It's 11:20 PM Friday night. We have just returned from watching a special Hollywood screening of Ben Stein's "Expelled." I didn't know what to expect as this isn't a Christian movie. But after seeing it, I can say that it is phenomenal. The highlight was watching the king of evolution, Richard Dawkins, fall off his throne, big-time. He melted like soft wax on a hot Vegas sidewalk in July. He went from a bold and confident man to a pathetic little mouse, in a moment. He even admitted that he isn't an atheist. It was wonderful to see him so humbled by a few probing questions from Ben Stein.
I am going to do everything I can to promote this movie. Please go and see it when it is released across the country on the 18th of April. It exposes the blatant hypocrisy of the censorship of ideas, and the freedoms that this country was founded upon.
It’s now morning, and I have had more time to think clearly about “Expelled.” Again, this is not a Christian movie. There’s no mention of the gospel--not even slightly. Ben Stein is Jewish. He took on this project because he is passionate about the Jewish holocaust, and he can see the same pattern in the United States that led up to Nazi Germany--the suppression of free thought. Blatant censorship. Evolutionists deny that Hitler (and his extermination of those who were weak) was motivated by Darwinism, but history attests to it. This is very clearly and undeniably documented in the film.
One criticism that has already surfaced is that the evolutionists, who expose their hate-filled agenda in the movie, were coerced into being interviewed. Not so. They signed off for their part after each interview, and were well-paid for their efforts.
No surprise that the God-haters that frequent this blog are going to hate “Expelled.” They have already been brainwashed and are entrenched in their world view, but the average American is going to have his eyes opened as to what is happening in this country. Let’s hope it will be instrumental in turning the nation around.
So, again, please go to this movie, and don’t go alone. Take a group from your church. Take your neighbors. It could open an interesting dialogue.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Expelled Review
249 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 249 Newer› Newest»Cool, can't wait to see it Ray.I just checked the New Zealand movie website it's not even on the 'coming soon' page yet. Don't know how long I'll have to wait.
Never mind I'm reading a book by an ex-Atheist now Christian investigative journalist called 'The Divinity Code' the author deals with Dawkins and many others. He even has a great chapter in response to Dales big list of previous gods
Three things ray-ray.
- There is no 'king' of evolution
- When interviewed, Dawkins was lied to about the movie and its premise
- The movie itself is full of glaring inaccuracies and falsehoods.
Are you happy to join the 'lie for Jesus' club Ray? Are you?
He even admitted that he isn't an atheist.
I have been reading a lot of reviews which suggest Expelled used a lot of misleading propaganda techniques but for a viewer to come away thinking Richard Dawkins had "admitted he isn't an atheist" seems to prove the point.
Ray,
Of course you decide to abandon your Christian teachings to support a non-Christian movie because they edited it to make Dawkins look dumb.
Dawkins is anything but dumb, I'm sure you will agree on that.
The scene you mention, Stein asks a question of Dawkins that will take some thought to answer and you say "he melted like soft way."
Of course, they edited the piece to make it look that way. It is disengenous to portray it in that light.
Evolution remains your number one target because the reality of evolution is the death of your brand of religion.
I saw the movie yesterday also.
The most inane part is where they try to link Hitler to Darwin.
The seeds of anti-semetism were planted in Germany long before Darwin. Martin Luther also had a hand in that with his book, "The Jews and Their Lies." That book is one of the vilest pieces of work I ever read. Plus genocide was practiced more that once in the old testament so you see, genocide is "scripturally" sound.
Then the editors go on to surround the interviews with Dawkins with with film clips of Nazis. Sooooo bogus.
This is a propagana flick through and through.
You admit that the film is the work of a false Christian, yet you recommend it because of the one edited scene of Dawkins.
I am smelling a disconnect here.
Finally, the movie was supportive of ID, not creationism and there was no data or evidence for anything, which is the first sign of propaganda.
Thanks Ray. That's a worthwhile endorsement.
I've also heard on the NEWS (imagine that -mainstream media) reporting that Dawkins tried to force his way into a private screening of this (I believe in Minnesota).
Note the words 'force' and 'private'.
- LAOF
I'll watch it. :)
Ray, you've just proved that you don't care about honesty, that it's okay to lie for Jesus. I've tried to be generous about your quote mining, thinking, maybe he really doesn't know. But you know what you're doing, just like the producers of Expelled know. You have to lie. You have to lie to others, and worse, lie to yourselves. It's pathetic and I truly feel sorry for you.
Ray said--
The highlight was watching the king of evolution, Richard Dawkins, fall off his throne, big-time. He melted like soft wax on a hot Vegas sidewalk in July. He went from a bold and confident man to a pathetic little mouse, in a moment. He even admitted that he isn't an atheist. It was wonderful to see him so humbled by a few probing questions from Ben Stein.
Richard Dawkins admitted he isn't an atheist? Really? The guy that wrote The God Delusion admitted to Ben Stein that he isn't an atheist?
It's actually causing more of a stir than I expected. Hopefully it releases near my area. Thanks for giving us a heads up on it!
You should read up on what the movies producers did to lie to Dawkins and others in the movie when they interviewed them. Address the lies that are promoted in the movie.
It isn't a Christian movie?? Please, Ray.
Listen, it isn't about censorship as you claim. It is about good science and education. ID is not science, it is based on a religious agenda. If someone in academia teaches ID or finds ID, as currently formulated....they are not fit to be in science. Plain and simple. It would be like a chemist teaching their students alchemy. What would we do with a professor who teaches this seriously??? This applies to any profession; if you are subscribing to nonsense you shouldn't be employed.
Ray, I will debate this with you if you care. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory; they haven't left the "gut hunch" phase. The cdesign proponentists are hucksters. Instead of doing research with their 5 million dollar/year budget, the Disco Institute spends their money on PR and their time convincing school boards to "test the water" in their district. This is a movement of, for and by lawyers who want children to be taught creationism. This has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with faith.
Ben Stein is one smart guy
Sounds great!
A true witness delivereth souls: but a deceitful witness speaketh lies. Proverbs 14:25
Vera
When, exactly, did Dawkins say he wasn't an atheist? I've been following the blogosphere about thsi movie and no one (that I've seen) but you stated anything like that.
Also, did you know that the producers lied about the name and purpose of the movie? They told the people they interviewed that it was called "Crossroads" and was a documentary about the "intersection of science and religion".
How can you support a movie made by liars?
Dawkins and Myers and Scott signed off on being interviewed for a movie they were told was titled Crossroads, when the producers bought the domain name "expelledthemovie.com" months before. So, you all keep lying for Jesus. I'm sure he appreciates it.
As for all the evil that Charles Darwin and Darwinism has caused, what caused all the evil before Charles Darwin was born? Or was Christendom just a wonderful paradise before then?
Oh, I just read your comment, Josh R; it's because they are all liars for Jesus, and it's okay to lie for Jesus. They have to lie to themselves and others; otherwise, their world view will fall apart. It's very sad. They deserve pity, but they beg for scorn and ridicule.
The Panda's Thumb website has another example of the producers of movie's dishonesty at their web site now.
on Dawkins backsliding
Dawkins started off very cool and articulate. But when asked some very pointed questions, he admitted that there is a slight percentage of possibility that God exists. He was asked to put an actual number percentage figure on his belief that God DOESN'T exist. He started out at 98% probability that God doesn't exist. When asked why he picked that number, he didn't know. Ben then kept probing about percentage of possiblity, "Could it be 78%? 56%?" Dawkins said he didn't want to put a number on it. Ben ended up by saying, "So, it could be as low as 48%?" Dawkins said "I think it's very unlikely."
Atheist - No God
Agnosic - I don't know, there's a possibilty there might be a God.
Dawkins is an Agnostic.
(This is all from memory, so don't put too much stock in word-for-word here.)
on the people being lied to about the purpose of the interviews
Nope. They were told they were being interviewed for a movie about "the conflict between religion and science." It's clearly spelled out in the waivers they signed. The marketing manager said they were thinking of putting up copies of the waivers these guys signed on the Ben Stein Expelled website, so the truth could be clearly seen.
my conclusion
This movie is incredible! Ben Stein for president!!!
Simply Ray you epitomize the notion that "It is easier to believe than to think". I have no problem with you choosing to remain ignorant of science and history. Whatever you find consoling I guess. I do object to the your insistence on infecting others with your limited abilities to openly and honestly evaluate the available data.
This movie is nothing more than propaganda and lies which somehow appeals to you.
Ray,
I see you've added some more nonsense to this entry:
"It’s now morning, and I have had more time to think clearly about “Expelled.” "
Not clearly enough.
"Again, this is not a Christian movie. There’s no mention of the gospel--not even slightly."
Please, Ray, don't insult our intelligence. It is based on Discovery Institute whining. They are conservative Christians pushing a Christian agenda. I challenge you to post the "Wedge Document" and let every one read it.
"Ben Stein is Jewish. He took on this project because he is passionate about the Jewish holocaust, and he can see the same pattern in the United States that led up to Nazi Germany--the suppression of free thought. Blatant censorship. Evolutionists deny that Hitler (and his extermination of those who were weak) was motivated by Darwinism, but history attests to it. This is very clearly and undeniably documented in the film."
Wow. Motivated by Darwinism???? Not evolutionary theory; Social Darwinism...two totally different things. Evolution is a fact of nature....how do you get the holocaust from this? If anything it is Christian anti-semitism. I notice the Catholic Church was quite content with what the Nazis were doing. The point is, even if people misuse the theory of evolution, or in this case, misunderstand it, what does this say about its truth value??? Should we reject special relativity because it led to the atomic bomb?? Is relativity false because it led to atrocity??? No. This is the whole problem with the Discovery Institute and their propoganda machine. They try to equate evolution with social ills and appeal to emotion. Their "fellows" have been publishing a slew of books lately trying to equate Darwinian theory with Naziism, Stalinism, etc. What does this have to do with the theory of evolution by natural selection?
"One criticism that has already surfaced is that the evolutionists, who expose their hate-filled agenda in the movie, were coerced into being interviewed. Not so. They signed off for their part after each interview, and were well-paid for their efforts."
They didn't say they were "coerced" they said they were told they were being interview for a film called "Crossroads" which was a more neutral film on science and culture.
Ray, can you provide evidence that the scientists were "well paid" for their efforts?
@Anna "banana"
"Dawkins started off very cool and articulate. But when asked some very pointed questions, he admitted that there is a slight percentage of possibility that God exists. He was asked to put an actual number percentage figure on his belief that God DOESN'T exist. He started out at 98% probability that God doesn't exist. When asked why he picked that number, he didn't know. Ben then kept probing about percentage of possiblity, "Could it be 78%? 56%?" Dawkins said he didn't want to put a number on it. Ben ended up by saying, "So, it could be as low as 48%?" Dawkins said "I think it's very unlikely.""
Dawkins has always maintained that there is a small possibility that God exists. You can't disprove God's existence and I don't know of any atheist who would categorically state that they know for sure that God does not exist. On the other hand, you all claim that God definitely does. What a humble position you hold given the fact that you can't provide evidence that a God exists.
To anna "bananna" jackson:
You don't understand what those terms mean. An agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to ever know whether or not God exists. The popular version of defining it as "I don't know" is a modern version and is an illustration of sloppy thinking.
An atheist is someone who sees no evidence that God exists. For example, you are an atheist about Zeus and the tooth fairy, I would assume.
The reason Dawkins says that there is a small but nonzero probability that God is because he is a scientist. In science nothing is ever 100% certain...that is why it's such a useful endeavor.
Oops, missed the last part of your post. They lied. They lied about the title. They lied about the purpose. They told them that the movie would present scientific evidence for evolution as well as the religious origin "theories".
Even if we disagree about the purpose for the movie and the description, it is an absolute FACT they that lied about the title. If they told them the title was going to "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" do you think they would have agreed to interviews?
@livingasonefreed:
Note the words 'force' and 'private'.
Just like all the other people who forced their way into the theatre by signing in through the Expelled website.
I'm interested in whether you've read the "other side" of this story? I also read about PZ misbehaving, and kind of felt sorry for him, until I realized there's exactly one eyewitness account claiming that he somehow tried to stir a ruckus.
Also note producer Mathis' comment about PZ's misbehaviour:
"I banned pz because I want him to pay to see it. Nothing more."
@anna:
Stein asked Dicky D to put a number on the probability of a god, and he did. It's a totally nonsensical question to ask, IMHO.
Now, what kind of probability is there that the invisible pink unicorn is parked in your garage? Zero? That would require that you have absolute knowledge of the fact. The unicorn is totally out of your experiential realm, so you can't claim that. How about a probability of 1%? Oooh, 1%, why not 50?
Why should atheism and agnosticism be mutually exclusive? I would describe myself as an agnostic atheist, though if asked off the cuff, I'd probably say "atheist". I can't claim with ultimate certainty that a god doesn't exist, yet given the data I've gathered so far, I'm totally comfortable in positing that there are no supernatural beings.
As I said in a previous blog entry, the Expelled blog talked a lot about what would be in the movie, and it's the same old lies...One of which you eagerly embraced, the Hitler ploy. So, I've rounded up some info I had lying around (I did say that this is stuff that has been refuted before, right?)
Please, tell us if Ben Stein is able to refute was I say below, or if he even mentions this information to try to explain it away.
By the way, what evidence FOR "intelligent design" was in the movie? If they're claiming to be "suppressed" it'd be nice to see what evidence for ID they present when they have the chance. They sure couldn't do it in the Dover Trial.
Anyhoo...here's what you said:
It’s now morning, and I have had more time to think clearly about “Expelled.” Again, this is not a Christian movie. There’s no mention of the gospel--not even slightly. Ben Stein is Jewish. He took on this project because he is passionate about the Jewish holocaust, and he can see the same pattern in the United States that led up to Nazi Germany--the suppression of free thought. Blatant censorship.
Bull. Check out some facts, Ray.
Evolutionists deny that Hitler and his extermination of those who were weak was motivated by Darwinism, but history attests to it. This is very clearly documented in the film.
How many times did Hitler say that he admired Darwin? How many times did Hitler mention Darwain in his writings? I've read Mein Kampf, and I can tell you. None.
This is maybe an indicator of how much Hitler liked Darwin
In 1935, Die Bücherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries listed books to reject:
Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel). (Die Bücherei 1935, 279)
They made an undated "Blacklist for Public Libraries and Commercial Lending Libraries" includes the following on a list of literature which "absolutely must be removed":
c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk. (Blacklist n.d.)
from the "Index to Creationist Claims is where I first found this. Check out his source.
Did Ben Stein come across some writings I did not? Guess who Hitler did say he admired in his book? Martin Luther. The guy who wrote On the Jews and Their Lies... He's one of your guys, isn't he?
Here's another guy who admired your Martin Luther...
Julius Streicher (one of Hitler's top henchmen and publisher of the anti-Semitic Der Sturmer) was asked during the Nuremberg trials if there were any other publications in Germany which treated the Jewish question in an anti-Semitic way., Streicher put it well:
"Dr. Martin Luther would very probably sit in my place in the defendants' dock today, if this book had been taken into consideration by the Prosecution. In the book 'The Jews and Their Lies,' Dr. Martin Luther writes that the Jews are a serpent's brood and one should burn down their synagogues and destroy them..."
Trial of The Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 14 November 1945-- 1 October 1946, Vol. 12, p.318
In Mein Kampf, Hitler said that it was some christian preacher, Karl Leuger who first inculated anti-Jewish hatred in him.
(see Hitler, Mein Kampf: Volume 1, Chapter 2.)
Check it:
"I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought. At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party ... The man and the movement seemed 'reactionary' in my eyes. My common sense of justice, however, forced me to change this judgment in proportion as I had occasion to become acquainted with the man and his work; and slowly my fair judgment turned to unconcealed admiration. Today, more than ever, I regard this man as the greatest German mayor of all times ... How many of my basic principles were upset by this change in my attitude toward the Christian Social movement! My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all."
More Hitler fun as he caters to his target audience in his book. Guess who it is, "darwinists" or someone else?
"Certainly we don't have to discuss these matters with the Jews, the most modern inventors of this cultural perfume. Their whole existence is an embodied protest against the aesthetics of the Lord's image."
Mein Kampf Volume 1, Chapter 6.
"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe."
Mein Kampf Volume 1, Chapter 9.
You can say he didn't believe that himself, that he wasn't a true "Christian", but so what? Who do you think he was catering to there?
How much stuff from Mein Kampf did Stein show that had Hitler pandering to "darwinists" as much?
Hitler:
For us, this is not a problem you can turn a blind eye to-one to be solved by small concessions. For us, it is a problem of whether our nation can ever recover its health, whether the Jewish spirit can ever really be eradicated. Don't be misled into thinking you can fight a disease without killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus. Don't think you can fight racial tuberculosis without taking care to rid the nation of the carrier of that racial tuberculosis. This Jewish contamination will not subside, this poisoning of the nation will not end, until the carrier himself, the Jew, has been banished from our midst. Speech delivered by Hitler in Salzburg, 7 or 8 August 1920. (NSDAP meeting)
Did Stein go after the guy who came up with the germ theory of disease, Ray?
Read Mein Kampf. There's more of that.
For similar information, check out GENOCIDE AS IMMUNOLOGY:
The Psychosomatic Source of Culture by Richard Koenigsberg
For some of Darwin's views about "races", check out his "Descent of Man" from 1871
"But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other, independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having intercrossed. Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory de St-Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke. This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them." (you do realize that all people thought like the first part of the last sentence above in Darwin’s time, but it’s Darwin’s observations that led him to say "it is hardly possible to discover distinictive character between them."
About Darwin's first book,
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, when they talk about "races" it's used as an alternative for "varieties" – the first use in the book refers to "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage", and Darwin proceeds to discuss "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants".[10]
From Wikipedia about The Origin of Species. Read the book yourself if you want.
Tell me, Ray...did Stein give any quotes that had Darwin mentioning Jews at all, much less those of the virulence expressed in Martin Luther's On the Jews and their Lies?
If you want, Ray, try looking up "blood libel" on the net. See how much "darwinism" is in there. The Jewish Encyclopedia may be a good place to look, too.
Time for some reading, Ray:
The Popes Against the Jews: The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism
by David I. Kertzer
"After Auschwitz: Religion and the Origins of the Death Camps." Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, Ind., 1966
"Theologian Richard Rubenstein wrote that the Nazis "did not invent a new villain...They took over the 2,000-year-old Christian trdition of the Jew as villain...The roots of the death camps must be sought in the mythic structure of Christianity...Myths concerning the demonological role of the Jews have been operative in Christianity for centuries..."
"Has God Rejected His People? Anti-Judaism in the Christian Church", Abingdon, Nashville, Tenn. 1982
"Theologian Clark Williamson of Christian Theological Seminary, Indianapolis, said centuries of Christian hostility to Jews "prepared the way for the Holocaust" he said the Nazis "are inconcievable apart from this Christian tradition. Hitler's pogrom, for all its distinctiveness, is the zenith of a long Christian heritage of teaching and practice against Jews".
Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism
Dagobert Runes' books: "The Jew and the Cross" and "The War Against the Jew" by Philosophical Library, New York.
"Everything Hitler did to the Jews, all the horrible, unspeakable misdeeds, had already been done to the smitten people before by the Christian churches....The isolation of Jews into ghetto camps, the wearing of the yellow spot, the burning of Jewish books, and finally the burning of the people-Hitler learned it all from the church. However, the church burned Jewish women and children alive, while Hitler granted them a quicker death, choking them first with gas."
Don't believe those sources? Then check out some sources from Judaism who, unlike Stein, have done research into this. By the way, did Stein mention any of the above factors in anti-semitism, Ray?
Anyhoo...Here’s a Jewish site where they discuss anti-semitism. Oddly enough, evolution is not brought up…guess what is??
The jewsforjudaism site. Check out the "New Testament Anti-Semitism" section of the Knowledge Base.
One criticism that has already surfaced is that the evolutionists who expose their hate- filled agenda in the movie were coerced into being interviewed. Not so. They signed off for their part and were well-paid for their efforts.
Outright lie, Ray. No one said that they were coerced. They were lied to about the name of the film, and what it was about. They were told it was for something called "Crossroads", only the domain name for "Expelled" was already bought at the times of the interviews. Check out the PZ Myer's blog, or Richard Dawkins'.
If I have time, I may deal with the rest of the bull later.
Atheists make a bunch of emotional unsupported claims over and over again.
I keep seeing the Atheist call Ray a liar, and here somehow his opinion of the movie is a lie? That makes no sense whatsoever. Where is the evidence that he is lying?
Now Ben Stein is a liar, because he allegedly "used a lot of misleading propaganda techniques". Prove it!
According to the atheists, "ID is not science, it is based on a religious agenda" and the scientists that want to pursue the scientific evidence where it may lead even if it leads away from Darwinism are now religious propagandists. Really? What Religion are they pushing Hinduism, Taoism, Catholicism, Judaism, what? Because I have yet to see anything from any of these scientists that would indicate this. Show us all the evidence that every one of those scientists are liars who are propagating an agenda. What PART of their scientific studies and research is a falsehood? Is it the hot big bang theory that shows our universe had a beginning that is false? Is it the digital code in every DNA molecule that is false? Show me the false scientific data they are supposedly pursuing that is such a threat to science.
Show me the evidence that Dawkins was lied to.
If the atheists had their way Ray and anyone who disagrees with them would be silenced permanently and shut down. It makes me wonder what they are so afraid of.
All any of us wants is the freedom to share ideas. Why is that such a threat. Why is free speech and the sharing of ideas such a threat in academia?
You are wrong. You confuse genocide with the righteous judgment of God. I would encourage you to read the context in the Bible where you think genocide is commanded and then do some background reading about what was happening with those people in that time period of history. A good Bible commentary would help with this. Because you do not know all of the facts, the conclusion you have drawn is incorrect.
I love how atheists redefine terms in order to squiggle out of their sticky problems.
"Reynold said... How many times did Hitler say that he admired Darwin? How many times did Hitler mention Darwain in his writings? I've read Mein Kampf, and I can tell you. None."
Reynold...your little email doesn't weigh much against the evidence of six million dead Jews.
It is no surprise that Ray likes this film. In an earlier post, we showed that Ray quote-mined Darwin by splicing two different quotes from two different letters....this film is much the same. Lies and deceipt. Interesting, I thought honesty was important to Christians.
Show me the evidence that Dawkins was lied to.
It's already been posted, but I'll repeat it.
The producers told him the movie was called "Crossroads" and was about "the intersection of science and religion".
This was a lie. The movie is called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".
The producer claimed that "Crossroads" was a working title and it's common for movies to change titles.
This was a lie.
They had reserved the domain http://www.expelledthemovie.com
months
BEFORE they did the
interviews!
What other conclusion is there to draw other than they are liars?
I have not seen the movie but plan to do so when it is released. I will agree with the atheists that ID is not "science". It is an interpretation of scientific data just as evolution is. Evolution is not science it is also an interpretation of scientific data. What I find telling is how many evolutionists/atheists crawl out from under their rocks to call Ben Stein and Ray liars when many have not even seen the movie yet!! They speak that they "lie for Jesus" and how people were "misled" when interviewed. They accuse the film of being "propoganda" but spew out "anti-Expelled" propoganda they read on websites. It speaks volumes.
Once again, ID is not science and neither is evolution. They are both an interpretation of scientific data.
What’s the big deal anyway if Ben Stein lied to get some revealing interviews? The result was for a “good” cause – something all moral relativists should be able to identify with. Now if he were a fundamentalist Christian, then I would have to say that there was some inconsistency in his moral values. But what he did what something that no atheist or naturalistic evolutionist should whine about. After all, Stein is only doing what his survival instincts are telling him to do.
rebecca,
Said:
"Atheists make a bunch of emotional unsupported claims over and over again."
I think you need to read Reynold's comment again. He posted citations for each and every claim he made and the ones I checked are valid.
You are only fooling yourself.
It's curious that Stein did not offer even one single bit of evidence for ID in the whole movie. That is because there isn't any.
"Reynold...your little email doesn't weigh much against the evidence of six million dead Jews."
Ray,
And your little assertion that the fact of evolution leads to six million dead jews doesn't hold water.
Ray said:
"The highlight was watching the king of evolution, Richard Dawkins, fall off his throne, big-time. He melted like soft wax on a hot Vegas sidewalk in July. He went from a bold and confident man to a pathetic little mouse, in a moment. He even admitted that he isn't an atheist. It was wonderful to see him so humbled by a few probing questions from Ben Stein."
I will be watching for that moment, Ray.
When I read what you wrote to my wife, she said, "Ray Comfort is that immature?"
@Doc
"What I find telling is how many evolutionists/atheists crawl out from under their rocks to call Ben Stein and Ray liars when many have not even seen the movie yet!! They speak that they "lie for Jesus" and how people were "misled" when interviewed. They accuse the film of being "propoganda" but spew out "anti-Expelled" propoganda they read on websites. It speaks volumes."
Doc,
There are some of us out here that have followed the Sternberg and Gonzalez hype from the get-go. I don't need to see the movie to know what is going on, I've been reading the blogs on both sides. I know the Disco Institute and what they peddle. I don't anticipate being surprised one bit. If you follow this at all, you wouldn't have said this.
"Once again, ID is not science and neither is evolution. They are both an interpretation of scientific data."
No, evolutionary theory is science. How can you say it isn't? Science is a process; it is about interpreting data. ID is not a theory, it is stuck at hypothesis...except for the pesky problem that no one can think of a way to go about testing the white-bearded man on the cloud thing yet. Irreducible complexity is ridiculous and any self-respecting person would have walked away from that dissaster long ago...yet Behe et al are still peddling it as if it hasn't been refuted both logically and based on evidence. What predictions does ID make? How do you test ID? Where is the research? Where are research proposals? I've read their books and I couldn't find anything. Behe is working in a closely related field to mine and I can readily pick apart his nonsense. I've corresponded with him about it and when I pinned him with peer-reviewed data he abruptly broke off communication and said "agree to disagree". It doesn't matter to them, I am not their target audience. Their target audience is non-scientists, the religious, general public.
In the end, Doc, there is a correct interpretation of the data and then there are many incorrect interpretations. ID is clearly and unambiguously the wrong interpretation-at least as currently formulated.
I will agree with the atheists that ID is not "science". It is an interpretation of scientific data just as evolution is. Evolution is not science it is also an interpretation of scientific data.
ID has shown exactly zero research to support itself. They don't even have a testable theory.
Evolution on the other hand has done so and in spades, no matter how much you here want to spin it.
Talk Origins has plenty of information you. You'll hve to google that because I can not post links here.
Anna "banana" Jackson said:
"(This is all from memory, so don't put too much stock in word-for-word here.)"
I don't. This is from Skatje Myers' blog:
"Stein then asked Dawkins to put a number on how sure he is that ID didn’t happen [not the existence of God]. After saying he didn’t think it was appropriate to put a number on such a thing, he said 99%. Then conversation following went as such: “99, huh? Why not 97?” “Uh, well, you asked me to put a number on it…” “Why not 47, then?” “Well, I think it’s definitely in the higher range…” Dawkins looked more confused than anything in this part, and understandably so. The audience was laughing their [expletive deleted] off, but I can’t understand why. Dawkins was kind of stuttering, but it was because he was asked to quantify something that can’t be quantified."
To illustrate the absurdity of this, here is a skit I have written in honor of Ben Stein:
Ben Stein: Jason, can you put a number on how sure you are that I don't have a turtle in my pocket?
Jason Brunet: Well, I don't really think that's an appropriate way of looking at the situation.
