Science Proves the Bible Again

[GreenAndBlue]

The story with the Bible has always been about finding contradictions from the low brow internet atheists. After all, the contradictions came to evolution right away and was shown to be false as Dawin was wrong and it lead to social Darwinism, Eugenics, Hitler, the Holocaust and Planned Parenthood. Satan had his own book and could not have done it better. However, people continue to fall for it as natural selection is used for microevolution and falsity becomes the truth. Part is true, so the rest is true. That's a fallacy in itself. Anyway, the Bible has not been contradicted. It is infallible as God's word is infallible. Thus, how can the non-believers be anything else but wrong? Atheist science is a lie and wrong, wrong, wrong. In a way, it is prophecized that there will be global warming when the entire Earth is destroyed by fire and the lamb shall come again. The irony.

"The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together;
and a little child shall lead them." Isaiah 11:6

"And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”
And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth." Revelation 5:5-6

Revelation 5 continues with John the Apostle noticing there is a scroll in the right hand of the man on the throne. The scroll has writing on the inside and is sealed with seven seals. Only one lamb is worthy to receive the scroll and break the seals.

The scroll could be our universe as its seven seals are broken and the lamb comes again to take away the sins of the world through fire this time.

And like with the flood, there will be survivors and the rest, the spiritually dead, will perish in the fire.

You apparently took a great deal of time gathering as many clichés as you could find at your ID’iot / creation ministries. You rattle on about contradictions in biological evolution and how it is false yet, as usual, you are unable to offer a single relevant example.

Evolution is a theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). ID’iot / creationism asserts a supernatural cause for existence Evolution is a theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). ID asserts a supernatural cause at the git-go, and doesn't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of its own assertions:

A. If there is required an intelligent designer because existence displays a complex design, then doesn't the intelligent designer also require an intelligent designer to have designer it as well? (Translation: If your premise is: "X" needs a Designer because it's complicated, then the Designer needs a designer because it's even MORE complicated than "X", in order to have designed it in the first place.)

B. What are the characteristics of this "Designer"? Assume the "Designer" assertion is true -- why does this "Designer" become important at all? It may be long dead. It may have no vested interest. Is it at all demonstrable?

The fundie xtian attempt to conflate evolution and eugenics is classic dishonesty and misrepresentation spewed by the Christian fundie ministries. It’s all so stereotypically corrupt which defines the angry, self-hating fundies.


CA002.1: Social Darwinism.

Claim CA002.1:

Darwinism leads to social Darwinism, the policy that the weak should be allowed to fail and die.

Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 179.

Response:

1. This is an example of the naturalistic fallacy -- the argument that how things are implies how they ought to be. But "is" does not imply "ought." Evolution only tells how things are; it does not say how they should be.
2. The source of social Darwinism was not Darwin but Herbert Spencer and the tradition of Protestant nonconformism going back to Hobbes via Malthus. Spencer's ideas of evolution were Lamarckian. The only real connection between Darwinism and social Darwinism is the name.
3. Diverse political and religious ideas draw upon evolutionary biology, including ideas advocating greater cooperation.
4. Evolutionary theory shows us that the long-term survival of a species is strongly linked with its genetic variability. All Social Darwinist programs advocate minimizing genetic variability, thus reducing chances of long-term survival in the event of environmental change. An understanding of evolution should then rebuke any attempt at social Darwinism if the long-term survival of humanity is treated as a goal.
5. Eugenics and social Darwinian accounts are more often tied to the rise of the science of genetics than to evolutionary theory.

Links:

Wilkins, John, 1997. Evolution and philosophy: Does evolution make might right? Evolution and Philosophy: Social Darwinism

I didn't get it from Henry Morris. This is one of the conclusions I got from reading Darwin and learning about what happened afterward. This is no harmless fallacy nor a contradiction. This is what Darwin basically was saying in his second book. You do not get it from secular science as they cover up their lies. They were part of the racism. The only thing they had evidence for was microevolution and they took it to macroevolution and applied it to humans. Darwin was not able to figure out how to get the long-time. He also did not find the transitional fossils, so thought his work was wrong. Thus, he focused on the survival of the fittest which he got from Herbert Spencer and promptly put it in his book. This is how evolution produced favored races which is what Spencer taught. Prior to this, there was a history of racist thinking in science from Darwin's peers and his father's friends. Men were superior to women and certain races were more evolved than others. The racism is evident in his second book The Descent of Man. He decided to focus on humans because he could not demonstrate how animals changed from one creature to another. It still does not happen today. We do not find transitional fossils, but instead find living fossils. Thus, how could there have been a transition mutation?

