First and formost, clearly not all evelotionists are racists. My point is that most of the major teachers and founders of the teaching are. In the same way, I'm not saying all christians aren't racists, even though most of the major teachers and the founders aren't.
Don't think for a minute that just because some group claims to be christian that they are. It'd be like some group claim to be citizens of a nation even though they aren't. Hitler is not a poorly educated man, but he's very wrong in his conclusions. Read his book some time. I'll make it easier for you: http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch11.html
That's chapter 11 where he really digs into racist divisions. Don't get me wrong, Hitler probably wouldn't be thought of as an Evolutionist by most, but I use him as an example of a non christian whom many think is one. He may have been raised with good religious traditions, but he never truely understood who God is, and feel pray to conflicting teaching
- Now for "PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM" as evolutionists like to call it.
According to this theory, animals stay the same for long periods of time but when they change, they change rapidly. Thus, they leave no fossil records of their transformation because it happens fast in relatively small or isolated locations.
You're right: "Anyone with an elementary understanding of evolution would never make such an absurd statement." It takes someone with a deeper understanding of Evolutionary Theology to say such an absurd statement.
Since Darwin's book was printed, Evolution has become a moving target. Every year the Theory changes and there are some teachings of it that were proven false decades ago (like human babies having gill slits in the womb) but you still find them in High School and College text books. I haven't found a direct quote saying "Monkey's gave birth to humans" litterally, but it's strongly implied that that kind of change is required as a natural step in evolution from one Species to another.
But Evolution having some problems wouldn't automatically make it a bad thing for christians to celebrate Darwin's birthday. The fundimental idea of EVOLVING from one KIND of animal to ANOTHER KIND is HERESY (a belief profoundly at odds with orthodox teaching).
- Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. - Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. - Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. - Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. -
The list goes on a little more. The point is that if you believe Jesus (not just that he lived, but that he lives now and doesn't lie), then to teach evolution, as Darwin and most of the teachers after him taught it, is wicked. Darwin studied to be a preacher and couldn't find a congregation that would have him as their preacher. He knew he was contradicting scripture. That means Darwin was calling God a liar on purpose.
To paraphrase it: God said "I created every KIND of plant and every KIND of animal." Then Darwin said "No you didn't. You see, some early animals mutated and became the KINDS of animals we have to
Natural evelution is basically one kind of animal giving birth to another. Natural selection is basically weaker animals dieing off.
Natural selection is only part of an equation (figurative, not mathmatical). Other factors weigh in more heavily than natural selection. Survival of the fittest is the catch phrase for natural selection. But does the fittest bird in a flock survive the huricane, or the one that wasn't strong enough to be that far south? Does one strength save it from all dangers? No, it's far more complex. You need to be strong in a way that helps when you need to "survive".
Natural evolution is most notably not proven true. It just takes one repeatable event to prove it true. Monkeys can't give birth to cats, or the other way around. And Religious Evolutionist will tell you we all came from the same primortial soup. They say animals of one kind gave birth to animals of another kind. You rarely if ever hear them say "a lot of animals of one kind gave birth to a lot of animals of another kind at the same time" so they could actually propogate, even though it doesn't even happen when it's one in a generation either.
They preach that it rained on the rocks for thousands of years, and the wet rocks came to life. That life gave birth to other kinds of life, and so on until monkeys gave birth to humans. Only problem is, monkeys can't give birth to humans. Not to be disgusting, but there are enough freaks practicing beastiality to prove that several kinds of animals can't give birth to humans. And I'm sure no other kind of animal can give birth to a kind that isn't the same as itself. KIND is broader than SPECIES and differs, so don't try to think of them as the same. A dog could possibly successfully mate with any other dog(opposite sex), but not a cat. The factors that seperate one SPECIES from another are theoretical as evidenced by the constant redefining of the theory of evolution since it's inception. The theory predates Darwin, but he's credited with gathering many of the ideas and formalizing them into one "super theroy" for lack of a better term.
Read the book:
Talk about a long title! Darwin's book was a bullet from the smoking gun of RACISM! - On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. -
If you don't understand how this title speaks of RACISM then read the book and it won't take you long to see why evelution is favored by RACISTS world wide.
Funny thing about the title is that the book never actually covers where "Species" origionally "Origionated" from.
THE LIE: Religious Evolutionist will tell you that animals change because of their environment and they call that "Micro Evolution". Which they say proves animals change into other animals.
Before wide spread Evolutionary Evangelism that kind of change was called "Adapting" and it was commonly knows that animals would not give birth to animals that were so adapted that they were a different kind of animal.