BS: Yeah, just put a number on it.
JB: Uh........well.....ok, weirdo. I'm, let's say, 97% sure that you don't have a turtle in your pocket.
BS: 97? Why not 98? 96? 95? 93? 43? It's what plants crave!
JB: Well, you said to put a number on it. I'm just guessing, but I'm pretty sure you don't have a turtle in there.
BS: JASON BRUNET ADMITS THAT I HAVE A TURTLE IN MY POCKET!
Ben Stein pulls a turtle out of his pocket.
JB: This interview is over.
I am so grateful that we have a God of long-suffering,because frankly reading the comments against this movie, against you personally Ray and against our amazing God exhaust me. Setting aside the red herring of Mr. Dawkins and just focusing on the facts that have been shown to bear out that Darwinian evolution legitimized Hitler's extermination of all "undesirable people types" should be the greater focus. Jews, the mentally and physically handicapped were all deemed sub-human based on Darwinian evolutionary principals and therefore there was no restraint or even reason not to find it unacceptable to exterminate these people on a wholesale basis. The complete silencing of competing ideas in our public arena is frightening. If one does not hold to Darwinian evolution as being factual or that there are no absolutes other than ones on relative truth. Then one must be silenced at all costs. Spot the irony of that sentence the only absolute that exists is that there are no absolutes. If you do not lock step in with the pre-approved, politically correct mind set that is being promoted by liberal academia, the popular culture and media then you are to have no voice in our society today. You are relegated as an archaic, foolish, narrow-minded, simple minded individual who is lacking in the mental acuity to grasp the greater truths (albeit relative greater truths) of this modern age. Having examined the greater truths of this modern age I would rather be a foolish, narrow minded simpleton then to grasp that life has no value, freedom of thought and expression should be limited to those who conform (oxymoron). Having said my peace in one of the few places left that it may be said I am going to turn my attention to something of value and go read my Bible and find solace for the world we face in the only source of truth there is. The infallible, inerrant, inspired word of God.
Rom 14:11
For it is written:
"As I live, says the LORD,
Every knee shall bow to Me,
And every tongue shall confess to God."
George,
Well done!
You have very eloquently invoked the ol' argument from "Style over Substance."
I used that approach fairly successfully back in my college debating days.
However, it is highly flawed.
First, you have totally ignored all the reasons why, if fact, our society does not condone lying.
It is curious, however that society allows a preacher to tell old ladies that if they sign their houses over to them, they will recieve a "prayer cloth" in the mail and their lives will be happy and healthy. That is fraud any way you dice it.
If I would do that, I would be convicted of fraud.
The reason we have our secular laws is because nobody, in their own minds, would want to live by the laws of your bible or any body else's holy books.
You don't have a corner on ethics just because you say you are religious and this blog is proof of that.
Remember, only three of your ten commandments are actual laws in this country. Our society supports that.
Rebecca in TX:
What is the context of deliberately slaughtering children? I'm lazy, so please some up this commentary for me, please. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Ray:
Just when I thought you couldn't possibly get any more pitiful:
Ray said Reynold...you email doesn't weigh much against the evidence of six million dead Jews.
Are you saying that if Charles Darwin, or Alfred Russell Wallace for that matter, or anyone else, hadn't developed the theory of evolution (come on boys and girls, show your ignorance; say it's just a theory) Adolf Hitler wouldn't have killed millions of Jewish people, along with millions of Slavs and Poles and Gypsies and even homosexuals? You make me feel so low, Ray.
Well, then, tell me, Ray, what caused all of the evil in the world before Charles Darwin was born?
GEORGE:
No, Ben Stein isn't a Christian. But Mark Mathis and the other producers of the movie are. Most of those behind the ID movement are.
SCORE
1 BAZILLION - GOD
0 (a big fat zero) - atheists
:D bua-haha, bua-haha :D
rebecca in tx said--
According to the atheists, "ID is not science, it is based on a religious agenda" and the scientists that want to pursue the scientific evidence where it may lead even if it leads away from Darwinism are now religious propagandists. Really? What Religion are they pushing Hinduism, Taoism, Catholicism, Judaism, what? Because I have yet to see anything from any of these scientists that would indicate this.
I'll handle this.
So, you've looked and looked, and you just haven't seen any evidence that ID shills like Phillip Johnson and William Dembski are pushing religion, eh?
Well, look no further. From William Dembski:
""The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It's important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world." – National Religious Broadcasters, 2000 "
and
"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God." - Science Test, Church & State Magazine, July/August 2000."
and
" "The world is a mirror representing the divine life..." "The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design, on the other hand, readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." - with A., Kushiner, James M., (editors), Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, Brazos Press, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2001."
and
"Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration." - Intelligent Design's Contribution To The Debate Over Evolution: A Reply To Henry Morris, 2005
"Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners do not have a clue about him." Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology (1999) p. 210
Phillip Johnson has also been quite open about his religious agenda:
"This (the intelligent design movement) isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science, it's about religion and philosophy."
World Magazine, 30 November 1996
"The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that "In the beginning was the Word," and "In the beginning God created." Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message."
Forward to Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science, 2000
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
American Family Radio, January 10, 2003
So, to summarize--If you can't find anything by ID snake oil salesmen wherein they admit to pursuing a religious agenda, maybe you haven't really been looking.
The people in the film still spoke their minds when asked questions. It doesnt matter what the subject of the movie is, or the title of the film, they still answered the questions. They could have told Dawkins the movie was about corn on the cob, then asked him the same questions and would have gotten the same responses. So, no matter what they interviewees were told the title was gonna be, doesnt change what they said.
Whether or not Ben Stein had full intentions of deceit, doesnt change the fact that the interviewees signed agreements 'after the fact', and spoke their minds. Their minds dont change based on the movie title. get real.
Dede,
You said:
"SCORE
1 BAZILLION - GOD
0 (a big fat zero) - atheists
:D bua-haha, bua-haha :D"
I will remind you that "might' does not make "right."
@rebecca in tx
Now Ben Stein is a liar, because he allegedly "used a lot of misleading propaganda techniques". Prove it!
Ben Stein appears to have been knowingly complicit in the propagation of misinformation - call that whatever you wish.
If this movie is about suppression of ID by the science community what is the relevance of the Holocaust? Even if we grant the false accusation that the Nazis were motivated by Darwinism (other posters have shown this not to be the case) this has zero relevance to the validity of ID as a scientific proposition. However the association of Darwinism with the Holocaust does press emotional buttons, overriding intellectual argument, and leads the audience to a conclusion contrary to reality, which is the definition of propaganda.
Additionally, just because the science community might marginalize those who present half-baked ideas like irreducible complexity does not equate to Stalinesque censorship. Sometimes bad ideas need to be kicked in the butt and shown the door. That is how science works. Instead Expelled offers a Post-modernist argument that all ideas should be equal regardless of merit. Science is not a democracy. Science is a dictatorship of logic and data - not what makes people feel warm and fuzzy.
This review is pretty much worst case scenario.
This displeases me.
They were told it was for something called "Crossroads", only the domain name for "Expelled" was already bought at the times of the interviews. Check out the PZ Myer's blog, or Richard Dawkins'.
OK, someone is lying right. You know, I gotta tell ya Reynold that it is hard to trust someone like this to be telling the truth. Why should he? I don't see any reason why this man wouldn't tell a lie to keep his agenda going. He has a big following. There is money involved. To protect his own interests, there is not a doubt in my mind that he would make anyone that stands in his way look evil by his false witness. Ben Stein I don't know. Ray would not knowingly tell a lie. He may be mistaken at times, but he just wouldn't do it if for no other reason because all liars go to hell. What fear would your heroes have to keep them from lying? Nothing. They would practice sexual deviance without conscience. Why would lying be any different? I simply cannot trust the source.
As to Hitler, what you say is very true about Martin Luther. I learned those truths through Christian sources. Had he read the Bible more than the intellectual garbage of his day and asked for the Holy Spirit, he might have seen the truth of God's heart on the Jews. But you see, Martin Luther was a product of bad teaching just like today. He got one inkling of truth that pulled him away from the apostasy of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, he took many doctrines with him because frankly, he wasn't prepared to be that radical.
You cannot deny that part of Hitler's later agenda after Mein Kampf was the Aryan race whose roots were in the heirarchy of man. Those who were superior were blonde haired and blue eyed. The least were black or Jewish. That is an evolutionary bias that clearly may end up social but begins with DNA and lots of minute changes. So whatever you say, the bottom line is that the classification is based on the way you are created. A God view sees each individual as a beautiful creation fearfully and wonderfully made. An evolutionary view sees one set of people superior to the rest. And that my friend, was of the highest priority to Hitler.
It is also duplicity to use DNA when it is convenient and dismiss it when it is obviously the reason for the problem.
Vera
I have not seen the movie but plan to do so when it is released. I will agree with the atheists that ID is not "science". It is an interpretation of scientific data just as evolution is. Evolution is not science it is also an interpretation of scientific data.
Preach it, Doc!!! Would someone needlepoint this on a pillow for all the evolutionist science lovers, please.
Vera
It is curious, however that society allows a preacher to tell old ladies that if they sign their houses over to them, they will recieve a "prayer cloth" in the mail and their lives will be happy and healthy. That is fraud any way you dice it.
In a free society, the little old lady is free to choose whether she wants to buy the prayer cloth or not. If she is suffering with dementia, then a family member should have intervened in her finances before she bought her prayer cloth. This is not to promote these folks. I can't stand them. They are lovers of money and have no love for God whatsoever.
All you are saying here is that people are gullible. Hmmmmm. Could those who are atheists/evolutionists also be gullible too by buying Darwin's prayer cloth called The Origin of Species that is the key to all truth and moral behavior promoted by a charismatic man named Richard Dawkins who is selling his own prayer cloth called The Selfish Gene? And you buy it hook, line and sinker. You are so convinced that this man is telling you the truth that you are willing to bet your eternal future on what he says and deny God.
If you don't think money is behind his crusade, well.....then you are more gullible than I think. Even if he does have reasonable doubt, don't you realize that for all the money he's made, he has to keep on keepin' on? He would no more admit he was wrong at this point than fly because to do so would mean the end to all his luxuries.
You are free to choose.
Vera
Dan Dobber:
First, if Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers had known what the actual title of the movie would be, had know who was behind it, known what the content was, I don't think they would have agreed to the interviews. They would have known about the bias and known that whatever responses they gave would be edited in a form of video quote mining.
Second; lying doesn't matter? I'm an atheist so I'm ready to rape your dog and kill your wife and eat your children. But you're a Christian; these are lies. These are Christians lying and deliberately being dishonest. That doesn't bother you? Is it because lying for Jesus is all rigtht?
clostridium:
"There are some of us out here that have followed the Sternberg and Gonzalez hype from the get-go. I don't need to see the movie to know what is going on, I've been reading the blogs on both sides. I know the Disco Institute and what they peddle. I don't anticipate being surprised one bit. If you follow this at all, you wouldn't have said this."
So, what you are saying is that you believe the spin without actually seeing it for yourself. It does not sound very objective. Unless you were actually involved in the making of the film you couldn't know the truth behind it. You rely on reading blogs to formulate your opinions and gather the "facts"? Everything you read is only speculation and opinion. I don't think it is very wise to form an opinion without knowing the facts. I thought science involved observations.
"No, evolutionary theory is science. How can you say it isn't?"
It is an interpretation of collected scientific data as is ID. First of all evolution is not observable or testable. It cannot be falsified. You cannot conduct experiments to disprove or prove evolution. All that can be done is interpret the scientific data that is collected.
"Science is a process; it is about interpreting data. ID is not a theory, it is stuck at hypothesis"
No. It is as much a theory (explanation) as evolution.
"except for the pesky problem that no one can think of a way to go about testing the white-bearded man on the cloud thing yet"
You mean the similar pesky problem evolution has that it can't test the evolution of one species into another species and the lack of any transitional forms in the fossil records?
"What predictions does ID make?"
None. It is just an interpretation of scientific data. What predictions does evolution make?
"How do you test ID?"
You don't. How do you test evolution?
"In the end, Doc, there is a correct interpretation of the data and then there are many incorrect interpretations"
I agree.
"ID is clearly and unambiguously the wrong interpretation-at least as currently formulated."
That is clearly and unambiguously your opinion.
rev. bigdumbchimp:
"ID has shown exactly zero research to support itself. They don't even have a testable theory."
The same can be said for evolution. You cannot test evolution either.
"Evolution on the other hand has done so and in spades, no matter how much you here want to spin it."
Opinion followed by projection.
"Talk Origins has plenty of information you. You'll hve to google that because I can not post links here."
Answers in Genesis has plenty of information for you as well.
Rev. BigDumbChimp said...
Talk Origins has plenty of information you. You'll hve to google that because I can not post links here.
Ah, the oft-used "talkorigins" website. Maybe you should try the "trueorigins" website, it successfully debunks "talkorigins." THOROUGHLY.
@ Carl
he said "Additionally, just because the science community might marginalize those who present half-baked ideas like irreducible complexity does not equate to Stalinesque censorship."
Here is one that CARL will not answer (because he lacks any)...I know that he is scared of the term "irreducible complexity" because he called it half-baked without any criticism of the concept...
Now let's get down to the heart of this potato for anyone who may not be aware of it...there are biological structures in our world that have many different parts that cannot function with the removal of one part of the structure (all work together - but take out one part and the whole unit/animal is non operable)...that is what irreducible complexity is - kind of like a car - you have to have the engine, chassis, transmission & gas (etc) all assembled at once or you go nowhere...
Now, our good agnostithiesty (carl) will just label the concept as half-baked because like a good poker player without a good hand - he is trying to bluff us into the assumption that he knows about it and wants us to accept that it is absurd without challenging him...However, I CALL his bluff and I raise him one clever response!!!I hold a hand frought full with irreducible complexity examples if he matches...
Back to the explanatory, ALL (100%)of evolution is downward or lateral mutation examples at best...to evolve would require additional genetic code to be added to dna...evolution can not answer step #1 - where did matter come from? now they want us to accept that more matter (additional dna) is still banging up from nowhere...
evolutionaries are missing links!!!
L8er, drew
I've also heard on the NEWS (imagine that -mainstream media) reporting that Dawkins tried to force his way into a private screening of this (I believe in Minnesota).
Note the words 'force' and 'private'.
Completely false.
The screening in question was also the one in which PZ Myers (who appears in the film) was barred from entering but that is a whole other story.
Dawkins was part of a larger group who answered an invite offered via the Expelled website. There was a whole reservation process involved which Dawkins' group followed to the letter.
Since Dawkins entered using the promoters own admission criteria there was no "forcing" and no invasion of any "private" screening.
All of these details are documented on the web for anybody who wants to check.
So, to summarize--If you can't find anything by ID snake oil salesmen wherein they admit to pursuing a religious agenda, maybe you haven't really been looking.
And you don't have an agenda and an ideology behind your THEORY of evolution? Give me a break! Evolution contains all sorts of implications. One big example is that there is no moral compass in regards to sex. Golly, has that effected our society? I think it has. Evolution says that you have evolved into a homosexual. Evolution says that sex has only a few boundaries. Now you may say you absolutely do the right thing when faced with choice. I say you wouldn't hesitate to lie if you thought it would be in your best interests. I think you would practice deviant sex if you felt like it. I think you would wish for something someone else has.
Yes, of course, we have a very good reason for not accepting science as the basis of all truth. Some scientists (not all) are drawing a very extreme conclusion from the evidence and calling it fact. That theory is the foundation of immorality in the youth of our day. Why don't you take a trip down to the DJJ for a week or so and see it first hand and wake up and smell the coffee.
Also, please stop accusing Christians of quote mining. The entire foundational basis for the argument of separation of church and state was a quote mine from Thomas Jefferson completely disregarding every other thing he had to say about Jesus. It is the foundation of the separation of God from science.
Vera
To illustrate the absurdity of this, here is a skit I have written in honor of Ben Stein:
The reason that it is absurd is because who cares if you have a turtle in your pocket? What implication to the standards and moralities and eternal consequence to actions of people does it matter if you have a turtle in your pocket? I am going to say 0% and I am sure it is 0%. Ask me if it could be 1%? Nope. It is 0%. Why not 47%. No, absolutely positively without a doubt it is 0%.
Vera
No, evolutionary theory is science. How can you say it isn't? Science is a process; it is about interpreting data. ID is not a theory, it is stuck at hypothesis...except for the pesky problem that no one can think of a way to go about testing the white-bearded man on the cloud thing yet. Irreducible complexity is ridiculous and any self-respecting person would have walked away from that dissaster long ago...yet Behe et al are still peddling it as if it hasn't been refuted both logically and based on evidence.
Regardless of your very fine eloquence here, you are speaking of evolution as though it were an absolute positive fact and that there is no possible explanation but a chance happening for this universe to have come together. In the simplest of terms you would suggest that once upon a time, there was a big bang that came from ??? who knows but in this incomprehensibly enormous universe, there was a bang that produced an inestimable number of organized elements.
As you recall, I showed you many parameters that would have to come together to support life on this planet and the statistical odds being 1 in 10^182 for that to have happened by chance. I have again put that link as the first one in my blog if you click on my name. There are a lot of other very compelling arguments and a better model of creation given through Reasons to Believe. You have never given me even a small argument toward that.
So I say again, your theory is a THEORY and that is all. It is taking what we know, filling in the blanks with theory and calling the entire theory fact and anyone that does not believe in faith the way you do is less intelligent.
This was written many, many years before your theory was on the table and yet it describes your theory of evolution and the resulting sin of our day to perfection. You want a 100% true prophecy that you can grasp hold of. Well here it is. While you're reading this be thinking of the deviant sex of our day that is being accepted as normal, the youth with no moral compass, the divorce rate, the way the youth are rebellious toward parents as the norm, etc. If this doesn't describe the modern day culture, I don't know what does. It is a progression that started when we denied God through science.
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Verandoug "As you recall, I showed you many parameters that would have to come together to support life on this planet and the statistical odds being 1 in 10^182 for that to have happened by chance. I have again put that link as the first one in my blog if you click on my name."
Do you remember the last time you posted this little nugget? I will remind you... It was lambasted and torn to pieces for being wholly ridiculous... One would have thought you may have learned.
It appears that the ID and Creationist crowd believe that merely repeating a falsehood makes it true - it doesn't.
More drivel...
"Evolution contains all sorts of implications. One big example is that there is no moral compass in regards to sex."
How the hell do you get that from evolution?
Sheesh!! Since when did a natural process acquire affiliations to and implications on moral guidance?
ray Comfort dodged by saying:
"Reynold said... How many times did Hitler say that he admired Darwin? How many times did Hitler mention Darwain in his writings? I've read Mein Kampf, and I can tell you. None."
Reynold...your little email doesn't weigh much against the evidence of six million dead Jews.
Care to explain? We're looking for the reasons that they died.
Did you even bother to note that there were Jewish authors and Jewish organizations who contributed to the historical evidence I noted?
Did Ben Stein ever say anything in the movie that refuted anything that I had in my "little email".
You didn't even try to examine anything that I said; you arrogantly dismissed all the historical evidence that shows that it was Christian anti-semitism that paved the way for the holocaust. You ignored the evidence that the Christian hero Martin Luther was admired by Hitler and the Nazis, you ignored the fact that the Nazis had banned Darwin's book.
I could turn that "reasoning" right back at you, Ray. I could say that Stein's little movie doesn't weigh much against the evidence of six million dead Jews. Refute that.
Do a little reading, Ray, and maybe you'll learn something. If this is how you act during your open-air preaching, it's no wonder you sometimes get treated shabbily.
It's got nothing to do with people reacting to being told they're "sinners", it's to do with you spreading baloney and not being honest enough to deal with the facts when called on it.
Back up what you claim about how Stein showed "Darwinism" to have lead to the holocaust NOW
"Regardless of your very fine eloquence here, you are speaking of evolution as though it were an absolute positive fact and that there is no possible explanation but a chance happening for this universe to have come together. In the simplest of terms you would suggest that once upon a time, there was a big bang that came from ??? who knows but in this incomprehensibly enormous universe, there was a bang that produced an inestimable number of organized elements."
Vera, you go from speaking of evolution to Big Bang cosmology. The theory of evolution doesn't say anything about cosmology. Which do you want to talk about? We actually understand in great detail how our elements were formed and how order and organization came about after the Big Bang.
"As you recall, I showed you many parameters that would have to come together to support life on this planet and the statistical odds being 1 in 10^182 for that to have happened by chance. I have again put that link as the first one in my blog if you click on my name. There are a lot of other very compelling arguments and a better model of creation given through Reasons to Believe. You have never given me even a small argument toward that."
I'm curious, do you have alzheimers? I went through a few articles you posted in great detail a few months ago. The parameters used in the calculation are absurd. Why don't you post it for all to see on here? Just copy, paste, no links.
"So I say again, your theory is a THEORY and that is all. It is taking what we know, filling in the blanks with theory and calling the entire theory fact and anyone that does not believe in faith the way you do is less intelligent."
Yikes, you don't even understand how scientists define "theory", you are using it as people do in popular culture, "I have a theory about who stole my donut". Maybe you should do a little reading.
"This was written many, many years before your theory was on the table and yet it describes your theory of evolution and the resulting sin of our day to perfection. You want a 100% true prophecy that you can grasp hold of. Well here it is. While you're reading this be thinking of the deviant sex of our day that is being accepted as normal, the youth with no moral compass, the divorce rate, the way the youth are rebellious toward parents as the norm, etc. If this doesn't describe the modern day culture, I don't know what does. It is a progression that started when we denied God through science."
Funny, social ills appear to arise with religiosity. Further, the problems in the home appear to be a function of child emotional isolation rather than taking "God" out of schools. Parents need to spend more time and effort maintaining good relationships with their children. Also, the divorce rate is slightly higher for evangelicals when compared to atheists and agnostics....just so you know.
"I can't claim with ultimate certainty that a god doesn't exist, yet given the data I've gathered so far, I'm totally comfortable in positing that there are no supernatural beings."
Data? Can you be more specific? You're collecting data on a non-existent being? Isn't that kind of a double negative?
:)
"What predictions does evolution make?"
Just one of the recent ones that's got much press: Tiktaalik.
But of course it's just a fabrication by some satanic scientists to line their pockets with cash, eh?
clos:
"It appears that the ID and Creationist crowd believe that merely repeating a falsehood makes it true - it doesn't."
Actually, if they repeat "repeating a falsehood makes it true" enough times...
It gets ultimately frustrating seeing the same nonsense over and over again. Once a bit of misinformation has been refuted widely enough, AiG, ICR and other larger organizations kick into damage control mode and add it to a "list of arguments that should no longer be used by Creationists". Many of these arguments are exceptionally common here on Ray's blog...
@Reynold "Do a little reading, Ray, and maybe you'll learn something. If this is how you act during your open-air preaching, it's no wonder you sometimes get treated shabbily. "
Don't get your hopes up... Ray does not like to put in the hard work.
Ray lists his job as author, when in reality he is really nothing more than plagiarist. It is almost as if he took to Christianity because it is easier to answer "God did it" than actually think about things.
verandoug said:
OK, someone is lying right. You know, I gotta tell ya Reynold that it is hard to trust someone like this to be telling the truth. Why should he? I don't see any reason why this man wouldn't tell a lie to keep his agenda going.
That's the impression I get when reading Ray's blog. At least Myers has got witnesses who were there to back him up about what happened at the theatre, and the domain name search for "expelled" and "crossroads" can be independently verified. Isn't verification a good enough reason for a person to tell the truth?
He has a big following. There is money involved.
Kind of like those televangelists you see on TV? Why aren't you after them? After all, the only reason you're after PZ seems to be because he "has a big following"...
Yeah, he's in it for the money, because making a blog nets Myers SO much money and all the evolution textbooks give him kickbacks....back up your claim, please.
To protect his own interests, there is not a doubt in my mind that he would make anyone that stands in his way look evil by his false witness.
Prove that Myers is lying. Now. What would "his own interests" be? I mean, besides being allowed in to a movie that he was interviews for?
Is it at all possible that maybe he just cares about honest science, and that people just get the most accurate facts possible, or has the "Holy Spirit" clouded your judgment?
Ben Stein I don't know. Ray would not knowingly tell a lie. He may be mistaken at times, but he just wouldn't do it if for no other reason because all liars go to hell.
Are you saying that religous people never lie? What about any other sin?
What fear would your heroes have to keep them from lying? Nothing.
Back up that accusation. Do you really believe that only a belief in some "higher being" watching over your shoulders is the only thing that keeps you Christians from lying? That says more about you then it does about non-Christians.
That's the same level of "morality" that children have. Normal people know that lying is basically self-destructive to society. If for no other reason, people obey the rules of society so that they and their children can survive. No "higher power" needed.
They would practice sexual deviance without conscience.
Back up that claim. Do you mean people like Ted Haggard, or the many Catholic priests covered up by pope ratty? Check out Pope 'obstructed' sex abuse inquiry in the Guardian.co.uk site.
Does that claim include people like Myers who's married and has a daughter? Do you think that maybe because people may actually love and respect their spouses and children may actually count as a reason to not have "sexual deviance without conscience"?
Why would lying be any different? I simply cannot trust the source.
Why? Back up your opinion of his dishonesty with something else besides your religious assumptions about the lack of morality of non-believers. It's bigotry you're displaying, pure and simple.
If you actually bothered to read about this, you'd see that there are multiple witnesses to this. Do some homework before flinging around accusations.
All I've read from you is a bunch of self-righteous bigoted religous strawmen about what atheists are like. Nothing to back them up. Time to start doing so, NOW!
As to Hitler, what you say is very true about Martin Luther. I learned those truths through Christian sources. Had he read the Bible more than the intellectual garbage of his day and asked for the Holy Spirit, he might have seen the truth of God's heart on the Jews. But you see, Martin Luther was a product of bad teaching just like today. He got one inkling of truth that pulled him away from the apostasy of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, he took many doctrines with him because frankly, he wasn't prepared to be that radical.
Too bad that Martin Luther wasn't the only one; not by a long shot, throughout those centuries. Even if you successfully excused him, you're still not off the hook.
Even today, people like Billy Graham (remember the Nixon tapes) will still rant about the Jews. How many "darwinists" still do that?
You cannot deny that part of Hitler's later agenda after Mein Kampf was the Aryan race whose roots were in the heirarchy of man. Those who were superior were blonde haired and blue eyed. The least were black or Jewish. That is an evolutionary bias that clearly may end up social but begins with DNA and lots of minute changes.
You can't deny that for centuries religious people have been going after the Jews, well before Hitler and even before Martin Luther You have to ignore a lot of history in order to blame anti-semitism in evolution.
So whatever you say, the bottom line is that the classification is based on the way you are created. A God view sees each individual as a beautiful creation fearfully and wonderfully made.
It never stopped him from wiping out entire groups of people, including babies when their parents ticked him off, did it?
An evolutionary view sees one set of people superior to the rest. And that my friend, was of the highest priority to Hitler.
One problem...you obviously didn't read my comment very well. Read it again. Check out the Darwin quotes, please. Even way back then, Darwin was having serious doubts about people belonging to different "races". That's soemthing that genetics has borne out.
So, your statement about "An evolutionary view sees one set of people superior to the rest" is totally off. Do a little more reading about evolution, this time from actual science books and science sites (talkorigins or the "Understanding Evoluttion" site at Berkely) and you'll learn more than if you stick to whatever creationist source you must be using!
Remember in his "Origin" book, he referred to different "races" of cabbage. He used "races" when he was talking about "varieties"!
