• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Science Disproves Evolution

Brainache said:
I will never understand why people like you, 154, prefer to believe the ancient stories collected in an old book over the evidence of their own senses.

Can you explain to me why the literal truth of the ancient Jewish creation myths is so important to you? There certainly is no evidence for them and tons (literally) of evidence against them, but still you go with what the old book says, instead of what reality teaches us.

Why?
Click to expand...

I will never understand why people like you, Brainache, are so condescending to the overwhelming majority of Americans, ~85% of whom call themselves "Christians".

Speaking of an "old book," how about Darwin's racist tome, declaring the superiority of the white race, and the inferiority of blacks, placing them down with apes. Is Darwin's literal truth still so important to you?
 
JonathanQuick said:
Speaking of an "old book," how about Darwin's racist tome, declaring the superiority of the white race, and the inferiority of blacks, placing them down with apes. Is Darwin's literal truth still so important to you?
Click to expand...

Very few skeptics will be the least bit concerned with the literal truth of Darwin. Darwin was a person capable of mistakes and we know of many of his mistakes. There were also a lot of things he didn't know.

Having said that however I doubt you can support the claim that Darwin thought that blacks were "down with apes". He clearly thought all the races of man were of the same species. He had opinions about the "civility" of various races but not like you seem to be suggesting.
 
Brainache said:
I will never understand why people like you, 154, prefer to believe the ancient stories collected in an old book over the evidence of their own senses.

Can you explain to me why the literal truth of the ancient Jewish creation myths is so important to you? There certainly is no evidence for them and tons (literally) of evidence against them, but still you go with what the old book says, instead of what reality teaches us.

Why?
Click to expand...

As someone raised in a creationist family, I can offer some insight based on my experience. People in such communities are taught that such issues are a matter of morality. They are taught that biblical literalism and young Earth creationism are the side of good and truth, and conversely that the side of secular science is the side of evil and Satanic lies. Such minds are often impervious to reality because of this indoctrination. I had a biology professor who came from Montana. He related a story about one of his young daughter's classmates not being allowed by her parents to go on a field trip to a dinosaur dig because, as her parents insisted, "fossils are just rock carvings created by scientists to lead people away from God". How do you argue with someone like that? The famous anonymous quote says it all: "You can't reason someone out of a position they haven't reason themselves into".
 
154 said:
I have thoroughly examined the evidence and found it most compelling and persuasive.

I have no other interest or motivation. Truth.

One great example of the excellent case:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html
Check it out if you want. I'm not going to twist your arm. It is excellent.
Give it an objective, open-minded consideration... or not.
Click to expand...


This kind of evidence?

The proof that God has revealed himself to man by special and express communications, and that Christianity constitutes that revelation, is no part of these inquiries. This has already been shown, in the most satisfactory manner by others, who have written expressly upon this subject. Referring therefore to their writings for the arguments and proofs, the fact will here be assumed as true.

Sure seems objective and open-minded to me.:rolleyes:
 
Foster Zygote said:
They are taught that biblical literalism and young Earth creationism are the side of good and truth, and conversely that the side of secular science is the side of evil and Satanic lies.
Click to expand...
No. Maybe some somewhere somebody says something, of course, but no, that is not what they are taught, but that is how some deliberately seek to mischaracterize, misrepresent and misportray it though...
Such minds are often impervious to reality because of this indoctrination.
Click to expand...
Heh.. the Academy Award of Condescending goes to..
I had a biology professor who came from Montana. He related a story about one of his young daughter's classmates not being allowed by her parents to go on a field trip to a dinosaur dig because, as her parents insisted, "fossils are just rock carvings created by scientists to lead people away from God". How do you argue with someone like that? The famous anonymous quote says it all: "You can't reason someone out of a position they haven't reason themselves into".
Click to expand...
You're kidding! Somebody said something dumb?!?!? Therefore, them, they are all stupid... There is no God.
 
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy said:
Very few skeptics will be the least bit concerned with the literal truth of Darwin. Darwin was a person capable of mistakes and we know of many of his mistakes. There were also a lot of things he didn't know.

