Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Holding their feet to the fire ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    It's incorrect that Hitler was an "evolutionist".

    That's been refuted over and over -- a few times by Rogue IIRC.
    K54
    Rogue has done no such thing. Entwicklung is mistranslated development in Mein Kempf several times. I find Hitlers arrogance amusing otherwise. Rogue specificly says Hitler is not a Darwinist. But the man did subscribe to lesser versions of evolution.
    Last edited by Omniskeptical; 09-21-2014, 01:56 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
      Rogue has done no such thing. Entwicklung is mistranslated development in Mein Kempf several times. I find Hitlers arrogance amusing otherwise. Rogue specificly says Hitler is not a Darwinist. But the man did subscribe to lesser versions of evolution.
      Oh, Jeesh -- here we go again.

      What "lesser versions of evolution"??

      What the heck does that mean?

      And who cares?

      K54

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

        So you think Hitler was a Darwinist? Just asking for clarification, I don't want to get into a debate right now.
        Hitler had a warped, non scientific inconsistent belief in evolution. He proposed a non scientific view of an Aryan people that in reality has no basis in the anthropology of human races, nor did they originate as a pure race from anywhere specific. What he was describing as Aryan was the blond haired blue eyed European Caucasians. The concept of Social Darwinism, I guess, evolved with this misinformation from a misunderstanding of natural selection, and has no relevant meaning in the contemporary science of evolution. I am really not sure what would be referred to as a 'Darwinist.' It is somewhat of an awkward derogatory archaic term.

        The persistent citing of Charles Darwin in support of eugenics has no relevance in contemporary science of evolution. Yes, Charles Darwin was one of the first to propose the Theory of Evolution, but his views and beliefs concerning evolution do not reflect the contemporary science of evolution,
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-21-2014, 04:45 PM.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • A few things to keep in mind about Hitler, the Nazis and evolutionary theory.


          Hitler and the Nazis banned Darwin's books from Germany's libraries. They were likely included in some of the bonfires that they liked so much.

          OTOH Hitler and the Nazis made the "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" required reading in German schools[1] which explicitly claimed that the Theory of Evolution was a Jewish plot (Protocol #2) to destroy education.

          Hitler and the Nazis loathed Darwin's idea that all of mankind constituted a single species. That left little or no room for superior races and sub-humans.

          Moreover, Hitler and the Nazis utterly rejected Darwin's claim that all mankind are descendants from a shared ancestor. They abhorred the idea that we're all related.

          Hitler also rejected the idea that mankind evolved from lower animals.

          Now according to Table Talk (a questionable source at best and one should really find evidence outside of it first to see if what is written within it is consistent with what has been said elsewhere), Hitler did use some evolutionary concepts or at least phraseology on rare occasion while talking, but considering everything else even if true this was little more than lip service to understood concepts rather than an indication of acceptance of evolution.











          1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pro...f_Zion#Germany

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jesse View Post
            I just have a question Jorge. Not wanting to debate any points because I am not really up on large parts of the Evolution/Creation debate. I just wanted to know, what in your belief makes it impossible for God and Evolution to go hand in hand? I don't want to be off topic, but from this thread it seems you are saying most evils can be attributed to Evolution. I am not sure how that squares.
            That's a respectfully-stated question, Jesse, and I'll respond in like manner.

            The first thing that I have to say is that a comprehensive answer would require multiple lengthy volumes - I am not exaggerating. Therefore my answer will be brief and will like raise many more questions.

            With that caveat, the answer to your question is summarized with two points:

            First, it is not "MY" belief - it is what the Special Revelation of God (aka the Bible) tells us. If (IF!) we hold that the Bible is from God and that God said what He meant and meant what He said then if we are to be honest and faithful we really have no choice in the matter. Needless to say, people have distorted God's Word (they have to!) so as to accommodate (force-fit!) their own beliefs. That's where you see all of the other stuff (such as Theistic Evolution) entering into the picture.

            Second, the thing that makes it impossible (and, by the way, "impossible" is the correct word) for God and Evolution(1) to go hand in hand once again has to do with God's Special Revelation (His Word, the Bible). The Bible tells us some things about history and about God's character. Those things that we learn are incompatible with Evolution because there are inconsistencies galore. To remedy these inconsistencies we once again find the creativity of people concocting all manner of philosophies and alternate interpretations that distort reality and God's Word so as to 'shoe-horn' God into Evolution into God. One immediate example is that the entire history of creation must be changed from what is narrated in Scripture. However, the plain and simple fact is that without that 'shoe-horn' no one can make God (the God that is revealed in His Word) compatible with Evolution. Countless distortions and contortions are needed to make that happen.

            (1) the 'E' in Evolution has to do with what I've written about often here on TWeb - another topic.

