Why Evolution is True (2)

[Subduction Zone]

how is it that you continued to think hitler a christian even after proving he wasn't with the use of multiple scriptures (exposing him to be a false convert- and/or apostate)?

You never proved that he was not a Christian.

You only proved that he was not your kind of Christian. That was a no true Scotsman fallacy on your part. With 40,000 different sects odds are that you could find one that Hitler would fit in.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I went to bed and missed this post.

how do you explain marine fossils in shale? (46%)

or nautiloids in limestone (22%)


shale is made basically by mud and moving water

No, shale is not mud. Mud is usually a very poorly sorted mixture of clay, silt and sand. Shale is a very well sorted rock made up up of very fine sediments. It is usually deposited very slowly. Fish fossils in shale are found in anoxic environments. That can be seen by even the color of the shale, fossils with fishes in them tend to be green rather than red. That is indicative of a chemically reduced environment, you find Fe+2 rather than Fe+3.

What is wrong with finding nautoloids in limestone? Where would you expect to find them? Limestone is generally a bioclastic rock. It is a rock that is made up of bits and pieces of what used to be life. That is why we don't see limestone until the Cambrian with the except of that from stromatoliets. Which again was living material.


or nautiloids buried in vertical position not laying dow?

"Nautiloid Mass-Kill Event at a Hydrothermal Mound within the Redwall Limestone (Mississippian), Grand Canyon, Arizona"[*]

Austin, Steven A., Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA 92071;
Wise, Kurt P., Bryan College, Dayton, TN 37321

Seventy-six nautiloids (Order Orthocerida) were located and measured at Nautiloid Canyon, a side canyon of the Colorado River in Marble Canyon, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona.

The fossils occur in a 330m2 exposure within a single, massive bed of fine-grained dolomite at the top of the Whitmore Wash Member of the Redwall Limestone. The consistent morphology, high fossil density, and near-normal size-frequency distribution of the fossils suggest a life, rather than death assemblage. Implosion evidence and non-random orientation data (n=71) are consistent with bodies being in the shells at the time of burial. Life assemblage and intact body evidence suggest that nautiloids were involved in a mass-kill event.

The fossil horizon is found on the flank of a broad domal structure which involves the uppermost Whitmore Wash Member and at least 20m of the increasingly cherty sediments of the Thunder Springs Member. The sediments above the fossil horizon exhibit high iron-to-aluminum ratios and a strong depletion in titanium, aluminum, and rare earth elements. Hydrothermal process is indicated by lithologic evidence (dolomite/chert boundary, geochemical signature, and structural mound) coincident with fossil evidence (rapid burial indicated by implosion, currents indicated by shell orientations, and mass-kill evidence).

We interpret the nautiloids as being killed in high-temperature, toxic water derived from a hydrothermal source. We then interpret the nautiloids as being transported in a sediment-charged current and deposited and rapidly buried upon a sloping depositional surface on the flank of a building hydrothermal mound."
above quote from
Mod 12:Nautiloid Research[/QUOTE]

Again how is that supposed to be a problem? Nautoloids are naturally in a vertical position. Whether their fossils are vertical or not has more to do with the environment that they were deposited in than anything else. It does not support a flood.

What creationist forget is that there is relatively little life on the planet at any one time. A world wide flood would leave only a thin veneer of life, only a few inches thick in most areas. We would not have thousands and thousands of feet of fossil bearing rock. That alone cannot be explained by Flud geologists.

Second there is the problem of sorting of fossils, especially microscopic index fossils. There has been no mechanism proposed to sort our fossils of that sort with the flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then do it in your own words, using any links for references.

Whats the problem?? Piece of cake.
Already have done that. It is likely a very incomplete record of life in the former state because almost all animals and man could not likely fossilize! Once we could in this present state world, we see man a beast join the record. Piece of cake.

This was posted after I went to bed, I would be happy to do so. But I challenged you to explain the fossil record first in your delusional, I mean altered state.

