Why Evolution is True (2)

dad said:

You claimed the earth was flat and gave verses on something else? The earth in the verses you cited was in the future, when the Lord reigns here. Of course the earth will be forever and established etc. You are defeated good and proper.

Click to expand...

dad, please try to pay attention.

I mentioned in passing that the Bible says that the Earth does not move and that was what got Galileo in trouble. You challenged me on the fixed Earth claim. Go back a page and read where I quoted you. The verses I quoted all said how the Earth does not move. We hadn't even started to discuss the Flat Earth claims.

If you cannot follow a simple conversation that you are a part of how are you going to defend your faulty view of the Bible?

dad as always is defeated.

dad said:

Word games aside, if you want to try to make God's word look silly, show chapter and verse and what you think it means. Since you already just had a taste here, perhaps you will do what you do on science issues...whimper off pretending you could have said wonderful things. Let us know if you need a fresh one.

Click to expand...

dad, it is not word games to show how grossly you screwed up.

And sorry, I don't know what you mean by "God's word". I thought we were discussing the Bible.

Subduction Zone said:

Seriously a Christian forum should be mainly concerned with the behavior of ...... wait for it ..... Christians. Or was that too hard for you to understand?

Click to expand...

a christian forum is concerned with everyone in its threads, and that includes atheists. its not mainly concerned only with the religious while ignoring the nonreligious, this again, is blatantly wrong.

intigheten said:

it is sad that even when i try to meet you halfway by using Biblical concepts to explain the fallacies you are presenting, you still lash out unthinking instead of trying to see what i am attempting to communicate...

can you imagine a Biblical literalist who believes that the sun goes round the earth? i can. it's not too hard, and before heliocentricity was introduced, most Christians did in fact believe this. this Christian would say that his belief comes "from the Bible!", the same way that a Social Darwinist might triumph Darwin as their intellectual inspiration.

however, you and i both know that the important questions of Christianity are as far away from the debate of which goes round which as Christ is from Lucifer, so far away by now that it is far and wide considered a mere figure of speech, as you point out. but it wasn't always considered so, but again that simple historical fact bears no effect on the validity of the modern interpretation. and this simple point is all anyone has ever tried to say about Social Darwinism with regards to modern evolutionary theory.

read my analogy again: Social Darwinism is to modern evolutionary theory as geocentricity is to modern Biblical interpretation. this is to say that Social Darwinism is not relevant to modern evolutionary theory anymore, the same way that geocentricity is irrelevant to modern Christianity, even though many Christians have claimed in centuries past that heliocentricity is downright heresy, in other words, extremely relevant to the corpus of beliefs.

so, just as you call yourself a Christian but do not espouse geocentricity, proponents of modern evolutionary theory can, too, distance themselves from Social Darwinism genuinely, honestly, and fairly, without contradiction, even though there have been historical claims of equivalence, and even if such claims came from the "father" of the theory himself.

seriously, it seems posters on this forum react more so to tone than content. i'm mostly agreeing with you, and attempting to find a middle ground. contention and argument are useful sometimes, but not when applied with such large strokes. peace, we are all mostly of the same mind here, save a few minor details.

-intigheten

Click to expand...

you quote old outdated views of the bible but last I could tell suvival of the fittest (natural selection) is still taught. so your analogies fail yet again.

dad said:

Either apologize for vacuous claims the earth was flat, or face the music. No one cares about your opinion of God or His word either. Funny how darkness fades when the light comes. Shrivels.

Click to expand...

dad, you challenged my stationary Earth claims. Are you having a "senior moment"? I gave you verses that showed that the Earth was stationary. Now if you ask nicely I will gladly give you the Flat Earth verses. I have not run away from anything. You are the one running away.

Do I have to quote and link the post where you challenged my stationary Earth claims? Again? I already quoted and linked it once, I can do it for you again.

Chrisitians today need to differentiate between falsely so called science and science. The bible says the earth is flat. I don't care what NASA says or photoshops.....the earth is flat, the bible says so.

