Human Intelligence

A Christian who believes man evolved from animals when the book they believe in says "God created..." and took a rib from Adam to create Eve? Millions of years of death and fighting in the animal world to develop the creatures we see today, when their book states God created the animals from the ground? They choose to believe "natural selection" when the book says that death entered the world by Adam's sin? No, my friend, but those Christians who claim to believe Darwinian evolution have simply buckled to secular pressure, nothing more. The are trying to server two masters, which is truly a sad state of affairs. Theistic evolutionists are easier to debate than Darwinian evolutionists by a longshot. So yes, there is a difference and you've once again demonstrated that you have confused the two, simply because you are seeking support via "power in numbers" ("...sucht sich Kameraden...").
Nothing more. Tell me something new, please.

Had you simply told me that your Dad believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and everything in the gospel, and THEN that he didn't have a problem with Darwinian evolution, I would simply believe that your Dad is in heaven. Reality will be between him and God, of course, because we don't know any man's heart. But from what you told me, there are NUMEROUS examples in history of godless people who have done the same thing, or even much more, as your Dad but renounced God all the way to their graves. More on this further down. And your Spoke of horse excrement? How do you draw these conclusions? I never claimed such.
(just wanted to straighten that out before going to far in this reply.) Yes. Yes, of course, I see. I'm sure he did very much to EARN his way into heaven. You do know, of course, that the first sin was NOT disobedience. It was unbelief. Think about that. Unbelief is still just as sinful today.Another item to ponder: Matt. 7:21-23Am I judging your Dad. Absolutely not. But I'm led to believe YOU are. You're judging him as "good" even though you can only see the outside. But God looks at the heart. I Sam 16:7b I Cor. 13:3But couldn't "giving all your goods to feed the poor" be a sign of "charity"? Apparently, "charity" means something else. Certainly something to think about.As for working your way into heaven, our Christian culture could be considered an embarassment when compared to, say, the Islamic faith. The way they worship their god, on their faces for days on end, required pilgrimages, self denial like we (most) Christians can't fully imagine in our culture, etc, etc. If we just look at works and deeds, Christians in our culture have about as much religion as an Islamic dog. But that's not what God measures us by. Nothing that we can bring to him can cover the shame of our sin, except the blood of the lamb.But back to your Dad; I think there is a difference between a Christian who "doesn't have a problem with Darwinian evolution" and a Theistic evolutionist. The former simply believes on the Lord Jesus Christ and his gospel (and that covers alot of ground not expounded on here) but doesn't find it necessary to spend a great deal of time working through the issues of evolution and creation. He doesn't really understand Darwinian evolution as it exists, rather just a micro-evolution (different thread!) version that he was sold just in passing by. But he does believe, "...in the beginning, GOD...".
But the Theistic evolutionist who has been presented with both sides of the issue and still refuses the word of God as it is, is certainly a different story. Luke 12:47,48And yes, I would make quick work of you in a debate using both Darwinian evolution and the book that Theistic Christians claim to believe, but don't. You cannot serve two masters. Christianity and Darwinian evolution are not compatible. Creation is the foundation for our message. Destroy the foundation, and you'll be in jeorpardy of losing the rest of your faith, a little or alot at a time. Several people on this forum have admitted to once being Christians, but once they allowed the Creation account to be compromised, the rest of the structure crumbled.I could go much deeper than this, but since you used vulgar language on a website that is viewed by under-age kids, I suspect you're far too upset to listen to much more. Perhaps you can reply after you settle down a bit.

You never tire of ad hominem, do you? Experts of grammar useage say this attack chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak."
I can understand one or two occurences, but you're making your hopeless position far too obvious.You could have stated, "I never said such any such thing. Please prove me wrong or retract the statement." Then "noseyned" couldn't jump in here and claim you were being "snarky" to me.But I do indeed retract the statement. I got you mixed up with "Mr Jack". He stated in post # 43 in this very topic: I guess that kind of openmindedness shuts out any opposing view. But that's not the point. I thought I was just supporting someone from the other camp in order to open up constructive dialog, which is a good thing. It wasn't a quote, just a friendly reference that I indeed started with "I believe MrHambre...." because I wasn't sure of the name. I figured if I missed the name, I would be corrected; but the referenced statement had indeed been made for all to see. You cut the "I believe MrHambre..." part out of the your quote, which again shows how desperate you are in your position. But it turns out that I mixed up two names and got an ad hominem response. Have you ever mixed up a couple of names before? Maybe the experts of grammar useage are right?

We can observe it. It just doesnt' fit your ToE. Not cultural. Satanic and demonic, my friend. Yes, no doubt. The "father of lies" is the instructor. You're right. As a result of God coming into their lives. There are countless missionaries who have written books describing exactly this. But evolution had nothing to do with it.