Actually I will tell you how it was done. There is no evidence of an altered state, either Biblically or scientifically. That means there is no valid reason to assume one. That means we can use the rates of today to project back to the rates of yesterday. I can show you articles that tell how fast various strata are being deposited today. That and the thickness of various beds gives us a minimum, not a maximum of time necessary for deposition. When you add up all of the different strata around the world you end up with hundreds of millions of years.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

how is it that you continued to think hitler a christian even after proving he wasn't with the use of multiple scriptures (exposing him to be a false convert- and/or apostate)?

Hitler was not a Christian in the sense of being redeemed from his sins and guided by Christ in his heart. He was a Christian in the sense of identifying himself with the Christian culture instead of muslim or atheistic cultures.

Both uses of the word have their place.

When I read about christians begin driven out of their homes by muslim extremists, I don't take it that every one of them had a genuine born again experience. I take it that many of them were baptized as babies, and thus may have not personally ever repented and gained salvation through Christ.

But I don't say the reports are inaccurate. I just understand what they are talking about.

 

[dad]

... I challenged you to explain the fossil record first ....

Anything somewhere in the record you need explained?

Actually I will tell you how it was done. There is no evidence of an altered state, either Biblically or scientifically.

You are not in any position to challenge the different future or past in the bible. If you could we would see some case. You are bankrupt in that dept. I am wealthy.

That means there is no valid reason to assume one.

No one cares what you assume.

That means we can use the rates of today to project back to the rates of yesterday.

No, you sure can't simply slide that act of faith by us here. The rates and processes are wholly dependent on the forces and laws that exist. You need to know what they were, not assume. I have NO reason from science to believe in your same state past, and every reason to believe it was actually different from God. So you are going to need a whole lot more than belief!

I can show you articles that tell how fast various strata are being deposited today.

Irrelevant.

That and the thickness of various beds gives us a minimum, not a maximum of time necessary for deposition.

False. In other words IF the deposit was uniformly deposited and in this state, then and only then would we assign certain time to how long that would take, should take could take.

When you add up all of the different strata around the world you end up with hundreds of millions of years.

Not in any way at all. In many cases we have piling up and uplift that shoved strata together, making the 'deposit' larger than it would have been if the continents had not bashed around. In other cases, we have salt and materials likely originating deep under the earth, and coming up somewhere near or in the flood year. In other cases we have plant and animal fossil remains like coal or oil and such that come from tress and plants that had a super rapid growth rate in the former state. Etc. ALL your stories and ages are religion.

 

[dad]

Hitler was not a Christian in the sense of being redeemed from his sins and guided by Christ in his heart. He was a Christian in the sense of identifying himself with the Christian culture instead of muslim or atheistic cultures.

Both uses of the word have their place.

When I read about christians begin driven out of their homes by muslim extremists, I don't take it that every one of them had a genuine born again experience. I take it that many of them were baptized as babies, and thus may have not personally ever repented and gained salvation through Christ.

But I don't say the reports are inaccurate. I just understand what they are talking about.

That seems to be a balanced perspective. However when it comes to lying politicians we also ought to know they are lying through their teeth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anything somewhere in the record you need explained?

dad, 9th Commandment remember?

The challenge was for you to explain the fossil record. Particularly the observed order of fossils. How do you explain the order of fossils that we see? Especially how do you explain the order of microscopic index fossils?

You are not in any position to challenge the different future or past in the bible. If you could we would see some case. You are bankrupt in that dept. I am wealthy.

dad, again 9th Commandment please. You have lost every Biblical debate that you have had with me.

No, you sure can't simply slide that act of faith by us here. The rates and processes are wholly dependent on the forces and laws that exist. You need to know what they were, not assume. I have NO reason from science to believe in your same state past, and every reason to believe it was actually different from God. So you are going to need a whole lot more than belief!

If you want to claim that you have to prove it. And not with nonsense that you mistranslated from the Bible. You must prove our altered state first.





