Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   All Darwinists are Liars
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 37 (379186)
01-23-2007 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Cold Foreign Object
01-22-2007 5:53 PM


Scientists are not Members of the Darwin Cult!
This verse was written in 58 AD and it fits the reality of Darwinism to a tee.
Does it fit "Darwinism"? Who knows? The theme of the forums is to debate evolution and Creationism. Calling scientists who accept the Darwin-proposed evolutionary model of speciation "Darwinists" is somewhat misrepresentative of the truth.
The scientists I mentioned do not adhere to all of Darwins beliefs and models of the evolutionary tree like some Creos would like everyone to believe.
Now, however, on to the main parts of your post:
"Who changed the truth...." = appearance of design corresponds to invisible Designer.
Is there anything you can offer up that shows your interpretation of that passage as accurate? Let's examine the two preceeding verses:
From BibleGateway.com
quote:
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
The "truth of God" in this case seems simply to refer to worshipping Him. In giving themselves to lust, these people are worshipping the creature (the human body--specifically here in a sexual manner) moreso than they are worshipping the spirit of God (who is often referred to as the Creator).
Now, lets look at the first passage I quoted (Rom 1:23) which condemns the practice of equating Godly things to manly things. Would arguing the most Godly Creation as though it were equal to the manly concept of science (Creationism/ID) perhaps fall in violation of this rule from God?
As for the rest of your interpretation, it is completely baseless. Unless you can show that the writers were specifically talking about the "evils of evolution", then you've got no case.
J0N

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-22-2007 5:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-23-2007 4:17 PM Jon has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 37 (379259)
01-23-2007 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Cold Foreign Object
01-23-2007 3:58 PM


who substitutes created things AS "creator" in place of God as Creator.
The word Creator here is as a reference to God, as it often can be. It does NOT mean that Paul thinks these unruly heathen sex-worshippers believe their lust and physical pleasures to be the source of all creation in place of God. Simply, that these people are worshipping the pleasures of the flesh in place of worshipping God--after all, they may very-well know God created the Universe but simply don't give a damn and would rather rot in Hell later and enjoy life on Earth now.
J0N

This is not to say that I do not believe that to be the case
I also believe this too

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-23-2007 3:58 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 37 (379466)
01-24-2007 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Cold Foreign Object
01-23-2007 4:17 PM


Re: Scientists are not Members of the Darwin Cult!
Where is the PRECEDING context does "lust" appear?
The PREDEDING text (NOT context) that I was referring to was the text right before verse 25, did you even read that far down in my post?
Right at the end of verse 24 is a colon ( : ), this shows us that the following verse (25) is connected; related. Most likely the verse numbers were added long after the text had been written, and the people who added them saw the colon as an appropriate place to split the verses.
ALL published evolutionary authorities use the terms "Darwinist" and "Darwinism" in their writings.
This is true, but you imply an almost religious adherence to the Darwinian theory--a sort of Darwin worshipping--simply because scientists use his name to give him his due credit (such as: Ptolemaic System, Copernican Principle, Brownian Motion, etc.).
It DOES NOT serve the same purpose as Christian, for example, which is used to show the religious devotion of a particular people to their religion's founder (Christ).
When scientists name ideas and theories after those who first came up with them, they do it out of respect, and to give credit; not in order that they may worship them!
My interpretation makes perfect sense. Evolution denies God creator credit. Verse 25 fits like a glove on Darwinism today: idol/animal worshippers.
Okay, tell me this: where in the theory of evolution does it say anything about worshipping animals? Have you ever seen any "Darwinists" bow to a forest creature?
J0N
Edited by Jon, : y

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-23-2007 4:17 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-24-2007 4:35 PM Jon has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 37 (379725)
01-25-2007 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object
01-24-2007 4:41 PM