However, focusing on humans was enough for another scientific best seller. The rest they say is history. "Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin’s theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies. Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler’s government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. As a result, a central policy of Hitler’s administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect the ‘superior race’. This required at the very least preventing the ‘inferior races’ from mixing with those judged superior, in order to reduce contamination of the latter’s gene pool. The ‘superior race’ belief was based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwin’s original ‘survival of the fittest’ theory. This philosophy culminated in the ‘final solution’, the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged as ‘inferior races’." It's no wonder that a science book became such a popular best seller. Why were the Jews picked out by Hitler? Can you tell me that? He had others that he wanted to get rid of, too. This is your science history, so you should be able to explain. Hitler wasn't the only racist politician during the time. There were others, so it influenced the world. The ones who tried to save the Jews such as Oscar Schindler and Corrie ten Boom and her family were few in number. Why did other countries remain isolationist and appeased Germany? Did they believe only the strong survive and this was how the weak were weeded out?

It's the ToE. "The theory of evolution is based on individuals acquiring unique traits that enable those possessing the new traits to better survive adverse conditions compared to those who don’t possess them. Superior individuals will be more likely to survive and pass on these traits to their offspring so such traits will increase in number, while the ‘weaker’ individuals will eventually die off. If every member of a species were fully equal, natural selection would have nothing to select from, and evolution would cease for that species."

- Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust -

Of course you stole your long cut and paste from Henry Morris. Your link above is to AIG which is a stereotypical clearinghouse for Henry Morris groupies / xtian zealots.

It’s not surprising then that the entirety of your cutting and pasting consists of 1990’s vintage clichés and nonsensical Christian fundamentalist tripe from AIG and creation.com.

The Christian fundamentalist claim linking Hitler to “Darwinism” is actually pretty ironic as Hitler and Christianity had close ties.

Claim CA006.1:
Adolf Hitler exploited the racist ideas of Darwinism to justify genocide.

Source:
Weston-Broome, Sharon. 2001. Louisiana House Concurrent Resolution no. 74: CIVIL RIGHTS: Provides relative to racism and education about racism. HLS 01-2652 ORIGINAL.

Response:

1. Hitler based his ideas not on Darwinism but on a "divine right" philosophy:Thus, it [the folkish philosophy] by no means believes in an equality of races, but along with their difference it recognizes their higher or lesser value and feels itself obligated, through this knowledge, to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker in accordance with the eternal will that dominates this universe. (Hitler 1943, 383)The first edition of Mein Kampf suggests that Hitler may once have believed in a young earth: "this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men" (p. 65; the second edition substitutes "millions" for "thousands," and chapter 11 refers to "hundreds of thousands of years" of life in another context.)
2. Other passages further support his creationist leanings:The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise. (Hitler 1943, 383)andWhat we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, . . . so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. (Hitler 1943, 214)Quotes from Hitler invoking Christianity as a basis for his actions could be multiplied ad nauseam. For example:Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord (Hitler 1943, 65)."[T]he task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission (Hitler 1943, 398).A campaign against the "godless movement" and an appeal for Catholic support were launched Wednesday by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces (Associated Press 1933).Of course, this does not mean that Hitler's ideas were based on creationism any more than they were based on evolution. Hitler's ideas were a perversion of both religion and biology.
   
   
3. The Nazi Party in general rejected Darwinism and supported Christianity. In 1935, Die Bücherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published a list of guidelines of works to reject, including: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)On the other hand, 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.)
4. Genocide and racism existed long before Darwin. Obviously, they did not need any contribution from Darwinism. In many instances, such as the Crusades and the Spanish conquest of Central America, religion was explicitly invoked to justify them.
   
   
5. Evolution does not promote social Darwinism or racism or eugenics.

References:

1. "Blacklist for Public Libraries and Commercial Lending Libraries." Quoted from University of Arizona Library, "Lists of Banned Books, 1932-1939", transl. Roland Richter, When Books Burn: Lists of Banned Books, 1933-1939
2. Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935). Quoted from University of Arizona Library, "Lists of Banned Books, 1932-1939", transl. Roland Richter,When Books Burn: Lists of Banned Books, 1933-1939
3. Hitler, A. 1943. Mein Kampf. Transl. R. Manheim. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Mein Kampf, Introduction or http://www.crusader.net/texts/mk/
4. Associated Press. 1933. Hitler aims blow at 'Godless' move, Lansing State Journal (Michigan), Feb. 23, 1933. Reprinted atHitler's Religion

Evolution theory is a fraud


This one fact proves this


Not a single life form out of trillions has mutated its genes to stop the dominance and pressure of humans on them

Therefore no evolution especially when applied to a human being

History proves humans are on a journey to become gods of the universe !!