The only racism Darwin had at the time was the typical European racism that they had the superior culture. Check out Darwin's dialogues with the Beagle's ship's Captain Fitzroy in his book (I think it's in "Origin"...)
An evolutionary view sees one set of people superior to the rest. And that my friend, was of the highest priority to Hitler.
Oh? Would you then care to explain why the Nazis banned Darwin's book? (Check out my first comment here to see that, and it's source).
Care to explain why in "Mein Kampf" Hitler said that it was a Christian (even one with a muddled philosophy, like you claim) who first gave him the idea of the Jews being the enemy?
It is also duplicity to use DNA when it is convenient and dismiss it when it is obviously the reason for the problem.
It's DNA that has borne out Darwin's initial observation that humanity can't be subdivided into different "races".
Bottom line:
The religious person who blames "darwinism" for anti-semitism is giving the ultimate example of "straining at gnats and swallowing camels".
Can Ben Stein, or anyone bring as much history to bear against evolution as has been shown against Christian anti-semitism being the cause of the Holocaust?
David S said...
Ah, the oft-used "talkorigins" website. Maybe you should try the "trueorigins" website, it successfully debunks "talkorigins." THOROUGHLY.
I've gone through both sites; kind of hard to believe that "trueorigins" THOROUGHLY debunks "talkorigins" when "TalkOrigins" is at least an order of magnitude larger! As well, I think you need to do some more reading.
One on-the-side difference right off the bat, is that TrueOrigins will take a lot of ad-hom attacks by calling TO "anti-christian" while TO does not; they only go against the specific creationist being rebutted. As well, Christians write for TalkOrigins, while ONLY YEC Christians are allowed to write for TrueOrigins. TalkOrigins has a whole collection of links to YEC sites as well as skeptical sites. TrueOrigins only has links to YEC and apologetic sites.
Who's got the agenda here?
Well, I was unsure about going to this movie, but seeing as it has all of the atheists on this blog all worked up over it, I will be sure not to miss it. Thank you, atheists, for helping me make up my mind.
Oh, and Ray--
Just to underline what reynold told you @7:42 AM--
Hitler did liken himself to scientists while talking about the Jews, but not Darwin. He thought of the Jews as an infection on the German 'volk' and actually said: 'I feel I am like Robert Koch in politics. He discovered the bacillus and thereby ushered medical science onto new paths. I discovered the Jew as the bacillus and the fermenting agent of all social decomposition.'
So why isn't Stein whining about Robert Koch and Hitler?
Matthew,
I believe you must be thinking of something else because unless you wrote something on a thread that I did not see, I never saw a response to this, which is why I have repeatedly written my name....
However, if you have said something, if you could copy and paste it in a response, I would appreciate it.
Vera (1 in 10^182)
Sheesh!! Since when did a natural process acquire affiliations to and implications on moral guidance?
Homosex is not natural.
Vera
That is clearly and unambiguously your opinion.
Exactly! Excellent post again!!
Vera
Second; lying doesn't matter? I'm an atheist so I'm ready to rape your dog and kill your wife and eat your children. But you're a Christian; these are lies. These are Christians lying and deliberately being dishonest. That doesn't bother you? Is it because lying for Jesus is all rigtht?
So let me give you a scenario. If telling the truth when asked a point blank question meant losing your job, would you lie or tell the truth. I would tell the truth and have told the truth.
Sin has extremes. It starts little and ends up big. Unless you are looking at porn on the Internet and practicing deviant sex, you will not head down the rabbit trail of rape.
Vera
I am not one bit surprised that no one has responded to my comments that Martin Luther was the father of the holocaust with his book, "The Jews and Their Lies."
This book is one of the vilest, bigoted pieces of literature that I have ever read.
This was the anti-semetic seed that was planted long before Darwin came on the scene.
So, Hitler practiced genocide? Yes, but he came by it honestly through the writings of the Old Testament where it was perfectly acceptable to eradicate a whole tribe so that only the beliefs of the conquering tribe would be perpetuated.
In summary, it is obvious that the bible has, and can be, used to support almost any crackpot idea.
I will say this, about that. Serial.
The last thing that I, dale, would do if I were to produce a supposedly life saving video, would be to have me featured on a Trailer, as a 55 year old guy, dressed in short pants, with my shirt askew and my tie tied in a haphazard fasion.
This is ben Stein's most Freudian moment. He dresses him self as a disheveled incoheremt kook for the trailer of his movie.
This might be a parody.
You Christians like 55 year old men dressed as little boys with disheveled ties an shirt collars askew representing your brand of Christianity? MMMkay.
One commentators asks:
"Back up what you claim about how Stein showed "Darwinism" to have lead to the holocaust NOW."
Of course, that is a valid question.
When you study history, you will find that Martin Luther took the earlier haterd of the Jews and built upon it with his book, "The Jews and Their Lies."
The reformer that produced your "religion" was the stimulus that led to the Holocaust. His message was pervasive in pre world war two Germany.
If you will take a moment to search for Martin Luther's paper on "The Jews and their Lies," and read some of it, it will become apparamt that the most revered religious leader of the day was a bigot. The same way that most religious leaders of this present day are bigots.
@Vera
"Homosex is not natural."
There is much homosexuality in nature, even in primates. The silly thing about your statement is this: we are part of nature, so if we engage in homosexuality, this is a part of nature. Are we not part of the natural world? I certainly don't consider myself "supernatural"...quite the ego you have, Vera.
Somehow Ray let the word "hell" through, and it isn't capitalized.
So, Hitler practiced genocide? Yes, but he came by it honestly through the writings of the Old Testament where it was perfectly acceptable to eradicate a whole tribe so that only the beliefs of the conquering tribe would be perpetuated.
Yes, Martin Luther's heinous works influenced pre WW2 Germany, without question. Had they read the book of Romans cover to cover, they would have found that God has a different opinion. Nevertheless, by the time of the Holocaust, Hitler was not motivated by religion as much as he was by his Aryan race.
This is a small excerpt from wikipedia under Aryan Race. So when they point out these things that will be brought out in this movie, I think you have to agree that there was a duel influence here from other literature and part of it originated in the idea of human evolution. Whether Darwin influenced this or not, I do not know.
"Racial connotations
From the late 19th century, a number of writers had argued that the Proto-Indo-Europeans had originated in Europe. Their opinion was received critically at first, but was widely accepted by the end of the nineteenth century. By 1905 Hermann Hirt in his Die Indogermanen (Hirt consistently used Indogermanen, not Arier, to refer to the Indo-Europeans) claimed that the scales had tilted in favour of the hypothesis, in particular claiming the plains of northern Germany as the Urheimat (p. 197) and connecting the "blond type" (p. 192) with the core population of the early, "pure" Indo-Europeans. This argument developed in tandem with Nordicism, the theory that the "Nordic race" of fair-haired north Europeans were innately superior to other peoples. The identification of the Proto-Indo-Europeans with the north German Corded Ware culture bolstered this position. This was first proposed by Gustaf Kossinna in 1902, and gained in currency over the following two decades, until V. Gordon Childe who in his 1926 The Aryans: a study of Indo-European origins concluded that "the Nordics' superiority in physique fitted them to be the vehicles of a superior language" (a belief which he later regretted having expressed).
The idea became a matter of national pride in learned circles of Germany, and was taken up by the Nazis. According to Alfred Rosenberg's ideology the "Aryan-Nordic" (arisch-nordisch) or "Nordic-Atlantean" (nordisch-atlantisch) race was thus a master race, at the top of a racial hierarchy, pitted against a "Jewish-Semitic" (jüdisch-semitisch) race, deemed to be a racial threat to Germany's homogeneous Aryan civilization, thus rationalizing Nazi anti-Semitism. Nazism portrayed their interpretation of an "Aryan race" as the only race capable of, or with an interest in, creating and maintaining culture and civilizations, while other races are merely capable of conversion, or destruction of culture. These arguments derived from late nineteenth century racial hierarchies. Some Nazis were also influenced by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine (1888) where she postulates "Aryans" as the fifth of her "Root Races", dating them to about a million years ago, tracing them to Atlantis, an idea also repeated by Rosenberg, and held as doctrine by the Thule Society. Such theories were used to justify the introduction of the so-called "Aryan laws" by the Nazis, depriving "non-Aryans" of citizenship and employment rights, and prohibiting marriage between Aryans and non-Aryans. Though Mussolini's fascism was not originally characterised by explicit anti-Semitism, he too eventually introduced laws pressed upon him by Hitler, prohibiting mixed-race marriages between "Aryans" and Jews.
Because of historical racist use of Aryan, and especially use of Aryan race in connection with the propaganda of Nazism, the word is sometimes avoided in the West as being tainted, in the same manner as the swastika symbol. Currently, India and Iran are the only countries to use the word Aryan in a demographic denomination. Aryan is also a common male name in India, Afghanistan, and Iran."
Vera
Reynold said...
I've gone through both sites; kind of hard to believe that "trueorigins" THOROUGHLY debunks "talkorigins" when "TalkOrigins" is at least an order of magnitude larger! As well, I think you need to do some more reading.
One on-the-side difference right off the bat, is that TrueOrigins will take a lot of ad-hom attacks by calling TO "anti-christian" while TO does not; they only go against the specific creationist being rebutted. As well, Christians write for TalkOrigins, while ONLY YEC Christians are allowed to write for TrueOrigins. TalkOrigins has a whole collection of links to YEC sites as well as skeptical sites. TrueOrigins only has links to YEC and apologetic sites.
Who's got the agenda here?
Note the part I bolded. Now look up the definition of ad hominem. Nah, I'll paste it for you:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
By your own definition, Talkorigins uses ad hominem attacks. And you, sir, are projecting.
We actually understand in great detail how our elements were formed and how order and organization came about after the Big Bang.
Hopefully you know me by now, Clos. You know that I am glad that you understand that. The laws of physics in place caused those things to come into order? Am I right?
Yikes, you don't even understand how scientists define "theory", you are using it as people do in popular culture, "I have a theory about who stole my donut". Maybe you should do a little reading.
Do you believe that evolution is an absolute fact or not?
I will try to put those statistics out here.
Funny, social ills appear to arise with religiosity.
Well...all I'm saying is that the prediction pretty much describes today's society and didn't leave out any of the details and let's face it. If you were honest, you would have to admit that the theory of evolution was a major attack on the Bible coupled with the quote mining of Jefferson's personal letter taken out of context. I have a niece that was a good girl growing up. She was studious, smart, and a great daughter to her parents. As she grew up and went to college and heard this theory in the way it is typically presented, she came away with the conclusion that parts of the Bible are not true. Thus she is having sex outside of marriage when she and I had talked at length about this when she was much younger and she had assured me that she was committed to staying pure till marriage. Now it doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together. She is one in a million. We do not sit at home in our box watching TV. We get out and we talk to thousands upon thousands of people about these things. My niece's stories mirrors many others. So I know what I'm talking about.
Further, the problems in the home appear to be a function of child emotional isolation rather than taking "God" out of schools.
You can be sure that my niece had plenty of normalcy in her upbringing and two very attentive loving parents. That was never an issue for her and still isn't.
Parents need to spend more time and effort maintaining good relationships with their children.
I agree. But that doesn't solve this problem of rebellion. The music, the entertainment and the peer dependency that is crucial to their social life makes it necessary for them to buck their parent's authority. I know. Been there; done that. There is absolutely no moral compass. Honor your mother and father. What's that to an American teenager?
Also, the divorce rate is slightly higher for evangelicals when compared to atheists and agnostics....just so you know.
One of the things I need to make clear to you is that we know the mess the church is in. That is the core of our ministry is to show these people where they stand before a Holy God. Most people are fed a false gospel message that basically says, "Do what you want." That is and never was the message. The modern day church is full of apostasy.
Vera
Dale said, March 29, 1:00 pm:
“First, you have totally ignored all the reasons why, if fact, our society does not condone lying....
You don't have a corner on ethics just because you say you are religious and this blog is proof of that.”
Of course you are right – anyone (atheists included) can be ethical for any reason, religious or otherwise. We find people being “good” because of reasons based on pragmatism, tradition, utility, altruism, or any other principle. But there lies the problem – without God, moral principles are not absolute because people decide what is “good”.
Therefore what may be “good” in one culture, time, or situation, could be “bad” in another culture, time, or situation. I think an atheist would have to admit that for Hitler, and most of the people in Germany at the time (and even a fair number in the United States), thought that what he was doing was “good”. But for someone who believes that God decides what is right and wrong, culture, time, or situation has very little or nothing to do with morality.
I would rather be shipwrecked on a desert island with another Christian who believed in the sanctity of human life than with an atheist who didn’t – for the simple reason that I can feel pretty secure in the belief that I won’t end up being his lunch if things got desperate.
If one is consistent with a naturalistic evolutionary viewpoint, man is nothing more than a highly complex collection of biological compounds that got here through random mutations and natural selection. Therefore he is beholden to no one but himself (and to friends, family, or society, if he so chooses).
Recent research (Science Daily, 2/1/08) showed that people who are more likely to cheat depends a lot on their belief that one’s actions are controlled by the brain’s biochemistry, as opposed to people who believe that they are free to choose whether or not they cheat.
Hopefully you know me by now, Clos. You know that I am glad that you understand that. The laws of physics in place caused those things to come into order? Am I right?
Ok, so you are going to ask me "where did those laws come from". Vera, neither of us knows this. You will claim it is "God", but this is just a gap-filler, since you don't have any evidence for this. At least I am humble enough to say "I don't know". Then again, I am not a theoretical cosmologist, they may know.
"Do you believe that evolution is an absolute fact or not?"
Well, in science we don't use the word "absolute", but, yes, my professional opinion is that future evidence is very, very unlikely to change what we would call the fact of evolution. The evidence is mutually supportive, extremely convincing and copious. We do have to allow for future evidence to falsify the theory; but there is no hint of this.
"I will try to put those statistics out here."
Please do, because they were ridiculous.
"If you were honest, you would have to admit that the theory of evolution was a major attack on the Bible coupled with the quote mining of Jefferson's personal letter taken out of context."
Evolutionary theory is not an "attack on the Bible", it is a very accurate description of nature. It just so happens to conflict with some interpretations of writings done by humans several thousands of years ago.
"I have a niece that was a good girl growing up. She was studious, smart, and a great daughter to her parents. As she grew up and went to college and heard this theory in the way it is typically presented, she came away with the conclusion that parts of the Bible are not true. Thus she is having sex outside of marriage when she and I had talked at length about this when she was much younger and she had assured me that she was committed to staying pure till marriage. Now it doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together."
Oh, please elaborate, I'm dying to see how you put "two and two together" here. Does it have something to do with a song about "do it like they do on the Discovery channel"?
"She is one in a million."
Or 1 in 6.7 billion.
"We do not sit at home in our box watching TV. We get out and we talk to thousands upon thousands of people about these things. My niece's stories mirrors many others. So I know what I'm talking about."
I must be the exception then. Atheist, married, only been with my wife, faithful. Shouldn't I be out spreading my genes?? What difference does it make, I'm just an animal, right? Heck, I should be a rapin right now, shouldn't I? Maybe you don't have things figured out, Vera. Evolutionary theory accurately describes nature; how we choose to act is completely different. If you can't figure out how to be moral, maybe you and your niece should move to an island, isolated from the rest of us. There are very obvious reason why we shouldn't sleep around, be unfaithful, etc. We don't need to fear a cosmic deity to be descent people. Your niece is just a horny young person; like all the rest of them. Darwin had nothing to do with it. Oxytocin did.
Vera said,
"Unless you are looking at porn on the Internet and practicing deviant sex, you will not head down the rabbit trail of rape."
Can you provide evidence that looking at porn on the Internet leads to rape?
@ george
But there lies the problem – without God, moral principles are not absolute because people decide what is “good”.
Actually that can not be concluded from the assertion. For that argument to have merit it would be necessary to establish that (a) a moral absolute exists and (b) humans are unable to uncover them.
The underlying implied argument is that moral absolutes are only those decreed by God (more accurately, those claiming to talk for God) but that suggests even God-given moral codes are just the subjective declarations of an entity and without any relationship to moral absolutes within existence itself.
If moral absolutes exist they must be evidenced separate from the declarations of anybody, including deities.
I am kind of excited about this movie (and most every one here knows my stance on the whole evolution thing). However, that statement that Dawkins...
the guy that wrote The God Delusion...
claims not to be an atheist?
I'll have to watch it and see what the heck is up. Something smells awfully funny about that...
People are moved by this film, and who do not think it's propaganda, are just dumb. Period.
I have a quiz to emphasize just how little actual fact is in the film. If you saw the film, and actually have graduated High school, you should be able to easily answer (or google) the answers to these questions.
(1) How many times did Hitler (or Nazis in general) speak or write favorably of Darwin? Never, or frequently? If you say anything other than never, please provide at leastone quote from WW2 era Nazis to back up your answer.
(2) What did Hitler and the Nazis do with Darwin's book, "On the Origin Of Species"?
(a) BURN IT
(b) Make every school child memorize it
(c) Re-printed it and distributed it in churches.
(d) make sure it was included with every Bible
(3) Hitler's speeches made frequent use of Christ, God, and Christianity, such as stating that it was every German's duty to Christ and God to rid the nation of Jewish Influences, or that Jews were enemies of Christ, because they crucified him. (TRUE or FALSE)
(4) How many specific facts were presented in the movie "Expelled", which were specific proofs of intelligent design? If your answer is "at least one fact", please summarize the "fact".
(5) Hitler and the Nazis did what with martin Luther's book, "On the Jews and their Lies"?
(a) BURNED IT
(b) Made every school child memorize it.
(c) Re-printed it and distributed it in churches.
(d) make sure it was included with every Bible
Now I think you all know what the answers are. If anyone has any doubts, or suspects that I have no proof, I'll gladly provide it to those who ask. It is made up of links, but I'll post the answers, complete with copious links, on my own Blog.
Dave S quoting me:
I've gone through both sites; kind of hard to believe that "trueorigins" THOROUGHLY debunks "talkorigins" when "TalkOrigins" is at least an order of magnitude larger! As well, I think you need to do some more reading.
One on-the-side difference right off the bat, is that TrueOrigins will take a lot of ad-hom attacks by calling TO "anti-christian" while TO does not; they only go against the specific creationist being rebutted. As well, Christians write for TalkOrigins, while ONLY YEC Christians are allowed to write for TrueOrigins. TalkOrigins has a whole collection of links to YEC sites as well as skeptical sites. TrueOrigins only has links to YEC and apologetic sites.
Who's got the agenda here?
Note the part I bolded. Now look up the definition of ad hominem. Nah, I'll paste it for you:
Let me help you understand what you pasted, I'll put in bold the relevant parts that you don't seem to understand.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
By your own definition, Talkorigins uses ad hominem attacks. And you, sir, are projecting.
You didn't exactly get the meaning here...TO will criticize the particular creationist scientists who made the false claim. They will say that they are wrong, and why. If they ever do any name-calling at all, which is rare in comparison to AIG or TrueOrigin, it will be in addition to not instead of arguing against the person's facts.
Something else, Dave...I notice that instead of bothering to address the fact that TalkOrigins has Christians and non-Christians on it's staff, while TrueOrigin only has YEC-Christians. Instead you chose to argue about "ad-hominem" attacks. Why didn't you even try to address my question?
I see a lot of people complaining that the Expelled producers obscurred, or falsified the real name of the movie, in order to get people to talk. So!
Ronald Moore has been doing this in far worse fashion to trap people into talking to him, and yet he is heralded for his tenacity and cleverness. But I see that this kind of deception is ok for those people that are now whining the Expelled may have done similarly.
I personally don't like anyone being deceitful, or lying to try and get a story or interview. But why it it that RM fans, atheists and agnostics are crying "foul" when this tactic is used to show that free thinking is being squashed because it has an ID or creationist slant?
You can dish it out, but you can't take it?
I want to cover some of Irish' questions regarding the Germans.
Irish wrote "(1) How many times did Hitler (or Nazis in general) speak or write favorably of Darwin? Never, or frequently? If you say anything other than never, please provide at leastone quote from WW2 era Nazis to back up your answer."
While not being a German, nor a Nazi, famous atheist/evolutionist - Sir Arthur Keith said this about Hitler "The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution. He has failed, not because of the theory of evolution, but because he has made three fatal blunders in its application." ~wiki
So right here you have a famous atheist and proponent of Evolution, saying that he "consistently maintained" that Hitler was indeed trying to conform Nazi Germany from Evolution. But that he (Hitler) failed to do so.
We see the cause of Hitler's conforming to evolution in his trying to exterminate the old, sick and those that held religious and political views against his regime.
"(3) Hitler's speeches made frequent use of Christ, God, and Christianity, such as stating that it was every German's duty to Christ and God to rid the nation of Jewish Influences, or that Jews were enemies of Christ, because they crucified him."
This is so old.
Again, just because someone claims to do something for God doesn't mean they are with God. We see this in the Crusades, and the Inquisition and with Hitler or any cult leader out there that claimed God was on their side.
No, Hitler was no Christian or Godly man, whatsoever. A quick and easy reading into the Bible will refute that. He directly abused every single one of the commandments of God for His own gain, as does every other cult leader has done.
Atheists like to copy and paste the same arguments over so many websites. The same old - same old.
I don't think they want to know the answer, because they've been given the answer. But they don't like it so they move on and post the same question (that's been answered) somewhere else.
Reynold said:
"If they ever do any name-calling at all, which is rare in comparison to AIG or TrueOrigin, it will be in addition to not instead of arguing against the person's facts."
There are reams of material on these sites. Can you give us some names of articles where AiG and TrueOrigin call people names?
Allfiredup said:
"Again, just because someone claims to do something for God doesn't mean they are with God. We see this in the Crusades, and the Inquisition and with Hitler or any cult leader out there that claimed God was on their side."
So by your own admission, even if Hitler outright said that he was directly inspired by Darwin's Theory of Evolution, it doesn't mean anything. How much less since you can't produce such a quote, and the best you can do is some non-german, non-nazi atheist.
Also, why do you take this atheist at his word, but not the atheists on this blog?
Again, just because someone claims to do something to help evolution (which Hitler apparently did not claim) doesn't mean they actually understand evolution.
No, Hitler was no scientist or proponent of evolution, whatsoever. A quick and easy reading into the Origin of Species will refute that.
I have used your own words to hopefully demonstrate that your reasoning employs a double standard.
Can you provide evidence that looking at porn on the Internet leads to rape?
This is a confessional found on wikipedia from Ted Bundy the night before he was executed.
The night before Bundy was executed, he gave a television interview to James Dobson, head of the evangelical Christian organization Focus on the Family. During the interview, Bundy made repeated claims as to the pornographic "roots" of his crimes. He stated that, while pornography didn't cause him to commit murder, the consumption of violent pornography helped "shape and mold" his violence into "behavior too terrible to describe." He alleged that he felt that violence in the media, "particularly sexualized violence," sent boys "down the road to being Ted Bundys". In the same interview, Bundy stated:
"You are going to kill me, and that will protect society from me. But out there are many, many more people who are addicted to pornography, and you are doing nothing about that."[75]
Vera
An Estimate of the Probability for Attaining the Necessary Parameters for Life Support
Probability that feature will fall in the required range for physical life
local abundance and distribution of dark matter 0.1
relative abundances of different exotic mass particles 0.1
decay rates of different exotic mass particles 0.1
galaxy cluster size 0.1
galaxy cluster location 0.1
galaxy size 0.1
galaxy type 0.1
galaxy mass distribution 0.2
galaxy location 0.1
variability of local dwarf galaxy absorption rate 0.1
quantity of galactic dust 0.1
star location relative to galactic center 0.2
star distance from corotation circle of galaxy 0.005
star distance from closest spiral arm 0.1
z-axis extremes of star’s orbit 0.02
proximity of solar nebula to a type I supernova eruption 0.01
timing of solar nebula formation relative to type I supernova eruption 0.01
proximity of solar nebula to a type II supernova eruption 0.01
timing of solar nebula formation relative to type II supernova eruption 0.01
timing of hypernovae eruptions 0.2
number of hypernovae eruptions 0.1
flux of cosmic ray protons 0.1
variability of cosmic ray proton flux 0.1
number of stars in birthing cluster 0.01
star formation history in parent star vicinity 0.1
birth date of the star-planetary system 0.01
number of stars in system 0.7
number and timing of close encounters by nearby stars 0.01
proximity of close stellar encounters 0.1
masses of close stellar encounters 0.1
star age 0.4
star metallicity 0.05
ratio of 40K, 235,238U, 232Th to iron in star-planetary system 0.02
star orbital eccentricity 0.1
star mass 0.001
star luminosity change relative to speciation types & rates 0.00001
star color 0.4
star magnetic field 0.1
star magnetic field variability 0.1
stellar wind strength and variability 0.1
short period variation in parent star diameter 0.1
star’s carbon to oxygen ratio 0.01
star’s space velocity relative to Local Standard of Rest 0.05
star’s short term luminosity variability 0.05
star’s long term luminosity variability 0.05
amplitude and duration of star spot cycle 0.1
number & timing of solar system encounters with interstellar gas clouds 0.1
galactic tidal forces on planetary system 0.2
H3+ production 0.1
supernovae rates & locations 0.01
white dwarf binary types, rates, & locations 0.01
structure of comet cloud surrounding planetary system 0.3
planetary distance from star 0.001
inclination of planetary orbit 0.5
axis tilt of planet 0.3
rate of change of axial tilt 0.01
period and size of axis tilt variation 0.1
planetary rotation period 0.1
rate of change in planetary rotation period 0.05
planetary revolution period 0.2
planetary orbit eccentricity 0.3
rate of change of planetary orbital eccentricity 0.1
rate of change of planetary inclination 0.5
period and size of eccentricity variation 0.1
period and size of inclination variation 0.1
number of moons 0.2
mass and distance of moon 0.01
surface gravity (escape velocity) 0.001
tidal force from sun and moon 0.1
magnetic field 0.01
rate of change & character of change in magnetic field 0.1
albedo (planet reflectivity) 0.1
density 0.1
reducing strength of planet’s primordial mantle 0.3
thickness of crust 0.01
timing of birth of continent formation 0.1
oceans-to-continents ratio 0.2
rate of change in oceans to continents ratio 0.1
global distribution of continents 0.3
frequency, timing, & extent of ice ages 0.1
frequency, timing, & extent of global snowball events 0.1
asteroidal & cometary collision rate 0.1
change in asteroidal & cometary collision rates 0.1
rate of change in asteroidal & cometary collision rates 0.1
mass of body colliding with primordial Earth 0.002
timing of body colliding with primordial Earth 0.05
location of body’s collision with primordial Earth 0.05
position & mass of Jupiter relative to Earth 0.01
major planet eccentricities 0.1
major planet orbital instabilities 0.05
drift and rate of drift in major planet distances 0.05
number & distribution of planets 0.01
distance of gas giant planets from mean motion resonances 0.02
orbital separation distances among inner planets 0.01
mass of Neptune 0.1
total mass of Kuiper Belt asteroids 0.1
atmospheric transparency 0.01
atmospheric pressure 0.01
atmospheric viscosity 0.1
atmospheric electric discharge rate 0.01
atmospheric temperature gradient 0.01
carbon dioxide level in atmosphere 0.01
rate of change in carbon dioxide level in atmosphere 0.1
rate of change in water vapor level in atmosphere 0.01
rate of change in methane level in early atmosphere 0.01
oxygen quantity in atmosphere 0.01
nitrogen quantity in atmosphere 0.01
carbon monoxide quantity in atmosphere 0.1
chlorine quantity in atmosphere 0.1
cobalt quantity in crust 0.1
arsenic quantity in crust 0.1
copper quantity in crust 0.1
boron quantity in crust 0.1
flourine quantity in crust 0.1
iodine quantity in crust 0.1
manganese quantity in crust 0.1
nickel quantity in crust 0.1
phosphorus quantity in crust 0.1
tin quantity in crust 0.1
zinc quantity in crust 0.1
molybdenum quantity in crust 0.05
vanadium quantity in crust 0.1
chromium quantity in crust 0.1
selenium quantity in crust 0.1
iron quantity in oceans 0.1
tropospheric ozone quantity 0.01
stratospheric ozone quantity 0.01
mesospheric ozone quantity 0.01
water vapor level in atmosphere 0.01
oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere 0.1
quantity of greenhouse gases in atmosphere 0.01
rate of change in greenhouse gases in atmosphere 0.01
quantity of forest & grass fires 0.01
quantity of sea salt aerosols 0.1
soil mineralization 0.1
quantity of anaeorbic bacteria in the oceans 0.01
quantity of aerobic bacteria in the oceans 0.01
quantity, variety, and timing of sulfate-reducing bacteria 0.001
quantity of decomposer bacteria in soil 0.01
quantity of mycorrhizal fungi in soil 0.01
quantity of nitrifying microbes in soil 0.01
quantity & timing of vascular plant introductions 0.001
quantity, timing, & placement of carbonate-producing animals 0.00001
quantity, timing, & placement of methanogens 0.00001
quantity of soil sulfur 0.1
ratio of electrically conducting inner core radius to radius of the adjacent turbulent fluid shell 0.2
ratio of core to shell (see above) magnetic diffusivity 0.2
magnetic Reynold’s number of the shell (see above) 0.2
core precession frequency for planet 0.1
rate of interior heat loss for planet 0.01
quantity of sulfur in the planet’score 0.1
quantity of silicon in the planet’s core 0.1
quantity of water at subduction zones in the crust 0.01
quantity of high pressure ice in subducting crustal slabs 0.1
hydration rate of subducted minerals 0.1
tectonic activity 0.05
rate of decline in tectonic activity 0.1
volcanic activity 0.1
rate of decline in volcanic activity 0.1
continental relief 0.1
viscosity at Earth core boundaries 0.01
viscosity of lithosphere 0.2
biomass to comet infall ratio 0.01
regularity of cometary infall 0.1
number, intensity, and location of hurricanes 0.02
dependency factors estimate ≈ 10^32
longevity requirements estimate ≈ 10^13
Probability for occurrence of all 165 parameters ≈ 10^-204
Maximum possible number of planets in universe ≈ 10^22
Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^182 (hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such planet would occur anywhere in the universe.