[qs]Unsupported. There's no evidence that such a figure exists.[qs] No evidence. Right. Oh, but there IS evidence that the superatom existed, right? And created itself? And generated energy from, nowhere I presume? Your position is truly hopeless. You won't believe what I believe because you can't see him. But you believe what you believe because you can see it in a text book. Please wipe your tears, get some sleep, and you can talk it over with your mommy in the morning.

That's all you're interest in? Just argue to win? I already explained what you're asking for from a couple of different angles to help you understand that the data, including why it doesn't fit into the bug-infested spreadsheet that you're using. My explanation was on course to nail you right between the eyes, and you purposely ducked. The sad part is, you shouldn't even need it explained to you; the difference is much simpler than I tried to make it (which I had to complicate for you since you don't believe in anything that reasonable humans can deduce by simple observation). But brush up on your arguments a little, just in case the Creator, one day soon, gives you a chance to explain your willful ignorance. Strange, I noticed the same thing. "THE superatom" is the crown jewel of your camp, and it's used to replace God. Check it out; the theory makes even less sense than Darwinian evolution itself and, thus, even more amusing.I know you want to be the judge of this debate, it will not be judged by you or me. But it will indeed be judged, oh yes. The crazy part, though, is that if YOU are right, I will lose nothing but the debate itself. But if I'm right, YOU will lose everything.

If that's the only thing you got out of my post, then I guess I was right about your state of mind. (not to mention your limited vocabulary. The use of vulgarity is generally the first sign of a limited vocabulary, among other things like lack of respect for others. The first time could be waved off as a slip, the second time is quite revealing).

I noticed you didn't start a new thread on this. I'm wondering if admin would be so kind as to move these posts as previously recommended.Yo wrote: As already pointed out, Hitler used Darwinian evolution to support his agenda. Again, the words "savages", "lowest savages", "Negroe" and "Negroes", and "favored races" were main bullet points for Hitlers argument for genocide.Hitler wrote: Now, I ask you once again, please offer me some ideas as to where Hitler got THIS idea?You've been living in a dream world, Neo. Did you notice the following information as shown in "the Hitler movement, page 107?" This is all documented information readily available. Again, where in flames did Hitler get the idea that "Black African" is "predominantly ape"??? (Hint: See Darwin's "Origin of Species" for references to "savages", "lowest savages", "Negroe" and "Negroes".)It must take an incredible amount of willpower to flaty deny what Hitler sold the public, and where he got support for his ideas. Hitler didn't believe in God, he only used references to God as a sales tactic to sell his agenda to German Christians, but dropped God once he was in power. How could you miss this?Again, I would welcome admin to move these related post to a new thread so we can more carefully examine the dynamics of Hitler's message. A good topic name would be "The dynamics behind Hitler's racism and genocide".

Um,... What??? Is that like Spandex? If nothing else, at least tell me if being a Joralex is a compliment or an insult. Maybe the root origins or the word/name? I can't find it in the dictionary and have never heard it before. Or if it's an inside joke, I'll just drop it.

So, are you saying Darwin was right in his assessment of "savages" and "negroes"?
And how would you handle Hitler's further expounding that "negroes" were a less favored race and could rightly be eliminated ("natural selection") to preserve the greatness of of the "stronger" (??) and more favored races?[This message has been edited by Skeptick, 02-11-2004]

So Darwin was wrong about "negroes" and "savages"?

Not sure what you mean exactly by "discount".Let me slightly change the form of my question:Was Darwin was right in his assessment of "savages", "lowest savages" and "negroes"?Frashfrog already answered, but I can't tell if you think the same thing as he or not in this. I just don't want to answer twice if I can answer both of you at once.

I apologize for not understanding. Plz help me; substantiate which claim?

"Universal view"? So, Darwin's scientific observations were more closely related to the "universal view of his time" than actual science?[This message has been edited by Skeptick, 02-12-2004]

Darwin refers to them repeatedly in his writings.Quote:
The inability to move the ears in man and several apes is, however, partly compensated by the freedom with which they can move the head in a horizontal plane, so as to catch sounds from all directions. It has been asserted that the ear of man alone possesses a lobule; but a rudiment of it is found in the gorilla (31. Mr. St. George Mivart, ‘Elementary Anatomy,’ 1873, p. 396.); and, as I hear from Prof. Preyer, it is not rarely absent in the negro.
- Charles Darwin, Descent of Man, pageAt some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.
- Charles Darwin, Descent of ManThe break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
- Charles Darwin, Descent of ManEven the most distinct races of man are much more like each other in form than would at first be supposed; certain negro tribes must be excepted, whilst others, as Dr. Rohlfs writes to me, and as I have myself seen, have Caucasian features.
- Charles Darwin, Descent of Man...It is a remarkable circumstance, that the difference between the sexes, as regards the cranial cavity, increases with the development of the race, so that the male European excels much more the female, than the negro the negress. Welcker confirms this statement of Huschke from his measurements of negro and German skulls...
- Charles Darwin, Descent of Man