[/QUOTE]



dad, honesty is always appreciated. Yes, you will still lose. But people will not be laughing at you, as much.

 

[dad]

The challenge was for you to explain the fossil record. Particularly the observed order of fossils. How do you explain the order of fossils that we see? Especially how do you explain the order of microscopic index fossils?

Little things died first, and the the early fossil record would be things that firstly could fossilize and the things which died first. If we consider that the Precambrian and Cambrian layers, for example probably represent only centuries together, we might get some perspective on the order of fossils there.

dad, again 9th Commandment please. You have lost every Biblical debate that you have had with me.

Seek help elsewhere, either post something of substance or admit defeat.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That seems to be a balanced perspective. However when it comes to lying politicians we also ought to know they are lying through their teeth.

Yes, all the lying politicians are liars.

And the same goes for internet posters . . . all the lying internet posters are liars.

But that's not really a very informative statement.

 

[createdtoworship]

Hitler was not a Christian in the sense of being redeemed from his sins and guided by Christ in his heart. He was a Christian in the sense of identifying himself with the Christian culture instead of muslim or atheistic cultures.

Both uses of the word have their place.

When I read about christians begin driven out of their homes by muslim extremists, I don't take it that every one of them had a genuine born again experience. I take it that many of them were baptized as babies, and thus may have not personally ever repented and gained salvation through Christ.

But I don't say the reports are inaccurate. I just understand what they are talking about.

he was politically a roman catholic for power but not in his personal life:

Was Hitler a Christian?

 

[Subduction Zone]

he was politically a roman catholic for power but not in his personal life:

Was Hitler a Christian?

Did you note that your quotes came from one source? They were not publicly made and the source was noted as being both anti-Christian and pro-Hitler. You should have found a better source. These quotes were publicly made and can be confirmed from more than one source:

Hitler's Christianity

 

[Dizredux]

As far as the Theory of Evolution goes, it wouldn't matter if Hitler was inspired by Darwin. It would not matter if Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Mary Poppins or Mickey Mouse were inspired by Darwin. That has no affect on the validity or merits of the TOE in any way.

It wouldn't matter to the Theory of Evolution if Darwin was a horrible person. He could be a rapist, mass murderer, dog diddler, or a person who stole quarters from the collection plate as it was passed around. That also would have no impact on the Theory whatsoever.

Trying to discredit the person or ascribe bad results to the person who develops a scientific theory or discovery has no relevance to the theory or discovery itself.

So trying to establish if Hitler was influenced by Darwin as a way of criticizing the TOE is just rather useless rhetoric and bad logic.

It appears to me that animal breeding and the works of Martin Luther had a far bigger impact on the Nazis than Darwin did. But even if he did, it has nothing to do with the theory itself.

Dizredux

 

[Subduction Zone]

As far as the Theory of Evolution goes, it wouldn't matter if Hitler was inspired by Darwin. It would not matter if Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Mary Poppins or Mickey Mouse were inspired by Darwin. That has no affect on the validity or merits of the TOE in any way.

It wouldn't matter to the Theory of Evolution if Darwin was a horrible person. He could be a rapist, mass murderer, dog diddler, or a person who stole quarters from the collection plate as it was passed around. That also would have no impact on the Theory whatsoever.

Trying to discredit the person or ascribe bad results to the person who develops a scientific theory or discovery has no relevance to the theory or discovery itself.

So trying to establish if Hitler was influenced by Darwin as a way of criticizing the TOE is just rather useless rhetoric and bad logic.

It appears to me that animal breeding and the works of Martin Luther had a far bigger impact on the Nazis than Darwin did. But even if he did, it has nothing to do with the theory itself.

