Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 1 of 37 (379026)
01-22-2007 5:53 PM


Romans 1:25 KJV writes:
"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."
"Who changed the truth...." = appearance of design corresponds to invisible Designer.
"....into a lie...." = corresponds to mindless natural selection.
"....and worshipped and served the creature...." = corresponds to what Darwinists replace God with (animals are our maker). Notice how many evo avatars are of animals?
This verse was written in 58 AD and it fits the reality of Darwinism to a tee.
Ray

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Jon, posted 01-23-2007 10:17 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 01-23-2007 10:51 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 01-23-2007 1:10 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 6 of 37 (379251)
01-23-2007 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Coragyps
01-23-2007 10:51 AM


Cory writes:
And I've noticed that "Herepton" is a near-anagram, or maybe a dyslexism, of "Herpeton." That's Greek for "creeping thing," or part of the binomial of the East Indian tentacled snake.
What's your point, Ray?
You are correct, Cory.
I intended to write "Herpeton" but made an error and wrote "Herepton."
The word in the Greek indicates reptiles, translated "creeping things" in the KJV.
My point is that Romans 1:25 says it plainly: persons worship the creature (created things, in context one of the created things is reptiles) in place of God.
Who can this possibly be applied to in our society today?
Answer: Darwinists. They assert we are the products of common ancestry, including reptiles and birds in the lineage. Creationists agree with the Bible: we originated from Adam who was specially created. Science corroborates.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 01-23-2007 10:51 AM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 01-23-2007 4:01 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 7 of 37 (379252)
01-23-2007 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Taz
01-23-2007 1:10 PM


content deleted, I made a mistake.
Ray
Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 01-23-2007 1:10 PM Taz has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 8 of 37 (379253)
01-23-2007 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Taz
01-23-2007 1:10 PM


Paul in Romans 1 is talking about none other than Rome, the capital of a vast military and economic empire. In other words, he was talking about Romans. He referred to them as those who "changed the truth into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than god."
Negative.
Where does it say Paul is talking about Rome?
Paul is talking about anyone who substitutes created things AS "creator" in place of God as Creator.
Darwinists are guilty.
Ray
Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 01-23-2007 1:10 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Jon, posted 01-23-2007 4:09 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 13 by AdminSchraf, posted 01-23-2007 8:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 14 by Taz, posted 01-24-2007 12:07 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 11 of 37 (379263)
01-23-2007 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Jon
01-23-2007 10:17 AM


Re: Scientists are not Members of the Darwin Cult!
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.
Sorry, Jon. This comment tells me you are unread. ALL published evolutionary authorities use the terms "Darwinist" and "Darwinism" in their writings.
Darwinism Wallace - Google Search
Co-founder of natural selection, Alfred Russel Wallace, wrote a book and titled it "Darwinism."
I repeat: EVERY Darwinian author today (Dawkins, Dennett, Mayr etc.etc.) uses both terms liberally to refer to their beliefs and worldview.
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.
Darwin himself predicted that many ideas and claims of his would eventually be falsified, however. The main structure of his theory stands firm today.
Darwin's branching tree model is defended tooth and nail. It symbolizes common ancestry - the main claim of the Darwinian paradigm offered against the Genesis creation model.
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).
Where is the PRECEDING context does "lust" appear?
The preceding context mentions reptiles and birds.
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.
My interpretation makes perfect sense. Evolution denies God creator credit. Verse 25 fits like a glove on Darwinism today: idol/animal worshippers.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Jon, posted 01-23-2007 10:17 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by mick, posted 01-23-2007 6:18 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 15 by Jon, posted 01-24-2007 9:46 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 16 of 37 (379555)
01-24-2007 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by mick
01-23-2007 6:18 PM


Re: Scientists are not Members of the Darwin Cult!
In what sense *do* biologists worship animals?
[I changed "to" to "do" - Ray]
Hi Mick:
Good phraseology to use the word "sense" which tells me that you know that I am NOT arguing that Darwinian biologists actually engage in ancient-style idol/animal worship.
I am saying that they contend that we (= humans) descend from apes who did the same from another animal who did the same from another - perpetually. In other words, Darwinists say animals are our maker and not the Genesis Creator.
Idol worship is ***anything*** that takes the place of God. Opposition thinks that just because they do not fashion an animal out of wood or bronze and bow down to it that they are not guilty of idol worship.
Modern idol worship is Darwinism (= macroevolution replacing special creation).
My second point is that "darwinists" are only liars if they "turn the truth of god into a lie". If I don't believe in God then I can hardly be lying when I say I think he doesn't exist. I may be mistaken but I'm being perfectly honest.
Darwinists DID know "the truth of God." Darwin and all Victorian naturalism science were (past tense) Creationists and Christians who accepted the Argument from Design (Paley's Watchmaker thesis).
They turned THAT truth into the lie of mindless (= God not involved) natural selection, which said NS means it is the creator and not God. Design is an illusion and not actual.
You probably do not agree but do you understand?
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by mick, posted 01-23-2007 6:18 PM mick has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 17 of 37 (379556)
01-24-2007 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Taz
01-24-2007 12:07 AM


When Paul said "to all that be at Rome" he was talking to the newly formed Church at Rome, which was the house of Caradoc (ex-king of Seluria) and his converted brother Rufus, a Roman Senator. Read Romans chapter 16 for a list of persons in that Church.
Ray
Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Taz, posted 01-24-2007 12:07 AM Taz has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 18 of 37 (379557)
01-24-2007 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Jon
01-24-2007 9:46 AM