 

[GreenAndBlue]

The story with the Bible has always been about finding contradictions from the low brow internet atheists. After all, the contradictions came to evolution right away and was shown to be false as Dawin was wrong and it lead to social Darwinism, Eugenics, Hitler, the Holocaust and Planned Parenthood. Satan had his own book and could not have done it better. However, people continue to fall for it as natural selection is used for microevolution and falsity becomes the truth. Part is true, so the rest is true. That's a fallacy in itself. Anyway, the Bible has not been contradicted. It is infallible as God's word is infallible. Thus, how can the non-believers be anything else but wrong? Atheist science is a lie and wrong, wrong, wrong. In a way, it is prophecized that there will be global warming when the entire Earth is destroyed by fire and the lamb shall come again. The irony.

"The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together;
and a little child shall lead them." Isaiah 11:6

"And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”
And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth." Revelation 5:5-6

Revelation 5 continues with John the Apostle noticing there is a scroll in the right hand of the man on the throne. The scroll has writing on the inside and is sealed with seven seals. Only one lamb is worthy to receive the scroll and break the seals.

The scroll could be our universe as its seven seals are broken and the lamb comes again to take away the sins of the world through fire this time.

And like with the flood, there will be survivors and the rest, the spiritually dead, will perish in the fire.

Ummm???


The fire maybe a few nukes hitting North America and the grid is lost and back to the dark ages

 

[Hollie]

The story with the Bible has always been about finding contradictions from the low brow internet atheists. After all, the contradictions came to evolution right away and was shown to be false as Dawin was wrong and it lead to social Darwinism, Eugenics, Hitler, the Holocaust and Planned Parenthood. Satan had his own book and could not have done it better. However, people continue to fall for it as natural selection is used for microevolution and falsity becomes the truth. Part is true, so the rest is true. That's a fallacy in itself. Anyway, the Bible has not been contradicted. It is infallible as God's word is infallible. Thus, how can the non-believers be anything else but wrong? Atheist science is a lie and wrong, wrong, wrong. In a way, it is prophecized that there will be global warming when the entire Earth is destroyed by fire and the lamb shall come again. The irony.

"The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together;
and a little child shall lead them." Isaiah 11:6

"And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”
And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth." Revelation 5:5-6

Revelation 5 continues with John the Apostle noticing there is a scroll in the right hand of the man on the throne. The scroll has writing on the inside and is sealed with seven seals. Only one lamb is worthy to receive the scroll and break the seals.

The scroll could be our universe as its seven seals are broken and the lamb comes again to take away the sins of the world through fire this time.

And like with the flood, there will be survivors and the rest, the spiritually dead, will perish in the fire.

You apparently took a great deal of time gathering as many clichés as you could find at your ID’iot / creation ministries. You rattle on about contradictions in biological evolution and how it is false yet, as usual, you are unable to offer a single relevant example.

Evolution is a theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). ID’iot / creationism asserts a supernatural cause for existence Evolution is a theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). ID asserts a supernatural cause at the git-go, and doesn't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of its own assertions:

A. If there is required an intelligent designer because existence displays a complex design, then doesn't the intelligent designer also require an intelligent designer to have designer it as well? (Translation: If your premise is: "X" needs a Designer because it's complicated, then the Designer needs a designer because it's even MORE complicated than "X", in order to have designed it in the first place.)

B. What are the characteristics of this "Designer"? Assume the "Designer" assertion is true -- why does this "Designer" become important at all? It may be long dead. It may have no vested interest. Is it at all demonstrable?

The fundie xtian attempt to conflate evolution and eugenics is classic dishonesty and misrepresentation spewed by the Christian fundie ministries. It’s all so stereotypically corrupt which defines the angry, self-hating fundies.


CA002.1: Social Darwinism.

Claim CA002.1:

Darwinism leads to social Darwinism, the policy that the weak should be allowed to fail and die.

Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 179.

Response:

1. This is an example of the naturalistic fallacy -- the argument that how things are implies how they ought to be. But "is" does not imply "ought." Evolution only tells how things are; it does not say how they should be.
2. The source of social Darwinism was not Darwin but Herbert Spencer and the tradition of Protestant nonconformism going back to Hobbes via Malthus. Spencer's ideas of evolution were Lamarckian. The only real connection between Darwinism and social Darwinism is the name.
3. Diverse political and religious ideas draw upon evolutionary biology, including ideas advocating greater cooperation.
4. Evolutionary theory shows us that the long-term survival of a species is strongly linked with its genetic variability. All Social Darwinist programs advocate minimizing genetic variability, thus reducing chances of long-term survival in the event of environmental change. An understanding of evolution should then rebuke any attempt at social Darwinism if the long-term survival of humanity is treated as a goal.
5. Eugenics and social Darwinian accounts are more often tied to the rise of the science of genetics than to evolutionary theory.

Links:

Wilkins, John, 1997. Evolution and philosophy: Does evolution make might right? Evolution and Philosophy: Social Darwinism

I didn't get it from Henry Morris. This is one of the conclusions I got from reading Darwin and learning about what happened afterward. This is no harmless fallacy nor a contradiction. This is what Darwin basically was saying in his second book. You do not get it from secular science as they cover up their lies. They were part of the racism. The only thing they had evidence for was microevolution and they took it to macroevolution and applied it to humans. Darwin was not able to figure out how to get the long-time. He also did not find the transitional fossils, so thought his work was wrong. Thus, he focused on the survival of the fittest which he got from Herbert Spencer and promptly put it in his book. This is how evolution produced favored races which is what Spencer taught. Prior to this, there was a history of racist thinking in science from Darwin's peers and his father's friends. Men were superior to women and certain races were more evolved than others. The racism is evident in his second book The Descent of Man. He decided to focus on humans because he could not demonstrate how animals changed from one creature to another. It still does not happen today. We do not find transitional fossils, but instead find living fossils. Thus, how could there have been a transition mutation?

However, focusing on humans was enough for another scientific best seller. The rest they say is history. "Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin’s theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies. Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler’s government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. As a result, a central policy of Hitler’s administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect the ‘superior race’. This required at the very least preventing the ‘inferior races’ from mixing with those judged superior, in order to reduce contamination of the latter’s gene pool. The ‘superior race’ belief was based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwin’s original ‘survival of the fittest’ theory. This philosophy culminated in the ‘final solution’, the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged as ‘inferior races’." It's no wonder that a science book became such a popular best seller. Why were the Jews picked out by Hitler? Can you tell me that? He had others that he wanted to get rid of, too. This is your science history, so you should be able to explain. Hitler wasn't the only racist politician during the time. There were others, so it influenced the world. The ones who tried to save the Jews such as Oscar Schindler and Corrie ten Boom and her family were few in number. Why did other countries remain isolationist and appeased Germany? Did they believe only the strong survive and this was how the weak were weeded out?

It's the ToE. "The theory of evolution is based on individuals acquiring unique traits that enable those possessing the new traits to better survive adverse conditions compared to those who don’t possess them. Superior individuals will be more likely to survive and pass on these traits to their offspring so such traits will increase in number, while the ‘weaker’ individuals will eventually die off. If every member of a species were fully equal, natural selection would have nothing to select from, and evolution would cease for that species."

- Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust -

Of course you stole your long cut and paste from Henry Morris. Your link above is to AIG which is a stereotypical clearinghouse for Henry Morris groupies / xtian zealots.

It’s not surprising then that the entirety of your cutting and pasting consists of 1990’s vintage clichés and nonsensical Christian fundamentalist tripe from AIG and creation.com.

The Christian fundamentalist claim linking Hitler to “Darwinism” is actually pretty ironic as Hitler and Christianity had close ties.

Claim CA006.1:
Adolf Hitler exploited the racist ideas of Darwinism to justify genocide.

Source:
Weston-Broome, Sharon. 2001. Louisiana House Concurrent Resolution no. 74: CIVIL RIGHTS: Provides relative to racism and education about racism. HLS 01-2652 ORIGINAL.

Response:

1. Hitler based his ideas not on Darwinism but on a "divine right" philosophy:Thus, it [the folkish philosophy] by no means believes in an equality of races, but along with their difference it recognizes their higher or lesser value and feels itself obligated, through this knowledge, to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker in accordance with the eternal will that dominates this universe. (Hitler 1943, 383)The first edition of Mein Kampf suggests that Hitler may once have believed in a young earth: "this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men" (p. 65; the second edition substitutes "millions" for "thousands," and chapter 11 refers to "hundreds of thousands of years" of life in another context.)
2. Other passages further support his creationist leanings:The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise. (Hitler 1943, 383)andWhat we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, . . . so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. (Hitler 1943, 214)Quotes from Hitler invoking Christianity as a basis for his actions could be multiplied ad nauseam. For example:Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord (Hitler 1943, 65)."[T]he task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission (Hitler 1943, 398).A campaign against the "godless movement" and an appeal for Catholic support were launched Wednesday by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces (Associated Press 1933).Of course, this does not mean that Hitler's ideas were based on creationism any more than they were based on evolution. Hitler's ideas were a perversion of both religion and biology.
   
   
3. The Nazi Party in general rejected Darwinism and supported Christianity. In 1935, Die Bücherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published a list of guidelines of works to reject, including: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)On the other hand, 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.)
4. Genocide and racism existed long before Darwin. Obviously, they did not need any contribution from Darwinism. In many instances, such as the Crusades and the Spanish conquest of Central America, religion was explicitly invoked to justify them.
   