Allfiredup wrote:
"I want to cover some of Irish' questions regarding the Germans.
While not being a German, nor a Nazi, famous atheist/evolutionist - Sir Arthur Keith said this about Hitler "The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution. He has failed, not because of the theory of evolution, but because he has made three fatal blunders in its application." ~wiki"So right here you have a famous atheist and proponent of Evolution, saying that he "consistently maintained" that Hitler was indeed trying to conform Nazi Germany from Evolution. But that he (Hitler) failed to do so."
So basically, you're saying that Hitler was a Darwinist, because Sir Arthur Keith, a man whose racist theories are largely discredited, happened to say so? And that is all you have against all of the official Nazi documents and laws that were enacted which effectively banned Darwin and "all books which promote the theory of evolution and monism". You also don't seem to be able to read. I said that you should provide quotes from Hitler or other Nazis from the era, which said anything positive about Darwin.
Allfiredup wrote:
"We see the cause of Hitler's conforming to evolution in his trying to exterminate the old, sick and those that held religious and political views against his regime."
But if the Nazis and Hitler thought so highly of Evolution, why then, would they ban Darwin's works, and all books relating to Evolution? Why would they burn all the books of Darwin in large bonfires? Because they really thought Darwin was right? Earth to allfiredup! hello?
Allfiredup wrote:
[About Hitler's religious views]"This is so old. Again, just because someone claims to do something for God doesn't mean they are with God. We see this in the Crusades, and the Inquisition and with Hitler or any cult leader out there that claimed God was on their side."
You need to review some English comprehension skills, there, pal. If you read English correctly, you would see that the argument was never that "Hitler was doing God's work" or that "Hitler was on God's side." The issue was that Hitler did not base his views on Darwin, and actually framed a great deal of his beleifs in religious terms. He burned Darwin's books and banned them from all libraries, but revived Martin Luther's "On The Jews and Their Lies". This suggests not that Hitler was a Christian, but that he primarily appealed to religion to justify Nazism. The nazis had a motto that was on belt-buckles, uniform buttons, knives, and other paraphenalia -- "Gott Mit Uns". That means "God [be] with us". Nowhere in Nazi literature do you find anything positive about Darwin. They almost all universally condemn him. The Euthenasia movement and the Eugenics movements within Germany, though they started out using Darwin as a justification for their ideals, were all co-opted, and Darwin was pretty much written out of their organizations, and replaced with references to German scientists whose works challeneged Darwin, and offered now-discredited versions of common-descent theory.
Allfiredup wrote:
"I don't think they want to know the answer, because they've been given the answer. But they don't like it so they move on and post the same question (that's been answered) somewhere else."
You seem to be laboring under the delusion that you're actually arguing against points that I made. The facts are (1) Hitler hated Darwin, and banned his books, (2) Made far more references to Christian themes than to evolutionary themes, (3) reprinted and distributed Martin Luther's antisemitic book, and (4) The producers of "Expelled" distorted history, and effectively lied. Those are the points that none of you seem to be capable of addressing.
True-origins insults can be found right on the first page. Just read under "talk origins archive" rebuttals:
* "rebuts Kevin Henke’s sloppy, unaccountable criticisms"
* "a rebuttal of Mark Isaak’s use of half-baked exegesis and presuppositional bigotry"
*"answering the vacuous (that means "empty headed") claim that no empirically relevant creationary theory exists."
I've read many of the articles here at one time or another, and essentially, the difference between these guys and talk.origins, is best summed up as "Talk.origins appeals to published peer-reviewed science journals, while True origins tends to just dismiss all scientists that disagree with them as part of the conspiracy..."
Veraanddoug wrote:
[a cut-and-paste from Hugh Ross's "Reasons To Believe" website]
You know, guys, I hate to tell you this, but Hugh Ross debunked his own argument when he admitted that the probability numbers that he factored into that re-hashing of the anthropic principle, were just made up.
He openly admitted that the numbers in it are "just a pure unmeasurable, untestable guess." (HIS OWN WORDS!). This instantly means that all of that list you copied from his website is not based on any science at all -- it's not science. It's nothing more than one man's attempt to make believers all go "wow! I can't wait to shove this info into an atheist's face!"
Nobody knows what the probability of any of those things is, much less how to calculate them.
The argument he makes is simply not science, but pure speculation, and he admits is by saying it's a guess. Though Ross is a scientist, he certainly does not write like one. His books are mostly about faith, and mostly about trying to convert people.
But consider the fact that Ross is not the same type of creationist as you are. You all (and let me know if I'm wrong) believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Not Ross. The man who wrote that list you posted believes that the earth is billions of years old. He also believes that the Universe is billions of years old. He just doesn't believe in evolution. This puts him at odds with the Discovery Institute, and the vast majority of creationists. most of his books have been described by Science book critics as "psuedoscientific". The only people who give him good reviews are creationists.
wdjd4jh, another brave individual charging into a swordfight armed with a banana.
Concerning your 2nd Law of Thermodynamics argument, I'd like you to acquaint yourself with a little ditty by another person arguing for your cause. This never gets old:
"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy.
If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it."
Think about it for a moment.
At least Myers has got witnesses who were there to back him up about what happened at the theatre, and the domain name search for "expelled" and "crossroads" can be independently verified. Isn't verification a good enough reason for a person to tell the truth?
The fact that the name was changed is obvious. I am not into Hollywood, but I have seen enough film histories to note that it is not uncommon to have several names on the board for a movie before it's released. Wouldn't Crossroads have an X in its title? What I am questioning is the misleading implication that the name obscured the fact that this film would take a negative position on what these people believe? I'm going to say, no because if Richard Dawkins came to interview me for his movie, I would not be in the dark that it was going to be antagonistic toward what I believe. Either the guy is actually stupid in reality or he's lying.
Kind of like those televangelists you see on TV? Why aren't you after them? After all, the only reason you're after PZ seems to be because he "has a big following"...
I'm tellin' ya. You must never look at our stuff. Our ministry is to point out to the church where they stand before a Holy God. Yes, those guys are in big trouble with a Holy God.
Yeah, he's in it for the money, because making a blog nets Myers SO much money and all the evolution textbooks give him kickbacks....back up your claim, please.
He's written several books that have sold in the millions, right? You do the math.
Prove that Myers is lying. Now. What would "his own interests" be? I mean, besides being allowed in to a movie that he was interviews for?
I can't prove he's lying. I am just making the point that someone is or it could be that there was a big miscommunication, which is always a possibility. I must tell you again that I find this hard to believe because the antagonist point of view would seem to me to be very obvious.
Is it at all possible that maybe he just cares about honest science, and that people just get the most accurate facts possible, or has the "Holy Spirit" clouded your judgment?
Truth is truth. To me God and Truth are one in the same. The facts of creation are revealed. The truth buried in the Word is being revealed. I don't know if you kept up with that thread on hell but if you would just look closely you would see that the fellow I was talking to had to X out certain passages of Scripture to make his "truth" fit. It doesn't work that way the exact same way it doesn't work that way in science. Leave out a detail or important component and you are once again left with misinformation.
I am all for knowing the truth.
Are you saying that religous people never lie? What about any other sin?
Let me put it this way to you, this is what John said in 1 John:
Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
Now I have to interject here that a person can repent and get right with God. Ray would tell you they are a false convert. Any way you want to slice it, the unrighteous will inherit the kingdom.
Do you really believe that only a belief in some "higher being" watching over your shoulders is the only thing that keeps you Christians from lying?
Good question! This is the crux of Christianity that you will never hear. Jesus came to take away the sins of the world. To accomplish that He had to die for sin in full payment for it and then afterward resurrect, go to the Father and send His Holy Spirit to this earth to free man from sin. He is the Spirit of Grace and Truth. It is the Holy Spirit that is God in this earth that brings us into the heart of God and frees us from sin. There is a part we play in repenting and asking for forgiveness. We also have to forgive others in order to be forgiven. The work of the Holy Spirit has been shrouded in deception for so long. The Catholics displace Him with Mary. Other denominations say He isn't necessary anymore and many other false teachings. But the truth is that if you do not have the Spirit of God, you are none of His. Had Martin Luther had the Spirit in His life, which unfortunately was not a part of typical Catholic doctrine, he would have known that his teaching on the Jews was groundless.
If for no other reason, people obey the rules of society so that they and their children can survive. No "higher power" needed.
True. The law can keep people from sinning. Unfortunately, it cannot justify you or free you from sin. The law is good because it points you to the need. It actually has the tendency to excite sin in you so that you want to sin all the more.
Back up that claim. Do you mean people like Ted Haggard, or the many Catholic priests covered up by pope ratty? Check out Pope 'obstructed' sex abuse inquiry in the Guardian.co.uk site.
These guys are in BIG TROUBLE with a Holy God. If they do not repent, they will be judged to hell's fire no matter how many prayers they prayed, no matter how many rosaries they prayed. You must be set free from sin to enter the kingdom by HIS power. 1 Cor. 6:9-11, Galatians 5.
Does that claim include people like Myers who's married and has a daughter? Do you think that maybe because people may actually love and respect their spouses and children may actually count as a reason to not have "sexual deviance without conscience"?
For whatever reason, some people live in certain areas under their conscience. I believe what you are saying with all my heart, which is why I completely reject the idea of homosexuality that suggests that these men were "born sinning.' People choose to sin out of selfish desire and lust.
Why? Back up your opinion of his dishonesty with something else besides your religious assumptions about the lack of morality of non-believers. It's bigotry you're displaying, pure and simple.
I do not mean all. I just mean that if they wanted to, there is nothing to stop them. No, actually Paul noted the same thing he said, "(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
We can choose to sin or not. Nobody has to sin. Yet, we all do.
Too bad that Martin Luther wasn't the only one; not by a long shot, throughout those centuries. Even if you successfully excused him, you're still not off the hook. Even today, people like Billy Graham (remember the Nixon tapes) will still rant about the Jews. How many "darwinists" still do that?
The bottom line is that we have to fear God no matter who we are. I think that people that become great have all their mistakes out there for everyone to see publicly. Then they cloister themselves. I have actually never met a Christian leader such as Ray Comfort that will sit here like this making himself very approachable.
I am Jewish, btw. At least my dad is 100% Jew.
You can't deny that for centuries religious people have been going after the Jews, well before Hitler and even before Martin Luther You have to ignore a lot of history in order to blame anti-semitism in evolution.
Do you know one phenomenon about being Jewish is that people seem to dislike you for no apparent reason? I struggled with that more when I was a child then I do now.
It never stopped him from wiping out entire groups of people, including babies when their parents ticked him off, did it?
Or children with down's syndrome.......
Oh? Would you then care to explain why the Nazis banned Darwin's book? (Check out my first comment here to see that, and it's source).
Propaganda. Someone with this type of drive does things that are apparently contradictory to appease others that would disagree. I think Hitler had one agenda and that was glorifying and exalting Hitler. People such as him gain support by telling people what they want to hear.
Care to explain why in "Mein Kampf" Hitler said that it was a Christian (even one with a muddled philosophy, like you claim) who first gave him the idea of the Jews being the enemy?
I answered this in another post. They were effected by several pieces of literature, not just one. Martin Luther's were certainly in the mix. Maybe if he'd read the Bible daily, he would have had the real take on the Jews.
It's DNA that has borne out Darwin's initial observation that humanity can't be subdivided into different "races".
So aren't you saying that scientific study finally proved that racism and the evolution of man is erroneous and not the other way around? As you said, Darwin thought himself in the superior race, did you not?
"The only racism Darwin had at the time was the typical European racism that they had the superior culture."
I think you are mistake concerning the effect Darwin had on German thinking. It wasn't that Darwin directly wrote these things. He influenced others who then carried his teachings to their ultimate conclusions.
I have not read Weikart's book From Darwin to Hitler. But on a web site where he is commenting, he talks about the book and I found some interesting things. In one of the General response to critics pages, he says, "What I demonstrated in detail in my book is that many leading Darwinists themselves argued overtly that Darwinism did indeed undermine the sanctity-of-life ethic, and they overtly appealed to Darwinism when they promoted infanticide, euthanasia, racial extermination, etc. I specifically noted that not all Darwinists took this position, but those who did were leading Darwinian biologists, medical professors, psychiatrists, etc. They were not some fringe group of ignorant fanatics; they were mainstream Darwinists. Also, I did not simply show that leading Darwinists supported eugenics, infanticide, euthanasia, and racial extermination; I showed that they appealed overtly to Darwinism to justify their position. So, it is not Weikart who is reading Darwinism into the record. Darwinists themselves made these arguments. Therefore, critics of the position that Darwinism devalues human life should not attack me, but rather should attack those Darwinists I exposed in my work."
But before that he clearly states that he is no way said or implied that it was the cause of anti-Semitism.
I also noted this in one of Darwin's personal letters, "Darwin himself was very pleased at the growing influence of his thinking in Germany. In 1868 he wrote to a German scholar: “The support which I receive from Germany is my chief ground for hoping that our views will ultimately prevail.”
The religious person who blames "darwinism" for anti-semitism is giving the ultimate example of "straining at gnats and swallowing camels".
The influence of anti-Semitism came from Luther. The influence of the superior Aryan race had its roots in evolution and Darwinism.
Vera
"[Hugh Ross] also believes that the Universe is billions of years old. He just doesn't believe in evolution. This puts him at odds with the Discovery Institute, and the vast majority of creationists."
At least Behe has commented on YEC being against his beliefs, isn't he a DI fellow?
The strangest thing is, I've run into aa couple of apparently secular people who think that ID is a great idea. For some reason, these have been ufo nuts.
Funny how Clos and others continue to point to the fact that the Roman Catholic cult stood behind the Nazis right to the end.
Well, DUH!!! What ever else has the Vatican ever done? Do some historical research for a change!
The RCC has NEVER followed the Bible on ANYTHING that would stop it from getting money and power. Only those precepts which it could abuse for selfish gain and self-aggrandizement were the ones it espoused--and espouses today.
Look--do yourself a favor: read the Bible for what it says, and not for what evil people--like the pope during Hitler's day, or the KKK, or the "World Church of the Creator," or even Pat Robertson--say that it says.
And if you have a problem understanding the Bible, try asking the Author what He meant by what He said. It will do you some good.
Ugh! Atheists and their willful stupidity!
The fear shown by atheists of this documentary demonstrates the truth and power it's going to have. They know it so they're doing everything they can to discredit it.
Love it.
All Fired Up said:
No, Hitler was no Christian or Godly man, whatsoever. A quick and easy reading into the Bible will refute that. He directly abused every single one of the commandments of God for His own gain, as does every other cult leader has done.
I don't think Hitler was a Christian either. I just think he believed he a lot of supernatural...stuff.
But are you saying that because he may have taken biology and tried to turn it into sociology that the biology is wrong or false? (I hate the wording of that paragraph)
And I've asked Ray this question but he hasn't answered. Do you really think that if Darwin or Wallace or someone else hadn't developed the theory of evolution that Hitler and Stalin and whoever would never have done the things they did?
Mark:
You mean this Ronald Moore who is behind that show Battlestar Galatica? I hadn't heard of him and only know what little I just read. Can you give some examples of what he's done that parallels what the producers of Expelled have done?
I think his show is science fiction, right? The operative word being fiction. Expelled is a documentary. It's supposed to be fact. And us atheists who are complaining about it, well, we're atheists. Not only do we lie, we're the same as Hitler and Stalin. The producers of Expelled are Christians. The good guys.
David W. Irish said...
True-origins insults can be found right on the first page. Just read under "talk origins archive" rebuttals:
That is a stretch. The examples you gave are not ad hominem arguments. The "ideas", not the authors are being "insulted"; although one could say that there is guilt by association. Besides, the claim was that AiG and True Origins were "name calling". I noticed that you didn't provide any examples from AiG. Do you have any?
verandoug said:
"I'm going to say, no because if Richard Dawkins came to interview me for his movie, I would not be in the dark that it was going to be antagonistic toward what I believe. Either the guy is actually stupid in reality or he's lying."
You're just making stuff up. If Richard Dawkins were a nobody, and on the phone you had friendly conversations that convinced you he was sympathetic to your side, and he named his film something like "Crossroads", a title that could go either way, you might not know.
As for the name, maybe you didn't notice this the first ten million times it was posted: the interviews for the movie took place in April 2007 and after. The domain name "expelledthemovie" was purchased on March 2, 2007. Just do a whois search!
verandoug said:
"He's written several books that have sold in the millions, right? You do the math."
Name one!
"The bottom line is that we have to fear God no matter who we are. I think that people that become great have all their mistakes out there for everyone to see publicly. Then they cloister themselves. I have actually never met a Christian leader such as Ray Comfort that will sit here like this making himself very approachable."
Logical fallacy: moving goalpoast
Also, if I saw Ray on the street, I'd be scared to talk to him. I hate being yelled at more than just about anything.
"
Propaganda. Someone with this type of drive does things that are apparently contradictory to appease others that would disagree. I think Hitler had one agenda and that was glorifying and exalting Hitler. People such as him gain support by telling people what they want to hear."
So no matter what the evidence says, your viewpoint is the right one. Nice job!
"I also noted this in one of Darwin's personal letters, "Darwin himself was very pleased at the growing influence of his thinking in Germany. In 1868 he wrote to a German scholar: “The support which I receive from Germany is my chief ground for hoping that our views will ultimately prevail.”"
So? Did he know the future? Logical fallacy: post hoc rationalization
@andrew w. said...
Here is one that CARL will not answer (because he lacks any)...I know that he is scared of the term "irreducible complexity" because he called it half-baked without any criticism of the concept...
Here's the answer to the 'unanswerable'
The reason I didn't waste time with a criticism is because it wasn't the topic directly under discussion. This is a blog not a thesis.
there are biological structures in our world that have many different parts that cannot function with the removal of one part of the structure (all work together - but take out one part and the whole unit/animal is non operable)...that is what irreducible complexity is -
So far, so good.
However, I CALL his bluff and I raise him one clever response!!!I hold a hand frought full with irreducible complexity examples if he matches...
You can hold all the 'examples' you want but you still don't have an argument.
You need to show there is not a process to construct these process up from simpler processes. To use a non-biological example, an archway will collapse with the removal of one block. However, that archway was built-up around a framework which has now been removed. The archway is now 'irreducibly complex' but has a simple construction process.
Then after showing there isn't a simple process you need to provide an alternative process ..... and this is where Intelligent Design in general and 'irreducible complexity' in particular falls apart .... no testable, falsifiable alternative.
Back to the explanatory, ALL (100%)of evolution is downward or lateral mutation examples at best...to evolve would require additional genetic code to be added to dna...evolution can not answer step #1 - where did matter come from? now they want us to accept that more matter (additional dna) is still banging up from nowhere...
Wow, what a trainwreck. First you say you are given more explanation about IC but start ranting about 'evolution'. Was there nothing more to say about IC?
Additional genetic code is added to genomes all the time. Just as one example, frame shift mutations, cause completely novel proteins to appear almost like magic.
And then you started foaming at the mouth about "where did matter come from". Make up your mind, do you want to talk about IC, evolution, or cosmology?
Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^182 (hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such planet would occur anywhere in the universe.
Now work out the probability of your family tree forming the way it did. The probability of people forming relationships, having babies, genders of babies, gestation survival, birth survival, not dying before reproduction. And do this over a relatively short timeframe of, say, 5000 years.
If you get an answer with more than 100 zeros does that mean your are a statistical improbability? Yet here you are.
My point is, probability calculations can be done two ways, the wrong way and the right way.
This suggests not that Hitler was a Christian, but that he primarily appealed to religion to justify Nazism.
Hitler was a charismatic snake-in-the-grass propagandist. His reasoning for using God's name on belt buckles, passing out anti-Semitic literature from Martin Luther and book burnings was to motivate the masses to do his bidding, which is a slick way of controlling the masses through brainwashing. Brainwashed people throw caution to the wind to do the unthinkable. The man was delusional and whatever you say part of his agenda was the superior Aryan race whose roots are in evolution. Science proved his regime (some of which were professing Darwinists) wrong because the truth is the truth whether it stands against your pet doctrine or not. We are not evolving!! If you are not humbly willing to be open to the truth, you will never find The Truth.
Vera
Um, Martin Luther spent his entire adult life as a churchman. I think he might have read the Book of Romans once, maybe even twice. Are you saying he misunderstood it? Or are you saying the Nazis misunderstood it? Your writing is unclear on this point.
Yes, I think they picked and chose what to read. In the liturgy of the Lutheran church, the Scriptures are taken in bits and pieces. These were letters meant to be read in their entirety. The Nazis were brainwashed by a very charismatic leader.
Look at Romans 9:1-5
1I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
I suppose the best point to note would be that Jesus is still Jewish. In Revelations He is the Lion of the tribe of Judah. :-)
More than once, Hitler said that he believed he was chosen by God to save Germany. Of course we can't ask him to clarify that for us, nevertheless I'm inclined to take people at their word when they say such things. Aren't you?
No, definitely not. I think actions speak loudly. I think God judges us based on how we conduct ourselves. We cannot conduct ourselves though in righteousness without Him and His Spirit living in us. If we do not forgive men their trespasses, including Jews who killed Jesus, neither will God forgive us our trespasses.
Darwin's "Origin of Species" was published in 1859. Anti-semitism in Europe goes back a lot farther than that (look it up).
Yes, I actually know that one personally because my family escaped Germany from persecution many years before WW1.
So I can clear up your uncertainty about whether anti-semitism was influenced by Darwin: No, it wasn't.
I am in complete agreement here. I happen to know there is still anti-semitism in Europe. It never quite went away. However, part of the extermination or the justification for it had its roots in evolution. Darwin himself said he was influencing Germany. Let me just say for the record in case I am not making this clear. I do not believe that the roots of anti-semitism are in evolution. I believe the euthanasia is.
Kudos on all the research you're doing for this exchange. Keep it up.
I spend my free time sharing my faith because I care. Thanks for the encouragement!!
Vera
Well, I guess Benny was right.
38CE: Thousands of Jews were killed in Alexandria, under Darwin's influence, as reported by Philo.
Christian Darwinist era
315CE: Constantine published the Edict of Milan. [...] Jews lost many rights with this edict. They were no longer permitted to live in Jerusalem, or to proselytize.
325CE: The Council of Nicea decided to separate the celebration of Easter Darwin's Birthday from the Jewish Passover. They stated: "For it is unbecoming beyond measure that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of the Jews. Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious people...We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews...our worship follows a...more convenient course...we desire dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews...How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are almost certainly blinded."
337CE: Christian Emperor Constantius created a law which made the marriage of a Jewish man to a Christian Darwinist punishable by death.
339CE: Converting to Judaism became a criminal offence.
343-381CE: The Laodicean Synod approved Canon XXXVIII: "It is not lawful [for Christians Darwinists] to receive unleavened bread from the Jews, nor to be partakers of their impiety."
367-376CE: St. Hilary of Poitiers referred to Jews as a perverse people who God Darwin has cursed forever. St. Ephroem refers to synagogues as brothels.
379-395CE: Emperor Theodosius the Great permitted the destruction of synagogues if it served a religious purpose. Christianity Darwinism became the state religion of the Roman Empire at this time.
380CE: The bishop of Milan was responsible for the burning of a synagogue; he referred to it as "an act pleasing to God Darwin."
415CE: The Bishop of Alexandria, St. Cyril, expelled the Jews from that Egyptian city.
415CE: St. Augustine wrote "The true image of the Hebrew is Judas Iscariot St George Jackson Mivart, who sells the Lord Darwin for silver. The Jew can never understand the Scriptures and forever will bear the guilt for the death of Jesus Darwin."
418CE: St. Jerome, who created the Vulgate translation of the Bible Origin of Species wrote of a synagogue: "If you call it a brothel, a den of vice, the Devil's refuge, Satan's fortress, a place to deprave the soul, an abyss of every conceivable disaster or whatever you will, you are still saying less than it deserves."
489-519CE: Christian Darwinist mobs destroyed the synagogues in Antioch, Daphne (near Antioch) and Ravenna.