SCIENCE requires EVIDENCE. Evelotionary conculsions are not Scientific conclutions. At best they are Scientific theories, and many Evolutionary theoryies are far from Scientific in so much as they directly contradict the evidence.
I'm not affiliated with this group of scientist/preachers, but I've listened to a lot of their materials and I find them to be far more Scientific in their aproach.
Wm
P. S. I'm a White Male Bible Believing Christian in my early 30s, just so you know where I stand. And so you know where I'm coming from, I was an Athiest raised by a single mother with 2 brothers who are both agnosti
It's nice to talk with someone who's actually read some of the bible before commenting on it.
You're comment on spouse abuse is almost right. But it's not God initiating the abuse. God just rescued them from the slavery of Egypt when they turned to worship a golden calf they made themselves and when they were given the promise land they refused to take it, so God sent them ot the next best place (sarcasm). It's akin to being in the first week of marriage and finding the bride running off with another man. Or finding a man has punched his wife because she has awoken him by hitting him with the bottom of a frying pan again. God has done everything right and yet the nation of Israel forsakes Him. They deserve death, yet He restrains Himself because of His promise to their Father Abraham. But if you don't understand the roll of death in the world, you'll have a hard time understanding the forgiveness in the story.
Yes, my rational is "I don't understand, therefore I will take God at His word." Instead of disbelive Him just because I don't understand.
It's not without reason that I belive the accounts in scripture. Assuming you haven't studied it in depth, you dont know how a frog comes from a tadpole, but you still belive it does, based on the testimony of those who've seen it. I belive the testimony of God as written by the authors He chose and there is a lot of study that goes into verifying that the books in the bible should all be there and are of God, so I won't wander off on that rabit trail right now.
The harlet in Jericho who was spared (only one "hooker" not many as you said [Numbers ]) was spared because she blieved in God, and on less spiritual level also because she help the victors be victory. Back to the moral angle, are you saying others in the city kept God's law better than she did? Or that even one other person in Jericho even wanted to?
This will be a stretch for you, but here goes. The whole world is God's, he made it. If He wants you off a certian part of land, you should go. That is right. If you resist, He has the right to force you off. If you refuse, you can cost yourself the lose of your own life. It is your action that causes it, not His.
As for the old man, he was in Gibeah, not Sodom (Sodom was destroyed in Genesis, long before judges). This was not Lot who was the only righteous man in Sodom, but rather, the old man "was from the hill country of Ephraim". The old man offered his own daughter and his guest's concubine who had played the harlot against the man so that those outside could "Do what ever they felt was right" and they refused to do good. It was at that point that the guest put his concubine out himself. She had played the harlet and her husband now put her out with the men. The old man did not do it, and the old man's daughter was not put out or abused. Only the woman who had committed adultry was put out, and dispite adultry being punishable by death, the mens outside still did wrong with the way they treated her. There's more to the story and the men outside are delt with for their action. If you want to know "The rest of the story" then "Read the book". [Judges this exerpt is from chapter 19]
You are quite right on one very strong point that many new christians find hard to get past. The bible is full of graphic matterial and strong descriptions of right and wrong and even several stories that don't declair a matter one way or the other directly as if it's implied by an established code of ethics.
I have to comment on an earlier remark in the thread. It was said 'A "bad" scientist is not a scientist at all, by purest definition.' What is that "purest" definition of Scientist?
And as a reminder of where the thread started, it's about net pron. I haven't seen it address this way, so here's my take on the issue. If you have established laws on what can and cannot be shown in public, the web is public. To show it on the web is the same as to show it in public, therefore it's bound by th
They say a little science will draw a man away from God and a lot of science will bring him back. Just as unstudied scientists may not know the teachings of the Accadamy of Science very well, unstudied christians may not know the teachings God very well. The solution is obvious, study more.
There are many great minds teaching in the Acadamy of Science and many great minds teaching in churches across the world. Indeed I would expect you'll find many more beliving scientists than either of you would expect. You'll probably even find some teach at both the Academy of Science and in the churches across the world.
Seeking the truth should be a practice of every intelegent person on the planet. Believing in God will only come when He calls you (study this scientifically and academically in scripture and you'll find this to be true both ways).
Evolution is a very misrepresented word. It's akin to saying a bird flies through the air and rocks fly through the air too. A rock falls through the air, but because when it's thrown it falls like a flying bird it's refered to in a similar manner. And all the evidence to prove a bird flies doesn't support the idea that a rock flies. It's also like seeing beaver tracks on both sides of a river and saying the beavers can fly. And if beavers were all dead, how could you prove it wasn't true?
Micro evolution is observable. All the other forms of evolution are unsupported theories. Many seeking to earn a name for themselves or promote their beliefs have fabricated lies to support evolution. The same is true in christian circles teaching things like the OT is irrelevent since Christ came and died for our sin. This in does discredit some of the honest teachers in both circles, since they trust these sources until they learn the truth.
I have not met a person yet who belives the entire theroy of evolution as expressed by Darwin (or any other form of it since). They speak in terms of maybe and could have been when they get to parts they don't agree with. I myself was an avid evolutionist and taught others about how the theory works. I find myself in crowds explaining how evolution is not as stupid as many christians say it is (giving explainations to explain those statements) and not as smart as many non-christians say it is (also with evidence to explain those statements).
I have met people who belive every word of the bible is true, even though they don't understand how it can be. Indeed I am one of these people. I know there is an explaination, even if I don't know what the explaination is. Never be afraid to confess you don't know.
The overwhelming evidence to support things that are in scripture leads to the obvious conclusion that if it's right about all those things it must also be right about the other things I don't understand. And so begins the search for an explaination. Yes Jesus walked on water, Yes God parted the Red Sea for the nation of Israel to pass through. We've found the walls of Jerico fallen straight down. The flood happened, many many cultures have veriations of the story including Noah and his boat full of animals (Native Americans, Chinese...)
Do you see how neither science nor religion are belief w/o evidence, but rather, belief based on the trustworthiness of the source.
I was having a hard time getting a Gmail account and then it took over 2 months to get an invite for a freind. So I get SCREEN SHOTS!
http://www.pro-gram.us/gmail
If Google is blocked from using gmail.com for trademark reasons, I'm sure they'll keep the mail alive and just transition us all to a new domain like @googlemail.com and we'll all get used to it. Or maybe:-) @geemail.com!
Slashdot Mirror
First and formost, clearly not all evelotionists are racists. My point is that most of the major teachers and founders of the teaching are. In the same way, I'm not saying all christians aren't racists, even though most of the major teachers and the founders aren't.
.html
Don't think for a minute that just because some group claims to be christian that they are. It'd be like some group claim to be citizens of a nation even though they aren't. Hitler is not a poorly educated man, but he's very wrong in his conclusions. Read his book some time. I'll make it easier for you:
http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch11
That's chapter 11 where he really digs into racist divisions. Don't get me wrong, Hitler probably wouldn't be thought of as an Evolutionist by most, but I use him as an example of a non christian whom many think is one. He may have been raised with good religious traditions, but he never truely understood who God is, and feel pray to conflicting teaching
-
Now for "PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM" as evolutionists like to call it.
According to this theory, animals stay the same for long periods of time but when they change, they change rapidly. Thus, they leave no fossil records of their transformation because it happens fast in relatively small or isolated locations.
You're right: "Anyone with an elementary understanding of evolution would never make such an absurd statement." It takes someone with a deeper understanding of Evolutionary Theology to say such an absurd statement.
Here's a book full of examples of the problems with Evolution:
http://www.creationism.org/books/sunderland/Darwin sEnigma/index.htm
Since Darwin's book was printed, Evolution has become a moving target. Every year the Theory changes and there are some teachings of it that were proven false decades ago (like human babies having gill slits in the womb) but you still find them in High School and College text books. I haven't found a direct quote saying "Monkey's gave birth to humans" litterally, but it's strongly implied that that kind of change is required as a natural step in evolution from one Species to another.
But Evolution having some problems wouldn't automatically make it a bad thing for christians to celebrate Darwin's birthday. The fundimental idea of EVOLVING from one KIND of animal to ANOTHER KIND is HERESY (a belief profoundly at odds with orthodox teaching).
-
Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
-
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
-
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
-
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
-
The list goes on a little more. The point is that if you believe Jesus (not just that he lived, but that he lives now and doesn't lie), then to teach evolution, as Darwin and most of the teachers after him taught it, is wicked. Darwin studied to be a preacher and couldn't find a congregation that would have him as their preacher. He knew he was contradicting scripture. That means Darwin was calling God a liar on purpose.
To paraphrase it: God said "I created every KIND of plant and every KIND of animal." Then Darwin said "No you didn't. You see, some early animals mutated and became the KINDS of animals we have to
SCIENCE requires EVIDENCE for CONCULSIONS
Natural evelution is basically one kind of animal giving birth to another. Natural selection is basically weaker animals dieing off.