Re: Please welcome the Darwinian Deity
The power of a scientific theory is not only in what it can explain, but also in what it can predict. What predictions can the theory of God make? Will it help us to understand what sort of fossils we might find at a dig site?
Second, evolution does not explain everything. It simply explains the methods by which the Earth came to contain such a vast array of species, i.e., biological diversity. It doesn't explain the origins of the Universe, the workings of an internal combustion engine, the circuitry of a computer chip. While the theory of evolution is an important one, it only explains one thing (and perhaps a few more) among the millions (billions?) of things that could be explained.
Such a theory can never be falsified...
Sure it can! We could make a REAL find of lets say, dinosaurs living with humans, or something else that would make evolution too remote of a possibility. The fact that we haven't yet proven it false does not mean the theory is non-falsifiable, it simply means that the theory is pretty damn good!
J0N
Edited by Jon, : Conventions!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-24-2007 4:41 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 37 (379731)
01-25-2007 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Cold Foreign Object
01-24-2007 4:35 PM


Re: Scientists are not Members of the Darwin Cult!
...it is idol worship of a false prophet (Charles Darwin).
A prophet? A prophet of what? Charles Darwin discovered the evidence of evolution on his OWN! There was no supernatural being leading him through the Galopagos... it's not like the story of Moses at all!
True, but in this case Darwin is the exception. Darwinists worship Darwin and animals as our maker no matter how much you deny and mis-portray the idolatry as science.
You must prove this. You cannot simply restate it over and over again hoping that will make it true. Either back up your claim that evolution is a religion, or retract it. You will have to show the following:
1) Evolution holds a position in the minds of those who accept it similar to a position other religions would hold in the minds of their followers.
2) Evolution is primarily a faith-based system, relying only somewhat (if at all) on real, i.e., emperical, evidence.
3) Evolution, like most other religions, offers advice on how to live one's life (such as Christianity tells believers how to live by God's word, does evolution tell us how to act and behave on a day-to-day basis in order that we may feel closer to the belief of evolution?)
Those are all the things I can come up with for now, but I'm sure other people will think of some.
By advocating common ancestry by macroevolution instead of God as Creator.
Perhaps evolutionists do this because God isn't the creator (at least not the creator of biological diversity), and because macroevolution DID/DOES/IS happening, and because common ancestry is the BEST explanation to-date that explains the biological diversity of life on planet Earth.
Now, what evidence do YOU have that God is the creator? Maybe the Creatory is Zeus? Ammun-Re? If you have any evidence that points to a creator, what makes you so certain that it is YOUR creator? Wouldn't you be just as wrong as the evolutionists if you were worshipping the wrong God?
J0N

Realizing that Herepton has been using the term "Darwinism" (although in a cult-like way) to refer simply to the theory of evolution, I have chosen to refer to it as "evolution" through the rest of my posts. The same also applies to "evolutionists" (those who accept the evolutionary model), and other variations of the word(s).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-24-2007 4:35 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 37 (379793)
01-25-2007 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object
01-24-2007 4:41 PM


To Sink so Low...
After reading Percy's post, I went in search of the article you stole that from:
bevets.com is for sale | HugeDomains
I can no longer participate in a debate where one of the members would sink so low as to use a tactic such as you have here. Dr. Lewontin never said these things, and they are not his own words. Not only did you mis-credit the information, but you misrepresented the opinion of a learned professor qualified to speak on the subject!
I can only assume that these tactics were in fact intentional, and not accidental. I am led to believe that you purposefully misquoted Lewontin for personal gain, or that the research techniques you used were pathetically inferior to those that would be expected of someone participating in an honestly academic debate!
You are not worthy of my time.
J0N

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-24-2007 4:41 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 01-25-2007 2:01 PM Jon has replied
 Message 26 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-25-2007 3:17 PM Jon has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 37 (379867)
01-25-2007 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Percy
01-25-2007 2:01 PM


Re: To Sink so Low...
You seem to be most-likely correct; I withdraw my statements about the miscrediting of quotes.
This, however, in no way makes taking such quotes out of context right, and Herepton should still, at the very least, apologize for misquoting.
J0N

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 01-25-2007 2:01 PM Percy has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 37 (379871)
01-25-2007 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object
01-25-2007 3:12 PM


Re: Please welcome the Darwinian Deity
I posted the quote WITH SOURCE CITE.
I don't want to get too picky here, nor too off-topic, but unless you retyped the words that you saw in the physical edition of Nature on page 181, then you have not properly cited the source.
I am assuming that you got it off the Internet, in which case you should have also cited the website you copy-pasted it from. If this was not the case, then I apologize, but nevertheless, I will shut up now, as I no longer plan to participate in this debate.
J0N

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-25-2007 3:12 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024