   
5. Evolution does not promote social Darwinism or racism or eugenics.

References:

1. "Blacklist for Public Libraries and Commercial Lending Libraries." Quoted from University of Arizona Library, "Lists of Banned Books, 1932-1939", transl. Roland Richter, When Books Burn: Lists of Banned Books, 1933-1939
2. Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935). Quoted from University of Arizona Library, "Lists of Banned Books, 1932-1939", transl. Roland Richter,When Books Burn: Lists of Banned Books, 1933-1939
3. Hitler, A. 1943. Mein Kampf. Transl. R. Manheim. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Mein Kampf, Introduction or http://www.crusader.net/texts/mk/
4. Associated Press. 1933. Hitler aims blow at 'Godless' move, Lansing State Journal (Michigan), Feb. 23, 1933. Reprinted atHitler's Religion

Evolution theory is a fraud


This one fact proves this


Not a single life form out of trillions has mutated its genes to stop the dominance and pressure of humans on them

Therefore no evolution especially when applied to a human being

History proves humans are on a journey to become gods of the universe !!

Well, thanks. And here I was thinking a dead Henry Morris was a positive step for humanity.

 

[LittleNipper]

The story with the Bible has always been about finding contradictions from the low brow internet atheists. After all, the contradictions came to evolution right away and was shown to be false as Dawin was wrong and it lead to social Darwinism, Eugenics, Hitler, the Holocaust and Planned Parenthood. Satan had his own book and could not have done it better. However, people continue to fall for it as natural selection is used for microevolution and falsity becomes the truth. Part is true, so the rest is true. That's a fallacy in itself. Anyway, the Bible has not been contradicted. It is infallible as God's word is infallible. Thus, how can the non-believers be anything else but wrong? Atheist science is a lie and wrong, wrong, wrong. In a way, it is prophecized that there will be global warming when the entire Earth is destroyed by fire and the lamb shall come again. The irony.

"The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together;
and a little child shall lead them." Isaiah 11:6

"And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”
And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth." Revelation 5:5-6

Revelation 5 continues with John the Apostle noticing there is a scroll in the right hand of the man on the throne. The scroll has writing on the inside and is sealed with seven seals. Only one lamb is worthy to receive the scroll and break the seals.

The scroll could be our universe as its seven seals are broken and the lamb comes again to take away the sins of the world through fire this time.

And like with the flood, there will be survivors and the rest, the spiritually dead, will perish in the fire.

You apparently took a great deal of time gathering as many clichés as you could find at your ID’iot / creation ministries. You rattle on about contradictions in biological evolution and how it is false yet, as usual, you are unable to offer a single relevant example.

Evolution is a theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). ID’iot / creationism asserts a supernatural cause for existence Evolution is a theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). ID asserts a supernatural cause at the git-go, and doesn't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of its own assertions:

A. If there is required an intelligent designer because existence displays a complex design, then doesn't the intelligent designer also require an intelligent designer to have designer it as well? (Translation: If your premise is: "X" needs a Designer because it's complicated, then the Designer needs a designer because it's even MORE complicated than "X", in order to have designed it in the first place.)

B. What are the characteristics of this "Designer"? Assume the "Designer" assertion is true -- why does this "Designer" become important at all? It may be long dead. It may have no vested interest. Is it at all demonstrable?

The fundie xtian attempt to conflate evolution and eugenics is classic dishonesty and misrepresentation spewed by the Christian fundie ministries. It’s all so stereotypically corrupt which defines the angry, self-hating fundies.


CA002.1: Social Darwinism.

Claim CA002.1:

Darwinism leads to social Darwinism, the policy that the weak should be allowed to fail and die.

Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 179.

Response:

1. This is an example of the naturalistic fallacy -- the argument that how things are implies how they ought to be. But "is" does not imply "ought." Evolution only tells how things are; it does not say how they should be.
2. The source of social Darwinism was not Darwin but Herbert Spencer and the tradition of Protestant nonconformism going back to Hobbes via Malthus. Spencer's ideas of evolution were Lamarckian. The only real connection between Darwinism and social Darwinism is the name.
3. Diverse political and religious ideas draw upon evolutionary biology, including ideas advocating greater cooperation.
4. Evolutionary theory shows us that the long-term survival of a species is strongly linked with its genetic variability. All Social Darwinist programs advocate minimizing genetic variability, thus reducing chances of long-term survival in the event of environmental change. An understanding of evolution should then rebuke any attempt at social Darwinism if the long-term survival of humanity is treated as a goal.
5. Eugenics and social Darwinian accounts are more often tied to the rise of the science of genetics than to evolutionary theory.