Natural selection is only part of an equation (figurative, not mathmatical). Other factors weigh in more heavily than natural selection. Survival of the fittest is the catch phrase for natural selection. But does the fittest bird in a flock survive the huricane, or the one that wasn't strong enough to be that far south? Does one strength save it from all dangers? No, it's far more complex. You need to be strong in a way that helps when you need to "survive".
Natural evolution is most notably not proven true. It just takes one repeatable event to prove it true. Monkeys can't give birth to cats, or the other way around. And Religious Evolutionist will tell you we all came from the same primortial soup. They say animals of one kind gave birth to animals of another kind. You rarely if ever hear them say "a lot of animals of one kind gave birth to a lot of animals of another kind at the same time" so they could actually propogate, even though it doesn't even happen when it's one in a generation either.
They preach that it rained on the rocks for thousands of years, and the wet rocks came to life. That life gave birth to other kinds of life, and so on until monkeys gave birth to humans. Only problem is, monkeys can't give birth to humans. Not to be disgusting, but there are enough freaks practicing beastiality to prove that several kinds of animals can't give birth to humans. And I'm sure no other kind of animal can give birth to a kind that isn't the same as itself. KIND is broader than SPECIES and differs, so don't try to think of them as the same. A dog could possibly successfully mate with any other dog(opposite sex), but not a cat. The factors that seperate one SPECIES from another are theoretical as evidenced by the constant redefining of the theory of evolution since it's inception. The theory predates Darwin, but he's credited with gathering many of the ideas and formalizing them into one "super theroy" for lack of a better term.
Read the book:
Talk about a long title! Darwin's book was a bullet from the smoking gun of RACISM!
-
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
-
Read it for yourself here:
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/t he-origin-of-species/
If you don't understand how this title speaks of RACISM then read the book and it won't take you long to see why evelution is favored by RACISTS world wide.
Funny thing about the title is that the book never actually covers where "Species" origionally "Origionated" from.
THE LIE: Religious Evolutionist will tell you that animals change because of their environment and they call that "Micro Evolution". Which they say proves animals change into other animals.
Before wide spread Evolutionary Evangelism that kind of change was called "Adapting" and it was commonly knows that animals would not give birth to animals that were so adapted that they were a different kind of animal.
SCIENCE requires EVIDENCE. Evelotionary conculsions are not Scientific conclutions. At best they are Scientific theories, and many Evolutionary theoryies are far from Scientific in so much as they directly contradict the evidence.
DARWIN OF CREATIONISM: http://www.drdino.com/
I'm not affiliated with this group of scientist/preachers, but I've listened to a lot of their materials and I find them to be far more Scientific in their aproach.
Wm
P. S. I'm a White Male Bible Believing Christian in my early 30s, just so you know where I stand. And so you know where I'm coming from, I was an Athiest raised by a single mother with 2 brothers who are both agnosti
It's nice to talk with someone who's actually read some of the bible before commenting on it.
You're comment on spouse abuse is almost right. But it's not God initiating the abuse. God just rescued them from the slavery of Egypt when they turned to worship a golden calf they made themselves and when they were given the promise land they refused to take it, so God sent them ot the next best place (sarcasm). It's akin to being in the first week of marriage and finding the bride running off with another man. Or finding a man has punched his wife because she has awoken him by hitting him with the bottom of a frying pan again. God has done everything right and yet the nation of Israel forsakes Him. They deserve death, yet He restrains Himself because of His promise to their Father Abraham. But if you don't understand the roll of death in the world, you'll have a hard time understanding the forgiveness in the story.
Yes, my rational is "I don't understand, therefore I will take God at His word." Instead of disbelive Him just because I don't understand.
It's not without reason that I belive the accounts in scripture. Assuming you haven't studied it in depth, you dont know how a frog comes from a tadpole, but you still belive it does, based on the testimony of those who've seen it. I belive the testimony of God as written by the authors He chose and there is a lot of study that goes into verifying that the books in the bible should all be there and are of God, so I won't wander off on that rabit trail right now.
The harlet in Jericho who was spared (only one "hooker" not many as you said [Numbers ]) was spared because she blieved in God, and on less spiritual level also because she help the victors be victory. Back to the moral angle, are you saying others in the city kept God's law better than she did? Or that even one other person in Jericho even wanted to?