Dizredux

It is an old creationist tactic. When losing the debate bring up Hitler as a derail. Of course they lose that argument too. Unless you get questionable sources like gradyll did it is very obvious that he was an avowed Christian. He may not have followed today's Christian practices, but that does not change his beliefs. Also if anything Hitler was a social Darwinist, that had about as much to do with evolution as social Newtonism, also known as defenestration, has to do with Newtons theory on gravity:

Top 10 Defenestrations (People Thrown from Windows)

 

[createdtoworship]

As far as the Theory of Evolution goes, it wouldn't matter if Hitler was inspired by Darwin. It would not matter if Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Mary Poppins or Mickey Mouse were inspired by Darwin. That has no affect on the validity or merits of the TOE in any way.

It wouldn't matter to the Theory of Evolution if Darwin was a horrible person. He could be a rapist, mass murderer, dog diddler, or a person who stole quarters from the collection plate as it was passed around. That also would have no impact on the Theory whatsoever.

Trying to discredit the person or ascribe bad results to the person who develops a scientific theory or discovery has no relevance to the theory or discovery itself.

So trying to establish if Hitler was influenced by Darwin as a way of criticizing the TOE is just rather useless rhetoric and bad logic.

It appears to me that animal breeding and the works of Martin Luther had a far bigger impact on the Nazis than Darwin did. But even if he did, it has nothing to do with the theory itself.

Dizredux

I am discrediting survival of the fitest which rooted in darwinism has led up to social darwinism and resultantly : Nazism.

 

[createdtoworship]

It is an old creationist tactic. When losing the debate bring up Hitler as a derail. Of course they lose that argument too. Unless you get questionable sources like gradyll did it is very obvious that he was an avowed Christian. He may not have followed today's Christian practices, but that does not change his beliefs. Also if anything Hitler was a social Darwinist, that had about as much to do with evolution as social Newtonism, also known as defenestration, has to do with Newtons theory on gravity:

Top 10 Defenestrations (People Thrown from Windows)

this has been debunked before, social newtonism does not exist.

 

[createdtoworship]

Did you note that your quotes came from one source? They were not publicly made and the source was noted as being both anti-Christian and pro-Hitler. You should have found a better source. These quotes were publicly made and can be confirmed from more than one source:

Hitler's Christianity

not publically made means that they were his real personal beliefs. Public quotes many times are innacurate because of the PR and facads put up.

But please finally do yourself a favor and debate honestly, for once. (thats all I ask you).

I beg of you.

I mean it's one thing to be stumped, to not answer. but to dismiss all facts and dodge the post repeatedly over and over again, is simply dishonest.

again here are the quotes of hitler rejecting christianity:

Was Hitler a Christian?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am discrediting survival of the fitest which rooted in darwinism has led up to social darwinism and resultantly : Nazism.

No, it's not. And it has been explained to you many times why it is not.

Is social Newtonianism, aka defenestration anything to do with the theory of gravity?

 

[Subduction Zone]

not publically made means that they were his real personal beliefs. Public quotes many times are innacurate because of the PR and facads put up.

But please finally do yourself a favor and debate honestly, for once. (thats all I ask you).

I beg of you.

I mean it's one thing to be stumped, to not answer. but to dismiss all facts and dodge the post repeatedly over and over again, is simply dishonest.

again here are the quotes of hitler rejecting christianity:

Was Hitler a Christian?

Only if he wrote them. Did Hitler write those quotes? I don't think so. Your source does not seem to be very reliable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

this has been debunked before, social newtonism does not exist.

Sorry, but my list of 10 most famous defenestrations indicates otherwise

 

[Dizredux]

I am discrediting survival of the fitest which rooted in darwinism has led up to social darwinism and resultantly : Nazism.

Natural selection is a scientific theory. How can bringing in Hitler discredit a scientific theory?

As additional information

Darwin first used Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" alongside "natural selection" in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, published in 1869, intending it to mean "better designed for an immediate, local environment".

which is considerably much different from Spencer's ideas especially in that Spencer believed self improvement could be inherited as well as Darwin's ideas that all species were equally valuable.

You are working with a dog that don't hunt as we would say here in Texas.


Dizredux

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest