Why Evolution is True (2)

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Certainly not any theories from so called science. You heard it here folks! By the way, I assume you believe you share an ancestor with the potato too?

Why yes we do, but it goes a bit further back than the most recently shared ancestral species with other mammals.

 

[dad]

Why yes we do, but it goes a bit further back than the most recently shared ancestral species with other mammals.

OK, so as a Baptist then, you feel that man shared an ancestor with a potato. OK. If flatworms having sex eventually resulted in mankind, what should we think about Genesis saying God formed man from the dust of the earth?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

OK, so as a Baptist then, you feel that man shared an ancestor with a potato. OK. If flatworms having sex eventually resulted in mankind, what should we think about Genesis saying God formed man from the dust of the earth?

He did it with the intermediate stage of flatworms having sex, of course. In other words, speaking of creating man from the dust of the earth is expressing that the earth brought us forth via evolution only in language that could be accepted by the men to whom the revelation was given.

 

[dad]

He did it with the intermediate stage of flatworms having sex, of course. In other words, speaking of creating man from the dust of the earth is expressing that the earth brought us forth via evolution only in language that could be accepted by the men to whom the revelation was given.

So we can forget God breathing life into the man, and creating woman from his body too I guess in your 'biblical' view. God never reaaalllly had the animals come to the man to be named in your model. There could not have been animals if they and man came from the flatworm. Thankfully we have you here to tell us what the Almighty really meant, but messed up.

 

[createdtoworship]

Your link does not work. But my link says that his work is on the list. You can't get any more "primitive" in Darwinism than the original book where the theory of evolution was first laid out.

Why can't you understand that simple fact? Is it because it goes against your prejudices?

that was your link: (reposted below)

they were clearly NOT banned: of all the works of darwin, none were cited below:

When Books Burn: Lists of Banned Books, 1933-1939

is that not the original link you posted and not to mention

Origin of the species, is not on the list, what is is primitive darwinism (monism)

from your link number 6# on the list of banned books

"6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (H�ckel)."

 

[createdtoworship]

Where in the book "Origin of Species" does it say that we should kill Jews?

survival of the fittest was carried out into social darwinism, where this was somehow made okay. But it started with survival of the fittest.


the University of Colorado at boulder (database)

states that among social darwinists is the survival of the fittest mentality:
"most propose arguments that justify imbalances of power between individuals, races, and nations because they consider some people more fit to survive than others."
http://autocww.colorado.edu/~flc/E64ContentFiles/SociologyAndReform/SocialDarwinism.html


STAN STATE history professor agrees:

"I will highlight the ways that Nazi racial
thought was shaped by Darwinism (defined as biological evolution through the process
of natural selection). First, almost all Nazi racial theorists believed that humans
had evolved from primates. Second, they provided evolutionary explanations for the
development of different human races, including the Nordic or Aryan race (these two
terms were used synonymously). Specifically, they believed that the Nordic race had
become superior because harsh climatic conditions in north-central Europe during
the Ice Ages had sharpened the struggle for existence, causing the weak to perish and
leaving only the most vigorous. Third, they believed that the differential evolutionary
development of the races provided scientific evidence for racial inequality. Fourth,
they held that the different and unequal human races were locked in an ineluctable
struggle for existence. Fifth, they thought that the way for their own race to triumph
in the struggle for existence was to procreate more prolifically than competing races
and to gain more “living space” (Lebensraum) into which to expand. Sixth, many
argued that Darwinism promoted a collectivist ideal. These six points—derived from
the view that humans and human races evolved and are still evolving through the
Darwinian mechanism of natural selection—profoundly impacted Nazi policy. They
formed the backdrop for eugenics, killing the disabled, the quest for “living space,”
and racial extermination.9"

above quote from:
http://www.csustan.edu/sites/defaul.../Weikart/Darwinism-in-Nazi-Racial-Thought.pdf

 

[createdtoworship]

Where in that "university information" does it discuss the part of the theory of evolution that says we should kill Jews?



They both shouldn't exist, and for the same reasons. The theory of evolution supports Social Darwinism as much as the theory of gravity supports throwing Jews off of tall buildings. IOW, it doesn't support it at all.

It appears that you are the father of deception, continually deceiving posters. Why is that?

I answered this post in my last post (you made a duplicate)

 

[createdtoworship]

social darwinism has historic roots in darwinism, hence it's name. So I am not sure what your point is here.

"Social Darwinists base their beliefs on theories of evolution developed by British naturalist Charles Darwin. "

from the University of Colorado at Boulder database

Social Darwinism

Not sure if anyone answered this post other than a red herring of a ficticious term of social newtonianism.

 

[Dizredux]

survival of the fittest was carried out into social darwinism, where this was somehow made okay. But it started with survival of the fittest.

You do realize that" Survival of the Fittest" was not Darwin's term.

Dizredux

 

[createdtoworship]

You do realize that" Survival of the Fittest" was not Darwin's term.

Dizredux

I am very aware that it was a borrowed term. However he made it popular, and has been blamed for it's widespread use. It is also darwins use of the term that I would be addressing, as would most people.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

So we can forget God breathing life into the man, and creating woman from his body too I guess in your 'biblical' view. God never reaaalllly had the animals come to the man to be named in your model. There could not have been animals if they and man came from the flatworm. Thankfully we have you here to tell us what the Almighty really meant, but messed up.

Forget it? Hardly! Understand it, however, as the granting of a new level of spiritual life in our species.

Your statement "there could not have been animals if they and man came from the flatworm" makes no sense at all. You think evolution theory says only one species can exist at a time?

As for creating Eve from Adam's body, its perfectly possible to take Adam as the first of our species granted an immortal soul, and placed in the garden, and Eve taken from Adam. Why not? Just because Adam was created by evolution doesn't rule those things out.

