The Foundations of the Debate

Nor are all the "you folk" here american ... Good. Then you are intimately familiar with the limitations of selection, that you can't create features you want but have to work with the ones that are available. You are also familiar with the fact that species change over time eh? The animals you breed today are not like the ones hundreds of years ago. There are facts of evolution and there are theories of evolution. The facts are the evidence -- speciation observed, change in species over time observed. The theories are on what mechanisms are at work to cause the changes that are observed - natural selection, puncuated equilibrium, etc.Theories are never proven - in any science. The best you get is validated by testing hypothesis, the worst you get is invalidation, by tests where the hypothesis fails or where new evidence shows it is incorrect. Lamarkianism is a failed theory. Theories that have passed many tests and not been invalidated are still not proven but they are substantially validated - they are the best answer to date to how it works. Funny.Please see http://www.alaska.net/...e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htmIt doesn't look like it was made up just to call all christians "idiots", but it does show that some christians are ignorant eh?It seems you have "issues" with the "trinitarian" churches (catholic for sure), and it seems you spend as much time venting about this than anything else. Hence the "rant" comments. Maybe you should take those comments to the bible study forum where you can debate the relative merits of the different beliefs and interpretations. Who knows, you may find the answer you are looking for.Anyway welcome to the fray

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Name one.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

You specifically named the Scopes Trial. And you specifically made false statements concerning the results of the Scopes Trial. Your claim said nothing of world opinion vs American. Indeed, the only opinion that would have been affected by the Scopes Trial would have been American. So you were yourself restricted yourself to American opinion. If you were not, then you should have said so.And you had been accusing the science of evolution as teaching that we should give in to our carnal desires. That is what I addressed by showing that rather it is the religious teachers who are teaching that, not evolution. That the media should make money by playing to people's interest in sex has no bearing on the matter. Except possibly to making it that more difficult to pretend that sex doesn't exist. And it doesn't matter what your fringe group says is the truth of what the Bible says; what does matter is what the kids' religious leaders are teaching them.And these groups are not Catholic, but rather evangelical Christian. Many of whom would be hard-pressed to consider Catholics to be Christian. Even though the evangalicals have adopted a lot more Catholic teaching than they would want to admit.You still have not stated: does your fringe group have a name? And does your theology condone or preach using lies and deception to serve your particular idea of God?

As I understand it, the question posed in the OP related to the reasons for the existence of and the underpinnings of the debate between creationist and evolutionist. We are beginning to wander rather far afield from that question. Please either open a new thread, or refocus your discussion on that topic. Thanks."Thus Spake da Judge"

---

"Here come da Judge." - Flip Wilson

I am having a hard time understanding your posts. In almost every post there are at least a couple of phrases that don't seem to connect to what you were saying before or to what anybody else has said before. For instance, the phrase: what's that got to do with what you were saying before? If there is a logical connection, you should have included it in your post. If you were answering someone else's post, you could have included a quote to the relevant statement, making your own post more comprehensible (quote boxes like the one above make the textmore clean and easyer to understand. press the peek button at the lower righthand corner to see how it's done.)

The topic is, The Foundation of the Debate.Evolutionists keep going on about science, but my 'attitude' is questioned because I address the TOPIC?Don't scientist argue enough among themselves?There's plenty of debate over the validity of countless statements science promotes as 'close enough' to being proven, but I chose to join this discussion because of the title of the topic, then get told off for addressing it?!The Foundation of the Debate, lies in Religious Conspiracy, and has been around since Nimrod.Now lets see, I don't believe Catholic doctrine (that has infected nearly every 'Christian' church and so nearly everyones idea of what Christianity is), so you post a link to another of Rome's many bastard children, the flat earth society?Thanks for making a little of my point; people of power and influence have always lied about what The Bible actually says, and God cops the blame for the wretched results.It's interesting to, that where ever you go to debate religious issues, Christians are brutally attacked for every crime and idocy of Catholic doctrine and education, untill they point out those beliefs are NOT Christian, then they get attacked for another 'sin' against Catholic doctrine, of 'judging' Rome.You see, you can't attack Christianity, if you don't "forgive" Catholic/Jesuit's, because they spawned and control the faulty 'science and education', used to attack the truth of creation.Now many people stumble at the thought man was created in Gods image, as common sence tells us our bodies aren't 'God Like'.
But that original creation DIED when Death came into the world, and God covered us in skin, to keep our rotting selves in, so anti-Christs have seeded our minds with images of fig leafs and ugg boots, and keep ignoring this very important Biblical detail of our current carnality?Which brings us back to The Foundation of the Debate; The Lie that man can/will evolve into a 'higher being', and so keep ignoring His offer to be Truely, born again, into those original radiant beings, at His return.
The Father of the Lie, wants us all dead, and never re-born into the healed world.Edited by suzy, : explaination of 'attitude'.