Spain under the Moors
"But to this relatively satisfactory situation the conversion of King Recared (589) and his successors to Catholicism Darwinism soon put a stop. From the moment the voice of Catholic Darwinian orthodoxy gained the royal ear [...] and throughout the seventh century, a series of Church Scientific Elitist canons and royal enactments complemented one another in a rising crescendo of anti-Jewish measures that was to culminate, at the end of the same century, in the total destruction of Spanish Jewry." - "The Medieval Underworld" by Andrew McCall, p261
"The seventeenth Church Darwinist Council of Toledo bound over every Spanish Jew [...] into perpetual slavery. Whatever their intentions in 694, there can have been few Jewish slaves who regretted the annihilation in 711 of the Visigoth kingdom at the hands of the Moors, under whom the subject peoples, both Christians and Jews, were permitted to practice their own religions in a more tolerant atmosphere of cultural exchange" - "The Medieval Underworld" by Andrew McCall p263
Eleventh Century
The eleventh century saw Muslim Darwinist pogroms against Jews in Spain; those occurred in Cordoba in 1011 and in Granada in 1066.[3] In the 1066 Granada massacre, a Muslim Darwinist mob crucified the Jewish vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela and massacred about 4,000 Jews.[4]
France
One European purge of Jews centered around the widespread Christian Darwinist belief that the end of the world was going to occur in 1033, the 1000th anniversary of the fable of the crucifixion of Jesus. France had also succumbed, after centuries of toleration, to the Christian Darwinian anti-Jewish ravings
"In France some Christians Darwinians sought to prepare the way for the return arrival of the Saviour Darwin by forcibly baptising indoctrinating or murdering Jews" - "The Medieval Underworld" by Andrew McCall, p215
Twelfth Century
1189 CE: At his coronation, under Darwinian influence, the rumour came that the new king Richard Lionheart wanted Jews killed for not showing reverence to the cross (a common trick by the Darwinists to disguise their activities). Several Jews were killed when mobs of Darwinists set fire to their houses at night.
1190CE: The next year, 57 Jews were murdered by the Darwinian populace at Stamford fair. Then, as Wikipedia has it:
Isolated attacks on Jews occurred also at Colchester, Thetford, and Ospringe, but the most striking incident occurred at York on the night of March 16 (the day of the Jewish feast of Shabbat ha-Gadol, the shabbat before Passover) and March 17, 1190. The Jews of York were alarmed by the preceding massacres and by the setting on fire of several of their houses by the anti-Jewish rioting in the wake of religious Darwinian fervor during crusaders' preparations for the Third Crusade against the Saracens, led by Richard.
Their leader Josce asked the warden of York Castle to receive them with their wives and children, and they were accepted into Clifford's Tower. However, the tower was besieged by the mob of crusaders, demanding that the Jews convert to Christianity Darwinism and be baptized in blood. Trapped in the castle, the Jews were advised by their religious leader, Rabbi Yomtov of Joigney, to kill themselves rather than convert; Josce began the self-immolation by slaying his wife Anna and his two children, and then was killed by Yomtov. The father of each family killed his wife and children, and then Yomtob stabbed the men before killing himself. The handful of Jews who did not kill themselves surrendered to the crusaders at daybreak on March 17, leaving the castle on a promise that they would not be harmed; they were also killed. In the aftermath the wooden tower was burnt down.
Thirteenth Century
1205 CE: The Darwinist Pope declares that Jews are in eternal servitude because they killed Christ, a view that originated with the Darwinist Church Father, St John Chrystostom.
1290 CE:
To finance his war against Wales in 1276, Darwinist Edward I of England taxed Jewish moneylenders. When the moneylenders could no longer pay the tax, they were accused of disloyalty. Already restricted to a limited number of occupations, Edward also abolished their "privilege" to lend money, restricted their movements and activities and forced Jews to wear a yellow patch. The heads of Jewish households were then arrested with over 300 being taken to the Tower of London and executed. Others were killed in their homes. All Jews were banished from the country in 1290, when thousands were killed or drowned while fleeing. All money and property of the dispossessed Jews was confiscated. No known Jews were to be found in England until 1655, when Oliver Cromwell reversed the policy.
Note that some of these Jews were killed while they thought they were being deported to France. The captains of the ships left them on the mud flats of the Thames at low tide to drown, after stealing their possessions. Damned Darwinists.
1504CE: Five thousand marranos, or forced Jewish converts to Christianity Darwinism, were killed in a popular riot in Portugal despite a decree that they were to be regarded as good Christians Darwinists by King Manuel. These converts were persecuted by the Holy Darwinian Inquisition for the following three centuries, and their children taken from them on occasions.
1543CE: Martin Luther, the founder of the Reformation, publishes On the Jews and their Lies:
He refers to Jews as "a brood of vipers and children of the devil" (from Matthew 12:34), "miserable, blind, and senseless," "truly stupid fools," "thieves and robbers," "lazy rogues," "daily murderers," and "vermin," and likens them to "gangrene." He then goes on to recommend that Jewish synagogues and schools be burned, their homes razed and destroyed, their writings confiscated, their rabbis forbidden to teach, their travel restricted, that lending money be outlawed for them, and that they be forced to earn their wages in farming. Luther advised "[i]f we wish to wash our hands of the Jews' blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country" and "we must drive them out like mad dogs."
In conclusion, he wrote:
There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses — namely, that God Darwin has struck [the Jews] with 'madness and blindness and confusion of mind.' So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord Darwin and of the Christians Darwinianswhich they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them. Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite all their murdering, cursing, blaspheming, lying, and defaming; we protect and shield their synagogues, houses, life, and property. In this way we make them lazy and secure and encourage them to fleece us boldly of our money and goods, as well as to mock and deride us, with a view to finally overcoming us, killing us all for such a great sin, and robbing us of all our property (as they daily pray and hope). Now tell me whether they do not have every reason to be the enemies of us accursed Goyim, to curse us and to strive for our final, complete, and eternal ruin! [30]
Luther advocated an eight-point plan to get rid of the Jews either by religious conversion or by expulsion:
1. "First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. ..."
2. "Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. ..."
3. "Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. ..."
4. "Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. ..."
5. "Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. ..."
6. "Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them. ... Such money should now be used in ... the following [way]... Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed [a certain amount]..."
7. "Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow... For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants."
8. "If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews' blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country" and "we must drive them out like mad dogs." [31]
Luther's arguments and accusations: Luther's first argument is that all races are equal, therefore the Jews should not boast about their lineage. [32]
* "there is no difference whatsoever with regard to birth or flesh and blood, as reason must tell us. Therefore" neither Jew nor Gentile should boast "before God Darwin of their physical birth . . . since we both partake of one birth, one flesh and blood, from the very first, best, and holiest ancestors. Neither one can reproach or upbraid the other about some peculiarity without implicating himself at the same time." (148).
In On the Jews and Their Lies, Luther made a number of accusations against the Jews:
* "In the first place, they defame our Lord Jesus Christ Darwin, calling him a sorcerer and tool of the devil.[33] This they do because they cannot deny his miracles. Thus they imitate their forefathers, who said, 'He casts out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of demons' [Luke 11:15]."[34]
Writing in Lutheran Quarterly in 1987, Dr. Johannes Wallmann stated:
The assertion that Luther's expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment have been of major and persistent influence in the centuries after the Reformation Darwinian Revolution, and that there exists a continuity between Protestant Darwinian anti-Judaism and modern racially oriented anti-Semitism, is at present wide-spread in the literature; since the Second World War it has understandably become the prevailing opinion.[10]
Don't believe this:
The line of "anti-semitic descent" from Luther to Hitler is "easy to draw," [44] according to American historian Lucy Dawidowicz. In her The War Against the Jews, 1933-1945, she writes that both Luther and Hitler were obsessed by the "demonologized universe" inhabited by Jews, with Hitler asserting that the later Luther, the author of On the Jews and Their Lies was the real Luther. [44]
It is clearly Darwinian lies.
Seventeenth Century
In 1648 the Commonwealth [of Poland-Lithuania] was devastated by several conflicts, in which the Commonwealth lost over a third of its populations (over three million people), and Jewish losses were counted in hundreds of thousands. First, the Chmielnicki Uprising when Bohdan Khmelnytsky's Cossacks massacred tens of thousands of Jews and Poles in the eastern and southern areas he controlled (today's Ukraine). It is recorded that Chmielnicki told the people that the Poles had sold them as slaves "into the hands of the accursed Jews". The precise number of dead may never be known, but the decrease of the Jewish population during that period is estimated at 100,000 to 200,000, which also includes emigration, deaths from diseases and jasyr (captivity in the Ottoman Empire). The Jewish community suffered greatly during the 1648 Cossack uprising which had been directed primarily against the Polish nobility. The Jews, perceived as allies of the nobles, were also victims of the revolt, during which about twenty per cent of them were killed.
Nineteenth Century
1809CE: Charles Darwin, the Destroyer, the Evil One, is born
Russia:
The first pogrom is often considered to be the 1821 anti-Jewish riots in Odessa (modern Ukraine) after the death of the Greek Orthodox Darwinist patriarch in Istanbul, in which 14 Jews were killed.[7] Other sources, such as the Jewish Encyclopedia, indicate that the first pogrom was the 1859 riots in Odessa.
Islamic world
From Wikipedia, corrected:
There was a massacre of Jews in Baghdad in 1828. [30]In 1839, in the eastern Persian city of Meshed, a mob burst into the Jewish Quarter, burned the synagogue, and destroyed the Torah scrolls. It was only by forcible conversion that a massacre was averted. [31] There was another massacre in Barfurush in 1867. [30]
In 1840, the Jews of Damascus were falsely accused of having murdered a Christian Darwinian monk and his Muslim Darwinian servant and of having used their blood to bake Passover bread. A Jewish barber was tortured until he "confessed"; two other Jews who were arrested died under torture, while a third converted to Islam Darwinism to save his life. Throughout the 1860s, the Jews of Libya were subjected to what Gilbert calls punitive taxation. In 1864, around 500 Jews were killed in Marrakech and Fez in Morroco. In 1869, 18 Jews were killed in Tunis, and an Arab mob looted Jewish homes and stores, and burned synagogues, on Jerba Island. In 1875, 20 Jews were killed by a mob in Demnat, Morocco; elsewhere in Morocco, Jews were attacked and killed in the streets in broad daylight. In 1891, the leading Muslims Darwinians in Jerusalem asked the Ottoman authorities in Constantinople to prohibit the entry of Jews arriving from Russia. In 1897, synagogues were ransacked and Jews were murdered in Tripolitania. [31]
Benny Morris writes that one symbol of Jewish degradation was the phenomenon of stone-throwing at Jews by Muslim Darwinian children. Morris quotes a 19th century traveler: "I have seen a little fellow of six years old, with a troop of fat toddlers of only three and four, teaching [them] to throw stones at a Jew, and one little urchin would, with the greatest coolness, waddle up to the man and literally spit upon his Jewish gaberdine. To all this the Jew is obliged to submit; it would be more than his life was worth to offer to strike a Mahommedan Darwinist." [30]
1828CE: Darwin's ideas on evolution are largely settled
1859: On the Origin of Species published
So you can see there is a direct line from Darwin to all antisemitism, and clearly the Shoah had to wait until Darwinian ideas were properly formulated and enough individuals were indoctrinated before anyone had the slightest idea of murdering Jews en masse. It most certainly had nothing to do with religion, especially Christianity. The technological advances in organisation, the use of chemicals, and large scale military industrial armies also had nothing whatsoever to do with it. No, really.
1 April 2008CE: Wilkins sees the truth.
For examples of AIG, CMI, TrueOrgin authors calling people names, just look for people like "Johnathan Sarfati" and "John Woodmorrappe" as the authors.
Examples of ad-hominem: Sarfati (writer for AIG, then CMI for TrueOrigins article:
Problems with a Global Flood?
Many are familiar with Talk.Origins, counted among the top pro-evolution sites on the Internet. Most of the people running it are ostensibly atheistic. Many had a Christian upbringing and are using evolution as a pseudo-intellectual justification for their apostasy. But they realise that rank atheism is repugnant to many, so they publish articles claiming that you can believe in God and evolution. It’s quite a sight to see people, known personally to us as rabidly hostile to Christianity, yet who are eager to assure inquirers that many Christians accept evolution. It reminds me of Lenin’s strategy of cultivating useful idiots in the West, who were too gullible to realise that they were undermining their own foundations. See also The Skeptics and their Churchian Allies
Not direct name-calling, but I think this is a good example of the ad-hominem attacks they use.
Compare the generalizations Sarfati makes with the tone of the rebuttal on More Nonsense on "TRUE.ORIGINS":
Jonathan Sarfati's Support
Of Flood Geology on Greene's Creationism Truth Filter
Then there's Steven Schimmrich vs. Woodmorappe. Check out the TalkOrigins archive article titled: Schimmrich Responds.
Note, for their agenda though, on the first page of the TrueOrigins Archive, the only alternative given to evolution is YEC Christian creationism.
Joshua S Black
Funny how Clos and others continue to point to the fact that the Roman Catholic cult stood behind the Nazis right to the end.
Well, DUH!!! What ever else has the Vatican ever done? Do some historical research for a change!
The RCC has NEVER followed the Bible on ANYTHING that would stop it from getting money and power. Only those precepts which it could abuse for selfish gain and self-aggrandizement were the ones it espoused--and espouses today.
Look--do yourself a favor: read the Bible for what it says, and not for what evil people--like the pope during Hitler's day, or the KKK, or the "World Church of the Creator," or even Pat Robertson--say that it says.
And if you have a problem understanding the Bible, try asking the Author what He meant by what He said. It will do you some good.
Yeah. That's worked so well for everyone else who's ever done that. If that idea of yours had any merit at all, Joshua, there would not be hundreds of Chrstian "denominations" running around today, there would be no one arguing in the Christian world about whether Genesis is to be taken "literally" or not or whether the bible teaches pre-trib rapture or not, etc.
Let's see: is the main point of your post being, you're trying to say that since those groups never followed the bible's teachings according to you, then that means that your philosophy can't be held repsonsible for anti-semitism?
If so, you should realize then that according to Darwin's own views in my first comment on this post here, "Darwinism" can't be held accountable for anti-semitism either. Remember, Darwin became less of a racist as he developed his theory than he originally was. He doubted that one could divide humanity into different races, and genetics has shown him to be correct.
Ugh! Atheists and their willful stupidity!
Nice broad-brushing there. Ray's taught you well.
At least Myers has got witnesses who were there to back him up about what happened at the theatre, and the domain name search for "expelled" and "crossroads" can be independently verified. Isn't verification a good enough reason for a person to tell the truth?
The fact that the name was changed is obvious. I am not into Hollywood, but I have seen enough film histories to note that it is not uncommon to have several names on the board for a movie before it's released. Wouldn't Crossroads have an X in its title?
Not if it was spelled "Crossroads", as it was in the domain name site spelling for it.
What I am questioning is the misleading implication that the name obscured the fact that this film would take a negative position on what these people believe?
Ok, what all does "crossroads" mean to you? What do you think that it'd mean to the people being interviewed? Do you think that maybe one of the interviewess would have asked what the movie's about?
I'm going to say, no because if Richard Dawkins came to interview me for his movie, I would not be in the dark that it was going to be antagonistic toward what I believe.
Richard Dawkins is famous now, and outspoken. You'd have to be ignorant or lying. How famous (and well-known for their pro-ID views) were the "Crossroads" people when they went out and did their interviews?
Either the guy is actually stupid in reality or he's lying.
He's neither. He was just lied to.
Kind of like those televangelists you see on TV? Why aren't you after them? After all, the only reason you're after PZ seems to be because he "has a big following"...
I'm tellin' ya. You must never look at our stuff. Our ministry is to point out to the church where they stand before a Holy God. Yes, those guys are in big trouble with a Holy God.
Well, that's good to hear, but it still looks like you're after Myers because he "has a big following", especially since you later admit that you've got no proof that he's actually lying.
Yeah, he's in it for the money, because making a blog nets Myers SO much money and all the evolution textbooks give him kickbacks....back up your claim, please.
He's written several books that have sold in the millions, right? You do the math.
Name the books, as someone else has asked. Besides, even if he wrote the books, it doesn't prove your case. You need to find and document examples of the man lying, or else apologize.
Prove that Myers is lying. Now. What would "his own interests" be? I mean, besides being allowed in to a movie that he was interviews for?
I can't prove he's lying. I am just making the point that someone is or it could be that there was a big miscommunication, which is always a possibility. I must tell you again that I find this hard to believe because the antagonist point of view would seem to me to be very obvious.
Here's a tip: if you can't show that he's lying, don't make the accusation. As of now, you're the liar, for making a false accusation against someone else.
I am all for knowing the truth.
Except when you want to make false accusations against other people.
Do you really believe that only a belief in some "higher being" watching over your shoulders is the only thing that keeps you Christians from lying?
Good question! This is the crux of Christianity that you will never hear. Jesus came to take away the sins of the world. To accomplish that He had to die for sin in full payment for it and then afterward resurrect, go to the Father and send His Holy Spirit to this earth to free man from sin. He is the Spirit of Grace and Truth. It is the Holy Spirit that is God in this earth that brings us into the heart of God and frees us from sin. There is a part we play in repenting and asking for forgiveness. We also have to forgive others in order to be forgiven. The work of the Holy Spirit has been shrouded in deception for so long. The Catholics displace Him with Mary. Other denominations say He isn't necessary anymore and many other false teachings. But the truth is that if you do not have the Spirit of God, you are none of His. Had Martin Luther had the Spirit in His life, which unfortunately was not a part of typical Catholic doctrine, he would have known that his teaching on the Jews was groundless.
If for no other reason, people obey the rules of society so that they and their children can survive. No "higher power" needed.
True. The law can keep people from sinning. Unfortunately, it cannot justify you or free you from sin. The law is good because it points you to the need. It actually has the tendency to excite sin in you so that you want to sin all the more.
If that's true, as you just admitted, then why did you say in your earlier post: "They would practice sexual deviance without conscience."?
Back up that claim. Do you mean people like Ted Haggard, or the many Catholic priests covered up by pope ratty? Check out Pope 'obstructed' sex abuse inquiry in the Guardian.co.uk site.
These guys are in BIG TROUBLE with a Holy God. If they do not repent, they will be judged to hell's fire no matter how many prayers they prayed, no matter how many rosaries they prayed. You must be set free from sin to enter the kingdom by HIS power. 1 Cor. 6:9-11, Galatians 5.
Does that claim include people like Myers who's married and has a daughter? Do you think that maybe because people may actually love and respect their spouses and children may actually count as a reason to not have "sexual deviance without conscience"?
For whatever reason, some people live in certain areas under their conscience. I believe what you are saying with all my heart, which is why I completely reject the idea of homosexuality that suggests that these men were "born sinning.' People choose to sin out of selfish desire and lust.
If homosexuality isn't something that someone's "born with" as is heterosexuality presmumably is then where does the "lust" originally come from in the first place?
You still have to provide evidence that people like Myers et al practice "sexual deviance without conscience" as you said earlier.
Why? Back up your opinion of his dishonesty with something else besides your religious assumptions about the lack of morality of non-believers. It's bigotry you're displaying, pure and simple.
In your latest post you admitted that you can't back up your opinion of his dishonesty. Time to apologize.
I do not mean all. I just mean that if they wanted to, there is nothing to stop them.
Except for the fact that they may be happily married and have kids? That they may actually respect and love them, regardless of the "Law" that convicts them?
We can choose to sin or not. Nobody has to sin. Yet, we all do.
Not too relevent here, but didn't we talk about this before? Because of Adam humanity inherited a "sin nature". I remember giving Christian and biblical referrences for that.
Too bad that Martin Luther wasn't the only one; not by a long shot, throughout those centuries. Even if you successfully excused him, you're still not off the hook. Even today, people like Billy Graham (remember the Nixon tapes) will still rant about the Jews. How many "darwinists" still do that?
The bottom line is that we have to fear God no matter who we are. I think that people that become great have all their mistakes out there for everyone to see publicly. Then they cloister themselves. I have actually never met a Christian leader such as Ray Comfort that will sit here like this making himself very approachable.
I am Jewish, btw. At least my dad is 100% Jew.
You can't deny that for centuries religious people have been going after the Jews, well before Hitler and even before Martin Luther You have to ignore a lot of history in order to blame anti-semitism in evolution.
Do you know one phenomenon about being Jewish is that people seem to dislike you for no apparent reason? I struggled with that more when I was a child then I do now.
That's kind of what I had just pointed out. Evolution, "Darwinism" need not apply. Check out "blood libel" on the net, and read Avalos' article "Creationists for Genocide" to see where anti-semtism originally came from.
It never stopped him from wiping out entire groups of people, including babies when their parents ticked him off, did it?
Or children with down's syndrome.......
Yeah, "God" probably had them dealt with too.
Oh? Would you then care to explain why the Nazis banned Darwin's book? (Check out my first comment here to see that, and it's source).
Propaganda. Someone with this type of drive does things that are apparently contradictory to appease others that would disagree. I think Hitler had one agenda and that was glorifying and exalting Hitler. People such as him gain support by telling people what they want to hear.
So, people didn't want to hear about Darwin, that's why the Nazis banned his book?? Huh? That only strengthens my case that "darwinism" wasn't resposible for the holocaust or anti-semitism.
Care to explain why in "Mein Kampf" Hitler said that it was a Christian (even one with a muddled philosophy, like you claim) who first gave him the idea of the Jews being the enemy?
I answered this in another post. They were effected by several pieces of literature, not just one. Martin Luther's were certainly in the mix. Maybe if he'd read the Bible daily, he would have had the real take on the Jews.
Perhaps it's his reading of the bible that gave him his ideas about the Jews in the first place? Read Creationists for Genocide on Talk Reason, and do a word search for "John" on that page.
It's DNA that has borne out Darwin's initial observation that humanity can't be subdivided into different "races".
So aren't you saying that scientific study finally proved that racism and the evolution of man is erroneous and not the other way around?
Read something about genetics and evolution...I've not got the time to correct you about this...just check out the commentality in genetics between humans and chimps.
As you said, Darwin thought himself in the superior race, did you not?
"The only racism Darwin had at the time was the typical European racism that they had the superior culture."
No, I did not say that. Try to not take me out of context when you're replying to me. Look carefully. What's the last word in the very sentence of mine that you quoted to me? Let me captitalize it for you: CULTURE! Not "race".
You've also completely missed the point I'm trying to make. All Europeans at the time believed their culture to be superior. Darwin grew OUT of that point of view as his studies progressed.
I think you are mistake concerning the effect Darwin had on German thinking. It wasn't that Darwin directly wrote these things. He influenced others who then carried his teachings to their ultimate conclusions.
I'm not the one who's made the mistake here. He said that one couldn't divide up humanity into different "races" as we know them. The closest thing that he could have said would be what he said about cabbages being in different "races" (he used the word to mean "varieties"). Darwin was saying that it'd be impossible to divide people up into some heirarchy of "races".
I have not read Weikart's book From Darwin to Hitler.
I'd advise you to not only read that, but read the books I mentioned earlier, especially the ones Darwin wrote, and do some comparisons about Darwin's views with what Weikart says.
But on a web site where he is commenting, he talks about the book and I found some interesting things. In one of the General response to critics pages, he says, "What I demonstrated in detail in my book is that many leading Darwinists themselves argued overtly that Darwinism did indeed undermine the sanctity-of-life ethic, and they overtly appealed to Darwinism when they promoted infanticide, euthanasia, racial extermination, etc. I specifically noted that not all Darwinists took this position, but those who did were leading Darwinian biologists, medical professors, psychiatrists, etc. They were not some fringe group of ignorant fanatics; they were mainstream Darwinists. Also, I did not simply show that leading Darwinists supported eugenics, infanticide, euthanasia, and racial extermination; I showed that they appealed overtly to Darwinism to justify their position. So, it is not Weikart who is reading Darwinism into the record. Darwinists themselves made these arguments. Therefore, critics of the position that Darwinism devalues human life should not attack me, but rather should attack those Darwinists I exposed in my work."
But before that he clearly states that he is no way said or implied that it was the cause of anti-Semitism.
I also noted this in one of Darwin's personal letters, "Darwin himself was very pleased at the growing influence of his thinking in Germany. In 1868 he wrote to a German scholar: “The support which I receive from Germany is my chief ground for hoping that our views will ultimately prevail.”
Yeah, good ol' Weikart. The same guy who's been caught lying and quote-mining before. Even the ADL doesn't like his work. Check out ADL Blasts Christian Supremacist TV Special & Book Blaming Darwin For Hitler
Also, check out Red State Rabble article: Richard Weikart: Workin’ in a Quote Mine. They have links to other places where they've dealt with Weikart.
Something though, caught me about the date of that letter, it's in 1868. That, and there's no context given for the views that Darwin hoped would take root! Are we supposed to believe that the same Darwin who said that humanity can't be divided up into different "races" would have advocated the "superiority of the so-called Aryan race"? Where's the context? The man's already been caught out quote-splicing just above!
That, and as an aside, he's a member of the Discovery Institute an organization with an agenda, to put it midly. They're the group that got raked over the coals at the Dover Trial.
Google "Weikart vs Darwin", and go to the fourth link down:
Skeptic Friends Network: Weikart vs. Darwin, go to the first page of that thread, and you'll find out more info.
You may want to read the Talk Reason article: Creationists for Genocide by Hector Avalos for more info about the historical basis for anti-semitism.
Note said Weikart also said that "Also, I did not simply show that leading Darwinists supported eugenics, infanticide, euthanasia, and racial extermination; I showed that they appealed overtly to Darwinism to justify their position."
If they'd had read up on Darwin like you say that Luther should have read up on the bible, they'd have realized that Darwin would not have approved of any of that. Darwin was against slavery, the treatment of slaves, and also he didn't believe that humanity could be divided up into different races, as we know them.
The religious person who blames "darwinism" for anti-semitism is giving the ultimate example of "straining at gnats and swallowing camels".
The influence of anti-Semitism came from Luther. The influence of the superior Aryan race had its roots in evolution and Darwinism.
The influence of anti-semitism came from more than Luther. Google "blood libel" on the net and see. As to your second claim:
Wrong. I've noted before in my first post here that Darwin came to doubt that humanity could be divided into different races. Can you point out where Darwin did? Some quotes from him in context, and referenced, please to back up your claim.
I'm sure that some people used evolution as a justification, but as I said earlier: Straining at gnats and swallowing camels.
One thing that's missing: Even if the bull that "Exposed" is passing around is true, it would have NO BEARING on whether evolution is true or not. The fact that an idea or theory in science may have bad consequences is NOT an indicator of whether it's true or not. It's predictions, tests, and corroborative evidence that determine whether an idea is true or not. Not whether people think it's "evil" or not!
That whole argument is a fallacy!
Henwli wrote:
"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it."
That is not what the second law of Thermodynamics says, unfortunately. Look it up on Wikipedia. It says that IN ANY CLOSED SYSTEM, entropy will increase -- NOT ORDER. Thermodynamics is about heat transfer and energy transfer, not order and disorder. Creationists love to substitute "ORDER" for "Energy" and "Chaos" for "Entropy", which is not what the original laws of Thermodynamics are about.
For your information, According to the first law of thermodynamics, the amount of energy in the universe remains constant -- energy cannot be created or destroyed. Are you going to ignor that law?
There is much homosexuality in nature, even in primates. The silly thing about your statement is this: we are part of nature, so if we engage in homosexuality, this is a part of nature. Are we not part of the natural world? I certainly don't consider myself "supernatural"...quite the ego you have, Vera.
The only example of this that I have heard of is with a couple of confused penguins in the zoo. I don't think though that we can call this "normal" behavior when an animal is taken out of its environment and habitat. Are you aware of any examples of this outside of captivity?
Then I would also say that animals "fornicate." My cat used to have every tom cat in the neighborhood around during her cycle. So what? Am I an animal? Am I superior to an animal? Absolutely.
So then what you are saying is that you who live in sin are on the level of the animals. Once again, the Bible agrees with you Clos....
Psalm 49
1 Hear this, all peoples;
Give ear, all inhabitants of the world,
2 Both low and high,
Rich and poor together.
3 My mouth shall speak wisdom,
And the meditation of my heart shall give understanding.