Having said that however I doubt you can support the claim that Darwin thought that blacks were "down with apes". He clearly thought all the races of man were of the same species. He had opinions about the "civility" of various races but not like you seem to be suggesting.
Click to expand...

Apparently you don't even know the title of his book:

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Darwin stated that blacks in Africa and elsewhere were nearer to the apes, and would fall by the wayside. Those are not my words, they're Charles Darwin's. One would think you would be more familiar with them.
 
tsig said:
Sure seems objective and open-minded to me.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Of course he has made up his mind. ... ! He's making his case.
It was you I was asking the objective open-mindedness of..... or not.
 
@JohnathonQuick

No, in fact I do know the title and I've read the content. I've also read The Descent of Man which is what I thought you were referring to. And I see you're making a somewhat more accurate and toned down claim than before.

Did Darwin think that Negroes were human, ape or something in between?
 
Last edited:
154 said:
Then you ask Him that diligently and seek out the matter... or not.
Click to expand...
I'll be sure to ask the first god that I encounter.

You still think that's such a great point, don't you? Why?
Click to expand...
I think it's an excellent point. Why are you so concerned with the faults of the Koran but not with the Bible? Why should we not note that a God who is presented by modern interpreters as perfectly just and beneficent never once stated that it is wrong to own another human being?

154, is it morally wrong to own another human being?
 
154 said:
Foster Zygote said:
They are taught that biblical literalism and young Earth creationism are the side of good and truth, and conversely that the side of secular science is the side of evil and Satanic lies.
Click to expand...
No. Maybe some somewhere somebody says something, of course, but no, that is not what they are taught, but that is how some deliberately seek to mischaracterize, misrepresent and misportray it though... .
Click to expand...



Yet previously:

154 said:
I have thoroughly examined the evidence and found it most compelling and persuasive.

I have no other interest or motivation. Truth.
Click to expand...



Highlighting mine.

What determines it as "Truth"?
 
Foster Zygote said:
I'll be sure to ask the first god that I encounter.


I think it's an excellent point. Why are you so concerned with the faults of the Koran but not with the Bible? Why should we not note that a God who is presented by modern interpreters as perfectly just and beneficent never once stated that it is wrong to own another human being?

154, is it morally wrong to own another human being?
Click to expand...

I'll give 154 a hand here.

In the first place, a Christian who selects a passage from a science book is often condemned for "quote mining". But any leftist or atheist who does the same thing to the Holy Bible is never ever condemned by one of his own.
Why is that? Why is YOUR quote-mining so acceptable while ours is not?
It's purely rhetorical. I have come to expect non-answers from the left.

Context is everything. Some of what we read in the Holy Bible is historical in nature. Some of it is written in the form of a parable, a story, made easier to understand. Some of it is instructional, and gives us moral direction. All of it must be read with discernment and a loving heart and mind.

Jesus listens to, and responds to satan. That could be misinterpreted in many, many ways. An old man slept with his daughters. Lovely spin for the left, that.

Old and New Testament alike counsel us to be kind and loving, and not to be cruel or evil.

Find for me a set of universal laws for humans to deal with each other - a set of Secular Commandments, if you will, that are acceptable to every society on earth.

Atheists feign a morality that is laughably vague and of course scientifically untenable, but they continue the arrogant charade that has been going on for millenia.

Christians, not atheists, took the lead in ending slavery. Nevertheless, there are more slaves worldwide today than there have ever been in history.
And what country has more slaves than any other?
Hint: It is not a Christian country.
 
JonathanQuick said:
I will never understand why people like you, Brainache, are so condescending to the overwhelming majority of Americans, ~85% of whom call themselves "Christians".
Click to expand...

Well, the majority of Christians are not actually, creationist.
The proportion is shamefully higher in the states, of course, due to an impressive disinformation machine... but it still not 85%...

And even then, no, the majority of creationists are just victims of the propaganda, I believe, and hope, that if confronted with the evidences (some of which were presented earlier in this thread, what about addressing these rather than your cutesy sarcasm...).