Eh??? didn't we have skin before the sin?? That' the first time I ever heard anything like that. where does that doctrine come from? Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

See, another cheap shot at stearing the conversation away from the topic.
I name you one anomoly, you argue that 'science', and further avoid the question of WHY evolutionists MUST replace creation with their "faith", in the hearts of all peoples.Or maybe you genuinely believe there are no glaring anomolies in any field of the sciences.
If that's the case, google, "archeological anomolies" or "out of place artifacts", and start to get familier with "the science wars".Again, everyone is taught the, "two by two" 'story', but the important detail of 'clean animals' collected in 7 pairs, is ignored because it explains the genetic variety in domestic animals, that selective breeding can't.And then we could cover the whole mess of when a horse is a horse or load bearing animal/means of transport etc., that keep people excluding most of the world from Biblical scripture, and so not making sence of it.See, the Foundation of the Debate, or rather, The Beginning of the Conspiracy, is as ancient as man, has permiated all aspects of life, and depends greatly on repeat, repeat, repeating lies, about what The Bible actually says.And no, I don't believe in a young earth, just a young humanity (that once lived to great ages, despite constant hard work and heavy load bearing, that explains those heavy boned ancient skeletons), as The Bible describes.My belief in The Creator and The Good News He left us, won't stop any evolutionist evolving anything (if it were possible), but it anoys the hell out of those who can't explain the existance of the domestic dog, domestic grain, why native South Americans are a genetic cross between African AND Australian aboriginals and Sth. America and New Zealand sharing unique flora and fauna, just for starters.But even more so, it anoys those who believe modern Israel is situated in The Promised Land of The Bible, because they hinge so much of their faith on 'historic proof', rather than the whole of The Bible and the world it describes and tells us to study, which reveals answers to questions, many haven't even thought to ask.The Super-Continant (that science supports and The Bible tells of) didn't divide untill way after Noah, and then it didn't happen in one hit, but still folk try to put the Euphrates of the Super-Continant, down as that trickle in the Middle East, and Mizraim in modern Egypt.
Why, if it isn't a deliberate miss-direction?And sorry, but I'm not one for answering quote for quote, as it has the intended habit of curtailing the introduction of ideas capable of dodging evolutionists 'tired old war horses'.I'm just 'dropping the words'.
If others don't care to hear, ponder and search it out for themselves, no amount of posting links to creation science, 'the science wars' and geological and historic anomolies will inspire them to do so, and usually just turns into a debate about author or site credibility, and the key issues get re-buried.I'm too aware of the purpose of most Creation/Evolution forums, being to badger, insult, belittle and mock folk away from even thinking about what The Bible actually says, to play the forum game, by anti-Christ's "goal post shifting rules", so I hope the enlightened evolutionists and Trinitarians can "tolerate" and "forgive" my particular communication style, which is to ignor red herrings, strawmen and 'poisoned bait', but ask others to search out answers to un-asked question.
Surely, that isn't the 'wrong attitude' to this particular topic.

