What are the Weaknesses of Evolution?

[FoeHammer]

A Scotsman is someone who comes from Scotland.

suppose someone comes to you and claims to be a scotsman, if you are not a scotsman you may consider it unimportant and simply take their word for it but if you were a scotsman you would likely take a different view because to a scotsman there is much more to defining a scotsman than someone simply saying that they are one.

A Christian is someone who tries to follow the teachings of Christ.

You see? To someone other than a Christian or indeed to a ''christian'' this definition may suffice but a Christian knows that there is much more to it than that.

Note that committing a sun does not make one a non-christian. Failing to follow Christ also does not stop one being a christian.

As such, you committed the No True Scotsman fallacy when you said that people who burnt witches weren't true Christians, because we have every reason to believe that they thought they were following the teachings of Christ.

You have only two reasons to believe this and that is 1. because you read it somewhere and 2.because it suits you to..... and neither of them are reason enough.

If you assert that they were not true Christians, then you yourself cannot know that you're a true Christian, because you could have misinterpreted the Bible, as you claim those who burnt witches did.

Tell me then, where in Christ's teaching are Christians commanded to burn witches?
Tell me where I ''could have misinterpreted The Bible''. And show me where I claimed that those who burnt witches misinterpreted The Bible.
I'm saying they misrepresented The Bible and themselves.

There's simply no room for argument here - .....

As long as you're wrong, and you are, there is always room for argument.

.....one does not stop being a Christian because they burn a witch, or commit a crime.

I do not accept that the witch burners were Christians simply because someone tells me that they claimed to be.

FoeHammer.

 

[DisgruntledPostalEmployee]

suppose someone comes to you and claims to be a scotsman, if you are not a scotsman you may consider it unimportant and simply take their word for it but if you were a scotsman you would likely take a different view because to a scotsman there is much more to defining a scotsman than someone simply saying that they are one.

That's got nothing to do with the No True Scotsman fallacy. You just said "scotsman" a lot.

I'm saying they misrepresented The Bible and themselves.

I think "Suffer not a witch to live" is pretty clear, actually. I'd be interested in your interpretation of it, though.

 

[Loudmouth]

suppose someone comes to you and claims to be a scotsman, if you are not a scotsman you may consider it unimportant and simply take their word for it but if you were a scotsman you would likely take a different view because to a scotsman there is much more to defining a scotsman than someone simply saying that they are one.You see? To someone other than a Christian or indeed to a ''christian'' this definition may suffice but a Christian knows that there is much more to it than that.

A scotsman is someone born in Scotland. A birth certificate will suffice. The "no true scotsman" argument is that only a true scotsman puts cream in their tea. If someone does not put cream in their tea then they are not a true scotsman. This is a fallacious argument because it ignores the very thing that makes someone a scotsman, the place in which they were born.

A christian is someone who accepts the Nicene Creed. One's actions is not what makes someone a christian. One's beliefs are what defines their religion. The Inquisitors of the past who burned witches most certainly accepted the Nicene Creed and were therefore christians. The people who killed witches in Salem most definitely accepted the Nicene Creed and were therefore christians.

As an atheist I do not judge a religion or theology by the actions of it's followers. I am smart enough to discriminate between the failings of the individual and the failings of a theology. Perhaps you should allow others to come to the same conclusions.

 

[Loudmouth]

Mujercristiana proposed that one of the weaknesses of evolution is it's conflict with scripture. While this may be a problem in Sunday School, it isn't a problem in High School.

Are there any other weaknesses of evolution that should be taught?

 

[FoeHammer]

Made me laugh.

Hysteria could account for that.

..... We've already ascertained that TrueChristians like yourself have no sense of humour.

Based on what? My failing to laugh at an inept remark?

Ooooh, get her!

Snappy comeback?.... nah.

What I mean by Christian is someone who claims they are a Christian, neither you nor I know what is in their heart. So I accept at face value the Christianity of someone who calls themselves Christian.

I watch and learn.

So these witches were executed because they broke the law of the Christians who killed them.

Christians didn't burn witches.

I can't see how you can have a problem with that if you support the death penalty in principle.

Only half a quote? Why?

With that your whole argument that Christians didn't kill witches because it was an unChristian thing to do collapses into farce.

Oh there's the why. Let's see if you can make this fit using the whole quote.

They were as Christian as you are.

How would you know?

If the statements are easily demonstrable, as mine were, then yes, it would be mindless not to.

As I said... no chance.

He we go then, fingers crossed I make it.

A Christian is anyone who follows the nicene creed accepts Jesus Christ as their saviour and calls themselves a Christian.