            That's it - there's your answer.

            Jorge

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
              That's a respectfully-stated question, Jesse, and I'll respond in like manner.

              The first thing that I have to say is that a comprehensive answer would require multiple lengthy volumes - I am not exaggerating. Therefore my answer will be brief and will like raise many more questions.

              With that caveat, the answer to your question is summarized with two points:

              First, it is not "MY" belief - it is what the Special Revelation of God (aka the Bible) tells us. If (IF!) we hold that the Bible is from God and that God said what He meant and meant what He said then if we are to be honest and faithful we really have no choice in the matter. Needless to say, people have distorted God's Word (they have to!) so as to accommodate (force-fit!) their own beliefs. That's where you see all of the other stuff (such as Theistic Evolution) entering into the picture.

              Second, the thing that makes it impossible (and, by the way, "impossible" is the correct word) for God and Evolution(1) to go hand in hand once again has to do with God's Special Revelation (His Word, the Bible). The Bible tells us some things about history and about God's character. Those things that we learn are incompatible with Evolution because there are inconsistencies galore. To remedy these inconsistencies we once again find the creativity of people concocting all manner of philosophies and alternate interpretations that distort reality and God's Word so as to 'shoe-horn' God into Evolution into God. One immediate example is that the entire history of creation must be changed from what is narrated in Scripture. However, the plain and simple fact is that without that 'shoe-horn' no one can make God (the God that is revealed in His Word) compatible with Evolution. Countless distortions and contortions are needed to make that happen.

              (1) the 'E' in Evolution has to do with what I've written about often here on TWeb - another topic.

              That's it - there's your answer.

              Jorge
              Thanks for your response Jorge. I hope you didn't feel the need to give me too much of a comprehensive answer. I just wanted to know what you felt your strongest evidence was for your outlook on it. So you believe the Bible and Theistic Evolution are incompatible (or impossible) with each other?

              If you would humor me for a moment. A few years back (probably 2005?) I had gotten a magazine from Answers in Genesis if my memory serves me correct. In it, there was I believe a t-shirt they were selling. On the front it had the quote "God created man out of the dust of the earth". And on the back it had the chemical breakdown of soil and then showing the chemical makeup of humans as having the same thing (cool t-shirt I might add). It got me thinking. Isn't that Evolution? Doesn't Evolution also say that we came from the earth? I always thought that was compatible. So, I just wanted to ask if you thought that can be compatible or not.

              Sorry if this is off topic again.
              "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jesse View Post
                Thanks for your response Jorge. I hope you didn't feel the need to give me too much of a comprehensive answer. I just wanted to know what you felt your strongest evidence was for your outlook on it. So you believe the Bible and Theistic Evolution are incompatible (or impossible) with each other?
                The one-word answer to your question is YES. Only (ONLY!) by 'distorting' what the Bible says can a person reconcile God's Word with Theistic Evolution.

                IMPORTANT NOTE: "distorting" includes multiple actions such as: deleting words, adding words, adding extra-biblical philosophies, ideas or concepts that are discordant with the entire Scripture, employing improper exegesis/hermeneutics, inventing ad hoc interpretations, taking the words as poetic language, allegory, myth, figurative language and/or regarding the words as the writings of primitive men. All of these things are what I mean when I say "distorting" the Bible.


                If you would humor me for a moment. A few years back (probably 2005?) I had gotten a magazine from Answers in Genesis if my memory serves me correct. In it, there was I believe a t-shirt they were selling. On the front it had the quote "God created man out of the dust of the earth". And on the back it had the chemical breakdown of soil and then showing the chemical makeup of humans as having the same thing (cool t-shirt I might add). It got me thinking. Isn't that Evolution? Doesn't Evolution also say that we came from the earth? I always thought that was compatible. So, I just wanted to ask if you thought that can be compatible or not.

                Sorry if this is off topic again.
                That our human bodies contain the chemical elements found in the soil is a trivial point in this issue. There's a very simple explanation: where do we get our physical nourishment from? We "are" what we eat - our physical bodies are made from the materials that we ingest.

                You ask, "Isn't that Evolution?" The way that Evolution is meant to be understood - whether by Materialists (Atheists, Humanists) or by Theistic Evolutionists - the answer is a resounding NO. If a person wishes to accept this Evolution then that person must (they have no choice in the matter) distort the Bible in the ways that I listed above.

                The example that I had given previously had to do with the historical events at the beginning of the creation of the universe. That history as narrated by God is totally different than the history of the Materialist or the Theistic Evolutionist.

                It's one or the other - the two cannot co-exist. And I haven't even gotten into the theological implications of Evolution or the impact of Evolution on the rest of Scripture (beyond Genesis). One or the other - for or against - no middle ground here.

