shouldn't be touting him in support of YE creationism.

Fairly confident that Spurgeon was only brought up because of this quote.

It's similar to the way I often see Seventh Day Adventists try and make appeal to Luther. They don't actually care what Martin Luther had to say about anything. But there are some quotes that they can exploit as to suit their agenda.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Barbarian]

Fairly confident that Spurgeon was only brought up because of this quote.

It's similar to the way I often see Seventh Day Adventists try and make appeal to Luther. They don't actually care what Martin Luther had to say about anything. But there are some quotes that they can exploit as to suit their agenda.

Yeah, I suspect that you're right. And BTW, a lot of great Christian leaders had serious moral flaws. No one but God is perfect; that doesn't mean that no one can be a follower of Christ or even a good leader of Christians.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

"It's a big club and you aint in it".
- George Carlin

 

[ranunculus]

apophenia​

noun​

ap·o·phe·nia ˌa-pə-ˈfē-nē-ə

: the tendency to perceive a connection or meaningful pattern between unrelated or random things (such as objects or ideas)
What psychologists call apophenia—the human tendency to see connections and patterns that are not really there—gives rise to conspiracy theories.—George Johnson

compare PAREIDOLIA

Hand-in-waistcoat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[The Barbarian]

apophenia​

noun​

ap·o·phe·nia ˌa-pə-ˈfē-nē-ə

: the tendency to perceive a connection or meaningful pattern between unrelated or random things (such as objects or ideas)
What psychologists call apophenia—the human tendency to see connections and patterns that are not really there—gives rise to conspiracy theories.—George Johnson

compare PAREIDOLIA

Hand-in-waistcoat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There's a survival value in having a little bit of this. The hominid who saw movement in the tall grass, and thought "maybe big predator" likely lived longer than hominids who didn't make that connection. But carried too far, it can end up like the unfortunates who deny elections, imagine pedophile dungeons under pizzerias, and imagine that robots are stealing their luggage.

Interestingly, neurology has a basis for this. There is a brain structure, the amygdala; it handles this kind of thing:

Amygdala - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is a different brain structure, the anterior cingulate gyrus, that helps one deal with unpleasant stimuli and emotions and helps resolve novel stimuli.

https://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/jnp.23.2.jnp121

It has been discovered that robustness in one or the other of these structures is a better predictor of political persuasion than familiy history. Guess which one is more robust in liberals and which one is more robust in conservatives.

It lends a bit of credence to the old saying that liberals are open and friendly because they suppose everyone is pretty much like them, and conservatives are suspicious and surly for the same reason.

 

[USincognito]

"It's a big club and you aint in it".
- George Carlin

Not diabolical.

Hand-in-waistcoat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[USincognito]

False. Creation best explains that in the beginning everything was there and we've been in decline: DEVOLUTION.

When presented with two options, does Natural Selection add to or take away? Exactly. How can a mechanism which makes less and less be credited with producing more and more, as seen in the incredible variety of extinct animals in the fossil record? And, aren't we losing different species all the time?

Natural Selection is doing such a good job that soon there'll be nothing left.

I always find it weird when critics of evolution, who are utterly convinced in it's falsehood, know nothing about it. Natural selection is merely the filter through which new mutations are either beneficial or detrimental (the vast majority are neutral with regard to fitness). That's why it's called natural "selection", not natural "making new stuff".

Are you referring to the "evidence" by men who think it's possible the universe came into existence from nothing?

No such people exist, but Cosmology is irrelevant to our discussion of evolution. I know it can be hard for Creationists who love to Gish Gallop, but please stay on topic.

What about all the PhDs who refute the findings of these "thousands" of publications? Do they get a voice?

I always find it weird when critics of science, who are utterly convinced it's a falsehood, know nothing about it. Science is not determined by opinion or authority. Science is evidence based. That said, if you think that some Creationist scientist has refuted any of the papers in the link I provided to you, don't merely assert they exist - cite them.

Friend, you need to understand that what you call "evidence" is merely pseudoscientific faith.

This sort of garbage does nothing but make you look silly and uninformed. If you cannot even address the evidence in papers I have linked for you, then don't give me these grand pronouncements that they are "pseudoscientific faith".

Saying something is false doesn't make it so, friend. They have dug down through layer after layer of limestone and sand and limestone and sand, each layer "meeeeeiiiiiillions

I can't take someone who debates like this seriously. We're done.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

Not diabolical.

Hand-in-waistcoat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Sure"

 

[The Barbarian]

It would make sense that he has people worshipping him. In the desert he offered Jesus the kingdoms of this world and all their splendor. He couldn't have done that if he didn't have the power to offer such things.

In other words, you think the devil can't lie. Um...

 

[Phoneman-777]

This doesn't even come close to addressing the point I was making.



Genesis 1:

1) Doesn't say when the universe came into existence, or the earth for that matter.
2) Is written poetically.

Further, I'm not claiming each day was millions of years. The way I understand Genesis 1 is that the days are a poetic device. Flowering plants didn't evolve until the Cretaceous, and bees evolved alongside them. Bees are also not the only pollinators for flowering plants.



It's neither. It's a statement about God's power to create and to declare what is. See also Isaiah 55:11 and Romans 4:17)



You just got done saying that you won't even bother to learn about evolution to be able to examine it critically. So which is it: Should a person examine the theory critically to see what it actually says and if it holds up under scientific scrutiny, or no?



Straw man.