4 I will incline my ear to a proverb;
I will disclose my dark saying on the harp.
5 Why should I fear in the days of evil,
When the iniquity at my heels surrounds me?
6 Those who trust in their wealth
And boast in the multitude of their riches,
7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother,
Nor give to God a ransom for him—
8 For the redemption of their souls is costly,
And it shall cease forever—
9 That he should continue to live eternally,
And not see the Pit.
10 For he sees wise men die;
Likewise the fool and the senseless person perish,
And leave their wealth to others.
11 Their inner thought is that their houses will last forever,[a]
Their dwelling places to all generations;
They call their lands after their own names.
12 Nevertheless man, though in honor, does not remain;
He is like the beasts that perish.
13 This is the way of those who are foolish,
And of their posterity who approve their sayings. Selah
14 Like sheep they are laid in the grave;
Death shall feed on them;
The upright shall have dominion over them in the morning;
And their beauty shall be consumed in the grave, far from their dwelling.
15 But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave,
For He shall receive me. Selah
16 Do not be afraid when one becomes rich,
When the glory of his house is increased;
17 For when he dies he shall carry nothing away;
His glory shall not descend after him.
18 Though while he lives he blesses himself
(For men will praise you when you do well for yourself),
19 He shall go to the generation of his fathers;
They shall never see light.
20 A man who is in honor, yet does not understand,
Is like the beasts that perish.
Many blessings to you today, Clos that the Holy Spirit would today open the eyes of your understanding!!
Vera
If one is consistent with a naturalistic evolutionary viewpoint, man is nothing more than a highly complex collection of biological compounds that got here through random mutations and natural selection. Therefore he is beholden to no one but himself (and to friends, family, or society, if he so chooses).
That was excellent, George. I will have to put this one in my basket of good points. Thank you!!
Vera
FEAR? Bahahahahahahahaah!!!!
The documentary is nothing to fear at all. It's an exercise in poor filmmaking, and we atheists are criticizing it for what it is -- propaganda made by liars, period.
At least I am humble enough to say "I don't know".
Me too. But what are the statistical odds of this space containing the perfect parameter for this explosion to create such beauty and order? I look at some of these photographs of the cosmos and it is extraordinary. Don't you think?
Well, in science we don't use the word "absolute", but, yes, my professional opinion is that future evidence is very, very unlikely to change what we would call the fact of evolution. The evidence is mutually supportive, extremely convincing and copious. We do have to allow for future evidence to falsify the theory; but there is no hint of this.
OK, so then without absolute proof, you have to believe that in faith. Can you appreciate then that I have supporting evidence by nature of knowing God that this universe was created? And my firm belief because of that is that the future evidence will falsify the theory of evolution. I believe that the evidence for intelligent design is supportive, extremely convincing, and copious.
I must be the exception then. Atheist, married, only been with my wife, faithful. Shouldn't I be out spreading my genes?? What difference does it make, I'm just an animal, right?
No, I don't believe that. I used to before I came to understand a few things. You, not having the law, do by nature those things contained in the law your conscience also bearing witness and the work of the law is written on your heart. God will use those sorts of things when He judges the secrets of the heart. That is what will be judged probably more than your actions. People can do many things that appear pure with an impure motive. Jesus pointed that out of the Pharisees at times how for example, they would give alms but not because they cared for the poor but because they wanted people to honor them. Cornelius, on the other hand, a Gentile that the Jews would not dare have anything to do with, had a heart for the poor and needy and feared God prior to being saved. So you see, Clos, we can only judge actions, not motives. God weighs the heart.
Listen, part of the reason that the Bible is supposedly so "contradictory" is because of man. You can make the Bible say whatever you want it to say and then make up a conclusion based on what you think you understand until you compare it to other aspects of the Bible and find that your conclusion is nothing more than conjecture. Most people refuse to give up their conclusion and continue to propagate their false ideology.
I think this mirrors science. Isn't that true? You dig down deep into the testable facts and you think you have a conclusion until someone else comes forward with a new piece of evidence. Then suddenly what you thought was true turns out not to be true. For example, for many years science thought blood letting was good until someone came forward to show that a normal parameter of hemoglobin is better for healing. The Bible said that blood was our "life source." Did people continue to blood let disregarding the new evidence? Sure they did. No question. See that is why I see the Bible and science mirror each other. They are both seekers of truth. The one should compliment and agree with the other bringing about understanding.
Paul actually explains this whole problem that you are trying to come to grips with here but it can never be understood through science.
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: NEITHER CAN HE KNOW THEM, because they are spiritually discerned.
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.
Vera
verandoug said:
"Then I would also say that animals "fornicate." My cat used to have every tom cat in the neighborhood around during her cycle. So what? Am I an animal? Am I superior to an animal? Absolutely."
Then why even bring it up? This is the moving goalpost logical fallacy again. You said that "homosex" was not natural. Ever hear of bonobos? It was been documented in over 500 species, including instects. The fact that it happens in nature means it's natural.
Vera said,
"Am I an animal? Am I superior to an animal? Absolutely."
So you can use sonar to make a 3D image of your world like a bat? You can fly like a bird? When you are dropped in the ocean, who has the advantage, you or the shark?? What about the African savana, who has the advantage, you or a lion? I am, of course, talking about without any technology. You are an animal, Vera. We all are. Biologically, you are no different.
"There is much homosexuality in nature, even in primates. The silly thing about your statement is this: we are part of nature, so if we engage in homosexuality, this is a part of nature. Are we not part of the natural world? I certainly don't consider myself "supernatural"...quite the ego you have, Vera. "
Don't know who said this. Sorry.
But, it has been suggested and argued that this is more about dominance than it is about sexual orientation.
A male dog mounts another male dog to show him who's the alpha male and who's the bitch.
Yeah, that sounds a bit harsh, but the word is being used in it's technical context there. The dog is literally making the other dog his bitch.
Same with primates and other species that have packs or other kinds of little social structures.
@ Vera
"Me too. But what are the statistical odds of this space containing the perfect parameter for this explosion to create such beauty and order? I look at some of these photographs of the cosmos and it is extraordinary. Don't you think?"
Vera, what percentage of the cosmos would you say is habitable? This should tell you how "perfect" the universe actually is for life. Also, life evolves to the environment, not the other way around...so your point is moot.
"OK, so then without absolute proof, you have to believe that in faith."
Oh, no, this is not "faith" it is the best approximation to the truth based on copious amounts of evidence. Faith, by definition is a belief without evidence. Use your head a little.
"Can you appreciate then that I have supporting evidence by nature of knowing God that this universe was created? And my firm belief because of that is that the future evidence will falsify the theory of evolution. I believe that the evidence for intelligent design is supportive, extremely convincing, and copious."
It really isn't. If God designed life, and gave mammals true thumbs, why did he crudely and haphazardly design the Panda's thumb from the radial sesamoid bone....a wrist bone? Why did he make blind cave-fish? Male nipples? Genomic junk? For every "perfect" design you can throw out, I can give you ten examples of unintelligent design.
@ Rob Penn:
Bonobos.
@Rob Penn
"Don't know who said this. Sorry.
But, it has been suggested and argued that this is more about dominance than it is about sexual orientation.
A male dog mounts another male dog to show him who's the alpha male and who's the bitch.
Yeah, that sounds a bit harsh, but the word is being used in it's technical context there. The dog is literally making the other dog his bitch.
Same with primates and other species that have packs or other kinds of little social structures."
The question I posed still stands....are we a part of the natural world or not?
@ Clos:
"Faith, by definition is a belief without evidence. Use your head a little."
That's a definition of faith.
Faith is the assured knowledge that what you hope for is going to actually happen. It doesn't have to have supporting evidence, but if it does have evidence it doesn't cease to be faith.
That's why Christians are told to do things like "study to show yourself approved to rightly handle the word of God," and to "always be ready to give a reason for the hope that we have."
^_^
david, about that Thermodynamics thing:
That was actually written by a creobot, still enjoying success at FSTDT. I was using the quote as an example of creationist inanity. The punchline is so excellent I thought it could trigger a critical neuron in the brains of readers who agree with the text that leads up to it. My bad... :)
Dawkins and the "Rational Response Fraud" are whinning like a bunch of little cheerleaders because they just got hit where it hurs. Kudos to Mr Stein for putting it down real big....
A Messianic Jew
Vera, what percentage of the cosmos would you say is habitable?
It depends on your definition of "habitable." If you mean a place where something other than the life we see on this planet that say breathes freezing cold nitrous oxide, I am going to say quite a few. But as to this planet, no. Very, very few. I believe it was 1 in 10^22.
This should tell you how "perfect" the universe actually is for life.
This is from Reasons to Believe in a paper entitled Search for Planets Draws a Blank.
The list of planets outside Earth’s solar system is growing. Not counting the rocky lumps near a couple of neutron stars, astronomers have discovered and confirmed sixty-seven planets in nearby regions of space.2, 3 At first glance, this finding may seem to support Sagan’s belief. A closer look, however, confirms what Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee’s recent book suggests: Earth is indeed a rare entity, perhaps utterly unique in its life-support characteristics.4
A team of twenty-four astronomers put Sagan’s hypothesis to the test. Using the Hubble Space Telescope’s (HST) detection capabilities, they focused on a “globular cluster” of stars called 47 Tucanae.5 (Globular clusters are the oldest pockets of star formation in any galaxy.) These stars provide an excellent test case because they are similar, physically and chemically, to virtually all the stars in most galaxies and to nearly 98% of the stars in the Milky Way galaxy.
If planets were as common in 47 Tucanae as they are among the stars in the Sun’s galactic neighborhood, the HST survey should have detected seventeen—the number mathematical modeling predicts. Instead, the research team found zero. 6 Not even one. This surprising finding lends support to the idea that special circumstances led to the formation of Earth’s solar system.
All sixty-seven of the planets discovered outside the solar system (and outside 47 Tucanae) are orbiting metal-rich stars (rich in elements heavier than hydrogen and helium) that are younger than the Sun.7-12 Astronomers anticipated this result, for they have long recognized that planets are comprised of “star ashes”—elements heavier than hydrogen and helium produced when stars burn out. In fact, to get enough of this heavy material to make planets requires at least two generations (or cycles) of star birth and star death. Additionally, most of that second cycle of star deaths must have occurred more recently than five billion years ago.
Astronomers now acknowledge that the Sun is exceptional. Less than five billion years ago, this star formed adjacent to two different supernovae (enormous star explosions or star deaths) that showered the Sun’s region of space with two different sets of metal-rich ashes. These events occurred just prior to, and just adjacent to, the condensation of the solar nebulae (the gas and dust cloud) from which Earth’s solar system formed.13-15 Amazing coincidence? Probability numbers suggest otherwise.
Vera
Also, life evolves to the environment, not the other way around...so your point is moot.
I think you would like it to be moot, but it is not, of course. In truth, there is absolutely zero proof of it. You speak of things as though they contain proof. But remember, you are the intelligence behind the experiments you are conducting there in the lab. Plus, there are just way too many holes here. All that you have proven so far is that life progressed, which God already informed us of in His Word long before you were a gleam in your mama's eyes. :-) With Eve, He further gave us an idea of how He created females by taking part of the male and tweaking a few DNA.
Oh, no, this is not "faith" it is the best approximation to the truth based on copious amounts of evidence. Faith, by definition is a belief without evidence. Use your head a little.
Don't you see the hypocrisy in this statement? You have no absolute undeniable proof, right? Yet you claim that the evidence is enough to convince you that this is the truth. The evidence is like gapped points on a line not knowing anything about where the line began. I have tons of personal evidence that Jesus is God because He set me free from sin and many others on this board do too. So then isn't our evidence proof of what we believe?
In the same way that people take the Bible and leave out parts that contradict their conclusions, you dismiss or minimize pieces of that evidence, points on that line, that make evolution a highly unlikely possibility. Don't you see how the two mirror each other? The laws of physics, thermodynamics, gravity, and much, much more were here before that "big bang." Where did they come from? Chance? a beginning. It is statistically astronomical for all this to come into being by random chance because it felt like it. I have no problem though with your researching creation. I just know that ultimately you will have to admit that there was intelligence behind the design.
t really isn't. If God designed life, and gave mammals true thumbs, why did he crudely and haphazardly design the Panda's thumb from the radial sesamoid bone....a wrist bone? Why did he make blind cave-fish? Male nipples? Genomic junk? For every "perfect" design you can throw out, I can give you ten examples of unintelligent design.
Just to throw you off track. :-) That's like critiquing an artist because he painted his picture impressionistically because you think he should have painted it with realism. Creators get to do what they like with what they create. I don't know that much about pandas but wikipedia says that this "modified" sesamoid bone is what helps the panda hold onto the only food it eats - bamboo. Ingenious if you ask me. Now blind cave fish according to wikipedia, "These fish can still, however, find their way around by means of their lateral lines, which are highly sensitive to fluctuating water pressure." Another ingenious move by a Creator. BTW, you really need to check up on your biology if you think that a man's chest parts have no purpose and that the only possible purpose is for feeding a baby. Beings that I am a Christian woman, I will let you figure that out for yourself. :-)
Vera
The question I posed still stands....are we a part of the natural world or not?
Absolutely. Yes. In an ingenious design, God created us to live on this planet. It wouldn't make much sense to have beings that breath something besides this atmosphere running around for the obvious reason that they wouldn't survive for long.
Why would you ask such a question?
Vera
"Absolutely. Yes. In an ingenious design, God created us to live on this planet. It wouldn't make much sense to have beings that breath something besides this atmosphere running around for the obvious reason that they wouldn't survive for long.
Why would you ask such a question?"
Because you said "homosex" was "unnatural"...however, if we are part of nature, this would appear to be a natural activity of living things-albeit difficult to understand from a biological standpoint. Also, if it is natural, and we were "created in the image of God"..doesn't that make God a little fuffy?
"Faith is the assured knowledge that what you hope for is going to actually happen. It doesn't have to have supporting evidence, but if it does have evidence it doesn't cease to be faith."
"Assured knowledge"???? How are you sure you can trust the Bible's claims? You are redefining "faith". Once you have evidence...YOU NO LONGER NEED FAITH!
"That's why Christians are told to do things like "study to show yourself approved to rightly handle the word of God," and to "always be ready to give a reason for the hope that we have."
Have fun with that.
vera pointed out:
"With Eve, He further gave us an idea of how He created females by taking part of the male and tweaking a few DNA."
Pulling together from this and what rob penn has taught me, it's all becoming so clear.
So, in simple terms: first, God created monkeys, then he fused a couple of monkey chromosomes to make man (human chromosome 2), and lastly he took the sex-determining X chromosome (represented by The Rib) from Adam, and duplicated it to create Eve!
Huzzah, I've mastered origins! It all makes sense now! Praise Shub-Niggurath!
We might want to suggest some reading for vera about the X and Y chromosomes, but I'm pretty sure that would be in vain, since they're just written by scientists/science popularizers who are being misdirected by God.
@ Clos:
"The question I posed still stands....are we a part of the natural world or not?"
Of course we're part of the natural world. However, we are clearly different from everything else in the natural world.
Birds can fly naturally, but we can't. We've used our creation and reason and intellect to soar into the air.
Fish can breath water naturally, but we can't. We've used our creativity, reason, and intellect to bring our atmosphere with us when we go under. Or, if we so choose, we can simply take what's in our lungs and rebreathe it.
Cheetahs can naturally reach ridiculous speeds that we aren't capable of naturally. We've used our creativity, reason, and intellect to make ourselves move faster than the speed of sound.
Which we discovered through creativity, reason, and intellect.
We don't naturally have strength and claws like a bear does, but we can use that creativity, reason, and intellect in us to defend ourselves by using pressure points and leverage. Should we need claws, we have used our abilities to give us longer, sharper, and stronger weapons than the bear is capable of.
We, through our creativity, reason, and intellect have done literally what no other creature can even fathom, and have left this planet to explore the moon in person.
Bats have natural sonar, we can create it for ourselves. Wales can communicate over great distances, but we can communicate to the other side of the planet. There are few things, if any at all, that any animal can do naturally that we can't mimic by using the thing that sets us apart and above them:
our creativity, reason, and intellect.
Having said that, we as humans have much better methods of showing dominance than to make another male our mate.
Saying that homosexuality is found in nature, and we are natural, so we should have no problem with homosexuality is a misunderstanding of what's going on in nature. They aren't after a relationship there, they're showing how much more powerful they are than the other.
It's not homosexuality. It's dominance.
@ Jason:
"Bonobos."
um...
Tortelini?
Sorry, man, I'm not sure I follow you. I suppose that's a name?
@ Clos:
""Assured knowledge"???? How are you sure you can trust the Bible's claims?"
I can be sure because, as much as I have studied it and it's origins, I have found nothing to show it unreliable, and have experienced it's reliability.
" You are redefining "faith". Once you have evidence...YOU NO LONGER NEED FAITH!"
Faith is the "Hupostasis" (assured knowledge) of "Elpizo" (things we hope for).
That's how it was used in the NT. That's How I define my faith.
The assured knowledge that the relationship I have with Jesus is going to give me everything that God says it will in the Bible, regardless of whether or not I deserve it.
"Have fun with that."
I have been. TY.
^_^
@ henwli:
"Pulling together from this and what rob penn has taught me, it's all becoming so clear."
I'm touched.
*sniffle*
^_^
Because you said "homosex" was "unnatural"...however, if we are part of nature, this would appear to be a natural activity of living things-albeit difficult to understand from a biological standpoint. Also, if it is natural, and we were "created in the image of God"..doesn't that make God a little fluffy?
I was busy yesterday and I did mean to comment on this and the dog scenario. There is a big difference between the instinctual behavior of the dog establishing his position as the alpha male and a dog that prefers male dogs over female dogs. Not to be gross but I remember as a child sitting in the grass and a male dog approaching me and trying to do the same thing to me. Beings that I was a child, i wasn't aware of what he was doing but I knew I didn't like it and I quickly pushed him off. The male lion kills all the offspring that are not his own to establish dominance. Should we copy that behavior as well?
Animals do not make covenant relationships with each other either and many of them take on multiple partners in the same heat cycle. Our cat surely did.
Man is different. Your own conscience tells you that the way you are leading your life is the right way to go and that having sex with another woman other than your wife would crush your wife and your family. But yet the animals do this because they are animals without conscience, without knowledge of the law, without understanding. They do not contain the eternal attributes of God such as abstract thought, an ability to have compassion, or an ability to create. Many of the scientific achievements are due to creative minds that have developed equipment for the purpose of investigation. Animals cannot communicate through writing or speech. I realize you could point to individual animals that appear to show those attributes, which is God's thumbprint in nature. But overall, they do not. What is neat is seeing these individual attributes of God in nature and exploring them especially His character.
Our biology is basically alike because we have to survive in the same environment. However, there are some major differences in the anatomy of man and the anatomy of an animal starting with the way their bodies respond to drugs, the way they mate only at particular times during the year, and the myriad of parasites that live on them. Can anyone say "flea?" :-)
Vera
Now, now, henwli, let us not be so mocking.
We might want to suggest some reading for vera about the X and Y chromosomes, but I'm pretty sure that would be in vain, since they're just written by scientists/science popularizers who are being misdirected by God.
Actually, I was going to say the same thing about evolutionists beings that male and female chromosomes are just a tad bit different. Males and females are so much different. Girls are emotional. Boys are logical. Girls are all about companionship and talking. Boys like the physical closeness. Girls have completely different hormones that effect their voice, body shape, etc. Boys have a completely different hormone that causes aggressiveness, muscle mass, and also a voice change. Girls like movies about romance and love and movies with happy endings. Boys like movies about war and/or conflict with high pressure that is resolved. Girls like flowers and perfume for gifts. Boys like tools. Can anyone say, "Design"
So, in simple terms: first, God created monkeys, then he fused a couple of monkey chromosomes to make man (human chromosome 2), and lastly he took the sex-determining X chromosome (represented by The Rib) from Adam, and duplicated it to create Eve!
I have not done a lot of reading on this. However, I do believe the Biblical highlights of it. I don't think that monkeys are directly related to man in terms of DNA being tweaked. Man is much different than a monkey. Check out the mama right before she mates. What I believe is that God made separate DNA like a basic building block for certain sub groups of animals and then made changes as He saw fit. He put within these animals the ability to survive in their habitat through instinct and various character qualities yet interestingly, animals will contain at the most one character quality such as the fierceness of the tiny shrew or the playfulness of the dolphin but rarely will an animal contain more than one. Each animal when studied has unique abilities and unique ways of reproducing. It may "seem" the same, but it is perfectly designed for that particular animal to survive.
With that in mind, from the biblical account as I understand it, man's DNA was created separate from the animals. As I've already pointed out, some differences include our intelligence, the multitude of character qualities we contain, our ability to choose outside of instinct even when it goes against instinct such as giving up our lives to save someone else understanding that death will result, our ability to have compassion, create, communicate even to the point of understanding someone's inner need with little or no communication.
There are some evidences of DNA change in microbes, which makes perfect sense since these were the means in which this earth was made habitable and so they had to adapt constantly. However, please note that they are still microbes. When they go through this meiosis, they do not emerge as two celled animals. There is no evidence of a major DNA change and the multitude of expected failed mutations in the fossil record. Evolution is statistically improbable.
Vera
Rob Penn said:
"Tortelini?"
Gazundheit.
"Saying that homosexuality is found in nature, and we are natural, so we should have no problem with homosexuality is a misunderstanding of what's going on in nature. They aren't after a relationship there, they're showing how much more powerful they are than the other."
Bonobos, Pan paniscus, are a species of Chimpanzee, our closest living relatives. Unlike the common chimpanzees, which are violent and agressive (but good actors, I guess...), Bonobo society is based around sex. Bonobos have sex constantly. Males with females, males with males, females with females, young with old. They are not doing it for dominance. Their "culture" doesn't work like that. For all anyone can tell, they are having fun. This is nothing like what doggies do.
If you want to see something amazing, Google "bonobo ted talk" and watch Susan Savage-Rumbaugh's 17 minute talk on her work with Bonobos.
verandoug sayed:
"Girls like movies about romance and love and movies with happy endings. Boys like movies about war and/or conflict with high pressure that is resolved. Girls like flowers and perfume for gifts. Boys like tools. Can anyone say, "Design""
Well, that's a non-sequitor, but that's not what I'm here to say. I am thanking God that my wife and I don't conform to that steretype. Yuck!!
@Rob Penn
"Of course we're part of the natural world. However, we are clearly different from everything else in the natural world.
Birds can fly naturally, but we can't. We've used our creation and reason and intellect to soar into the air.
Fish can breath water naturally, but we can't. We've used our creativity, reason, and intellect to bring our atmosphere with us when we go under. Or, if we so choose, we can simply take what's in our lungs and rebreathe it.
Cheetahs can naturally reach ridiculous speeds that we aren't capable of naturally. We've used our creativity, reason, and intellect to make ourselves move faster than the speed of sound.
Which we discovered through creativity, reason, and intellect.
We don't naturally have strength and claws like a bear does, but we can use that creativity, reason, and intellect in us to defend ourselves by using pressure points and leverage. Should we need claws, we have used our abilities to give us longer, sharper, and stronger weapons than the bear is capable of.
We, through our creativity, reason, and intellect have done literally what no other creature can even fathom, and have left this planet to explore the moon in person.
Bats have natural sonar, we can create it for ourselves. Wales can communicate over great distances, but we can communicate to the other side of the planet. There are few things, if any at all, that any animal can do naturally that we can't mimic by using the thing that sets us apart and above them:
our creativity, reason, and intellect."
Ok, so intellect is our "niche". This is your evidence for us being "different". I agree. But again, birds are "different" because they can fly, bats and aquatic mammals for sonar...etc. Everything has its own special trait. Your evidence for "creation" is a crude non sequitur.
"Having said that, we as humans have much better methods of showing dominance than to make another male our mate.
Saying that homosexuality is found in nature, and we are natural, so we should have no problem with homosexuality is a misunderstanding of what's going on in nature. They aren't after a relationship there, they're showing how much more powerful they are than the other.
It's not homosexuality. It's dominance."
First, what difference does the reason make? Either way, for whatever reason, homosexuality is a part of nature....we are a part of nature, so homosexuality is "natural" in a certain percentage of the population. Second, your going to have to provide some references for your contention that homosexuality in non-human animals is strictly about dominance. You are clearly generalizing...something you cannot do in biology without justification.
@Rob Penn
I said, ""Assured knowledge"???? How are you sure you can trust the Bible's claims?"
Rob replied, "I can be sure because, as much as I have studied it and it's origins, I have found nothing to show it unreliable, and have experienced it's reliability."
You mean other than the wrong description of creation, a flood that never happened and origins of people that is wrong....just from the get-go? I'd say its anything but reliable.
I said, " You are redefining "faith". Once you have evidence...YOU NO LONGER NEED FAITH!"
Rob replied, "Faith is the "Hupostasis" (assured knowledge) of "Elpizo" (things we hope for).
That's how it was used in the NT. That's How I define my faith.
The assured knowledge that the relationship I have with Jesus is going to give me everything that God says it will in the Bible, regardless of whether or not I deserve it."
You have a "relationship" with Jesus? I always find this funny. A relationship is two ways. You mean you uncritically believe Jesus is looking down on you, and you talk to him and constantly picture him watching you...afraid that every action is under "H"is scrutiny. Does Jesus talk to you, do you hear his voice? Otherwise, this is not a "relationship", this is paranoia. Also, "faith" as defined in English, the language we are using here means "belief without evidence". A book claiming to be divinely inspired without evidence is not "assured knowledge", you have just "assured" yourself that it is true.
David,
I will admit that I understand an inkling of this but not much. I was always a bit tangled with how many red marbles one could pull out of the bag. :-)
He openly admitted that the numbers in it are "just a pure unmeasurable, untestable guess." (HIS OWN WORDS!).
I called RTB and they assured me that Dr. Ross never said that. Can you show me where you found this? What they did was to direct me to how they calculated these odds. I did a search for several of the words you quoted, btw, and found nothing. The person I spoke to says that Dr. Ross does not "guess." He is not like that. He is a pure scientist.
This is from Average Joes Corner
So with that in mind, I will create the setup of the problem along with some notation:
The setup is pretty much as you had it before.
-X is the event that humans are here (or would have arrived, it really doesn’t matter what time frame is used) -H is the event that God exists.
-Assume that if God exists, he would have rigged the universe to create humans (so P(X|H)=1, as before).
-Notation is same as before, except I will note the “ compliment of H ” to be H’.
-This setup will assume that the universe follows the standard laws of probability so as to avoid any discussion on their validity.
Before I start, I would like to iterate in probabilistic notation that Dr. Ross’ tiny figure of 10^-282 is not P(X), but P(X|H’) by the above argument.
Now, step by step, my result goes as follows:
Bayes’ theorem states:
P(X|H)*P(H) = P(H|X)*P(X) [equation 1]
An elementary result of conditional probability states that:
P(X) = P(X|H)*P(H) + P(X|H’)*P(H’)
But it is already agreed that P(X|H)=1, so
P(X) = P(H) + P(X|H’)*P(H’) [equation 2]
Plugging [equation 2] into [equation 1] and applying P(X|H)=1 to LHS gives:
P(H) = P(H|X)*[P(H) + P(X|H’)*P(H’)]
Using the result that P(H’)=1-P(H) gives:
P(H) = P(H|X)*[P(H) + P(X|H’)*(1-P(H))]
So now we have that:
P(H|X) = P(H)/ [P(H) + P(X|H’)*(1-P(H))]
As far as I’m concerned, this completes my result, since decreasing P(X|H’) must necessarily increase P(H|X). Note that every step here is done according to well known results of probability theory.