Links:

Wilkins, John, 1997. Evolution and philosophy: Does evolution make might right? Evolution and Philosophy: Social Darwinism

I didn't get it from Henry Morris. This is one of the conclusions I got from reading Darwin and learning about what happened afterward. This is no harmless fallacy nor a contradiction. This is what Darwin basically was saying in his second book. You do not get it from secular science as they cover up their lies. They were part of the racism. The only thing they had evidence for was microevolution and they took it to macroevolution and applied it to humans. Darwin was not able to figure out how to get the long-time. He also did not find the transitional fossils, so thought his work was wrong. Thus, he focused on the survival of the fittest which he got from Herbert Spencer and promptly put it in his book. This is how evolution produced favored races which is what Spencer taught. Prior to this, there was a history of racist thinking in science from Darwin's peers and his father's friends. Men were superior to women and certain races were more evolved than others. The racism is evident in his second book The Descent of Man. He decided to focus on humans because he could not demonstrate how animals changed from one creature to another. It still does not happen today. We do not find transitional fossils, but instead find living fossils. Thus, how could there have been a transition mutation?

However, focusing on humans was enough for another scientific best seller. The rest they say is history. "Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin’s theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies. Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler’s government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. As a result, a central policy of Hitler’s administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect the ‘superior race’. This required at the very least preventing the ‘inferior races’ from mixing with those judged superior, in order to reduce contamination of the latter’s gene pool. The ‘superior race’ belief was based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwin’s original ‘survival of the fittest’ theory. This philosophy culminated in the ‘final solution’, the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged as ‘inferior races’." It's no wonder that a science book became such a popular best seller. Why were the Jews picked out by Hitler? Can you tell me that? He had others that he wanted to get rid of, too. This is your science history, so you should be able to explain. Hitler wasn't the only racist politician during the time. There were others, so it influenced the world. The ones who tried to save the Jews such as Oscar Schindler and Corrie ten Boom and her family were few in number. Why did other countries remain isolationist and appeased Germany? Did they believe only the strong survive and this was how the weak were weeded out?

It's the ToE. "The theory of evolution is based on individuals acquiring unique traits that enable those possessing the new traits to better survive adverse conditions compared to those who don’t possess them. Superior individuals will be more likely to survive and pass on these traits to their offspring so such traits will increase in number, while the ‘weaker’ individuals will eventually die off. If every member of a species were fully equal, natural selection would have nothing to select from, and evolution would cease for that species."

- Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust -

Of course you stole your long cut and paste from Henry Morris. Your link above is to AIG which is a stereotypical clearinghouse for Henry Morris groupies / xtian zealots.

It’s not surprising then that the entirety of your cutting and pasting consists of 1990’s vintage clichés and nonsensical Christian fundamentalist tripe from AIG and creation.com.

The Christian fundamentalist claim linking Hitler to “Darwinism” is actually pretty ironic as Hitler and Christianity had close ties.

Claim CA006.1:
Adolf Hitler exploited the racist ideas of Darwinism to justify genocide.

Source:
Weston-Broome, Sharon. 2001. Louisiana House Concurrent Resolution no. 74: CIVIL RIGHTS: Provides relative to racism and education about racism. HLS 01-2652 ORIGINAL.

Response:

1. Hitler based his ideas not on Darwinism but on a "divine right" philosophy:Thus, it [the folkish philosophy] by no means believes in an equality of races, but along with their difference it recognizes their higher or lesser value and feels itself obligated, through this knowledge, to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker in accordance with the eternal will that dominates this universe. (Hitler 1943, 383)The first edition of Mein Kampf suggests that Hitler may once have believed in a young earth: "this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men" (p. 65; the second edition substitutes "millions" for "thousands," and chapter 11 refers to "hundreds of thousands of years" of life in another context.)
2. Other passages further support his creationist leanings:The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise. (Hitler 1943, 383)andWhat we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, . . . so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. (Hitler 1943, 214)Quotes from Hitler invoking Christianity as a basis for his actions could be multiplied ad nauseam. For example:Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord (Hitler 1943, 65)."[T]he task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission (Hitler 1943, 398).A campaign against the "godless movement" and an appeal for Catholic support were launched Wednesday by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces (Associated Press 1933).Of course, this does not mean that Hitler's ideas were based on creationism any more than they were based on evolution. Hitler's ideas were a perversion of both religion and biology.
   
   
3. The Nazi Party in general rejected Darwinism and supported Christianity. In 1935, Die Bücherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published a list of guidelines of works to reject, including: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)On the other hand, 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.)
4. Genocide and racism existed long before Darwin. Obviously, they did not need any contribution from Darwinism. In many instances, such as the Crusades and the Spanish conquest of Central America, religion was explicitly invoked to justify them.
   