If you said that turning to false gods is deceptive and diabolical, I'd agree with you. But I don't share your opinion that the non-existent things are given existence by some kind of demonic power. Odin isn't Satan in disguise. Odin just doesn't exist.



And let me guess, time traveling Jesuits who invented Islam on behalf of the Vatican, and you also believe Allah in Islam is a moon god?

I'm honestly unsure whether it's even worth taking the time to explain to you just how wrong you are. Because it's just going to fall on deaf ears.



Oh? All that archeological evidence that Nimrod and Semiramis were married and had a child named Tammuz? This should be interesting. go on, let's see it.



I'm a Lutheran. You may have heard of us. We had this whole Reformation thing about five hundred years ago, kind of a big deal at the time. I'm plenty capable of having legitimate criticisms of Catholicism, and the Papacy in particular. But I don't need to believe lies and conspiracy theories.

Just curious, how does Hislop deal with the existence of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches? How do you?



Pretty sure Spurgeon also knew better than to think that a monstrance is sun worship, or that a bishop's mitre is a "Dagon fish hat".

-CryptoLutheran

I'm not going to waste my time debating anyone who reject the plain words of Scripture. Jesus HIMSELF said humans were made "male and female" - not the result of dumping a bunch of anthropomorphized lego blocks on the floor which accidentally underwent self-assembly, and eventually "evolved" into "he" and "she".

 

[Phoneman-777]

When people try to push other people away from God, they only succeed in removing themselves from God. Poor foolish little man. Hopefully, he repented before his death.

Spurgeon wasn't foolish - but those who continue to think after the truth Spurgeon preached has come that they can continue to approach the catholic priest "as another christ" are truly foolish.

BTW, Spurgeon denied that the Earth was young, supposing it to be millions of years old. So perhaps you shouldn't be touting him in support of YE creationism.

I don't know Spurgeon's views on science, and frankly don't care - there were and are today plenty of people who've been led to believe scientific lies, and the worst part is that if Darwin were alive today to see all the complex organs that could not have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications to DNA, he would have long since rejected the very theory the enemies of sola-Scriptura defend tooth and nail:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” - Charles Darwin

 

[Phoneman-777]

I always find it weird when critics of evolution, who are utterly convinced in it's falsehood, know nothing about it. Natural selection is merely the filter through which new mutations are either beneficial or detrimental (the vast majority are neutral with regard to fitness). That's why it's called natural "selection", not natural "making new stuff".

Really? How can that be, what with evolution served up for breakfast, lunch, and dinner at every stinking grade school, high school, university, institution of higher learning, museums, movies, TV, even right wing radio hosts sing its praises....so how did you arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion that those critical of evolution know nothing about it? The problem is with those who are ignorant of the monumental existence of the criticism of evolution.

No such people exist, but Cosmology is irrelevant to our discussion of evolution. I know it can be hard for Creationists who love to Gish Gallop, but please stay on topic.

I always find it weird when critics of science, who are utterly convinced it's a falsehood, know nothing about it. Science is not determined by opinion or authority. Science is evidence based.

Really? Where's the "evidence" for Cosmic evolution, Chemical evolution, Stellar evolution, Organic evolution and Macro evolution? Not one shred of evidence for this "evidence based" religion that calls itself science.

That said, if you think that some Creationist scientist has refuted any of the papers in the link I provided to you, don't merely assert they exist - cite them.

This sort of garbage does nothing but make you look silly and uninformed. If you cannot even address the evidence in papers I have linked for you, then don't give me these grand pronouncements that they are "pseudoscientific faith".

I can't take someone who debates like this seriously. We're done.

Like I said, before you climb on the internet and spout ridiculous, unobserved, unproven lies designed to erode the truth of Scripture, put down that tired old hot steaming plate of evolutionary gruel and reach for a fresh serving of Creation/Intelligent Design truth.

 

[The Barbarian]

Spurgeon wasn't foolish

He let his denominational hatred for other Christians damage his relationship with God. That's foolish in my book.

I don't know Spurgeon's views on science, and frankly don't care - there were and are today plenty of people who've been led to believe scientific lies, and the worst part is that if Darwin were alive today to see all the complex organs that could not have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications to DNA,

Show us one of those. What do you have? Don't forget. I'll remind you, if necessary.

Where's the "evidence" for Cosmic evolution, Chemical evolution, Stellar evolution, Organic evolution and Macro evolution?

Biological evolution is observed to happen all around us. Perhaps you don't know what biological evolution is. What do you think it is? If you don't know, I'll explain it in the next post.

How can that be, what with evolution served up for breakfast, lunch, and dinner at every stinking grade school, high school, university, institution of higher learning, museums, movies, TV, even right wing radio hosts sing its praises....so how did you arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion that those critical of evolution know nothing about it?

Because you seem to know nothing at all about it. Here's your chance. What do you think biological evolution is? Either Darwin's definition or the definition after the rediscovery of genetics will be acceptable. What do you think it is?

You're up.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm not going to waste my time debating anyone who reject the plain words of Scripture. Jesus HIMSELF said humans were made "male and female" - not the result of dumping a bunch of anthropomorphized lego blocks on the floor which accidentally underwent self-assembly, and eventually "evolved" into "he" and "she".

Perhaps you don't know what "anthropomorphic" means. You're using that word, but I don't think you know what it means. You've misunderstood what Jesus said:

Matthew 10:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

But in Genesis, God explicitly tells us what was there in the beginning and neither male nor female were there.