Burning witches is not as important now as it was in the dark ages, or the Age of Religion as it is sometimes called.

Click.

FoeHammer.

 

[Loudmouth]

Baggins: They were as Christian as you are.

FoeHammer: How would you know?

Because you both accepted the Nicene Creed, the one thing that unites all christians.

 

[FoeHammer]

A scotsman is someone born in Scotland. A birth certificate will suffice.

A dog born in a stable does not make it a horse not even with a birth certificate.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

Because you both accepted the Nicene Creed, .....

I did?

FoeHammer.

 

[Loudmouth]

A dog born in a stable does not make it a horse not even with a birth certificate.

FoeHammer.

A birth certificate would show that the dogs parents were dogs. Try again.

 

[DisgruntledPostalEmployee]

A dog born in a stable does not make it a horse not even with a birth certificate.

FoeHammer.

Birth certificates can be used to verify citizenship. Employers will regularly ask to see them alongside a passport.
If a birth certificate says you're Scottish, and you were born in Scotland, you're Scottish.

 

[Loudmouth]

I did?

FoeHammer.

Do you or do you not agree with the following statement: (note: "catholic" as used in the creed refers to a universal church, not Roman Catholicism)

"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. "

The witch burners agreed and accepted this statement, which makes them christian witch burners.

 

[Baggins]

Christians didn't burn witches.

I will conceed that super-TrueChristians like yourself could never have killed witches because you're so perfect and all.

Only half a quote?

The relevant part. You accept the death penalty in practice.

The people who were burned as witches were executed for breaking the laws of the time.

Therefore you have some explaining to do as to why they were not Christians when they were just doing something that you support in principle.

I know you won't read this now so I'll say:

You're not too smart if you can't see that

Oh there's the why. Let's see if you can make this fit using the whole quote.

You accept the death penalty in principle, That's the end of the matter.

Either that or anyone who actually sanctions an execution is not a Christian, while you who accepts the principle but not the practice keeps his hands clean and remains TrueChristian.

Seems a little mealy-mouthed that.

How would you know?

I too have you amazing powers, I too can spot who is a Christian and who isn't even through the depths of time.

It's neat isn't it?

[

Click.

Interesting, I point out that if you accept the nicene creed you are by definition a Christian and the witch burners almost certainly did that, and he puts me on ignore.

It can be upsetting having your arguments ridiculed.

But when they are as weak as this one I really see no other choive other than to show up the vacuity of the thinking.

FoeHammer.

Baggins

 

[Baggins]

A dog born in a stable does not make it a horse not even with a birth certificate.

FoeHammer.

Good grief that's pitiful.

Are you honestly saying that men born in Scotland are not Scotsmen.

We aren't saying that dogs born in Scotland are scotsmen, just men.

 

[FishFace]

suppose someone comes to you and claims to be a scotsman, if you are not a scotsman you may consider it unimportant and simply take their word for it but if you were a scotsman you would likely take a different view because to a scotsman there is much more to defining a scotsman than someone simply saying that they are one.

Irrelevant - if they are from Scotland, a Scotsman they are.

You see? To someone other than a Christian or indeed to a ''christian'' this definition may suffice but a Christian knows that there is much more to it than that.

Then kindly give us your definition of a Christian. You will either need to make sure it conforms to the dictionary definition, or show how the dictionary is wrong.

You have only two reasons to believe this and that is 1. because you read it somewhere and 2.because it suits you to..... and neither of them are reason enough.

Or, that almost everyone in the countries concerned was Christian at the time concerned. Learn some history.

Tell me then, where in Christ's teaching are Christians commanded to burn witches?

Christ commanded his followers to follow the old testament, wherein it says, "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," as you well know.
Furthermore, it's irrelevant even if Christ didn't command this specifically, since the definition of Christian is not someone who "does everything Christ tells them to and nothing else." In fact, it's not even, "does everything Christ tells them to," because, as you should know, no-one is perfect and free from sin.

Tell me where I ''could have misinterpreted The Bible''.

You have misinterpreted the Bible all over the place. You've interpreted it as infallible, for a start.

And show me where I claimed that those who burnt witches misinterpreted The Bible.

You claim they can ignore either Christ's command to follow the OT, or the OT's command to kill witches.

I do not accept that the witch burners were Christians simply because someone tells me that they claimed to be.

Why not? Why would you not believe them? Because they committed sins? But everyone commits sin according to your religion.
Because you're a natural cynic, maybe?

 

[Inan3]

The current battlecry of creationist/ID institutes like AiG, the Discovery Institute, and ICR is that science classes should discuss the weaknesses of the theory of evolution. So what are those weaknesses?