   
5. Evolution does not promote social Darwinism or racism or eugenics.

References:

1. "Blacklist for Public Libraries and Commercial Lending Libraries." Quoted from University of Arizona Library, "Lists of Banned Books, 1932-1939", transl. Roland Richter, When Books Burn: Lists of Banned Books, 1933-1939
2. Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935). Quoted from University of Arizona Library, "Lists of Banned Books, 1932-1939", transl. Roland Richter,When Books Burn: Lists of Banned Books, 1933-1939
3. Hitler, A. 1943. Mein Kampf. Transl. R. Manheim. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Mein Kampf, Introduction or http://www.crusader.net/texts/mk/
4. Associated Press. 1933. Hitler aims blow at 'Godless' move, Lansing State Journal (Michigan), Feb. 23, 1933. Reprinted atHitler's Religion

Evolution theory is a fraud


This one fact proves this


Not a single life form out of trillions has mutated its genes to stop the dominance and pressure of humans on them

Therefore no evolution especially when applied to a human being

History proves humans are on a journey to become gods of the universe !!

Well, thanks. And here I was thinking a dead Henry Morris was a positive step for humanity.

Only a liberal could imagine that the death of a Christian could be a positive step for society, and not see it as the loss of another individual who could express himself without expletives.

 

[abu afak]

Only a liberal could imagine that the death of a Christian could be a positive step for society, and not see it as the loss of another individual who could express himself without expletives.

And only a Deluded Godist could believe the death of the Christian 'god'/"god's son" (a Bled-out-Jew) created his path for life.
It's downright gory.
`
`

 

[james bond]

Of course you stole your long cut and paste from Henry Morris.

You're getting too much jb under your skin and it's driven you mad. I haven't seen many Henry Morris articles, so not much for me to link. I think he writes books usually and have linked text from them. Much of what I post is my writing and not c&p.

Darwin shouldn't have used "survival of the fittest" to refer to natural selection or microevolution. It's wrong. We found out that animals, insects and other creatures co-operate. That was a huge part of his ToE since he didn't have transitional fossils (still don't) and long-time. He wasn't sure about his own theory. Thus, his evolution is wrong.

Not only his racist father influenced him, but his peers had scientific racism and his cousin, Francis Galton, came up with Eugenics that Hitler promptly used along with survival of the fittest. Darwin's second book showed his racist colors and thinking in explaining who the favoured race was. You can't deny he died rich from selling his books. Not much real science, but still was popular due to favoured races and survival of the fittest.

 

[Hollie]

Of course you stole your long cut and paste from Henry Morris.

You're getting too much jb under your skin and it's driven you mad. I haven't seen many Henry Morris articles, so not much for me to link. I think he writes books usually and have linked text from them. Much of what I post is my writing and not c&p.

Darwin shouldn't have used "survival of the fittest" to refer to natural selection or microevolution. It's wrong. We found out that animals, insects and other creatures co-operate. That was a huge part of his ToE since he didn't have transitional fossils (still don't) and long-time. He wasn't sure about his own theory. Thus, his evolution is wrong.

Not only his racist father influenced him, but his peers had scientific racism and his cousin, Francis Galton, came up with Eugenics that Hitler promptly used along with survival of the fittest. Darwin's second book showed his racist colors and thinking in explaining who the favoured race was. You can't deny he died rich from selling his books. Not much real science, but still was popular due to favoured races and survival of the fittest.

I'm afraid you're getting angrier and more emotive. Your tirades about "evolutionism" are taken from some of the more extremist, Christian fundamentalist blogs.

While you deny the existence of transitional fossils, the relevant science community has identified a great many. It's convenient for the religious to deny that reality but as we know, the fundie ministries do no research so their only tactic is deny what science has produced.

It's stereotypical for fundie extremists to use the "rascist" card when they attempt to vilify science. They're only tactic is to defend Hitler's Nazi party as Nazi ideology was deeply rooted in christianity.

Did you know the Vermacht had the inscription "Gott mit uns" (God is with us), on their belt buckles?

What a lovely legacy you good xtain folks left to humanity.

 

[james bond]

While you deny the existence of transitional fossils, the relevant science community has identified a great many.

This is a perfect example of facts made to fit the ToE via imagination. The facts are the fossil is a preserved remnant of a creature that died and became fossilized. It only demonstrates "where" it died. The layer in which it was found has nothing to do with time chronology. The name of the layer has to do with location. IOW, the name of the layer is named after a location such as Devonian or Jurassic. What the wrong atheist scientists claimed was the layer had to to with time chronology, made the fossil fit their interpretation of the time chronology and ToE. Thus, the fossil which was just a fossil became evidence for transition, time chronology, mutation and macroevolution. This was exposed around 2007. Like I said, Darwin didn't believe his own ToE but why stop a fake story that people believe due to "faith-based" science. At least, Darwin admitted he was wrong, but made no amends and just kept his money from sale of his books.

