Why Evolution is True (2)

[dad]

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.

It is quite informative to realize that a religious profession from a paid liar is without meaning. Leaders of nations who exhibit antiChrist actions are to be looked at accordingly. If a poster here espouses unChristian things, then obviously that is what matters, not the icon they use in a profile.

 

[justlookinla]

Would that make every human being that came before Christ an anti-Christ? None of them could confess such a thing.

No, it would not. Before Christ, one could not confess Christ.

 

[justlookinla]

Oh good.

That is evidence that I am not antichrist. Did you ever answer my question if you were antiSantaClaus?

Scripture identifies antichrist.....

1Jn_2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1Jn_2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1Jn_4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2Jn_1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
​

You're identified, per scripture.

 

[justlookinla]

So what? One error does not debunk a whole book or a theory that is very wide in application. It is simply an error that has to be corrected. Science has means for identifying and correcting errors. How do you identify and correct errors in your Bible?

The request was made to show an error. I did.

Want me to post it again?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The request was made to show an error. I did.

Want me to post it again?

No, I do not believe that was the request.

But, I will check.

 

[morse86]

Since when did natural selection turn an ape into a man? When did a dot turn into a man?

We have never observed an animal turning into a different kind of animal.


The assembly line for manufacturing cars....how long before it eventually starts creating helicopters? Natural selection doesn't create, it selects.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The request was made to show an error. I did.

Want me to post it again?

And justlookinla is caught in another lie.

In post #694 of this thread Loudmouth made this demand:

For example, you claimed that the book, "Origin of Species", is fiction, and yet you failed to show how a single sentence in that book was fiction. Not a single one.

You quoted a mistake. An error is not fiction. You claim to understand English so there is no excuse for such a blatant error:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-70/#post66188739

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since when did natural selection turn an ape into a man? When did a dot turn into a man?

We have never observed an animal turning into a different kind of animal.


The assembly line for manufacturing cars....how long before it eventually starts creating helicopters? Natural selection doesn't create, it selects.

It is never claimed that only natural selection is evolution. If you don't know that you should not be debating a topic that you clearly do not understand.

And evolution does not claim that an animal turns into another kind of animal. You really need to work on your understanding of evolution.

In fact evolution claims that kind will produce kind.

 

[justlookinla]

And justlookinla is caught in another lie.

In post #694 of this thread Loudmouth made this demand:





You quoted a mistake. An error is not fiction. You claim to understand English so there is no excuse for such a blatant error:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7834960-70/#post66188739

You're twisting yourself in to painful contortaions in an attempt to somehow justify Darwin's error, mistake, fiction....dare I use the "L" word to describe Darwin's fable?

From Chapter 5 of Origin of Species.....
"Effects of Use and Disuse

From the facts alluded to in the first chapter, I think there can be little doubt that use in our domestic animals strengthens and enlarges certain parts, and disuse diminishes them; and that such modifications are inherited. "

You can dress it up however you wish, but Darwin was writing fiction...to put it nicely.

 

[justlookinla]

It is never claimed that only natural selection is evolution. If you don't know that you should not be debating a topic that you clearly do not understand.

And evolution does not claim that an animal turns into another kind of animal. You really need to work on your understanding of evolution.

In fact evolution claims that kind will produce kind.

An alleged single life from from long long ago became a pine tree and an elephant in the fiction of Darwinism.

 

[createdtoworship]

Since when did natural selection turn an ape into a man? When did a dot turn into a man?

We have never observed an animal turning into a different kind of animal.


The assembly line for manufacturing cars....how long before it eventually starts creating helicopters? Natural selection doesn't create, it selects.

let me sum up evolution for you.


That fishy fish life swam until they ran out of water, climbed up on shore, developed lungs, grew legs, became titans of their time, frayed the scales til they became feathers, shrunk, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around, and became birds. Or for men- the fishy fish swam til they ran out water, climbed up on land, grew lungs and fur this time, scampered around at the feet of giant tweety bird T rexes, til they ditched walking on all fours for two legged transportation, climbed trees, jumped down from trees to build a fire, shed their fur, grew a bigger brain, and now believes we came from monkeys.

or this one:

that life sprang from an electrocuted mud puddle, that fishy fish sprouted legs and crawled up on shore, that those same fishy fish split off in two different directions- mammalian and reptilian, that those reptilian frayed their scales until they became feathers, shrunk down in size, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around and became tweety birds. Or that the mammalian family ditched the four legged transportation for two, grew a tail, climbed a tree, swung around from the branches until their tails fell off and they fell out the trees, built a fire, shed the fur, grew a beard, and now believe we came from monkeys.

above illustrations from good brother

 

[createdtoworship]

An alleged single life from from long long ago became a pine tree and an elephant in the fiction of Darwinism.

let me sum up evolution for you.