Subduction Zone said:

dad, it is not word games to show how grossly you screwed up.

And sorry, I don't know what you mean by "God's word". I thought we were discussing the Bible.

Click to expand...

again it sounds like you are discussing christianity not evolution.

The bible says to NOT engage in false so called science oppositions:

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

We need to preach about Christ to the lost so they can get saved....be careful not to waste time engaged in useless debates.

If the bible says the earth is flat, we shouldn't make excuses......it is flat. The science in fact, if you really do the actual research, shows the earth is flat..not round (just do the resarch yourself)

dad said:

The verses you offered as I pointed out deal in a time when God reigns on earth forever. You didn't even know remotely what they were talking about. IN no way at all do they mean anything like a stationary earth or flat earth etc. You display an abysmal lack of understanding of Scripture, along with a attitude problem toward God and His word. He is the Great Attitude Adjuster, we all need to be careful.


Here is you going on about a flat earth

"

(me) --The bible doesn't say the earth is flat, and those who claim it does are frauds. As for the flood, that is above your belief system paygrade of knowledge.
​

(you) Actually it clearly does. In fact it does in both act and deed.

If it did it only once you might have an excuse, but it does it multiple times.

(post 777)


Hoo ha.

Click to expand...

No, most of them were O.T.

And of course the Bible says the Earth is flat. The people at that time and place did not know any better. We even have a new debater here that believes the Bible when it says the Earth is flat.

And of course I made that claim, I never denied it. But it seems like you are getting senile. You forgot that you demanded that I prove that the Bible says the Earth does not move, and that is what it says.

By the way dad, reinterpreting the Bible to match your cracked philosophy is not winning the argument. It is blasphemy at best.

gradyll said:

again it sounds like you are discussing christianity not evolution.

Click to expand...

That is because a Christian brought it up.

If you don't want atheists to discuss the Bible and correct your errors then don't bring up the Bible. Simple, isn't it?

dad said:

The fact it is news to you the O.T. deals heavily in the time the Lord will reign speaks volumes.
You had your chance to post the verses, you were shown up for what you are.


You don't know any better, and if some 'debater' is clueless don't blame me.


You were shown that the verses talked of the future, have the guts to admit utter defeat.
You not accepting what the Bible says about the future or the past does not mean that those who do accept it are fighting or badmouthing God, just you.

Click to expand...

You screwed up and did not admit it.

Everybody knows what you are. I will still eventually post the verse, but I am still going to give you a chance to recover a smidgen of respect.

And no, you showed nothing about those verses being from the future. Your lame excuse "If I am wrong then the Bible is false so I must be right" Deja Moo will not fly.

"Only the fittest should survive."
"He [Haeckel] convinced masses of his countrymen they must accept their evolutionary destiny as a ‘master race’ and ‘outcompete’ inferior peoples, since it was right and natural that only the ‘fittest’ should survive. His version of Darwinism was incorporated in Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf (1925), which means ‘My Struggle,’ taken from Haeckel’s German translation of Darwin’s phrase, ‘the struggle for existence.’ "—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 207 [also 312-313].
"In 1918, Darwin’s apostle Ernst Haeckel became a member of the Thule Gesellschaft, a secret, radically right-wing organization that played a key role in the establishment of the Nazi movement. Rudolf Hess and Hitler attended the meeting as guests (Phelps, 1963)."—Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men (1987), p. 488.