This will be a stretch for you, but here goes. The whole world is God's, he made it. If He wants you off a certian part of land, you should go. That is right. If you resist, He has the right to force you off. If you refuse, you can cost yourself the lose of your own life. It is your action that causes it, not His.
As for the old man, he was in Gibeah, not Sodom (Sodom was destroyed in Genesis, long before judges). This was not Lot who was the only righteous man in Sodom, but rather, the old man "was from the hill country of Ephraim". The old man offered his own daughter and his guest's concubine who had played the harlot against the man so that those outside could "Do what ever they felt was right" and they refused to do good. It was at that point that the guest put his concubine out himself. She had played the harlet and her husband now put her out with the men. The old man did not do it, and the old man's daughter was not put out or abused. Only the woman who had committed adultry was put out, and dispite adultry being punishable by death, the mens outside still did wrong with the way they treated her. There's more to the story and the men outside are delt with for their action. If you want to know "The rest of the story" then "Read the book". [Judges this exerpt is from chapter 19]
You are quite right on one very strong point that many new christians find hard to get past. The bible is full of graphic matterial and strong descriptions of right and wrong and even several stories that don't declair a matter one way or the other directly as if it's implied by an established code of ethics.
I have to comment on an earlier remark in the thread. It was said 'A "bad" scientist is not a scientist at all, by purest definition.' What is that "purest" definition of Scientist?
And as a reminder of where the thread started, it's about net pron. I haven't seen it address this way, so here's my take on the issue. If you have established laws on what can and cannot be shown in public, the web is public. To show it on the web is the same as to show it in public, therefore it's bound by th
Guys,
They say a little science will draw a man away from God and a lot of science will bring him back. Just as unstudied scientists may not know the teachings of the Accadamy of Science very well, unstudied christians may not know the teachings God very well. The solution is obvious, study more.
There are many great minds teaching in the Acadamy of Science and many great minds teaching in churches across the world. Indeed I would expect you'll find many more beliving scientists than either of you would expect. You'll probably even find some teach at both the Academy of Science and in the churches across the world.
Seeking the truth should be a practice of every intelegent person on the planet. Believing in God will only come when He calls you (study this scientifically and academically in scripture and you'll find this to be true both ways).
Evolution is a very misrepresented word. It's akin to saying a bird flies through the air and rocks fly through the air too. A rock falls through the air, but because when it's thrown it falls like a flying bird it's refered to in a similar manner. And all the evidence to prove a bird flies doesn't support the idea that a rock flies. It's also like seeing beaver tracks on both sides of a river and saying the beavers can fly. And if beavers were all dead, how could you prove it wasn't true?
Micro evolution is observable. All the other forms of evolution are unsupported theories. Many seeking to earn a name for themselves or promote their beliefs have fabricated lies to support evolution. The same is true in christian circles teaching things like the OT is irrelevent since Christ came and died for our sin. This in does discredit some of the honest teachers in both circles, since they trust these sources until they learn the truth.
I have not met a person yet who belives the entire theroy of evolution as expressed by Darwin (or any other form of it since). They speak in terms of maybe and could have been when they get to parts they don't agree with. I myself was an avid evolutionist and taught others about how the theory works. I find myself in crowds explaining how evolution is not as stupid as many christians say it is (giving explainations to explain those statements) and not as smart as many non-christians say it is (also with evidence to explain those statements).
I have met people who belive every word of the bible is true, even though they don't understand how it can be. Indeed I am one of these people. I know there is an explaination, even if I don't know what the explaination is. Never be afraid to confess you don't know.
The overwhelming evidence to support things that are in scripture leads to the obvious conclusion that if it's right about all those things it must also be right about the other things I don't understand. And so begins the search for an explaination. Yes Jesus walked on water, Yes God parted the Red Sea for the nation of Israel to pass through. We've found the walls of Jerico fallen straight down. The flood happened, many many cultures have veriations of the story including Noah and his boat full of animals (Native Americans, Chinese...)
Do you see how neither science nor religion are belief w/o evidence, but rather, belief based on the trustworthiness of the source.
For more information on evidence and theories check these sites:
http://www.nationalacademies.org/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
William at phodex.dot.us
I was having a hard time getting a Gmail account
:-) @geemail.com!
and then it took over 2 months to get an invite
for a freind. So I get SCREEN SHOTS!
http://www.pro-gram.us/gmail
If Google is blocked from using gmail.com for
trademark reasons, I'm sure they'll keep the mail
alive and just transition us all to a new domain
like @googlemail.com and we'll all get used to it.
Or maybe
Wm