The weakness of evolution is that no one in its ranks has ever been able to answer the question, "where did the first "whatever" come from, which began to evolve into "whatever"?

They would prefer to invoke their scientific standing and demean anothers lack of it. This is the psychological approach that they use to try to dissuade people from seeing or believing anything else but what they believe, and quite frankly, it is a belief because it really takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in the intelligent God of creation.

Don't be fooled by their bullying its all smoking guns. You won't hear them prove anything. The have a lot of "might bes" that they hang onto and of course they have some true things they look at then say, see that proves it, and it doesn't really prove a thing. (Boy, are they are going to be angry I said that) So they will scream and insult and throw out their scientific chests but they cannot connect the dots and actually produce a finished picture. It's all a piece of this and a piece of that and a big story in between that someone has made up to try to make it look like that's the way it happened. They are creative though, aren't they?

 

[Inan3]

I will conceed that super-TrueChristians like yourself could never have killed witches because you're so perfect and all.




The relevant part. You accept the death penalty in practice.

The people who were burned as witches were executed for breaking the laws of the time.

Therefore you have some explaining to do as to why they were not Christians when they were just doing something that you support in principle.

I know you won't read this now so I'll say:

You're not too smart if you can't see that






You accept the death penalty in principle, That's the end of the matter.

Either that or anyone who actually sanctions an execution is not a Christian, while you who accepts the principle but not the practice keeps his hands clean and remains TrueChristian.

Seems a little mealy-mouthed that.



I too have you amazing powers, I too can spot who is a Christian and who isn't even through the depths of time.

It's neat isn't it?

[


Interesting, I point out that if you accept the nicene creed you are by definition a Christian and the witch burners almost certainly did that, and he puts me on ignore.

It can be upsetting having your arguments ridiculed.

But when they are as weak as this one I really see no other choive other than to show up the vacuity of the thinking.



Baggins

Baggins,

If your so smart why can't you ever offer anything but insults. You are so full of yourself you don't see how sad you look.

 

[Inan3]

Good grief that's pitiful.

Are you honestly saying that men born in Scotland are not Scotsmen.

We aren't saying that dogs born in Scotland are scotsmen, just men.

The thing that is pitiful is that you know he's not saying that and yet you twist it to present it that way! Now that IS pitiful!

 

[TheOutsider]

The weakness of evolution is that no one in its ranks has ever been able to answer the question, "where did the first "whatever" come from, which began to evolve into "whatever"?

They would prefer to invoke their scientific standing and demean anothers lack of it. This is the psychological approach that they use to try to dissuade people from seeing or believing anything else but what they believe, and quite frankly, it is a belief because it really takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in the intelligent God of creation.

Don't be fooled by their bullying its all smoking guns. You won't hear them prove anything. The have a lot of "might bes" that they hang onto and of course they have some true things they look at then say, see that proves it, and it doesn't really prove a thing. (Boy, are they are going to be angry I said that) So they will scream and insult and throw out their scientific chests but they cannot connect the dots and actually produce a finished picture. It's all a piece of this and a piece of that and a big story in between that someone has made up to try to make it look like that's the way it happened. They are creative though, aren't they?

Wow! That was like every single PRATT rolled into one post. That was so bad that it's not even wrong.

 

[Split Rock]

The weakness of evolution is that no one in its ranks has ever been able to answer the question, "where did the first "whatever" come from, which began to evolve into "whatever"?

That would be abiogenesis, not evolution. Darwin named his book, "On the Origin of Species," not, "On the Origin of Life."

They would prefer to invoke their scientific standing and demean anothers lack of it.

Frankly I don't care what Creationists believe, as long as they don't pretend it is science. If they dishonestly call their faith science, then I will correct them. If they try to force it on the public as science , I will speak out against them.

This is the psychological approach that they use to try to dissuade people from seeing or believing anything else but what they believe, and quite frankly, it is a belief because it really takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in the intelligent God of creation.

How can it take more faith to accept evolution which is based on physical evidence, than to believe in a God for which there is no physical evidence? It amazes me how people who consider themselves to be the "True Faithful" seem to have no idea what Faith actually is. Faith means you accept something as true without any physical evidence. Evolution, on the other hand, is based on nothing but physical evidence.

Don't be fooled by their bullying its all smoking guns. You won't hear them prove anything. The have a lot of "might bes" that they hang onto and of course they have some true things they look at then say, see that proves it, and it doesn't really prove a thing.

Science is not about "proof." Proof is for alcohol, and mathematics.