Or we could view that all as a parable, suited for the understanding of people who were, after all, very primitive.

You wish to disregard all the evidence for evolution and the age of the earth. Its too late, people know about those things now.

You might as well face it, the very toes on your feet bear witness of a previous ancestral species that could actually grasp branches with all four limbs.

 

[justlookinla]

You might as well face it, the very toes on your feet bear witness of a previous ancestral species that could actually grasp branches with all four limbs.

Nothing in scripture even slightly hints as such a view.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Nothing in scripture even slightly hints as such a view.

Why would it? Do you think that only scripture has information about the past? Do you look to bible verses to determine paternity in court cases? Do you check with your concordance to find a good place to search for transitional fossils?

 

[dad]

Forget it? Hardly! Understand it, however, as the granting of a new level of spiritual life in our species.

So according to your view of God's word (or do you even call it that?) long after flatworms procreated and eventually led to all animals and mankind, we gained some 'new level of spiritual life'!? That was what God meant when He claimed He breathed life into man in creation week, on day six, also marked out by mornings and evenings.

Your statement "there could not have been animals if they and man came from the flatworm" makes no sense at all. You think evolution theory says only one species can exist at a time?

If flatworms were a direct ancestor of man and animals, then who cares if they also existed when Adam named the animals? The point was that when Adam naned the animals, they had, according to you all descended from this worm. (and before this some long line of other little creatures)

As for creating Eve from Adam's body, its perfectly possible to take Adam as the first of our species granted an immortal soul, and placed in the garden, and Eve taken from Adam. Why not? Just because Adam was created by evolution doesn't rule those things out.

Now let's crystallize your claims here. God really did take a rib from Adam, but Adam had descended from a flatworm! Adam and Eve also were directly related to potatoes!? God just couldn't help but fib about the days and mornings and evenings. OK.

Or we could view that all as a parable, suited for the understanding of people who were, after all, very primitive.

So the bible was only meant to be understood by men of yesterday in your opinion also! When it talks of how the wise shall understand, for example, in the latter days of the world, how would it be, then, that we all have the same text to understand? Why would God write it that way for us, if He was really just doing idiot speak for supposed near ape men?

You wish to disregard all the evidence for evolution and the age of the earth. Its too late, people know about those things now.

There IS NO evidence whatsoever for either. So called science has merely set up a religious methodology to interpret evidence and assign imaginary ages.

You might as well face it, the very toes on your feet bear witness of a previous ancestral species that could actually grasp branches with all four limbs.

My toes do nothing of the sort actually. Even if Adam had better grasping power in the roes, that doesn't mean he climbed trees and ate bananas, and stuck his fingers under his armpits, and grunted! You impose godless visions onto everything, from head to feet.

I understand how pagans do that, but not how people that claim to know God do.

.

 

[createdtoworship]

Social Darwinism was not an idea of Darwin's. It appears to be very much akin to the extreme right wing advocacy of unregulated capitalism. Its a mystery why those who advocate extreme right wing unfettered capitalism are so often opposed to Darwin and his ideas.

Of course, the problem with survival of the fittest corporations is that it is the corporations that wind up surviving instead of people.

I address your post here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960/#post66185309

 

[createdtoworship]

By his actions and fruit, he seems to have been another tree than a Christian one. This lesson I apply to any antiChrist government such as the present one in the US.


But we should remember here that you are a man who actually thinks he shares a parent with a potato!!! You believe, in other words that some parent or ancestor of the potato was also yours!!!


Why would I care what someone who thought worms having sex eventually produced mankind thought about who really had the creator inside their heart?

I just saw this I and I must say

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are not qualified to tell others what the truth is not or is.

I am more qualified that you will ever be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

that was your link: (reposted below)

they were clearly NOT banned: of all the works of darwin, none were cited below:

When Books Burn: Lists of Banned Books, 1933-1939

is that not the original link you posted and not to mention

Origin of the species, is not on the list, what is is primitive darwinism (monism)

from your link number 6# on the list of banned books

"6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (H�ckel)."

Number 6 is a reference to Origin of the Species. You can't get any more primitive in "Darwinism" than the book that it was based upon.

It is simple logic.

And you must have messed up the copy and paste since the link did not work on that post.

 

[morse86]

1 Timothy 6:20: committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Psalms 19:1: The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Just observing nature and the universe...we see the amazing handy work of God. God warns us to stay away from "falsely so called science".

What is falsely so called science? How about believing in that a dot smaller than a period expanded in a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth second into all the matter today and life came out of it.

Why do we show charts of monkeys turning into man? Why not instead show a full stop turning into a man?!?!?

Do not be fooled by these so called "high priests" scientists...what they believe is religion..not science.

Science led to computers, cars, and industrial technology.....evolution on the other hand is useless....it's not science at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1 Timothy 6:20: committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Psalms 19:1: The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Just observing nature and the universe...we see the amazing handy work of God. God warns us to stay away from "falsely so called science".

What is falsely so called science? How about believing in that a dot smaller than a period expanded in a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth second into all the matter today and life came out of it.

Why do we show charts of monkeys turning into man? Why not instead show a full stop turning into a man?!?!?

Do not be fooled by these so called "high priests" scientists...what they believe is religion..not science.

Science led to computers, cars, and industrial technology.....evolution on the other hand is useless....it's not science at all.

Sorry morse, but the Bible is not a reliable source in this debate. Since the claims of the Bible are under trial, so to speak, the Bible cannot be used as evidence for the Bible. That is circular reasoning and is debunked by the many self contradictions, mistakes, failed prophecies, and bad morals of the Bible.