Intuitively speaking, this means that providing additional evidence that it is increasingly unlikely that we came about by random chance always increases the probability that God created us given that we are here.
So indeed, Dr. Ross and the scientists at RTB are perfectly justified in their use of probability to argue the case for a Creator.
The man who wrote that list you posted believes that the earth is billions of years old.
Right. When I first heard the YEC message, it did sound right to me as far as faith is concerned. I could accept it by faith. However, I remember questioning the light traveling here and the fact that it is a known fact that it is millions of light years away. The answer was that God could have made it come here quickly. OK, i could accept that too.
When we began witnessing to folks such as yourself, what really got to me was the dig-in-your-heels attitude. I had to ask myself why and why were so many Godly Christian kids turning from the faith to fornicate after entering a science program. What was it that was being taught that tore their faith to shreds? That's when I started doing a little investigation on my own and discovered that the YEC movement really didn't have any verifiable facts, just conjecture and faith. Some of their arguments left out important details.
I watched a debate with Hugh Ross and two of the YECs. Then Dr. Ross said unequivocally that we could pinpoint the origins of the universe by satellites. He said that light traveling here has the expected parameters of light that has traveled through nebulous gases etc. I was blown away. I think his best point was that God created this universe to be testable. IOW, God wants us to be able to prove Him true. A universe that appears old but is said to be no more than 10,000 years old does not match that part of God's character.
The YEC had nothing to say but just that they had faith in the Word. Well so did Dr. Ross. He brought a Hebrew linguist with him that shared how the text in Genesis has been misunderstood. They proved that the word "yom" is often meant a period of time. Plus, the 4th day was the first 24 hour day as the stars, sun and moon had already been created. It was an excellent debate and just to be fair, I want you to know that I bought it from the YECs. That's how I arrived where I am. Fact and truth are Jesus because Jesus is Truth. That little piece of knowledge though has helped me to understand the Word in greater detail.
His books are mostly about faith, and mostly about trying to convert people.
And evolution doesn't? Let us not be hypocrites, amen? :-) The evolutionists wrote the book on conversion.
Vera
"Gazundheit"
Grati. ^_^
As for the Bonobos, I'll have to look up on that. I have never heard of this. TY. ^_^
@ Clos:
"You mean other than the wrong description of creation,"
A poem. It doesn't need to be literally interpreted. This poem shows us that God created the universe, by himself without any help or having to kill a celestial beast or have sex with a goddess, and he made man kind differently and more intimately.
Thats all the creation story really says.
"a flood that never happened"
The flood account may not be literal either. I will admit, however, that I'm not qualified to make that call. I haven't checked it out yet.
I know my mentor doesn't hold it in a literal light, but that's about it.
" and origins of people that is wrong....just from the get-go? I'd say its anything but reliable."
What origins of people are found in the Bible that is wrong?
"You have a "relationship" with Jesus? I always find this funny. A relationship is two ways. You mean you uncritically believe Jesus is looking down on you, and you talk to him and constantly picture him watching you...afraid that every action is under "H"is scrutiny. Does Jesus talk to you, do you hear his voice? Otherwise, this is not a "relationship", this is paranoia."
Yes, it's a two way relationship.
Otherwise, it wouldn't very well be a relationship. I agree totally.
Yes, I belive that Jesus is with me. Yes, I talk to him. We call that Prayer.
No, I don't picture him watching me, affraid that every action is under his scrutiny. That was the Law. I'm under Grace.
I don't have to worry about the things I've done in the past. As for future actions, I choose not to do things that Jesus and God don't like because...
well, because he doesn't like it. It hurts our relationship. It makes It harder for me to hear and understand him. Kind of like how a person stops drinking because it causes problems in their marriage.
Yes, God speaks to me. That's not to say that I hear an audible voice that says "Thou shalt major in psychology and go into the ministry." It's kind of like how a picture "speaks" to you. Or like how an orchestra peics "speaks" to you. It's not an audible voice, but the picture clearly communicates a message.
"Also, "faith" as defined in English, the language we are using here means "belief without evidence"."
Like I said, a definition.
American Heritage Dictionary
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Dictionary.com
confidence or trust in a person or thing
Wordnet
complete confidence in a person or plan etc
loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law
allegiance or loyalty to a duty or a person
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
2. The assent of the mind to the statement or proposition of another, on the ground of the manifest truth of what he utters; firm and earnest belief, on probable evidence of any kind, especially in regard to important moral truth.
That one even emphasises that there could be both evidence and faith
4. That which is believed on any subject, whether in science, politics, or religion
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
1. Having faith or trust; confident; undoubting; firm.
Many english definitions for faith, all of which could be applied to my faith and none of which hinge on a lack of evidence.
"A book claiming to be divinely inspired without evidence is not "assured knowledge", you have just "assured" yourself that it is true.""
Darn skippy I assured myself that it was true instead of going through my faith blindly (like some in my family would have me do.) I'd be crazy if I didn't.
Where is any archeological findings that have disproved the Bible?
What about findings in science?
And Biblical Prophecies? Have any come true? Have any been proven wrong?
How does the method of transmition allow for mistakes?
These are all things we can look at to check the reliability of the Bible.
You're just making stuff up.
I am speculating.
If Richard Dawkins were a nobody, and on the phone you had friendly conversations that convinced you he was sympathetic to your side, and he named his film something like "Crossroads", a title that could go either way, you might not know.
OK. Let me put it to you another way. If I had written controversial things, I wouldn't trust anyone who came to interview me. I don't buy it that this man didn't consult his attorneys about the documents he signed and I don't think that Bob Stein would continue on with his movie if
Dawkins had a leg to stand on. I personally do not see the relevance in the name change but then maybe it has something to do with evolutionist's circles that I am not privy to.
Name one!
Somehow I think we had a miscommunication. I saw that later. I don't know who "Meyers" is. I was speaking of Dawkins. The Selfish Gene
"The bottom line is that we have to fear God no matter who we are. I think that people that become great have all their mistakes out there for everyone to see publicly. Then they cloister themselves. I have actually never met a Christian leader such as Ray Comfort that will sit here like this making himself very approachable."
Logical fallacy: moving goalpoast
No. I mean this as something that I have observed. I see why Jesus said the last would be first and the first would be last. The first have a tendency to think themselves above it all. They are unapproachable which is what I meant by cloistered. They have a tendency to hold everyone at arm's length who want to give them any counsel because they are the chosen or perhaps it could be from trusting someone that had ulterior motives. Martin Luther came out of the Catholic Church realizing they were off but he took with him many of their doctrines much to his undoing. I have often thought how blessed we are to have computers and the ability to do word searches in a flash. What took them months to do takes us a matter of minutes. It has taken many years of "reformation" to really come to grips with the simple message laid out in the NT. But I think we are on the verge of finding it at last.
Also, if I saw Ray on the street, I'd be scared to talk to him. I hate being yelled at more than just about anything.
Are you serious? I think Ray Comfort is so approachable just comparing his style to my husband's. He always tries to bring a sort of lightness to the situation with some of his humor.
So no matter what the evidence says, your viewpoint is the right one. Nice job!
I just say that the proof is in the pudding.
Politicians say all sorts of things like they believe in pro-life or that they have no intention of raising taxes but then where is the legislation? If you believe, then you would certainly be vigilant to do something about it, but no. So I say, that it is not truly their personal conviction no matter what non committal type evidence they give such as making a speech or some public display. I can think of many public displays that were done for propaganda's sake.
Same here. He could have burned all the books in the library but the evidence points to a man that wanted to aid "natural selection." by killing anyone not of the Aryan race. His ideology was one of a superior race and he believed that the Jews were at the bottom of the chain. The anti-Semitic church stuff just brainwashed the masses into believing they were doing a good thing by torturing these people. I don't think the man cared two straws about God. He used religion like so many others do to make unsuspecting people do things that they wouldn't otherwise do. See Hitler would have never gotten anywhere had he not had people to do the work. Most of those people would not have done what he wished had they not thought they were doing right.
Oh and for all the skeptics, Jesus predicted it happening.
They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.
So? Did he know the future? Logical fallacy: post hoc rationalization
Heavens no. My goodness, if Darwin thought his theory would have caused all the problems it caused, I think he would have written children's books. Once again we observe a leader leading people astray.
Vera
For your information, According to the first law of thermodynamics, the amount of energy in the universe remains constant -- energy cannot be created or destroyed. Are you going to ignor that law?
Which to me spells beginning.
Vera
Why is it that the people who want to suppress ID or Creationism and want to claim we follow blindly have no problem accepting a THEORY that cannot be proven? Every wonder why no "missing link" has never been found? Because it DOES NOT exist. Acknowledge the TRUTH before it is too late.
Ok, what all does "crossroads" mean to you?
X X X X X X X A place where the road crosses and changes direction to a new understanding.
I just watched the trailer for the first time.
The 11th commandment - Thou shalt not question Darwin. No wonder you are defending the faith so vehemently.
Here's a tip: if you can't show that he's lying, don't make the accusation. As of now, you're the liar, for making a false accusation against someone else.
I agree. Since papers were signed though, Reynold, it just seems highly unlikely that these people were completely in the dark.
I was speaking of Dawkins when I was talking about money and the books he's written.
Either the guy is actually stupid in reality or he's lying.
He's neither. He was just lied to.
OK. We'll see.
still looks like you're after Myers because he "has a big following", especially since you later admit that you've got no proof that he's actually lying.
I meant Dawkins.
Prove that Myers is lying.
Is he suing? Are they postponing the movie?
Are we supposed to believe that the same Darwin who said that humanity can't be divided up into different "races" would have advocated the "superiority of the so-called Aryan race"?
I don't believe the man taught this. I don't understand why you can't see how teaching leads from one conclusion to the next building on each other. If this is true, then this is true, then this is true etc etc. Science proved the theory of evolution of man wrong. Simple as that. Hence, no more Aryan race. No more X-men.
You may want to read the Talk Reason article: Creationists for Genocide by Hector Avalos for more info about the historical basis for anti-semitism.
I already know it. Why should I read more? I read enough to get by. All I have to do is read your arguments to note the most pertinent data and so far, I haven't seen anything.
The problems in Germany were twofold: anti-Semitism that was sanctioned by the church and evolution that spoke of a superior race. These were two completely different completely disconnected ideologies but they were the deceptions that people built on as truth that influenced the Holocaust. We are on the brink of this again.
Also, check out Red State Rabble article: Richard Weikart: Workin’ in a Quote Mine. They have links to other places where they've dealt with Weikart.
I picked the ones that I thought were relevant. I doubt all the quotes were taken out of context. All he was saying was that leading German biologists, not some fringe group, were followers of the theory of evolution which led to euthanasia and other things such as this. It justified many of the atrocities. It is one thing to hate people. It is a whole nother thing to stuff them in box cars with their frightened little babies with one bucket of water and no facilities, lie to them and tell them they are going to be relocated, strip them all after this horrific train ride and put them in a room to gas them or burn them. People don't do those things unless they think it is the right thing to do. They thought it was a fact that they were superior. In a totally disconnected deception, they believed that God hated the Jews. Of course, had they read the Bible, they would have known this was not true.
They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.
Vera
My point is, probability calculations can be done two ways, the wrong way and the right way.
Exactly. It is a miracle.
Vera
So you can see there is a direct line from Darwin to all antisemitism,
I don't know why you can't get it that the anti-Semitism was not born out of Darwin. What Darwin's theory of evolution did is pour gas on a flame.
Vera
Additional genetic code is added to genomes all the time. Just as one example, frame shift mutations, cause completely novel proteins to appear almost like magic.
What resulted from this frame shift? Did something new emerge? Did the host give offspring even marginally unlike itself?
Vera
Then why even bring it up? This is the moving goalpost logical fallacy again. You said that "homosex" was not natural. Ever hear of bonobos? It was been documented in over 500 species, including instects. The fact that it happens in nature means it's natural.
OK, I just have to say, Jason, that if you are arguing for and advocating homosex or fornication, you are not a Christian. See, you said you were a Christian before but often you say things that indicate to me that you are not aware of what the message is and this is one of those occasions. That is why I thought I was talking to one of the evolutionists before and was sharing the Lord with you. Then you corrected me to say you were a believer. But this is once again an indication to me that you are not. Do you sin? Do Christians fornicate or become homosexuals because it is natural?
Talk about moving the goal post. The topic, as I recall was on animal behavior and man being biologically like animals. My point was that Man without understanding is like the beasts that perish. My proof is that animals do not have a conscience or a moral compass. Animals do all sorts of things that man should not do including the lion who kills all the babies not in his pride or the black widow that kills and eats her mate. Animals act instinctually in a base sort of way. Man without understanding that sins against a Holy God is like the bonobos that perishes.
Vera
The assured knowledge that the relationship I have with Jesus is going to give me everything that God says it will in the Bible, regardless of whether or not I deserve it.
Wrong again. If you are sinning, be assured you are on a fast track to hell whether you prayed your little prayer or not. A Christian is one who repents and is set free from sin by the power of God in His Spirit.
Vera
Well, that's a non-sequitor, but that's not what I'm here to say. I am thanking God that my wife and I don't conform to that steretype. Yuck!!
Girls like pink then, flowers in their hair, ruffles, bows. How about that one? I like some action movies. Don't get me wrong. But I really like an action movie if there is a love story woven into it. Many girls of this day and time have relinquished their femininity. But it has not always been that way.
Vera
First, what difference does the reason make? Either way, for whatever reason, homosexuality is a part of nature....we are a part of nature, so homosexuality is "natural" in a certain percentage of the population.
This is a bad argument. Animals do many things that are unethical, immoral, and down right disgusting.
Man without understanding (that would be someone that sins against a Holy God) is like the beasts that perish. No question. Just because an animal does it does not make it morally or ethically right since it is "natural." Of course, you could go out tomorrow to enjoy your yummy breakfast of dirt covered earthworms and mosquitoes. Yummm....
Creation has been subjected to disorder due to sin.
For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. Romans 8:19-21.
Vera
dianne said...
Why is it that the people who want to suppress ID or Creationism and want to claim we follow blindly have no problem accepting a THEORY that cannot be proven? Every wonder why no "missing link" has never been found? Because it DOES NOT exist. Acknowledge the TRUTH before it is too late.
A scientific theory is the highest level of explanation in science. Nothing outranks a theory. Do not confuse the concept with the common usage of the word.
There is no such thing as a single "missing link". Have you actually done any real reading in the state of human ancestry from science publications and not creationist sources? I suspect no.
With that in mind, from the biblical account as I understand it, man's DNA was created separate from the animals. As I've already pointed out, some differences include our intelligence, the multitude of character qualities we contain, our ability to choose outside of instinct even when it goes against instinct such as giving up our lives to save someone else understanding that death will result, our ability to have compassion, create, communicate even to the point of understanding someone's inner need with little or no communication.
There are some evidences of DNA change in microbes, which makes perfect sense since these were the means in which this earth was made habitable and so they had to adapt constantly. However, please note that they are still microbes. When they go through this meiosis, they do not emerge as two celled animals. There is no evidence of a major DNA change and the multitude of expected failed mutations in the fossil record. Evolution is statistically improbable.
Read the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ in the TO archive. Of particular interest may be the sections on vestigial and atavistic organs. Compare what the TO people say about "vestigial organs" with what AIG's Sarfati says about them. Don't worry, TO has a link to Sarfati's article.
(Odd, considering that "evolutionists" are supposed to be "suppressing" other's views)
You may also want to read up on the Fossil Hominid section, as well as information about genetics: on Scienceblogs: Bad, bad, bad math! AiG and Information Theory and Antibiotic Resistance Not Evolution?
And evolution doesn't? Let us not be hypocrites, amen? :-) The evolutionists wrote the book on conversion.
You've got to be joking. Catholic and Protestants were killing and imprisoning people who didn't convert to Christianity way before the theory of evolution came along.
Even the TalkOrigins archive has Christians posting there, and they do not try to convert people to athiesm. (let's face it, you people constantly link evolution to athiesm, so....)
Read a little bit about John Calvin's Geneva and Cotton Mather and the history of the Christian church in Europe and early N. America for more background on who really wrote the book on conversion. (at least you seem to know enough about the Catholics)...
Stop projecting.
Why is it that the people who want to suppress ID or Creationism and want to claim we follow blindly have no problem accepting a THEORY that cannot be proven? Every wonder why no "missing link" has never been found? Because it DOES NOT exist. Acknowledge the TRUTH before it is too late.
Wrong. No one is "suppressing" ID or creationism. Do some reading on the Gonzales case and the other cases portrayed in the movie. Even on this blog, I think, some commentators have shown that no one actually got fired for their ID beliefs. If you want more reading, go to Pandas Thumb and do a search on the names of the people who claimed persecution in the movie.
You'll find out a lot of information that the "Expelled" people didn't have in the movie.
While you're there, you may want to check out the names of various ID books written by Behe, Coulter, et al. What you'll find are detailed reviews of those books that show their factual flaws.
Public examinations of ID literature is the OPPOSITE of suppression.
What they're complaining about is that their ideas aren't given uncritical, blind, acceptance into schools.
You may also be interested in the transcript of the Dover Trial.
Each side had it's chance to be examined and cross-examined. Guess who won? Guess whose side had many of it's "experts" not even bother to show up?
Guess which side had school board reps get caught lying under oath?
@Vera
"Which to me spells beginning."
Who says that beginning requires a supersmart designer? Why not just two p-branes colliding?
@Rob Penn
""You mean other than the wrong description of creation,"
A poem. It doesn't need to be literally interpreted. This poem shows us that God created the universe, by himself without any help or having to kill a celestial beast or have sex with a goddess, and he made man kind differently and more intimately.
Thats all the creation story really says.
"a flood that never happened"
The flood account may not be literal either. I will admit, however, that I'm not qualified to make that call. I haven't checked it out yet.
I know my mentor doesn't hold it in a literal light, but that's about it."
So maybe Jesus didn't literally die for our sins and didn't literally rise from the dead or be born of a virgin or turn water into wine.....how do you pick and choose? People used to think (and still unbelievably do) the creation account a historical and factual truth.
"Where is any archeological findings that have disproved the Bible?"
I would expect the writers to be able to describe the regions they lived in. How does this demonstrate water-wine, virgin births and resurrections?
"What about findings in science?"
You mean like disproving the flood, genesis creation, the fact that primates don't reproduce through parthenogenesis, that dead things remain dead and don't fly (without wings) bodily into the etheral? That kind of thing?
"And Biblical Prophecies? Have any come true? Have any been proven wrong?"
You've seen the sequels to Lord of the Rings?
"How does the method of transmition allow for mistakes?"
You mean like copying errors, alterations of text? The fact that the written accounts occurred decades after the events????
"These are all things we can look at to check the reliability of the Bible."
How do you check the whole virgin birth/resurrection mumbo jumbo?
@Vera
"It depends on your definition of "habitable." If you mean a place where something other than the life we see on this planet that say breathes freezing cold nitrous oxide, I am going to say quite a few. But as to this planet, no. Very, very few. I believe it was 1 in 10^22."
Well, the current estimate of stars is 10^21....so you are essentially telling me that this is the only planet of its kind in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars? And this is based on the paltry work you cited below where the researchers looked at a small fraction of one globular cluster????
@vera
"I think you would like it to be moot, but it is not, of course. In truth, there is absolutely zero proof of it. You speak of things as though they contain proof. But remember, you are the intelligence behind the experiments you are conducting there in the lab. Plus, there are just way too many holes here. All that you have proven so far is that life progressed, which God already informed us of in His Word long before you were a gleam in your mama's eyes. :-) With Eve, He further gave us an idea of how He created females by taking part of the male and tweaking a few DNA."
I am speaking based on an extraordinarily large body of evidence. The "intelligence" behind experiments is us trying to figure out how nature works...you are trying to interject a logical fallacy. In addition, you speak of "Eve" as if we know she exists and ate because she was tempted by a talking snake. Nuts. Also, we know that humans are new here and we came from previous species. Woman was not "formed from Adam's rib" or from a clot of blood if you are a Muslim. Apart from the creation myth (one of hundreds) in the Bible, what evidence do you have for this talking snake-garden-curse on humans story?
Vera:
I've seen videos of Ray on YouTube. He's not approachable.
"Heavens no. My goodness, if Darwin thought his theory would have caused all the problems it caused, I think he would have written children's books. Once again we observe a leader leading people astray."
Tell me again where we see a leader leading people astray? And if Darwin couldn't see the future, what does his being pleased with his theory's success in Germany have to do with anything? I thought you brought that up to make some kind of point.
"Oh and for all the skeptics, Jesus predicted it happening.
They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me."
And you can't think of any other event in history this prophecy could have corresponded to?
Also, I'm borrowing your habit of bolding the quotes. That does make things a lot easier to follow. Especially at 6am. O:-)
vera said:
OK, I just have to say, Jason, that if you are arguing for and advocating homosex or fornication, you are not a Christian.
You say.
I am not arguing for or against homosexuality here. You said that homosex was unnatural. I haved proved you wrong. But you can't extract a moral judgment either way. As has been said a billion times here, you can't make an ought from an is.
That is why I thought I was talking to one of the evolutionists before and was sharing the Lord with you. Then you corrected me to say you were a believer. But this is once again an indication to me that you are not. Do you sin?
Of course I sin. And I am what you would call an "evolutionist".
I don't see how I'm using the moving goalpost fallacy. I don't even recall setting up a standard of evidence, as you did when you said that "homosex" was not natural. Then we showed you how it is natural, and you said, basically, "So what if it's natural? Animals do lots of things we shouldn't do."
I agree, btw. But that is the moving goalpost fallacy. Sorry. If you want to argue the immorality of homosexuality, don't do it using an argument so easily debunked as "homosex is unnatural."
I am aware that many of you here would not consider me a Christian. To you I say, "I could not care less what you think." To God I say, "I need you to be real. I am giving you all that I have. There is nothing more of me than what you see here. Please make something useful out of it."
@Vera
I said, "First, what difference does the reason make? Either way, for whatever reason, homosexuality is a part of nature....we are a part of nature, so homosexuality is "natural" in a certain percentage of the population."
Vera replied, "This is a bad argument. Animals do many things that are unethical, immoral, and down right disgusting."
Again, are humans animals or not? To save the suspense, we are. We do many unethical, immoral and down right disgusting things too, if you haven't noticed.....and you claim my argument was bad?
Vera said, "Man without understanding (that would be someone that sins against a Holy God) is like the beasts that perish. No question. Just because an animal does it does not make it morally or ethically right since it is "natural." Of course, you could go out tomorrow to enjoy your yummy breakfast of dirt covered earthworms and mosquitoes. Yummm...."
Who said anything about "right" and "wrong", I only said that it was "natural".
Vera said, "Creation has been subjected to disorder due to sin."
Whatever "sin" is. Still begging the question when it comes to the whole "creation" schtick.
Vera quotes, "For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. Romans 8:19-21."
Another nauseating example of human gullibility.
Vera said
"I don't know why you can't get it that the anti-Semitism was not born out of Darwin. What Darwin's theory of evolution did is pour gas on a flame."
Actually, you need to place "Christianity" in place of "Darwin"...Christians have always labelled the Jews as "Christ killers".
Vera:
I would also like to point out that once your claim was refuted, you resorted to question my status as a Christian. This logical fallacy is known as the argument ad hominem.
@ verandoug s
What resulted from this frame shift [mutation]? Did something new emerge? Did the host give offspring even marginally unlike itself?
Yes. Yes. Yes. Since life is the manifestation of DNA - changes in DNA cause changes in life.
I've seen videos of Ray on YouTube. He's not approachable.
We've been going round and round on this topic on another message board. Thing is that video can be so deceptive. When you think about, this blog makes him approachable. I think it does. You don't see anyone else in Christian leadership doing this. Well...there are a few on the street preacher's web site.
Tell me again where we see a leader leading people astray? And if Darwin couldn't see the future, what does his being pleased with his theory's success in Germany have to do with anything? I thought you brought that up to make some kind of point.
I think anyone in the public eye that teaches is a leader. Darwin thought he knew the future results of his teaching. The point of that quote was that he at least thought that Germany was embracing him. But he couldn't see the long term effects of it. That's what I mean.
And you can't think of any other event in history this prophecy could have corresponded to?
Oh definitely. The Jews have been persecuted for years. But this prophesy certainly was fulfilled there.
My husband told me though tonight that Luther was not anti-Semitic per se but more like pointing out the Jews need for redemption. He apparently told people that hostility toward the Jews was not acceptable to God and affirmed that salvation was from the Jews. I need to research that a bit though.
Vera
You know what I find amazing, Clos, is that you are so ready to believe in extraterrestrials but not God.
:.so you are essentially telling me that this is the only planet of its kind in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars?
This is from Reasons to Believe. There are so many articles on that very subject. So it is hard to pick just a sampling of what's there.
The environmental requirements for life to exist depend quite strongly on the life form in question. The conditions for primitive life to exist, for example, are not nearly so demanding as they are for advanced life. Also, it makes a big difference how active the life form is and how long it remains in its environment. On this basis there are six distinct zones or regions in which life can exist. In order of the broadest to the narrowest they are as follows:
for unicellular, low metabolism life that persists for only a brief time period
for unicellular, low metabolism life that persists for a long time period
for unicellular, high metabolism life that persists for a brief time period
for unicellular, high metabolism life that persists for a long time period
for advanced life that survives for just a brief time period
for advanced life that survives for a long time period
Complicating factors, however, are that unicellular, low metabolism life is more easily subject to radiation damage and it has a very low molecular repair rate. The origin of life problem (see chapter five) also is much more difficult for low metabolism life. The following parameters of a planet, its planetary compan-ions, its moon, its star, and its galaxy must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for physi-cal life of any kind to exist.
I'm just going to give you a few of these.
galaxy cluster type
if too rich: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt solar orbit
if too sparse: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for a long enough time
galaxy size
if too large: infusion of gas and stars would disturb sun’s orbit and ignite too many galactic eruptions.
if too small: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for long enough time.
galaxy type
if too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy element build-up for life chemistry.
if too irregular: radiation exposure on occasion would be too severe and heavy elements for life chemistry would not be available.
galaxy mass distribution
if too much in the central bulge: life-supportable planet will be exposed to too much radiation.
if too much in the spiral arms: life-supportable planet will be destabliized by the gravity and radiation from ad-jacent spiral arms.
galaxy location
if too close to a rich galaxy cluster: galaxy would be gravitationally disrupted
if too close to very large galaxy(ies): galaxy would be gravitationally disrupted.
if too far away from dwarf galaxies: insufficient i
if smaller: greenhouse gases accumulate, triggering runaway surface temperature increase.
if larger: greenhouse gases decline, triggering a runaway freezing.
:Who says that beginning requires a supersmart designer? Why not just two p-branes colliding?
Yes, except you know those laws get you every time. :-)
Vera
what evidence do you have for this talking snake-garden-curse on humans story?
You know what I always find amusing about evolutionists is the hypocrisy in this question. On the one hand, you will argue up one side and down the other that the monkey is a fag and then on the other hand say that it is impossible that an animal could communicate with a human. Which is it? Does the animal possibly have any intelligence or not? There is no question that we are more intelligent than animals. But if we could, we would talk to a dolphin. They seem to be communicating in a language we can't understand. We communicate with our dogs. We say, "Here Spot, Dinner!" Spot comes running wagging his tail. We had a dog that knew exactly what we meant when we said we were getting into the car. The dog growls, we know he's mad. The dog slinks, we know he's done something that us, the alpha male in this case, is going to take authority over. So yes, animals and humans communicate crudely, I admit, but we do communicate. It wouldn't surprise me therefore, at all that a human and an animal before sin could talk together.