That fishy fish life swam until they ran out of water, climbed up on shore, developed lungs, grew legs, became titans of their time, frayed the scales til they became feathers, shrunk, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around, and became birds. Or for men- the fishy fish swam til they ran out water, climbed up on land, grew lungs and fur this time, scampered around at the feet of giant tweety bird T rexes, til they ditched walking on all fours for two legged transportation, climbed trees, jumped down from trees to build a fire, shed their fur, grew a bigger brain, and now believes we came from monkeys.

or this one:

that life sprang from an electrocuted mud puddle, that fishy fish sprouted legs and crawled up on shore, that those same fishy fish split off in two different directions- mammalian and reptilian, that those reptilian frayed their scales until they became feathers, shrunk down in size, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around and became tweety birds. Or that the mammalian family ditched the four legged transportation for two, grew a tail, climbed a tree, swung around from the branches until their tails fell off and they fell out the trees, built a fire, shed the fur, grew a beard, and now believe we came from monkeys.

above illustrations from good brother

 

[createdtoworship]

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

As additional information 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: Survival of the fittest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

it was the use "survival of the fittest" that darwin himself popularized that became the pillar of social darwinism. Namely that the fittest survive. Secondly, Natural selection is not exactly survival of the fittest.

 

[createdtoworship]

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

thats not a scientific work,

so you should find better sources if you want to continue to debate this subject.

 

[createdtoworship]

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

the only controversy seems to be some additions to the footnotes, and some translation problems (french/english)

but even stating the above wikipedia mentions:

"The remarks that continue to be widely accepted as genuine include such quotes as 'Christianity is the prototype of Bolshevism: the mobillization by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society.'[34] Table Talk also attributes to Hitler a confidence in science over religion: "Science cannot lie ... It's Christianity that's the liar".[35]

again wikipedia does not question the letters as authentic, but mentions historians trying to justify them.

"In 2003 two challenges appeared to this consensus view. One was from Richard Steigmann-Gall. As part of a wider thesis that portrayed Hitler as at least a cultural Christian, he argued that several passages in Table Talk revealed Hitler to be a great admirer of the cultural aspects of Christianity, and somebody who held Jesus in high esteem.[39] He also suggested that the conversations do not reveal Hitler as an atheist or an agnostic, a worldview Hitler continued to denigrate the Soviet Union for promoting.[40] However, he admitted that they showed an 'unmistakable rupture' with Hitler's earlier religious views,[41] which Steigmann-Gall characterised as Christian.[42] He attributes this to Hitler's anger at his failure to exert control over the German churches, and suggests it was not anger at Christianity itself.[43] Steigmann-Gall's views proved highly controversial,[44] although as John S. Conway pointed out, the differences between his thesis and the earlier consensus were mostly about the 'degree and timing' of Nazi anti-clericalism.[45]"

above quotes from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler's_Table_Talk

so we can now prove that this work is authentic since most historians agree it is, and because the views of historians for the last 50 years have been anticlerical regarding hitler. Only until recently did they reavaluate the letters (2003) quoted above, and came up with the conclusion that Hitler had "anger" issues with his "failure to exert control over the church." However it could equally be that in this anger, He got mad at God and refused to believe anymore. So this is a weak argument.


in closing, check out these quotes again and tell me if hitler was simply mad at the church, or mad at Christianity...

http://www.answers.org/apologetics/Hitquote.html
(please be honest, not dodging the posts I give with simply one line statments that we can all tell don't really put forth an effort (to be open minded and Honest in debate).

thank you for the post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

thats not a scientific work,

so you should find better sources if you want to continue to debate this subject.

That's okay, neither is any book on Social Darwinism.

So we are on an equal level.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Stating that science does not lie and that "Christianity" is lying in no way implies that Hitler was not a Christian. You keep forgetting some of the grossest errors in the Bible. Let's forget the flood that never happened for now. How about the Bible saying the Earth is flat in word and deed?

 

[createdtoworship]

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?

darwin popularized "survival of the fittest" and this implies that the fittest survive, militaristically if needed. Hitler decided to war based on a world view created by Darwin. Racial eugenics (that people evolved), and other Darwinian views.

 

[Subduction Zone]

gradyll, I am done with the derail for now. It has been shown to be nothing but a derail. And you have not really succeeded in proving your point. Which does not matter anyway.

 

[createdtoworship]

That's okay, neither is any book on Social Darwinism.

So we are on an equal level.

I never said they were scientific, I said they were historic. And put out by valid history departments in central valley, california. In fact if I didn't know better I would say that stan state is proud of Richard Weikart, not embarrased by his findings. So it is safe to say it is historic, seeing that I have a valid historian who agrees. You however rely solely on negative statements, avoiding positive so you have no burden of proof. You simply criticism and make a living at it. But we can all see that you don't put forth the effort on this forum. With simply one lined replies, with no citations, it's obvious you are just recruiting, and on a vendetta against Christianity.