Since you know so much about time, do you know what that old rock song 25 or 6 to 4 means?

What does the Chicago lyric “25 or 6 to 4” mean?

Here's an example of Christian religion or the people parts for the ignorant. Can you repent in dust and ashes? "I have bound to You by the hearing of the ear; but now my eye sees You. Therefore, I retract, and I repent in dust and ashes." Job 42:5-6

 

[Hollie]

While you deny the existence of transitional fossils, the relevant science community has identified a great many.

This is a perfect example of facts made to fit the ToE via imagination. The facts are the fossil is a preserved remnant of a creature that died and became fossilized. It only demonstrates "where" it died. The layer in which it was found has nothing to do with time chronology. The name of the layer has to do with location. IOW, the name of the layer is named after a location such as Devonian or Jurassic. What the wrong atheist scientists claimed was the layer had to to with time chronology, made the fossil fit their interpretation of the time chronology and ToE. Thus, the fossil which was just a fossil became evidence for transition, time chronology, mutation and macroevolution. This was exposed around 2007. Like I said, Darwin didn't believe his own ToE but why stop a fake story that people believe due to "faith-based" science. At least, Darwin admitted he was wrong, but made no amends and just kept his money from sale of his books.

Since you know so much about time, do you know what that old rock song 25 or 6 to 4 means?

What does the Chicago lyric “25 or 6 to 4” mean?

Here's an example of Christian religion or the people parts for the ignorant. Can you repent in dust and ashes? "I have bound to You by the hearing of the ear; but now my eye sees You. Therefore, I retract, and I repent in dust and ashes." Job 42:5-6

The problem you have with the science of biological evolution is that your only exposure has been through your fundamentalist ministries. Fundamentalist hacks have an agenda to press which is why they react as they do to knowledge and learning. That is why your cutting and pasting is so often drenched with pointless cartoons. I honestly don't know why you would cut and paste the nonsense you dump into these threads and expect to be taken seriously.

This forum is not the place to be hurling bible verses at others. Why do think anyone would accept your attempt at insult by using your bibles like a bloody truncheon?

Regarding your ignorant and uninformed claims about what Darwin and Origin of Species actually theorized, neither the pattern of the fossil record or the existence of intermediate fossil forms was considered controversial amongst the scientists of the time. Darwin came up with an alternative explanation for these facts that did not rely on the supernatural. So the question is not what do intermediate forms in the fossil record (or the pattern of the fossil record) "prove", but rather how do we explain the existence of intermediate forms in the fossil record (and the pattern of fossil record)?

Biological evolution is the current best scientific explanation for this evidence; as well as that from many other biological fields. What modern anti-evolutionists tend to do is to simply deny that the evidence even exists rather than attempt to scientifically explain it. But then they are usually doing apologetics for their sectarian beliefs, not science.

Your utterly absurd claim that Charles Darwin didn’t believe his own theory is nothing more than fundamentalist hacks forced out of desperation to spew nonsense claims. As usual, your nonsense claims are utterly lacking support.

The reason why fundamentalist Christians refuse to accept scientific findings is because they need a literal Adam and Eve to support their notion that all human beings are born totally depraved with Original Sin, and therefore in need of Salvation through Christ-- in fact, that was the whole reason for the crucifixion. If you replace Adam and Eve with Homo Erectus, the idea of the Fall of Man and Original Sin is a little hard to reconcile.

 

[james bond]

The bottom line is the Bible can't change. People thought it was contradicted with the eternal universe. However, that was shown to be wrong as the steady state theory was shown to be pseudoscience. Since Stephen Hawking died, the BBT has come under attack. One contradiction is the universe isn't uniform as there appear to be walls around the galaxies and there are voids in between them. The universe exists in clumps. We could not have that with uniform radiation from the CMB. Thus, the radiated heat should be clumpy and not uniform. This deals a serious blow to the BBT.

 

[Hollie]

The bottom line is the Bible can't change. People thought it was contradicted with the eternal universe. However, that was shown to be wrong as the steady state theory was shown to be pseudoscience. Since Stephen Hawking died, the BBT has come under attack. One contradiction is the universe isn't uniform as there appear to be walls around the galaxies and there are voids in between them. The universe exists in clumps. We could not have that with uniform radiation from the CMB. Thus, the radiated heat should be clumpy and not uniform. This deals a serious blow to the BBT.

The bottom line is that the Bibles have changed, been edited and revised.

That’s part of the evolution of all of the so-called holy texts all of them them being written by men.

The pseudoscience you dump into these threads is nothing more than the incoherent rambling of Henry Morris groupies.


It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the facts of science can contradict the Bible.

Henry M. Morris