23And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
You may also be interested in the transcript of the Dover Trial.
Each side had it's chance to be examined and cross-examined. Guess who won? Guess whose side had many of it's "experts" not even bother to show up?
The ACLU is extremely shrewd in their techniques to get these types of things done. They simply find a group of people that are willing to go to trial in a district where they know the judge is sympathetic to the cause. They did it with the cross in the cemetery trial as well. It wasn't that scientists favorable to creation weren't there. That is a lie. Their evidence was completely disregarded by a clearly biased judge.
From Discovery Institute, "Even though Scott Minnich shared the experiments he ran in his University of Idaho lab in his courtroom testimony, spending days explaining his tests on the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum, Judge Jones falsely declared intelligent design untestable, and therefore not scientific. Again, Judge Jones ignored the testimony of an intelligent design researcher in favor of the demonstrably false story from attorneys working with the ACLU.
This article also mentions the bias of the media. Remarkably, I thought this quote showed the "intelligence" of this group in regards to interviews and was extremely pertinent in light of the recent Dawkins interview.
Past experience with the media teaches that intelligent design is often misrepresented, especially through the editing process. Quotes taken out of context are used to mislead the viewer, often with effective results. Because of this, Discovery Institute has a policy that all interviews be recorded for the protection of its speakers. While NOVA at first agreed to these common-sense measures, they later changed their mind and would not allow Discovery Institute scientists to be interviewed with these protections.
Duh. I wonder why? Could it be that the wouldn't be able to falsify testimony anymore? You think?
Don't you see that evolution is for the gullible to ease the conscience of the sinner? People want a license to sin. They want the guilt gone. So they attack the God that created them. There is only one solution. Repent and be set free from sin and be reconciled to Him through the blood that He shed on Calvary.
Vera
Thing is that video can be so deceptive.
Maybe it only seems like he's yelling at people.
When you think about, this blog makes him approachable.
But Ray barely responds to people's comments. And when he does, his responses don't make sense.
You don't see anyone else in Christian leadership doing this.
Do you mean people with a more national influence, like Ray, or just any preacher?
I don't know what many other national leaders are doing. I know Ken Ham doesn't allow comments on his blog. Ray is more approachable than Ken Ham. But when I think "approachable", I don't just think "easy to contact". I think "wouldn't be afraid to talk to him if I saw him on the street".
And your comment on your Darwin quote still doesn't make sense, but I think I see what you're saying. Promoting evolution is leading people astray. Darwin got support from Germany. So he was leading people astray. Am I close?
On the one hand, you will argue up one side and down the other that the monkey is a fag and then on the other hand say that it is impossible that an animal could communicate with a human.
Uh, what? Who said that it's impossible that an animal could communicate with a human? I don't think anyone anywhere is claiming such an obviously stupid thing. Logical fallacy: strawman argument.
Would anyone like to interpret Numbers 31:7-18 for me?
Sure. I would be glad to. Do you know the background of the story? Balaam was a prophet outside of Israel btw, for all you who suggest God never spoke to anyone except Israel. He was a prophet that had a great deal of power. Well the king named Balak came to him offering him money if he would just curse Israel. But each time he tried, God would not allow it. This is the guy whose donkey finally refused to submit because God was getting ready to kill him. So in the end, to get his little prize, he gave the king a little advice to destroying Israel. He said basically, "Just get your children to marry their children and you will bring them down through your false religion. That's what almost happened.
Revelations 2:14 tells us why God had to destroy them, "But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication." Did you know that part of the practices of worshipping Baal, as I've already shared with you, was to take your babies and burn them alive in sacrifice --- to the devil? It clearly states that Judah was practicing this. God says that never even crossed His mind. As Revelations states too, there was some sexual deviation going on as well.
Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
Here is what happened.
And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods. And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel. And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Baalpeor. And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.
And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.
There was a lot more to the religion of Baal worship than just bowing down to statues. But beside that God is a jealous God as He should be. He is the Creator of this universe. The Jews had to be a people that kept to His Laws to bring about the fulfillment of the Law in Jesus through the ONLY true God. He couldn't be born in a society that was as evil as that even though they were pretty bad when He was born.
Now just so you'll know that God is not prejudice. Ruth was a Moabitess. She is not only in the lineage of David but of Jesus too. She came out of that false religion to worship the Living God. She is considered one of the most righteous women to have lived.
Vera
Just think about these for a moment then..Dennis.
1) My standard of justice is that the punishment should fit the crime. (No infinite punishments for finite crimes)
How often have we heard a son say, "My father beat me, was alcoholic, and didn't care for me." But then when we investigate a little, we find that the father's father was just like him and his father before him and his father before him. Because you see, it is always the innocent that are hurt by our sins. There is no such thing as a "finite" crime. The repercussions of our sin are enormous. And our only hope when we are judged is to have the penalty WE DESERVE paid for us. We do not inherit the sin or the consequence of sin, per se although a father's consequence can surely effect his children. What we inherit is the aversion to sin but we don't have to do it.
2) The punishment must apply to the one who actually committed the crime. (No hereditary guilt...sons punished for the sins of their fathers, etc.)
God agrees with this. This is a great chapter for you in answer to all these questions. Ezekiel 18,
The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying,
What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?
As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.
Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right,
And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman,
And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment;
He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man,
Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord GOD.
If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood, and that doeth the like to any one of these things,
And that doeth not any of those duties, but even hath eaten upon the mountains, and defiled his neighbour's wife,
Hath oppressed the poor and needy, hath spoiled by violence, hath not restored the pledge, and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath committed abomination,
Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.
Now, lo, if he beget a son, that seeth all his father's sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like,
That hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, hath not defiled his neighbour's wife,
Neither hath oppressed any, hath not withholden the pledge, neither hath spoiled by violence, but hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment,
That hath taken off his hand from the poor, that hath not received usury nor increase, hath executed my judgments, hath walked in my statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live.
As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, spoiled his brother by violence, and did that which is not good among his people, lo, even he shall die in his iniquity.
Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.
Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.
Yet ye say, The way of the LORD is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?
When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.
Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.
Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the LORD is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal?
Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.
Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.
3) The punished must have actually committed a real crime. (i.e, thought crime does not count)
See, you would have us believe that people are not aware when they sin. Unfortunately, God is manifest in you and you do know. Your own conscience in that initial act tells you that you are doing evil.
Vera
@Vera
"You know what I find amazing, Clos, is that you are so ready to believe in extraterrestrials but not God."
Well, any intelligence on another planet would be a "terrestrial" from their perspective and we would be the "extraterrestrial". Listen, there is nothing extraordinary in imagining other worlds, like ours, orbiting a similar type of star among the 10^21 stars. Imagining a supreme deity who designed all of this does strain credulity....where is this being? Where did it come from? Similar life on other worlds would have evolved in a similar manner to the way did.....how did this God form? Also, how do you know this?
@Vera
I said, "what evidence do you have for this talking snake-garden-curse on humans story?"
Vera replied, "You know what I always find amusing about evolutionists is the hypocrisy in this question. On the one hand, you will argue up one side and down the other that the monkey is a fag and then on the other hand say that it is impossible that an animal could communicate with a human. Which is it? Does the animal possibly have any intelligence or not?"
So you are claiming that a snake can speak in human language? Not just a snake, but a devil/snake. Ever seen one of these?
"There is no question that we are more intelligent than animals."
We are animals.
"But if we could, we would talk to a dolphin."
Interesting quote I remembered which challenges your previous comment and addresses this one:
"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English - up to fifty words used in correct context - no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."
-Carl Sagan
"They seem to be communicating in a language we can't understand."
Yet they seem to be able to figure ours out.
"We communicate with our dogs. We say, "Here Spot, Dinner!" Spot comes running wagging his tail. We had a dog that knew exactly what we meant when we said we were getting into the car. The dog growls, we know he's mad. The dog slinks, we know he's done something that us, the alpha male in this case, is going to take authority over. So yes, animals and humans communicate crudely, I admit, but we do communicate."
A snake, Vera, a snake.
"It wouldn't surprise me therefore, at all that a human and an animal before sin could talk together."
SPPPOOOOOKKKYYYY LLLLLAAAANNNGGGGUUUUAAAAGGGGEEEEE!!
Ah, ha! Here we get the ridiculous notion of talking animals before "sin". What a bunch of nonsense. How do you continue to convince yourself of such ridiculous notions day-in and day-out? So after "sin", did God punish the animals by reorganizing their genomes so that language was not possible on our level?? Were apples also able to talk? Maybe the apple was like, "Eat me, I'm good"....but that darn "sin" messed it all up. We could be talking to toadstools right now, and pine-cones could warn us when they are about to fall. Streets were probably paved with chocolate and gumdrops and men rode on the backs of dinosaurs....
@Vera
"The ACLU is extremely shrewd in their techniques to get these types of things done. They simply find a group of people that are willing to go to trial in a district where they know the judge is sympathetic to the cause. They did it with the cross in the cemetery trial as well. It wasn't that scientists favorable to creation weren't there. That is a lie. Their evidence was completely disregarded by a clearly biased judge."
Yeah, a conservative Bush appointeee. The case was open and close from the get-go. The schoolboard admitted that they wanted to teach creation!!! The early pro-ID textbook was shown to have "creation" and "creation science" changed in 1987 editions to "designer" and "intelligent design" or "design proponent". A mistake in the "search and replace" was located....cdesign proponentist". Come on, Vera, are you capable of telling the truth?
Vera goes on, "From Discovery Institute, "Even though Scott Minnich shared the experiments he ran in his University of Idaho lab in his courtroom testimony, spending days explaining his tests on the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum, Judge Jones falsely declared intelligent design untestable, and therefore not scientific. Again, Judge Jones ignored the testimony of an intelligent design researcher in favor of the demonstrably false story from attorneys working with the ACLU."
Vera, I read Minnich's "article" about flagellar knockouts in Yersinia enterocolitica. This is not a test of "intelligent design". They are testing irreducible complexity, which claims that all the parts are required and that direct darwinian pathways could not be responsible because the structure would always have to work at each step. IC fails as a test of ID because they NEGLECT INDIRECT DARWINIAN PATHWAYS. Gene co-option and scaffolding are ignored. In addition, it was shown that many flagella in nature lack the parts that IDers claim are absolutely necessary for functionality. Nature proved them wrong. Researchers have been doing gene knockouts for decades...and no one other than creationists would be dumb enough to think that this was a test for creation. It is a test for functionality. ID is logically flawed.
"This article also mentions the bias of the media. Remarkably, I thought this quote showed the "intelligence" of this group in regards to interviews and was extremely pertinent in light of the recent Dawkins interview.
Past experience with the media teaches that intelligent design is often misrepresented, especially through the editing process. Quotes taken out of context are used to mislead the viewer, often with effective results."
I have to stop you here. I've shown several times that Casey Luskins, on the DI blog has quote-mined. Search the blog "Pandas thumb" for Casey Luskin quote-mines. They are so full of it.
"Because of this, Discovery Institute has a policy that all interviews be recorded for the protection of its speakers. While NOVA at first agreed to these common-sense measures, they later changed their mind and would not allow Discovery Institute scientists to be interviewed with these protections.
Duh. I wonder why? Could it be that the wouldn't be able to falsify testimony anymore? You think?"
You can read the transcripts.
"Don't you see that evolution is for the gullible to ease the conscience of the sinner? People want a license to sin. They want the guilt gone."
Evolution says nothing about human morality and actions!!!!! IT IS A DESCRIPTION OF NATURE!!!! What is wrong with you??
"So they attack the God that created them. There is only one solution. Repent and be set free from sin and be reconciled to Him through the blood that He shed on Calvary."
The Discovery Institute's central goal is to attack science. They want to force an inaccurate description of nature to allow a more Jesusy spin on human origins. Sorry, we need to, as they say "go where ever the evidence leads"...and it just so happens to be leading away from ID.
@Vera
"The ACLU is extremely shrewd in their techniques to get these types of things done. They simply find a group of people that are willing to go to trial in a district where they know the judge is sympathetic to the cause. They did it with the cross in the cemetery trial as well. It wasn't that scientists favorable to creation weren't there. That is a lie. Their evidence was completely disregarded by a clearly biased judge."
Yeah, a conservative Bush appointeee. The case was open and close from the get-go. The schoolboard admitted that they wanted to teach creation!!! The early pro-ID textbook was shown to have "creation" and "creation science" changed in 1987 editions to "designer" and "intelligent design" or "design proponent". A mistake in the "search and replace" was located....cdesign proponentist". Come on, Vera, are you capable of telling the truth?
Vera goes on, "From Discovery Institute, "Even though Scott Minnich shared the experiments he ran in his University of Idaho lab in his courtroom testimony, spending days explaining his tests on the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum, Judge Jones falsely declared intelligent design untestable, and therefore not scientific. Again, Judge Jones ignored the testimony of an intelligent design researcher in favor of the demonstrably false story from attorneys working with the ACLU."
Vera, I read Minnich's "article" about flagellar knockouts in Yersinia enterocolitica. This is not a test of "intelligent design". They are testing irreducible complexity, which claims that all the parts are required and that direct darwinian pathways could not be responsible because the structure would always have to work at each step. IC fails as a test of ID because they NEGLECT INDIRECT DARWINIAN PATHWAYS. Gene co-option and scaffolding are ignored. In addition, it was shown that many flagella in nature lack the parts that IDers claim are absolutely necessary for functionality. Nature proved them wrong. Researchers have been doing gene knockouts for decades...and no one other than creationists would be dumb enough to think that this was a test for creation. It is a test for functionality. ID is logically flawed.
"This article also mentions the bias of the media. Remarkably, I thought this quote showed the "intelligence" of this group in regards to interviews and was extremely pertinent in light of the recent Dawkins interview.
Past experience with the media teaches that intelligent design is often misrepresented, especially through the editing process. Quotes taken out of context are used to mislead the viewer, often with effective results."
I have to stop you here. I've shown several times that Casey Luskins, on the DI blog has quote-mined. Search the blog "Pandas thumb" for Casey Luskin quote-mines. They are so full of it.
"Because of this, Discovery Institute has a policy that all interviews be recorded for the protection of its speakers. While NOVA at first agreed to these common-sense measures, they later changed their mind and would not allow Discovery Institute scientists to be interviewed with these protections.
Duh. I wonder why? Could it be that the wouldn't be able to falsify testimony anymore? You think?"
You can read the transcripts.
"Don't you see that evolution is for the gullible to ease the conscience of the sinner? People want a license to sin. They want the guilt gone."
Evolution says nothing about human morality and actions!!!!! IT IS A DESCRIPTION OF NATURE!!!! What is wrong with you??
"So they attack the God that created them. There is only one solution. Repent and be set free from sin and be reconciled to Him through the blood that He shed on Calvary."
The Discovery Institute's central goal is to attack science. They want to force an inaccurate description of nature to allow a more Jesusy spin on human origins. Sorry, we need to, as they say "go where ever the evidence leads"...and it just so happens to be leading away from ID.
You say.
I am not arguing for or against homosexuality here. You said that homosex was unnatural. I haved proved you wrong. But you can't extract a moral judgment either way. As has been said a billion times here, you can't make an ought from an is.
Jason, a Christian does not have a middle-of-the-road stand on sex outside of marriage. You can't. The NT church was to judge such people and politely ask them to leave. They were instructed not to eat with them. They were turned over to satan. See 1 Cor. 5.
1 Cor 6:9-11 says, "(NKJV)Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified (purified), but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
Of course I sin. And I am what you would call an "evolutionist".
Do you sinning because you are an evolutionist or are you homosexual? or fornicating? Class A deception of our day - Christians sin every day and at the end of the day are forgiven. Wrong.
I don't see how I'm using the moving goalpost fallacy. I don't even recall setting up a standard of evidence, as you did when you said that "homosex" was not natural. Then we showed you how it is natural, and you said, basically, "So what if it's natural? Animals do lots of things we shouldn't do."
I don't recall saying that. But to clarify, I don't believe animals have an aversion for their own gender boys acting like girls and girls like boys and strictly keeping to that avoiding all contact with the opposite gender. I further do not see this as "natural" in the sense that it is God revealing Himself to us. You can't use nature as an example of God's holy attributes when it is so out of whack because of sin as I showed you. The animals have no conscience nor the law written on their hearts. Further, we know from other examples in Scripture that demons can possess animals. They apparently like to have a corporal body to inhabit.
I agree, btw. But that is the moving goalpost fallacy. Sorry. If you want to argue the immorality of homosexuality, don't do it using an argument so easily debunked as "homosex is unnatural."
That is God that said that, Jason. It is unnatural for a man to put his body parts in an area not designed for that purpose. Get it? No animal does that.
I am aware that many of you here would not consider me a Christian. To you I say, "I could not care less what you think." To God I say, "I need you to be real. I am giving you all that I have. There is nothing more of me than what you see here. Please make something useful out of it."
You are not giving all you have if you are holding onto sin. God is angrier about sin now than He was in the OT times before Jesus because He is giving you everything available to overcome sin in your life. You cannot believe in evolution that suggests that God does not exist and believe in a Creator at the same time. It just doesn't work. There is only enough room for one of those to be correct. I know God. He is holy. He will not allow sin into heaven. If you are not set free from sin, you will not inherit the kingdom. You must come back to God through repentance by asking the Holy Spirit into your life and to reveal to you the ways in which you've offended a Holy God and then let that old man of sin go down in baptism and come up a new creature in Christ and begin living the life you were meant to live. God is calling you Jason. Heed that call!!
Vera
:I would also like to point out that once your claim was refuted, you resorted to question my status as a Christian. This logical fallacy is known as the argument ad hominem.
I realize it would seem that way but my heart is for your eternal soul and I could care less about the discussion with the exception of the deceptive message that is leading you into sin. You are the very type of person that is our greatest burden and the reason we lay down our lives to spend hours and hours of time sharing because you are under the false assumption that God is a loving God who lets sinners into heaven and that he sees Jesus blood when we sin so that we can keep on sinning and get to heaven and say, "I'm under the blood." And Jesus is going to say to you on that day, "Depart from me ye worker of iniquity. I never knew you." It is you that I care about. I could care less if you want to declare victory in the debate as long as you repent. Let's put the debate part of this to the side for a moment because there is something greater here at stake - your eternal soul.
Vera
Again, are humans animals or not?
No, of course not. Our physiology is different enough that we are not able to take the same drugs and survive. We do not contract feline leukemia.
Only those who are without understanding are as the beasts that perish living strictly by their flesh. I am led by the Spirit of God.
Who said anything about "right" and "wrong", I only said that it was "natural".
The implication however is that natural is always right. It isn't. With those of us created in the image of God that believe in faith in Jesus' death on the cross, we know we are naked when we are naked and we live by a moral code written in our hearts by the power of God's Spirit thanks to the blood of Jesus. But if you are like an animal, Clos, I can understand. I'm not. :-)
Whatever "sin" is. Still begging the question when it comes to the whole "creation" schtick.
Everyone has a place where they draw the line. Where is yours? Pedophilia. Do animals practice that too? Sure they do and euthanasia and lots of other heinous acts that are "natural" for them. Being natural does not mean right. I will say again that no animal prefers its own gender over and above the opposite gender.
Another nauseating example of human gullibility.
Quick, get the barf bag!.... :-)
Seriously, who is gullible? The one who stakes his life on Darwin who was questioning his own theory there at the end, stands alone, has effected society in such a negative way or the one who stakes his life on the Lord Jesus who didn't waver once, lived morally all His life, never obtained wealth, never wrote a book and yet has effected the lives of so many for good? Sounds to me like you are the gullible one.
Blessings!
Vera
Actually, you need to place "Christianity" in place of "Darwin"...Christians have always labelled the Jews as "Christ killers".
Well I will tell you a little secret. I rarely if ever tell people that I am Jewish for the very reason that you are immediately put on a pedestal in Christian circles. To be a Christian Jew in evangelical Christian circles immediately gets a person a huge amount of attention and honor. I don't particularly enjoy that because at times I see some Jews mentioning the fact that they are Jewish because of the honor so I don't usually tell people unless that information is pertinent to a conversation. You are wrong though. The church exalts any believing Jew today.
We who believe know who we are and what our forefathers did.
Vera
What resulted from this frame shift [mutation]? Did something new emerge? Did the host give offspring even marginally unlike itself?
Yes. Yes. Yes. Since life is the manifestation of DNA - changes in DNA cause changes in life.
No, Carl. It is not even a two celled animal. It is the same bacteria with adaptation. Ingenious if you ask me.
Vera
Yeah, a conservative Bush appointeee.
Huff puff. And that is supposed to say what? Bush divided Israel. He said he was pro life but did he do anything to overturn abortion? Hellooooo
The schoolboard admitted that they wanted to teach creation!!! The early pro-ID textbook was shown to have "creation" and "creation science" changed in 1987 editions to "designer" and "intelligent design" or "design proponent". A mistake in the "search and replace" was located....cdesign proponentist". Come on, Vera, are you capable of telling the truth?
Yes, but the ACLU does not like creation nor telling the truth.
Vera, I read Minnich's "article" about flagellar knockouts in Yersinia enterocolitica. This is not a test of "intelligent design". They are testing irreducible complexity, which claims that all the parts are required and that direct darwinian pathways could not be responsible because the structure would always have to work at each step. IC fails as a test of ID because they NEGLECT INDIRECT DARWINIAN PATHWAYS. Gene co-option and scaffolding are ignored. In addition, it was shown that many flagella in nature lack the parts that IDers claim are absolutely necessary for functionality. Nature proved them wrong. Researchers have been doing gene knockouts for decades...and no one other than creationists would be dumb enough to think that this was a test for creation. It is a test for functionality. ID is logically flawed.
So let me see if I got this straight. Munnich basically said that when you did this knockout gene with the flagella, it rendered it useless. You are saying that something other than that like a virus came into the bacteria, rearranged its DNA to create a higher order of life in an "indirect" way.
So then why hasn't this caused us to grow a new intestine?
The large intestine contains many varieties of bacteria in very high numbers. In fact the large intestine can be considered as a specialized fermentation vessel. Bacteria found here include: Enterobacteria, Streptococcus faecalis, Bacteroides, Bifidobacterium, Eubacterium, Peptococcus, Peptostreptococcus, Ruminococcus, Clostridia and Lactobacilli. The environment of the large intestine is quite anaerobic and therefore favours obligate anaerobes.
Why hasn't man even changed slightly for the last 6000 years to grow a new eyeball even slightly like a tiny speck in our hands or something? You would think with all this paraphernalia floating around inside us, something would have evolved.
I have to stop you here. I've shown several times that Casey Luskins, on the DI blog has quote-mined. Search the blog "Pandas thumb" for Casey Luskin quote-mines. They are so full of it.
When someone makes a statement, if you don't read or listen to that statement in the context of what is said, then I agree with you more than you will know, that you have completely misrepresented and misunderstood the person's insights and opinions. I try to say clearly when I am giving opinion and I try to share quotes that I am fairly sure show the person's heart in the matter to which I am speaking of. But of course, that isn't always easy to do. For example, I shared a quote from Darwin on how excited he was that Germany had taken to his theory. However, I know this statement was not made in the heart of the Holocaust and that had Darwin thought that his theory was a catalyst for this, he would have stood against it. The point of the quote was to show that his theory had taken root there and nothing more.
Both sides of any argument have a tendency to do this. I am not advocating it at all. I believe that all of the contradictions of the Bible would dissolve in a heartbeat if Christians and non-Christians would stop quote-mining Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit and the exhorting letters of the epistles that were meant to be read as a letter, not as individual lines.
You can read the transcripts.
The transcripts only show the parts that were shown publicly.
Evolution says nothing about human morality and actions!!!!! IT IS A DESCRIPTION OF NATURE!!!! What is wrong with you??
I wish for once you would admit the obvious truth that it also says, "The Bible isn't true. There is no Creator. Morality is therefore whatever you choose it to be. If you wish to be homosexual, go right ahead because you were nothing more than a flagella once that transformed into a complex human being by random chance. In nature, there is homosex so homosex is therefore natural and the Bible is not true when it says it is unnatural. Since there is no God, there is no repercussion to your actions here unless you hurt another flagella. There is no heaven or hell because little flagella just go back to being dust after they die and its lights out."
Did I miss anything? It is a license to sin and nothing more. It is spurred on by the devil that wants you in hell's fire because you are created in God's image and he hates you. So claiming to be wise, you become a fool.
Sorry, we need to, as they say "go where ever the evidence leads"...and it just so happens to be leading away from ID.
It would be ludicrous to suggest that the Discovery Institute did not support ID. And it would be ludicrous to suggest that evolutionists/atheists are not biased. talkorigins.org is not out there promoting ID nor would I expect to find anything friendly there toward ID and all their "proof" would try to tear down ID. Reasons to Believe is also seeking truth and has torn down more than a few of the arguments presented by the evolutionists. And they too have an agenda to see souls saved. Evolution promotes homosex, lesbianism, feminism, abortion, and fornication. ID supports a holy God that hates sin, died for the necessary punishment for sin, rose from the dead, to give you eternal life.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made. He lights every man that comes into the world. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory. The glory as of the only begotten full of grace and truth.
Vera
No, Carl. It is not even a two celled animal. It is the same bacteria with adaptation. Ingenious if you ask me.
Oh, I love this game. A human is therefor just a primate with adaptions. Human ancestry is just microevolution and therefor fully compatible with Creation Science.
And there lies the problem of loose definitions and denial mechanisms within Creation Science.
So you are claiming that a snake can speak in human language? Not just a snake, but a devil/snake. Ever seen one of these?
Hmmmm. I wasn't actually there but I am going to say no. I am going to say that she understood his way of communicating.
We are animals.
I don't think so. There are similarities. But there are also a host of differences starting with clothing. Anyway, you can be an animal if you want. I am created in the image of God.
"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English - up to fifty words used in correct context - no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."
I can't find any information on this.
Man has not been able to talk to a dolphin, he has managed to train the dolphin.
Yet they seem to be able to figure ours out.
I don't think so. I mean I know that an animal can understand some communication though. But, for example, a dolphin could not be taught to read and write at this point.
What a bunch of nonsense. How do you continue to convince yourself of such ridiculous notions day-in and day-out?
Were you or were you not just arguing that the dolphin is intelligent? So which is it? Do they communicate or not? When Fido wants his dinners, doesn't he wag his tail and nudge you with his nose? Don't you understand exactly what he's saying without a word being spoken? Why is it so remarkable to suggest that at one time a person could communicate or understand the language of a snake?
So after "sin", did God punish the animals by reorganizing their genomes so that language was not possible on our level??
Actually it was after the flood that God put a natural fear of man in animals. If He did anything to separate us, it was that. It was given for a very good reason. No animal should trust a man. The separation was for their protection because of sin. There is record of one animal talking after this. It was Balaam's donkey speaking under duress. But it took a great deal before the animal spoke in a way that Balaam could understand. He tried to crush his foot first.
And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Genesis 9:2
Vera
Also, how do you know this?
I do not know it with my natural man, but with my spiritual man and there I know it for a fact. Paul said it better than me,
"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
See, you can't know God in the natural. You have to know Him in the spiritual not forsaking reality by any means but knowing Him by faith in your spirit man. That's how I know Him. My spirit is new and different. I am free from sin.
Vera
Post a Comment