"Friedrich Engels, one of the founders of Communism, wrote to Karl Marx, December 12, 1859, ‘Darwin, whom I am just now reading, is splendid.’ "—*C. Zirkle, Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene (1959), p. 85.
"Karl Marx wrote to Friedrich Engels, December 19, 1860, ‘Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our views.’ "—*C. Zirkle, Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene (1959), p. 88.
"Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) was an avid, self-appointed spokesman for Darwinism in Germany . . Haeckel professed a mystical belief in the forces of nature and a literal transfer of the laws of biology to the social realm. The movement he founded in Germany was proto-Nazi in character; romantic Volkism and theMonist League (established 1906), along with evolution and science, laid the ideological foundations of [German] National Socialism.
" . . English Darwinism interlinked two main themes, natural selection and the struggle for existence. SocialDarwinism is an attempt to explain human society in terms of evolution, but Haeckel’s [proto-Nazi] interpretation was quite different from that of capitalist Herbert Spencer or of communist Marx. For him a major component was the ethic of inherent struggle between higher and lower cultures,—between races of men."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 48.
"Again, Marx wrote to Engels, January 16, 1861, ‘Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural selection for the class struggle in history . . not only is a death blow dealt here for the first time to ‘teleology’ in the natural sciences but their rational meaning is emphatically explained.’ "—*C. Zirkle, Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene (1959), p. 88.
"In turn, biological evolutionism exerted ever-widening influences on the natural and social sciences, and its repercussions were neither sound or commendable. Suffice it to mention the so-called Social Darwinism, which often sought to justify the inhumanity of man to man, and the biological racism which furnished a fraudulent scientific sanction for the atrocities committed in Hitler’s Germany and elsewhere."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Evolution at Work," Science, Vol. 127, May 9, 1958, p. 1091.
"Along with his social Darwinist followers, [Haeckel] set about to demonstrate the ‘aristocratic’ and nondemocratic aspect of the laws of nature . . Up to his death in 1919, Haeckel contributed to that special variety of German thought which served as the seed-bed for National Socialism. He became one of Germany’s main ideologists for racism, nationalism, and imperialism."—*Daniel Gasman, Scientific Origins of National Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League (1971), p. xvi.
"The first point is that selfishness and violence are inherent in us, inherited from our remotest animal ancestors . . Violence is, then, natural to man, a product of evolution."—*P.J. Darlington, Evolution for Naturalists (1980), pp. 243-244.

"Darwinism helped to further brutalize mankind through providing scientific sanction for bloodthirsty and selfish desires."—*Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales, Why Scientists Accept Evolution (1966), p. 64.

"The law of evolution, as formulated by Darwin, provides an explanation of war between nations, the only reasonable explanation known to us."—*Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (1947), p. 149.

"Darwinism consistently applied would measure goodness in terms of survival value. This is the law of the jungle where ‘might is right’ and the fittest survive. Whether cunning or cruelty, cowardice or deceit, whatever will enable the individual to survive is good and right for that individual or that society."—H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1968), p. 145.

"The idea that evolution is a history of competitive strife fits well with his [Marx’s] ideology of ‘class struggle.’ "—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 412.
" ‘This is the book,’ he [Marx] wrote to his disciple Engles in 1866, ‘which contains the basis in natural history for our view,’ and he would gladly have dedicated his own major work, Das Kapital, to the author ofThe Origin of Species if Darwin had let him.
"At Marx’s funeral Engels declaimed that, as Darwin had discovered the law of organic evolution in natural history, so Marx had discovered the law of evolution in human history. With its denigration of non-material aspects of human life, and its mission to uproot tradition and destroy creationist concepts in men’s minds, communism remains one of Darwin’s strongest adherents . . After 1949 when the communists took control of China, the first new text introduced to all schools was neither Marxist nor Leninist, but Darwinian."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 24.
"Like Darwin, Marx thought he had discovered the law of development. He saw history in stages, as the Darwinists saw geological strata and successive forms of life . . But there are even finer points of comparison. In keeping with the feelings of the age, both Marx and Darwin made struggle the means of development. Again, the measure of value in Darwin is survival with reproduction—an absolute fact occurring in time and which wholly disregards the moral or ethical quality of the product. In Marx the measure of value is expended labor—an absolute fact occurring in time, which also disregards the utility of the product [and also the workman]."—*J. Barzun, Darwin, Marx, Wagner (1958), p. 8.

(many more where that came from)

Above quotes from:
Evolution Handbook 3

Bogus source gradyll, try again. Find that information from an unbiased source and you might have a valid claim. I have no way to check and see if there is any truth in their quotes or not.