Speaking of an "old book," how about Darwin's racist tome, declaring the superiority of the white race, and the inferiority of blacks, placing them down with apes. Is Darwin's literal truth still so important to you?
Click to expand...

A) Darwin is not a prophet and nobody claimed is words were the inherent truth. He could be perfectly wrong and just about everything and still have struck gold in this one particular instance...
B) In fact, Darwin WAS wrong on quite a lot of things, relevant things about biology, and ignorant on many more. After all, his was XIXth century science. Nonetheless, the framework, the general outline, of his theory, remain and is now stronger than it ever was (the revolution of molecular genetic brought an unimaginable wealth of data to support the theory).
C) That being said, while he was quite prejudiced, he was, as said, a product of the XIXth century, his opinions were actually gentler than the ones of most people of his time and class. He, for example, got into trouble for his vehement condemnation of slavery... To illustrate, the prevalent creationist theory at the time, and for quite a long time afterward, especially among the mormon church, was the 'hamite curse'... Sadly, the widespread racism, sometime quite elaborate under pseudo-scientific and religious guise, was a sad and prominent part of the culture of the time...
 
JonathanQuick said:
Apparently you don't even know the title of his book:

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
Click to expand...

And of course anyone who had read the book knows that races in the title doesn't refer to human races, it refers to varieties of organisms. Humans are hardly mentioned at all in the book.

JonathanQuick said:
Darwin stated that blacks in Africa and elsewhere were nearer to the apes, and would fall by the wayside. Those are not my words, they're Charles Darwin's. One would think you would be more familiar with them.
Click to expand...

Sure he said that, evidence?

Darwin didn't even agree with slavery.

Louis Agassiz was a Christian and a creationist that said negros were a different species, so that must refute creationism too eh?

Evolution is distinctly anti-racist.
 
154 said:
No. Maybe some somewhere somebody says something, of course, but no, that is not what they are taught, but that is how some deliberately seek to mischaracterize, misrepresent and misportray it though... Heh.. the Academy Award of Condescending goes to.. You're kidding! Somebody said something dumb?!?!? Therefore, them, they are all stupid... There is no God.
Click to expand...

Here are 154's own words, from his "Allah" thread.

154 said:
Because it is a evil Satanic deception.

"You who love the LORD, hate evil! He preserves the souls of His saints; He delivers them out of the hand of the wicked."

"The fear of the LORD is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way And the perverse mouth I hate."

"Hate evil, love good; Establish justice in the gate. It may be that the LORD God of hosts Will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph."
Click to expand...

Here he's talking about another religion rather than evolution, but the pattern is the same. This is what I grew up with. I know it well.
 
JonathanQuick said:
I'll give 154 a hand here.

In the first place, a Christian who selects a passage from a science book is often condemned for "quote mining". But any leftist or atheist who does the same thing to the Holy Bible is never ever condemned by one of his own.
Why is that? Why is YOUR quote-mining so acceptable while ours is not?
It's purely rhetorical. I have come to expect non-answers from the left.
Click to expand...

It is only quote mining if the quote is selected in such a way as to change the meaning of the original author.
For example, in the last quote from Pahu, Eldrege statements were about a very selective aspect of evolution, basically, the homogeneity of its rate, in one particular example.
Sunderland rephrased it in such a way as making Eldrege sound as if the whole evolution was a lie propped up by deceptive scientists... A far cry of the original meaning of the statement...


In contrast, quote mine about the Bible are rarer, they do happen on occasions, though, it's true... The verse format of the Bible actually make it easier, as many sites, such as Biblegateway, do not necessarily display the verse in context...
Nonetheless, it is rarer, mostly, perhaps, because they are plenty of truly objectionable segments in the Bible... Blatant misogyny, hateful homophobia, the condemnation of slavery...
Of course, one could make the argument that these writers, like Darwin later, were the products of their time and culture and should not be judged by our standards... That is true, to the extent that these writers were indeed the human products of their culture, rather than a unfailing all-knowing, all-wise entity...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom