To Conform Or Rebel.

[ikester7579 20]

How we are raised determines how we will go through life. For we have two choices about what we do about how we are raised and taught. We can either conform, or rebel.

 

Even God gave man that choice in the Garden. Man choose to rebel, and sin. So if you are raised as a Christian, you have two choices. Rebel or conform.

 

So how does a Christian rebel from what they were taught?

 

1) Chooses to not believe in God.

2) Chooses to believe a lie when the truth is part of their knowledge.

3) Chooses to believe God's word is a lie.

4) Chooses to believe evolution.

 

How does an atheist rebel against what they were taught?

 

1) He chooses to believe in God, or a deity of some kind.

2) Chooses to believe in what God did.

3) Chooses to believe in God's word.

4) Chooses to believe in creation.

 

How does a evolutionist rebel against what they were taught?

 

1) Chooses to believe God instead of a naturalistic view.

2) Chooses to believe in the power of God to create.

3) Chooses to believe God's word over Darwin's book.

4) Chooses to believe creation over evolution.

 

If all three are not a religion, then why does all three need to word "believe" in order to rebel from one to conform to the other?

 

Is belief, or to believe a part of science, or evolution? Because to do either requires faith to achieve it. For you cannot have belief without faith. So in order to believe, faith becomes a part of it.

 

For only what becomes an absolute in our minds replaces faith with fact. And in all three, as far as our minds go, and the evidence for each. Neither of them can achieve an absolute until actual truth is revealed. And all questions answered. And only one gives the promise of this:

 

1pet 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

[Greyhound 0]

If all three are not a religion, then why does all three need to word "believe" in order to rebel from one to conform to the other?

11069[/snapback]

Do you consider the phrase 'I stopped believing in religion' to be contradictory?

[jason78 0]

So how does a Christian rebel from what they were taught?

11069[/snapback]

A Christian doesn't have to stop believing in a god, they could rebel by believing in a different god than the one described in the bible. They could even start practicing Buddhism.

 

How does an atheist rebel against what they were taught?

11069[/snapback]

I didn't actually become an atheist because of what I was taught, I came to be an atheist by drawing my own conclusions. There are atheists that are rebelling on youtube by denying the existence of the holy spirit.

 

While I am a scientist, I don't worship science as my god. It's just a useful tool to get things done with. Understanding science allows you to make things like electric lights, tv remote controls and chicken soup that doesn't go off for 6 months.

 

Maybe you are right that I have faith in science. I have faith that the next time I flick a light switch there will be light, or the next time I want to change channels that my tv remote will work.

[chance 1]

I have always consider that the default ‘state’ to be atheism, i.e. you were born without an innate belief in any given religion, so you must have been taught about it. The choice (if you had one) was to commit to that belief or not.

 

The other aspect to consider is what emphasis one places on chooses, by what rationalisation did one choose is important. I.e. one could take up a religion for a variety of reasons like:

 

a. an epiphany of some sort,

b. conform or peer pressure,

c. tricked,

d. forced,

e. misunderstanding,

f. requirement,

g. need.

 

Likewise one could drop or change religions for the same reasons.

 

Evolution on the other hand is science, one has no requirement to believe it (like it’s some sort of choice), it is a consensus of ideas, formulated into a scientific theory that is supported by evidence.

[ikester7579 20]

Do you consider the phrase 'I stopped believing in religion' to be contradictory?

11070[/snapback]

No, there are different religions. Whether it's denied or admitted.

[ikester7579 20]

A Christian doesn't have to stop believing in a god, they could rebel by believing in a different god than the one described in the bible.  They could even start practicing Buddhism.

Agreed.

 

I didn't actually become an atheist because of what I was taught, I came to be an atheist by drawing my own conclusions.  There are atheists that are rebelling on youtube by denying the existence of the holy spirit. 

Choosing not to believe means you believe something else. Because if there were something that could answer every question to an absolute, which would not require faith or belief. Then the answer would be clear on what is truth. Then a absolute separation between what is absolute fact, and what is not could be made.

 

 

While I am a scientist, I don't worship science as my god.  It's just a useful tool to get things done with.  Understanding science allows you to make things like electric lights, tv remote controls and chicken soup that doesn't go off for 6 months.

Never said science was your god. But according to how the bible explains it. Anything you put first in your life, also controls your life. Which means your thoughts, action, time, energy, etc... is controlled by it. Allowing something to control your life is the definition of allowing it to have deity affect on everything you do.

 

Maybe you are right that I have faith in science.  I have faith that the next time I flick a light switch there will be light, or the next time I want to change channels that my tv remote will work.

11072[/snapback]

I have no problem with science requiring some faith. But since the introduction of evolution, and all the supporting pillars. Faith based is what science is headed for.

 

Example: When something has been proven wrong, or a fraud, To believe in it anyway takes total faith on your part. Just like I believe in a God I can't see. It takes total faith to believe what I can't prove in the manner science would require.

 

But yet there are things that are based on individual belief in science, and is where science crosses the line into faith. Putting theories out there that basically have very little support. And more or less implying: It's your choice to believe it's true ot not. Makes that theory faith based, and not scientific.

 

Such as the Big Bang theory. Granted the universe does expand, which a conclusion of naturalistic means would point to an explosion. And a expansion. But to say: In the beginning there was nothing, and all the blah blah after it. Is a conclusion drawn from what evidence? Nothing. There is no evidence of how the explosion happened. Or what it was before it happened, or it's size.

 

So believing the big bang because of expansion is scientific. Why? Because a conclusion can be drawn from what we observe. But what is it that we observe that made the dot on a page (size reference) explode? What is it we observe that would even suggest it was a dot? What is it we observe that suggest there was nothing before something exploded? What is it we observe that would allow the laws of physics to be broken to make the exploding dot work?

 

Nothing, correct?

 

So to except something that is not a conclusion, or an observation, or through actual evidence, etc... Is soley based on faith. For if your answer to questions about certain areas of science has ever been: It just happens, or if we can see it it happened, or given enough time anything can happen. Then you are basing your trust in truth through faith by your own decisions. And not through the scientific method that will lead you to a conclusion.

 

To weed out science becoming a religion, all science has to do is weed out the word "believe" in all it's theories, papers, books, etc... Doing this would actually make science have to separate what takes faith, and what does not.

[Greyhound 0]

Anything you put first in your life, also controls your life. Which means your thoughts, action, time, energy, etc... is controlled by it. Allowing something to control your life is the definition of allowing it to have deity affect on everything you do.

I disagree that this makes it a religion, or anything like that. That's a very personal viewpoint.

 

I have no problem with science requiring some faith. But since the introduction of evolution, and all the supporting pillars. Faith based is what science is headed for.

I disagree with that too, but that's another topic.

 

But yet there are things that are based on individual belief in science, and is where science crosses the line into faith. Putting theories out there that basically have very little support. And more or less implying: It's your choice to believe it's true ot not. Makes that theory faith based, and not scientific.

Theories? Or hypotheses? Theories that have no evidential support wither and die very quickly.

 

Such as the Big Bang theory. Granted the universe does expand, which a conclusion of naturalistic means would point to an explosion. And a expansion. But to say: In the beginning there was nothing, and all the blah blah after it. Is a conclusion drawn from what evidence? Nothing. There is no evidence of how the explosion happened. Or what it was before it happened, or it's size.

 

So believing the big bang because of expansion is scientific. Why? Because a conclusion can be drawn from what we observe. But what is it that we observe that made the dot on a page (size reference) explode? What is it we observe that would even suggest it was a dot? What is it we observe that suggest there was nothing before something exploded? What is it we observe that would allow the laws of physics to be broken to make the exploding dot work?

 

Nothing, correct?

This is a very muddled idea of what the Big Bang theory says. There was no dot and there was no explosion. The reason we postulate the expansion from a much more compact Universe is that the Universe appears to be expanding. I think you'd agree that you need a solid idea of what a theory says before you can actually dismiss it as faith-based. I'm no cosmologist but the theory does much more than draw a conclusion from what we observe. It fits, it predicts, it matches the math(s) independently and it works.

 

To weed out science becoming a religion, all science has to do is weed out the word "believe" in all it's theories, papers, books, etc...

11077[/snapback]

And replace it with what?

[ikester7579 20]

I have always consider that the default ‘state’ to be atheism, i.e. you were born without an innate belief in any given religion, so you must have been taught about it.  The choice (if you had one) was to commit to that belief or not.

Yes, and God actually has a protection time period until you become aware. I don't recall exactly where the verse is right off hand. But from what I understand, a child is protected until the age of 13. Or until he becomes self aware of God, and is able to make a decision concerning God. Until that point, the child is considered innocent of any sin. The bible refers to this state as someone who does not know their left hand from there right hand. Which is a reference between knowing right and wrong. Which by the way covers also anyone who is mentally challenged. Because if they stay in a state of not know the difference between right and wrong, how would they be guilty of anything?

 

This is where God uses the word innocent, or innocence, to describe someone who is in this state of mental being.

 

Or killing someone in this state of being is considered shedding innocent blood.

 

The other aspect to consider is what emphasis one places on chooses, by what rationalisation did one choose is important. I.e. one could take up a religion for a variety of reasons like:

 

a. an epiphany of some sort,

b. conform or peer pressure,

c. tricked,

d. forced,

e. misunderstanding,

f. requirement,

g. need.

 

Likewise one could drop or change religions for the same reasons.

a. There are a couple of defintions of this word. But if you are refering to self realization, then that is ok.

 

b. There is a fine line between peer pressure, and trying to guide someone into making a right decision. I guess it's how you approach the subject that would determine this.

 

c. Well, being tricked is wrong. Salvation is not ganed through trickery. Salvation has to be a direct representation of the one who gave His life for it, or it's not salvation.

 

d. Forced is why I do not believe in predestination. Because from even creation God gave man a choice.

 

e. Not sure what you mean here.

 

f. Requirment makes the free gift not a choice to recieve. So it is wrong to require it in order to be something unless what your trying to be requires you to be lead by the spirit. Such as being a minister.

 

g. Need. Yes need can be a part of it.

 

Evolution on the other hand is science, one has no requirement to believe it (like it’s some sort of choice), it is a consensus of ideas, formulated into a scientific theory that is supported by evidence.

11074[/snapback]

I would disagree on this because there are some theories that require belief because they basically have only the support of the one who thought it up. Which means no scientific method was involved.

[ikester7579 20]

I disagree that this makes it a religion, or anything like that.  That's a very personal viewpoint.

1) Thou shalt not have any other God's before me.

 

This does not only apply to the unsaved, but the saved as well. So I was not trying to point a holier than thou finger at you. Both sides are guilty of this sin.

 

I disagree with that too, but that's another topic.

Could probably make a whole thread on this. You can start one if you wish.

 

Theories?  Or hypotheses?  Theories that have no evidential support wither and die very quickly.

Like the Ernst Haeckel thing? It was proven fraud, and no one has unproven these findings. But yet some still believe it. And for what reason? Because they decide to. Faith based.

 

This is a very muddled idea of what the Big Bang theory says.  There was no dot and there was no explosion.  The reason we postulate the expansion from a much more compact Universe is that the Universe appears to be expanding.  I think you'd agree that you need a solid idea of what a theory says before you can actually dismiss it as faith-based.  I'm no cosmologist but the theory does much more than draw a conclusion from what we observe.  It fits, it predicts, it matches the math(s) independently and it works.

I figured you knew what Big Bang was. And did not need me to detail it so I was not going to bore you with what you already know. But it is your conclusion that because I don't agree that I'm not educated in that area, correct? So disagreeing equals not educated? Or does the uneducated part come from one way thinking, and a need for everyone to conform to it? Why else would you assume this?

 

And replace it with what?

11078[/snapback]

I guess if using a relgious word is part of science, then science admits to being a religion.

[chance 1]

Yes, and God actually has a protection time period until you become aware. I don't recall exactly where the verse is right off hand. But from what I understand, a child is protected until the age of 13. Or until he becomes self aware of God, and is able to make a decision concerning God. Until that point, the child is considered innocent of any sin. The bible refers to this state as someone who does not know their left hand from there right hand. Which is a reference between knowing right and wrong. Which by the way covers also anyone who is mentally challenged. Because if they stay in a state of not know the difference between right and wrong, how would they be guilty of anything?

 

This is where God uses the word innocent, or innocence, to describe someone who is in this state of mental being.

 

Or killing someone in this state of being is considered shedding innocent blood.

I have seen the argument you have stated, here and in other forums, and IMO is the only logical path a compassionate person or God can take. (although from memory someone argued against this point in the bible forum, but I’m not sure how it was reasoned). edit [just looked it up it was The deacon in Salvation And Innocence]

 

To relate all this to rebelling, one must then have:

 

a. the mental faculties,

b. the education, and

c. selected that world view first, then rejected it some time later.

 

The other aspect to consider is what emphasis one places on chooses, by what rationalisation did one choose is important. I.e. one could take up a religion for a variety of reasons like:

 

a. an epiphany of some sort,

b. conform or peer pressure,

c. tricked,

d. forced,

e. misunderstanding,

f. requirement,

g. need.

 

Likewise one could drop or change religions for the same reasons.

 

 

ikester7579>

a. There are a couple of defintions of this word. But if you are refering to self realization, then that is ok.

Yes I should have been more precise “seeing the light†was the idea I was attempting.

 

b. There is a fine line between peer pressure, and trying to guide someone into making a right decision. I guess it's how you approach the subject that would determine this.

I had in my mind the social group one grows up in, i.e. that the religion is not questioned, it’s just a part of your life, everyone does it, always has. This would have been more prevalent in days of old when ideas and people did not travel like today. The individual had little exposure to anything else.

 

d. Forced is why I do not believe in predestination. Because from even creation God gave man a choice.

I had in mind something like the Islamic expansion, “convert or die†type of ultimatum.

 

e. Not sure what you mean here.

Where what you are promised is not delivered. I suppose it’s an expansion on tricked. Say you were approached by the devil in disguise (like in the movie bedazzled) you think you have made a wise choice, but because you have not asked the right questions the devil can answer truthfully (but lie by omission). Actually the more I think about it, the less I like the idea and think tricked and misunderstanding to be one of the same.

 

f. Requirment makes the free gift not a choice to recieve. So it is wrong to require it in order to be something unless what your trying to be requires you to be lead by the spirit. Such as being a minister.

I was thinking of something more direct like, boy meets girl of different religion, but must convert before he allowed to marry her. Seen a couple of those.

 

 

chance>

Evolution on the other hand is science, one has no requirement to believe it (like it’s some sort of choice), it is a consensus of ideas, formulated into a scientific theory that is supported by evidence.

 

ikester7579>

I would disagree on this because there are some theories that require belief because they basically have only the support of the one who thought it up. Which means no scientific method was involved.

In principle this should not happen, but doubtless is does to some degree, at individual levels. As far as this relates to rebelling, it should be the simplest of all to resolve, at least there is a clear cut way determining if certain things are true or false (within the limitations of science).

 

Rebelling against Christianity (or another) is relatively simple, one only has to ‘not like it’, one’s opinion is all that counts.

 

Rebelling against some aspect of science is opinion fee, the interpretation of the facts and data hold sway.

[Greyhound 0]

1) Thou shalt not have any other God's before me.

 

This does not only apply to the unsaved, but the saved as well. So I was not trying to point a holier than thou finger at you. Both sides are guilty of this sin.

Neither did I think you were. But that just restates the case. It makes the assumption that one has to *have* a god. To reform that commandment: 'thou shalt have no God but me' - there is still the option of "no God" inherent (though not one God's going to approve of admittedly).

 

Like the Ernst Haeckel thing? It was proven fraud, and no one has unproven these findings. But yet some still believe it. And for what reason? Because they decide to. Faith based.

I'm glad you mentioned that because I'd forgottent to thank you. After the last discussion around this subject you suggested that "we" check our references on the subject, so I did. I e-mailed the Univesity at Jena and was passed on to a very helpful chap by the name Dr Uwe Hossfeld, who pointed me in the direction of all sorts of useful literature (which can be found here: Jena, especially in Fachartikel (left-hand sidebar. I've only gotten around to reading 'The Road from Haeckel' so far (which suggests that Haeckel intended the drawings as nothing more than a teaching device, not as an accurate representation of the real embryos).

 

I figured you knew what Big Bang was.

Only in the vaguest sense.

 

But it is your conclusion that because I don't agree that I'm not educated in that area, correct?

Good grief no! And if you think that's the case, then I can see why you get annoyed with other debaters some time! I have no idea whether you are educated in the area or not *except* for what you have presented to me - that's all I have to go on. As that was not an accurate representation of the theory, I thought I'd better ensure we were talking about the same thing before we go any further.

 

I guess if using a relgious word is part of science, then science admits to being a religion.

11080[/snapback]

'Belief' is not a religious word, it's a word that is used in religion.

[ikester7579 20]

Neither did I think you were.  But that just restates the case.  It makes the assumption that one has to *have* a god.  To reform that commandment: 'thou shalt have no God but me' - there is still the option of "no God" inherent (though not one God's going to approve of admittedly).

A god can be mental, or physical object. According to the bible, it's what ever you put first in your life that makes everything else have to wait. It's basically what your whole life is circled around. And it's usually the first choice of what you would do out of everything you currently do. Or what all your actions point to (your goal in life).

 

I'm glad you mentioned that because I'd forgottent to thank you.  After the last discussion around this subject you suggested that "we" check our references on the subject, so I did.  I e-mailed the Univesity at Jena and was passed on to a very helpful chap by the name Dr Uwe Hossfeld, who pointed me in the direction of all sorts of useful literature (which can be found here: Jena, especially in Fachartikel (left-hand sidebar.  I've only gotten around to reading 'The Road from Haeckel' so far (which suggests that Haeckel intended the drawings as nothing more than a teaching device, not as an accurate representation of the real embryos).

A teaching device that was not accurate. If I came up with the theory we evolved from cows. And I convinced you through some drawings I altered, that were not correct. And later it was discovered. And my excuse to the whole matter was I was just using this as a teaching tool. Does that make it right? Should I alter pictures to convince you, when if I had left them the way they were. I probably could not have convinced you (not giving you a choice for truth concerning actual facts)?

 

The other reason he was put on trial was because the pics he altered were also not his own. He took another professors drawings at Jena and changed them. And this professor was hopping mad about it.

 

Also remember, Haeckel was the link between Darwin and Hitler. Haeckel had just sold the idea of evolution to several people in both Government, and the military. Which opened the door for Hitler to use it, because on his part there was not much selling to do. Personal truth be known, I blame Haeckel for what Hitler did. But only because he frauded the pics to be so convincing to those who fell for it, and then the people fell for how Hitler applied it. Because if you take away what Haeckel did from past history. Hitler would have had to sell his idea, not just apply it. Which may have kept him from doing what he did.

 

Side note: I will read what's is on the link you left when I have the time. Which will probably be within the next few days. Well maybe not. It's in German.

 

Only in the vaguest sense.

Then you should go to some websites that teach it and read up on it. I'm not into teaching things I don't believe. But you will see how several ideas about Big Bang are just poofed from nothing. In my opinion, it just like a god did it thing that creationist are always accused of using.

 

Good grief no!  And if you think that's the case, then I can see why you get annoyed with other debaters some time!  I have no idea whether you are educated in the area or not *except* for what you have presented to me - that's all I have to go on.  As that was not an accurate representation of the theory, I thought I'd better ensure we were talking about the same thing before we go any further. 

I was taught all of this in school. I get annoyed because people act like I have not had basic teaching because I disagree. Just because I am taught something, does not mean I have to conform to it. Unless someone would like to explain how the teaching of evolution leaves no choice for the individual.

 

Example:

1) Student A goes to public school and rejects evolution for creation. Is he considered educated or not?

 

2) Student B goes to a private christian school and rejects creation for evolution. Is he considered educated or not?

 

I fit the mold of student A. And I already know what evolutionists think about my rejection of their theory. They would prefer that creation was not a choice I could make on my own. And that evolution the forced education (a need to make everyone conform to it). Which our school system is now doing. Challenge evolution with the choice that you do not want to conform. And you will either get thrown out of school, sued, or what ever else can be done to you.

 

The ACLU foams at the mouth for the next person they can sue over the idea that evolution should not be forced education. For what else do you call it when a choice is not given, and if you decide to make another choice. You will be forced by legal actions to either recant that choice, or lose your right to be educated.

 

Since when did our school system become a dictatorship? And what is the only reason it looks that way? Hitler would be proud.

 

'Belief' is not a religious word, it's a word that is used in religion.

11088[/snapback]

Give me an example of where belief can be used without faith being a part of it?

[Greyhound 0]

A god can be mental, or physical object. According to the bible, it's what ever you put first in your life that makes everything else have to wait. It's basically what your whole life is circled around. And it's usually the first choice of what you would do out of everything you currently do. Or what all your actions point to (your goal in life).

That would make my family, God. They are not.

 

A teaching device that was not accurate...

Accurate? It was supposed to be a "cartoon" version of embryological development so that students could see what the details were he was referring to. Nothing more nor less.

 

The other reason he was put on trial was because the pics he altered were also not his own.

I still find no indication that Haeckel was put on trial by his University even.

 

Also remember, Haeckel was the link between Darwin and Hitler. Haeckel had just sold the idea of evolution to several people in both Government, and the military.

I think this is straying from topic but as you brought it up, I roundly reject this. Haeckel was quoted by the Nazi party but he died in the same year that the Nazi party formed, so it's unlikely that he ever even heard of it, let alone knew what it would eventually stand for.

 

Quite how embryological diagrams caused the attrocities of the Third Reich I'm not sure.

 

It's in German.

Dr Hossfeld writes in very good English as well.

 

Then you should go to some websites that teach it and read up on it.

Websites don't go into enough depth. I've consumed volumes of information on the subject but I'm afraid it's the complex maths that floors me.

 

I'm not into teaching things I don't believe. But you will see how several ideas about Big Bang are just poofed from nothing. In my opinion, it just like a god did it thing that creationist are always accused of using.

Not at all. As you are already aware, the Big Bang doesn't predict the 'beginning'. It talks about the time just after. Most scientists agree we'll probably never know about the actual beginning.

 

I get annoyed because people act like I have not had basic teaching because I disagree.

I was very clear that it wasn't because you disagreed but because you appeared to be misrepresenting it. I assumed that as you are an honest debater that this was simply an error in understanding the theory.

 

Since when did our school system become a dictatorship? And what is the only reason it looks that way? Hitler would be proud.

It is my understanding that Creation would still be taught in religious education classes. Until creationsim can come up with scientific claims of its own it will simply be impossible to teach it in science classes (and why would you want to?!)

 

Give me an example of where belief can be used without faith being a part of it?

11089[/snapback]

I believe that I am irresistible to women.

 

[ikester7579 20]

That would make my family, God.  They are not.

Family excluded.

 

Accurate?  It was supposed to be a "cartoon" version of embryological development so that students could see what the details were he was referring to.  Nothing more nor less.

That's a lame excuse and you know it. Plus, he was not teaching only kids. It was mainly adults. Unless you would like to prove that the German government was run by children, and the military also.

 

I still find no indication that Haeckel was put on trial by his University even.

That's right. Only information posted by evolutionist sources are dependable. Silly me. Creationists are chronic liars, correct? I guess it's the reason you are constantly questioning this. You believe it also.

 

I think this is straying from topic but as you brought it up, I roundly reject this.  Haeckel was quoted by the Nazi party but he died in the same year that the Nazi party formed, so it's unlikely that he ever even heard of it, let alone knew what it would eventually stand for.

Did he, or did he not go around Germany teaching evolution with his faked pics?

 

Quite how embryological diagrams caused the attrocities of the Third Reich I'm not sure.

It was the starting point. How else did evolution get so widely known in Germany during Haecel's life? Would you like to produce another person who went around and taught evolution in Haeckels' place?

 

Dr Hossfeld writes in very good English as well.

Maybe I get the google translator to work for me. It's still in beta mode, but it might work enough to understand what's being said.

 

Websites don't go into enough depth.  I've consumed volumes of information on the subject but I'm afraid it's the complex maths that floors me.

Not at all.  As you are already aware, the Big Bang doesn't predict the 'beginning'.  It talks about the time just after.  Most scientists agree we'll probably never know about the actual beginning.

How does the Big Bang theory start out? In the beginning..., correct?

 

I was very clear that it wasn't because you disagreed but because you appeared to be misrepresenting it.  I assumed that as you are an honest debater that this was simply an error in understanding the theory.

Does disagreeing = misrepresenting it? Where did I misrepresent it?

Well the google search pretty much confirms what evolutionists think about the honesty of creationists. 13 million hits on the term: creationist lies. Does google misrepresent the mindset of most evolutionists?

 

It is my understanding that Creation would still be taught in religious education classes.  Until creationism can come up with scientific claims of its own it will simply be impossible to teach it in science classes (and why would you want to?!)

11090[/snapback]

The evolutionist cop out for removing creation from school . Classic.

 

Does evolution have all the answers? No? then what is wrong with an opposing view?

 

Since evolutionists enjoy their one way teaching through separation of church and state. And have allowed science to become secular, and naturalistic. I purpose that creationists remove all their contributions from past history to science, since we are not welcome as scientist because we refuse to conform to the evolution theory.

 

After all, Christian contributions might taint evolution, and all of science into looking like a religion. So from the separation of church and state:

 

1) Science funded by our tax dollars (state funded).

2) Religion being non-profit (not state funded).

 

So we remove all Christian theories, and see if science can stand on it own without them, since we are not welcome. and are chronic liars. If you don't think that would affect science by much, I suggest you look here where I compiled a list of Christians who contributed: http://www.yecheadquarters.org/shame_part2.8.html

 

Don't forget to click next at the bottom of the page. It's several pages long.

 

 

I really think it would be a good court case since evolutionists don't want anything to do with creationists. the web would be over whelming evidence that would be in our favor as we show that even university professors agree with not having creationists. I wonder what a jury would think about the smartest minds in the world talking such hate for people just because they disagree? I think they would grant removing all contributions, and disallowing science to use them. Unless we are accepted. and separation of church and state removed.

[Greyhound 0]

Family excluded.

But I could produce a list of about 10 things more important to me than science.

 

That's a lame excuse and you know it.

No. It was taken from Dr Hossfeld's article (Dr Hossfeld appears to be Jena's expert on Haeckel).

 

Plus, he was not teaching only kids. It was mainly adults. Unless you would like to prove that the German government was run by children, and the military also.

He was teaching adults - mind you, the children of 1919 would have been the adults of 1933. I'm still not quite sure what you're getting at.

 

That's right. Only information posted by evolutionist sources are dependable. Silly me. Creationists are chronic liars, correct? I guess it's the reason you are constantly questioning this. You believe it also.

Please don't misrepresent what I said. I said that I can't find any evidence that it ever happened - including at Jena University itself. What am I supposed to think?!

 

Did he, or did he not go around Germany teaching evolution with his faked pics?

It was the starting point. How else did evolution get so widely known in Germany during Haecel's life? Would you like to produce another person who went around and taught evolution in Haeckels' place?

Well, most other professors of biology would have taught it I should think. The idea was, as you say, rather popular by then. And I don't regard Haeckel's pictures as either lies nor fakes - they are essentially just diagrams emphasising the bits we should be examining.

 

Maybe I get the google translator to work for me. It's still in beta mode, but it might work enough to understand what's being said.

As I said, there are plenty of articles in English.

 

How does the Big Bang theory start out? In the beginning..., correct?

No. It starts out "about 0.0003 secs after the beginning the Universe was very hot and very dense..." (the timing I made up, but you get the picture).

 

Does disagreeing = misrepresenting it? Where did I misrepresent it?

No. You stated that the Universe started as a very small dot and that it exploded. The first is purely speculative, the second just wrong.

 

Well the google search pretty much confirms what evolutionists think about the honesty of creationists. 13 million hits on the term: creationist lies. Does google misrepresent the mindset of most evolutionists?

The evolutionist cop out for removing creation from school . Classic.

I got 818,000 hits for the same search. 4.48 million for "creation lies", "evolution lies" returned 4.16 million and "evolutionist lies" 204,000. I don't think it tells us much about anything since "creationist lies" would return a hit on the website "creationist responses to evolutionist lies".

 

Does evolution have all the answers? No? then what is wrong with an opposing view?...

 

... I think they would grant removing all contributions, and disallowing science to use them. Unless we are accepted. and separation of church and state removed.

11093[/snapback]

*sigh* We're well aware that many good Christians were and are scientists. The reason people don't want creationism taught in SCIENCE classes is that, having told our children how the scientific method works, we'd have to then teach them something that completely breaches that method. That doesn't make what you say *wrong*, it means that if the world was created 6000 years ago in a single week, it's not something that science gleans from its observations and even if the data did suggest it there's no way science can examine God, so it doesn't concern itself with Him.

[Springer 5]

*sigh*  We're well aware that many good Christians were and are scientists.  The reason people don't want creationism taught in SCIENCE classes is that, having told our children how the scientific method works, we'd have to then teach them something that completely breaches that method.  That doesn't make what you say *wrong*, it means that if the world was created 6000 years ago in a single week, it's not something that science gleans from its observations and even if the data did suggest it there's no way science can examine God, so it doesn't concern itself with Him.

11096[/snapback]

Teaching creationism does not imply teaching a literal interpretation of Genesis. You say we can't "examine" God. Can you "examine" gravity? You see its effects, and you conclude it exists. You can likewise see the effects of intelligent design and conclude that it exists.

 

Please tell me how the teaching of goo-to-you evolution conforms to the scientific method.

[Greyhound 0]

Teaching creationism does not imply teaching a literal interpretation of Genesis.  You say we can't "examine" God.  Can you "examine" gravity?  You see its effects, and you conclude it exists.  You can likewise see the effects of intelligent design and conclude that it exists.

They're different things. We observe a force that acts on massive bodies and we call that 'gravity'. We could also call it God and be done with it. You can't *see* the effects of intelligent design, you can only see life and infer its cause.

 

Please tell me how the teaching of goo-to-you evolution conforms to the scientific method.

11098[/snapback]

Boiled down: Science looks at the data and concocts the story to explain it (e.g. evolution). Creation has the story and tries to make the data fit it.

 

That doesn't make one any better than the other. It just means they are different things.

[Springer 5]

You can't *see* the effects of intelligent design, you can only see life and infer its cause.

A belief in evolution is by inference. Why is that more "scientific" than a conclusion of intelligent design.

 

Boiled down: Science looks at the data and concocts the story to explain it (e.g. evolution).  Creation has the story and tries to make the data fit it. 

"Science" is not synonymous with "evolution". Evolution does not look at data and draw conclusion. Evolution presupposes the nonexistence of ID and goes from there.

You are accusing creationists of having a story and making the data fit it, when that is exactly what evolutionists do. They've decided that natural selection is omnipotent, and regard the existence of every form of life as "proof" of its power.

[Greyhound 0]

A belief in evolution is by inference.  Why is that more "scientific" than a conclusion of intelligent design.

Because it's inference based on the data as we see it (the similarities and differences in cytochrome C for example). There is no logical inference that something that looks designed *is* designed. You simply can't have a frame of reference for that.

 

And - even more importantly - evolution lets us predict things such as the hierarchical structure of species. It predicted that there must be some mechanism for passing characteristics between parent and offspring and eventually genes were discovered.

 

"Science" is not synonymous with "evolution".

Actually it is here as this is the field of science under discussion.

 

Evolution does not look at data and draw conclusion.  Evolution presupposes the nonexistence of ID and goes from there.

Goes from there to where?! Notwithstanding ID per se is a fairly recent discipline where do you think evolution goes after its decided not to accept ID?

 

You are accusing creationists of having a story and making the data fit it, when that is exactly what evolutionists do.  They've decided that natural selection is omnipotent, and regard the existence of every form of life as "proof" of its power.

11100[/snapback]

Not sure what to make of this. I haven't accused anyone of anything and if this is feeling like a personal attack then I'll stop debating now because it isn't my intention to hurt anyone's feelings or beliefs. Creation is the story (fact or not). However, I would have thought natural selection would be as likely in the post-flood world as in an evolution-driven world, so I'm not sure what point you are making there.

[Springer 5]

Because it's inference based on the data as we see it (the similarities and differences in cytochrome C for example).

The inference is based on philosophy… you assume that your observations mean common descent. You assume that a God would not have created this earth as it is. That is a religious/philosophical perspective… nothing more.

Cytochrome C similarities and differences between species offers evidence of design, not gradualism... unless you filter the data and see only what you want to see.

 

There is no logical inference that something that looks designed *is* designed.  You simply can't have a frame of reference for that. 

Your argument is that things look like they evolved, so they must have. Now, you’re saying that I'm illogical to conclude that because something looks designed, it was designed.

 

And - even more importantly - evolution lets us predict things such as the hierarchical structure of species.  It predicted that there must be some mechanism for passing characteristics between parent and offspring and eventually genes were discovered.

The existence of DNA disproves evolution. The known mechanisms of inheritance disprove evolution. An ape cannot be selectively bred into a human. This is impossible by all known principles of genetics. You can only imagine that mechanisms exist to allow for such a thing, given enough time. This is your imagination in action. This is why evolution is a belief system... a religion. It is not science. You imagine mechanisms to be operational but cannot show that they are in the real world.

[ikester7579 20]

I see the information here is being copied and pasted to one of the famous make fun of creationists sites: http://www.fstdt.com/comments.asp?id=18749

 

I wonder which non-believer, or fake believer member is doing this?

 

I guess this means I join the elite group of the most hated among evolutionist.

 

Or could it be the lurkers? Or a combination of the two? I wonder why I felt I was being toyed with about Haeckel. Now I know why. Any other games you guys like to play? And pretend to be serious? I guess truth most be a joke, and a game to be played as far as evolutionists go. Hitler would be proud.

 

The game is up, so don't act dumb when responding to this post either.

[ikester7579 20]

What's the matter, cat got your tongue?

 

I was very clear that it wasn't because you disagreed but because you appeared to be misrepresenting it. I assumed that as you are an honest debater that this was simply an error in understanding the theory.

Funny how that comment just got reversed.

 

So would anyone like to comment on why posts here are getting listed on that site?

 

And is there anyone man enough to step forward and admit to doing it?

 

What's the matter? Don't like it when the truth is exposed about evolution? That evolution is nothing but twisting truth and making fun of people.

 

Come on, I want an explaination for why this site even exists, if honesty is what you are promoting, you should have no problems explaining yourselves. Is the arguement so weak for evolution that you have to resort to this? Is this part of the scientific method? Or is this the Hitler mentallity that bread the hate that is spewed from this site?

[ikester7579 20]

Response number one, from someone to coward to say it here.

 

It's f*** obvious why this site exists... it's to take the piss out of all the garbage that fundies, like you, spew on a regular basis.

 

 

Never seen any claim that this site's about honesty on Evolution though... that seems to be some lie you've just vomited out.

Hitler would be so proud. Who's next?

 

You see believers. This is what they think of us. They hate all Christians. And like Darwin said, they would love to classify us as a lower race and exterminate us. Both Darwin and Hitler agree on extermination.

 

This is why the columbine shooters targeted Christians. They were carrying out both Darwin and Hitlers ideas.

 

This is why a evolutionist says this about H*vind:

 

If I could kill anyone on this planet and get away with it, H*vind would be the one I would choose.

 

Shall I post more example of this Hitler mentallity? These are the less vulgar ones. The rest I would have to get permission from the owner of this forum before posting.

 

So those of you who are theistic evolutionist, will you be a part of the extermination that both Hitler and Darwin agree on? And the hate exposed here?

 

You guys are just confirming everything I just put up on this web page: http://www.yecheadquarters.org/shame.html

 

Added: Do you know what God's word says about someone who hates someone else as much as some of you hate H*vind?

 

1jn 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

 

Because all men came from one source "Adam". We are all related. So when God speaks of hating his brother, it can be applied two ways. For the sinner it is applied to hating man because of creation. To the saved it is applied to creation, but also anyone who is a brother in Christ.

 

So when you stand before the throne of God, and God replays the hate for H*vind. Just for that one sin alone can and will condemn, just like the word says.

 

rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

 

The verse above pretty much sums up what the one site is all about. Murder does not have to be the physical taking of a life. Murder is also where the reputation of another is totally destroyed through hate. And just because that person may have sinned, does not justify you becoming part of it.

[ikester7579 20]

I like the cartoon below:

 

It confirms to me that evolutionists are always thinking of ways to get rid of creationist. Like the cartoon implies, and has probably given ideas to evolutionist doctors who would do this, give the creationist the drug that don't work so he can suffer and die. All for what reason? Evolution, and that we won't conform to it.

 

 

It's just like the cartoons the Nazis drew on the side of the trains that went to areas to kill the Jews. The inscription says: We go to poland to strike at the Jews.

 

All this stuff just keeps making that connection to the Hitler mentality to kill anyone that won't conform to a certain view.

[Guest 92g]

This thread is closed for admin review.

 

Terry