Re: Scientists are not Members of the Darwin Cult!
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.).
Negative.
I do not imply it; I say it explicitly because Darwinism is a religion. Their deity is Natural Selection.
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).
I know that this is what you guys believe, but we know it is idol worship of a false prophet (Charles Darwin).
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!
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.
Macroevolution is an assumption; assumptions are not evidence.
Okay, tell me this: where in the theory of evolution does it say anything about worshipping animals? SNIP....
By advocating common ancestry by macroevolution instead of God as Creator.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Jon, posted 01-24-2007 9:46 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Jon, posted 01-25-2007 11:27 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 19 of 37 (379562)
01-24-2007 4:41 PM


Please welcome the Darwinian Deity
Harvard Professor Richard Lewontin:
"Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular is hopelessly metaphysical, according to the rules of etiquette laid down in the Logic of Scientific Inquiry and widely believed in by practicing scientists who bother to think about the problem. The first rule for any scientific hypothesis ought to be that it is at least possible to conceive of an observation that would contradict the theory. For what good is a theory that is guaranteed by its internal logical structure to agree with all conceivable observations, irrespective of the real structure of the world? If scientists are going to use logically unbeatable theories about the world, they might as well give up natural science and take up religion. Yet is that not exactly the situation with regard to Darwinism? The theory of evolution by natural selection states that changes in the inherited characters of species occur, giving rise to differentiation in space and time, because different genetical types leave different numbers of offspring in different environments... Such a theory can never be falsified, for it asserts that some environmental difference created the conditions for natural selection of a new character. It is existentially quantified so that the failure to find the environmental factor proves nothing, except that one has not looked hard enough. Can one really imagine observations about nature that would disprove natural selection as a cause of the difference in bill size? The theory of natural selection is then revealed as metaphysical rather than scientific. Natural selection explains nothing because it explains everything."
"Testing the Theory of Natural Selection" Nature March 24, 1972 p.181
[colorization emphasis mine - Ray]
Ray

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Jon, posted 01-25-2007 11:09 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 01-25-2007 11:44 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 23 by Jon, posted 01-25-2007 1:42 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 32 by Brad McFall, posted 01-25-2007 6:46 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 25 of 37 (379826)
01-25-2007 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Percy
01-25-2007 11:44 AM


Re: Please welcome the Darwinian Deity
Lewontin did not believe anything such as is stated in that paragraph. Not having access to the original article I can only guess what the actual context was. Possibly this paragraph was preceded by the sentence, "The usual argument against natural selection goes like this."
Yeah, Hi Percy:
Lewontin is one of the few evolutionists who routinely let the cat out of the bag. I must admit that when I first read the quote I almost fell out of my chair. I posted the quote WITH SOURCE CITE. The outer and larger context of the quote was made in context of special pleading. Lewontin, who of course, is probably the most respected geneticist of the past century, was arguing that natural selection deserves an exemption to the falisification principle based on the alleged fact that it really does explain most everything and repels falsification.
Lewontin did not believe anything such as is stated in that paragraph.
Unsupported assertion.
Not having access to the original article I can only guess what the actual context was.
The context argues for an exemption to the falsification principle based on overwhelming scientific evidence.
No one can say he did not say it unless you have evidence, and if you assert he did not mean what he said then why did he say what he did not mean?
I could post the larger context, but opponents (JON) need to abandon "he didn't say it" nonsense since the source cite was provided. The onus is on JON and I acknowledge that you only doubted its overall meaning.
Do you have any interest in discussing NS with me?
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 01-25-2007 11:44 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 01-25-2007 4:07 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 30 by Jon, posted 01-25-2007 4:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 26 of 37 (379831)
01-25-2007 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Jon
01-25-2007 1:42 PM


Re: To Sink so Low...or the truth hurts?
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 am sorry you view the evidence as an attack on your faith in Darwinian science. The quote was posted with reference. You have no issue or point or ground to stand on.
Please leave this Forum since I plan on posting even more quotes from Lewontin that will undoubtedly exacerbate your anger.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Jon, posted 01-25-2007 1:42 PM Jon has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 27 of 37 (379844)
01-25-2007 3:41 PM


Special Pleading
Creationists say the appearance of design, at face value, logically corresponds to invisible Designer.
Darwinists say the same corresponds to the work of a mindless process (natural selection) which somehow produces the counter effectual appearances.
The latter is special pleading, the former straightforward deduction based on observation.
Creationists assume the appearance of design indicates the work of an invisible Designer.
Darwinists assume the appearances do not.
Romans 1:25 says the subjects changed the "truth OF God" (= appearance of design) "into a lie" (= the appearance does not mean Designer but an antonym). These same persons then say we came from "creatures" and not from the Creator.
This is why all Darwinists are liars.
Face value is asserted to represent something antonymic.
Appearance of design = Designer: what more does God have to do?
Ray

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 31 of 37 (379876)
01-25-2007 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Percy
01-25-2007 4:07 PM


Re: Please welcome the Darwinian Deity
http://groups.google.com/...alk.origins/msg/ae0ea2d071060d1c&
Please note that in the link the message author is Jon "Augray" Barber of Talk Origins, and he accepts the quote as genuine.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 01-25-2007 4:07 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Percy, posted 01-25-2007 9:08 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 33 of 37 (379912)
01-25-2007 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Brad McFall
01-25-2007 6:46 PM


Re: Please welcome the Darwinian Deity
Hi Brad:
I read your post. But I do not understand most of it. Sorry.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Brad McFall, posted 01-25-2007 6:46 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Brad McFall, posted 01-25-2007 7:53 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