How can you claim evolution is all based on faith and then claim it is full of "might bes?" Faith is based on Dogma, and Dogma is based on certainty. Sound familiar? It should... Dogma is the basis of Creationism, and that is why it is a religion. Science is based on uncertainties, and is therefore not a religion.

(Boy, are they are going to be angry I said that)

Is that why you posted here? To make people angry?

So they will scream and insult and throw out their scientific chests but they cannot connect the dots and actually produce a finished picture. It's all a piece of this and a piece of that and a big story in between that someone has made up to try to make it look like that's the way it happened. They are creative though, aren't they?

I am willing to bet you know very little of what modern biological evolution is based on. If I am wrong, tell me the three basic mechanisms of evolution.

 

[Inan3]

Irrelevant - if they are from Scotland, a Scotsman they are.

Well now, he never did say, they said they were FROM Scotland, did he. You should listen to what a person is saying not just what you want to twist that they say.

Then kindly give us your definition of a Christian. You will either need to make sure it conforms to the dictionary definition, or show how the dictionary is wrong.

There is no need for a true Christian to make sure our definition conforms to the dictionary definition. Our definition will come from the Word of God, which says a Christian is a follower of Christ, a disciple of Christ. As He is so are we in this world.

Jesus said,

Luk 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

and again
Joh 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed;
Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Or, that almost everyone in the countries concerned was Christian at the time concerned. Learn some history.

In a small nutshell, history has taught us is that when Constantine was converted he made it a law that everyone become a christian and so rather than come under prosecution for not being a christian and to have a position or voice in political matters, many unbelievers claimed themselves to be chrisitans, and thus, many heresies and ungodly practices were brought into the church. Real Christians along with "sinners" were put to death under the guise and name of Christianity. Some of that remains in the church today. Contrary to the reasons that unbelievers may think that is why there have been different breakaways from various mainstream groups.

Christ commanded his followers to follow the old testament, wherein it says, "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," as you well know.
Furthermore, it's irrelevant even if Christ didn't command this specifically, since the definition of Christian is not someone who "does everything Christ tells them to and nothing else." In fact, it's not even, "does everything Christ tells them to," because, as you should know, no-one is perfect and free from sin.

Jesus never commanded his followers to follow the OT he came to bring a new testament. The old law was a schoolmaster to bring people to Christ. It was to show that no one could keep the old law because we are weak in our flesh. It pointed to Christ the Saviour...the One Who would take our judgement for us. The Law said if you sin you must die...sin was passed on to all men through Adam so there is no way we could NOT sin. What God did was to send His Son Jesus in the likeness of sinful flesh and yet without sin to take the punishment for sin for everyone. He satisfied the old law that was against us by dying for us. His resurrection bought a new life for us. One that was to be lived in the spirit not the flesh. So Christ would never command us to follow the OT. There are many things in the OT that we can learn from but we can never please God by following the OT. It is the NT that gives us life.

You have misinterpreted the Bible all over the place. You've interpreted it as infallible, for a start.

I suspect that you really would not know if someone was misinterpreting the scriptures or not so I'm not going there with you.

You claim they can ignore either Christ's command to follow the OT, or the OT's command to kill witches.

Jesus died for witches He was not about killing them. He said,

Joh 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have [it] more abundantly.

Why not? Why would you not believe them? Because they committed sins? But everyone commits sin according to your religion.
Because you're a natural cynic, maybe?

Once again, you twist what he said to have it say what you want it to say.

It's true that we believe all men are sinners, don't you? Who do you know that has no sin? We were all born into sin because of Adam but as I said above, God has remedied that. He sent Jesus to take care of the sin problem. I can't understand why anyone wouldn't want to avail themselves of this gift. It's for anyone and they don't have "achieve" it to have it. It has no prejudice or bias it is free to all. Why they would WANT to discredit it. I do understand that everyone has the choice, though.

What I believe Foe-Hammer was trying to say is that just because a person says they are a christian does not mean they are a christian anymore than if I say I am a Scotsman will make me a Scotsman.

The Bible says

Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

The inference here is that even though the devils "believe" there is a God, does not mean they are christians. One can believe in God and not know God, just as one can believe in Abraham Lincoln but not know him. God's criteria for one to become a christian is to believe in His Son and to believe that His Son came for you personally. To believe in the Bible sense is to be fully persuaded, enough so that you would commit your life to Him. A person cannot be good enough to come. They just accept that what Jesus did was for them. That is good enough for the justice of God and God accepts us on this basis, and only on this basis. We have no good works to offer before or after we come to Christ.