ANIMAL skins she meant. God covered them in animal skins to replace their fig leaves, the animal skins being an emblem of animal sacrifice to cover sins, which is where the practice of animal sacrifice started, which finally culimated, as prophesied, in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross for our sins. Edited by Faith, : to add linkEdited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

Genesis 3;21, in the Hebrew simply says God covered then in hides, later 'interpretations''assumed' this ment He 'clothed' them in cave man garb.They could see they were 'naked'(from the root implying 'smoothness': flat, no longer radiating?) because being 'dead', they no longer had their protective radiance of when they were "in the image of God".Again, this brings us back to the foundation of the debate, lying in the ignorance of these many overlooked, scattered but connected 'one liners' that wash non-sence doctrines out of The Bible.It also shows us that we still suffer the desire to "become gods", in that so many 'Christians' want to belive God's image is the same as our dead, rotting, fleshly bodies. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

Glad you decided to add to our diversity. We have a wide variety of forums for your debating pleasure, but I warn you it can become habit forming.While the title of this thread is "The Foundations of the Debate", the opening post (OP), Message 1, had very specific questions. I don't feel that your posts are clearly addressing those questions and are starting to lead the topic astray.Per Rule #4 we do ask that your points be supported with evidence. In the purple signature box below, you'll find some links that will help make your journey here pleasant.Pay particular attention to our Forum Guidelines and all will go well.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.
Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Again welcome and fruitful debating.

---

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

---

Woah there, when did I say I was anything other than a Bible Believing Christian?If you want to hunt down some cult that holds with some of what I understand, in order to discredit any of the scripture I'm raising, I can't stop you, but it will show you're 'playing us and them', with what you decide worthy of consideration.I don't restrict myself to "approved" or "accepted" teachings or doctrines, when I search for understanding, but look for common threads and patterns of known truth and known lies, in deciding what to accept, reject and keep searching.And why do you have such a big problem with my mentioning a point of time BEFORE the Scopes trial?
That old black and white movie, along with popular songs like, "It ain't necessarly so", were causing great upset in our early 60's Catholic, large, extended, immigrant family and neighbourhood, all the way over here in Australia, just as Darwinism did, around the world, long before.That's why I raised it, to show popular media does much more damage to general understanding of Biblical Scripture, world wide, that America deciding to teach evolution in schools.It was another poster who 'assumed' I ment it brought evolution into schools, or claimed it, in order to call me a lier or fool.But this is the danger of debating religion in NET forums; leave out one well known detail, and you're accused of ignorance, include one too many and you're accused of 'ranting'.That you can claim popular media's obsession with selling the idea that, random multiple sex partners are fine and dandy, "has no bearing on the matter", shows a bias, ignorant or lying foundation to your promotion of evolution, particularly when combined with the rest of your elephant sized miss-interpretations of what I'm writing, and those 'fringe groups' you so need me to belong to, despite my making it clear that they too harm the greater understanding of what The Bible actually teaches. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

Now see, I'd feel better if those repeating the old, "why you can't believe The Bible", lies, got a personal warning (particularly as they aren't newbies to this forums rules), about straying off topic too.And it seems odd, that when the topic is "The Foundation", which must go back to creation, which we agree can't be proven, that I'm asked for 'evidence', but my reasons, for my arguements seem to need some 'fringe group' to back them up.How do you exchange new ideas, if they're ignored (as many of my key points TO THE TOPIC)for not spawning from some "accepted body", who's weak points are well known and have a range of pre-prepared 'mental missiles' to shoot at them?So I'll go straight to my understanding of "Why this (and nearly every other 'Creation/Evolution) forum exists"; as I said, and was ignored, before, to humiliate 'seekers' into total rejection of The Bible. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Suzy, you have just earned your first timeout suspension. It will last for 24 hours.As I stated in Message 86: Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread. Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Once your suspension is over, if you wish to discuss my admin actions concerning this thread, please direct them to the Moderation Thread.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.
Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you Edited by AdminPD, : Better Word

No, that it the title of the thread, the topic is defined in the first post as: And, btw, this is absolutely true, and it is a valid claim. The evidence is all the people that believe in god and that have no trouble with evolution. Let me set out the logic for you: Now if the premises are true (and I submit they are) and if the construction of the argument is logically valid (and I submit that it is) then the conclusion must be true. In order to debate this issue you need to show that either premise is false or that the construction is invalid, and failure to do that will render any argument irrelevant. It's like being in check in a chess game -- you must deal with the problem before you can move on. They debate the relative merits of different theories and their ability to explain the evidence. They also argue about politics and sports games.The fact that they argue is irrelevant to the topic, and irrelevant to the validity of science in general and evolution in specific. It is another non-sequitur - a logical fallacy - in your arguments. It’s interesting, too, that whenever you debate religious issues, christian's play the "I'm a poor persecuted martyr" card whenever you challenge their silly, false or misleading assertions. What gets attacked is the silly, false or misleading things in your posts - not because you are christian, but because your post has silly, false or misleading things.It's also interesting that whenever you debate religious issues that some biblical literalist fundamentalist christians will claim to be part of the large family of christians when they are being "persecuted" but will turn around and say that others are not "true" christians when it suits their argument. They equivocate between two definitions.Here you do both "we" are prosecuted because of "their" lies -- amusing. LOL. Every evil is due to rome eh? It seems you still have some issues with your personal past. One could claim that every flavor and blend of christianity is a "bastard child" of the catholic church -- they were the ones that constructed the bible eh?But I see no mentioned connection from the catholic church to the Flat Earth Society in the wikipedia article about the modern society:Modern flat Earth beliefs - WikipediaThere were and are people who believe the world is flat and that a literal reading of the bible says so. They are ridiculed, not because they are christian, but because they believe something that is patently false and has been invalidated by the evidence available even to common people. This belief is ridiculed because it is delusional - it requires the denial of evidence of the real world to maintain the belief.It also doesn't matter whether the medieval churches (all catholic IIRC) considered the earth to be flat or not, for they were guilty of geo-centrism which is equally false, and for which they are historically on record as persecuting poor scientists for claiming otherwise. This too is ridiculed today because it is patently false and has been invalidated by the evidence available even to common people. This belief is ridiculed because it is delusional - it requires the denial of evidence of the real world to maintain the belief. No, that is not the topic. It is not in the title and it is not in the first post on this thread (see tan box above). It has nothing to do with whether evolution denies god, or even anything to do with evolution. It is just another silly, false and misleading statement.Why does it seem that some biblical literalist fundamentalist christians cannot demonstrate that they can read the literal facts in front of them and have to change it and redefine words to argue against? Like I said before, you need to take this to the bible study forum, but it sure seems like you have some real issues you need to work through, such as why you hate yourself and your body so much.The topic is whether evolution denies god or not. It doesn't. That leaves the last question of the original post to discuss: It exists because some people feel that their belief invalidates evolution (or other scientific evidence). It doesn't. Belief never trumps evidence.This gets back to the issue of the flat earth, geocentrism, religious beliefs and the reality of the universe - the age of the universe, the earth, and the formation and evolution of life on this planet.For it is also a matter of record that there are a couple of beliefs that many biblical literalist fundamentalist christians have that are equally false:

the false concept that the earth is young.

the false concept that there was a world wide flood.

the false concept that species are not evolving.

​

These concepts are also increasingly ridiculed today because they are patently false and have been invalidated by the evidence available.

​

This is the history of false religious beliefs in the face of scientific evidence. It does not matter what the flavor of the belief involved covers, if it conflicts with reality it is by definition delusional:

​

quote:

---

delusion” -noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

---

​

In other words resistant to evidence that invalidates the delusional belief.

​

Compare this with belief:

​

quote:

---

belief” -noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

---

​

And note that something that can be disproved by evidence cannot fit definition #2, but it fits definition #1 rather well eh?

​

So this forum exists to give the proponents of various beliefs that they feel invalidate evolution (and the age of life, the earth and the universe) to have a place to show that their beliefs are not delusional.

​

And note, please, that it is not christianity that is in question here, as there are many christians that accept the scientific evidence of evolution and an old, floodless earth, what is in question are specific interpretations that conflict with reality.

​

How can one tell when their beliefs are delusional? When they need to deny evidence that invalidates it.

​

Enjoy.

​

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.