                Bottom line: compatibility of Evolution with the Bible is impossible. Only via distortion can an appearance of compatibility be achieved.

                Jorge

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jorge View Post

                  BWAAAAK! buk buk BWAAAAK! BWAAAAAKK!

                  Same old chicken spit from Clucky. Anyone who doesn't accept the personal interpretation of Scripture must be distorting it!

                  Jorge, what caused the formation of the Barringer Meteor Crater in Arizona? Show us how to use science to find the answer.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    the Bible is from God and that God said what He meant and meant what He said ...
                    That's it - there's your answer.

                    Jorge
                    Jesse,

                    This is the translation of the Jorge quote from YEC Fideism to plain English:

                    "the Bible is from God and that God said what Jorge thinks it means and means what Jorge thinks it means."

                    K54

                    P.S. The Bible says what Jorge thinks it says, Jorge believes it, end of story.
                    Last edited by klaus54; 09-22-2014, 10:16 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                      Same old chicken spit from Clucky. Anyone who doesn't accept the personal interpretation of Scripture must be distorting it!

                      Jorge, what caused the formation of the Barringer Meteor Crater in Arizona? Show us how to use science to find the answer.
                      Science is secondary to Bible "history" -- just ask JordanRiver and "Mr. Black".

                      If they thought their Bible reading implied the Moon were made of Green Cheese, the Moon would be made of Green Cheese, and damn the basalt and anorthosite samples the Apollo missions brought back.

                      K54

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                        Science is secondary to Bible "history" -- just ask JordanRiver and "Mr. Black".

                        If they thought their Bible reading implied the Moon were made of Green Cheese, the Moon would be made of Green Cheese, and damn the basalt and anorthosite samples the Apollo missions brought back.

                        K54
                        And this being the case, the only way to get the bible to fit those samples is to distort either the samples or the bible. Jorge is quite right about this.

                        What sometimes puzzles me is the determination that many people have, to both accept what we have learned about our universe through our own diligent efforts, AND accept the infallible truth of their bible. Why not simply observe that the bible is a reflection of the beliefs and superstitions of intelligent and creative but less informed people thousands of years ago?

                        Every issue of Science News has a column picking something scientists thought 50 years ago, and what they think today. The difference lies in the continued accumulation of evidence AND the scientific willingness to honor the evidence. Would that religion could do the same.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                          The one-word answer to your question is YES. Only (ONLY!) by 'distorting' what the Bible says can a person reconcile God's Word with Theistic Evolution.

                          IMPORTANT NOTE: "distorting" includes multiple actions such as: deleting words, adding words, adding extra-biblical philosophies, ideas or concepts that are discordant with the entire Scripture, employing improper exegesis/hermeneutics, inventing ad hoc interpretations, taking the words as poetic language, allegory, myth, figurative language and/or regarding the words as the writings of primitive men. All of these things are what I mean when I say "distorting" the Bible.




                          That our human bodies contain the chemical elements found in the soil is a trivial point in this issue. There's a very simple explanation: where do we get our physical nourishment from? We "are" what we eat - our physical bodies are made from the materials that we ingest.

                          You ask, "Isn't that Evolution?" The way that Evolution is meant to be understood - whether by Materialists (Atheists, Humanists) or by Theistic Evolutionists - the answer is a resounding NO. If a person wishes to accept this Evolution then that person must (they have no choice in the matter) distort the Bible in the ways that I listed above.

                          The example that I had given previously had to do with the historical events at the beginning of the creation of the universe. That history as narrated by God is totally different than the history of the Materialist or the Theistic Evolutionist.

                          It's one or the other - the two cannot co-exist. And I haven't even gotten into the theological implications of Evolution or the impact of Evolution on the rest of Scripture (beyond Genesis). One or the other - for or against - no middle ground here.

                          Bottom line: compatibility of Evolution with the Bible is impossible. Only via distortion can an appearance of compatibility be achieved.

                          Jorge
                          So then the only way that Theistic Evolutionists and the Bible can be compatible is if either or both are distorted (pigeonholed?) with one another? I hope I am getting your argument correct. If I am correct in that assumption, then that is what I am having a hard time with it squaring with me. The Bible says nothing about Evolution as far as I can see. But, we can infer a bit from it correct? As an example, in Genesis 1:11-12 God told the earth to create vegetation. But also in Genesis 1:24, God told the earth to produce animals. From my reading of those passages, it looks to me like Evolution in progress. In my personal outlook I don't see a need for distortion or pigeonholing. Would you be kind enough to tell me where I might be wrong and what you think those passages are saying?

                          As I said, I have a bit of a lack when it comes to fully understanding the debate between Evolution and Creation. I do however, have a fairly firm grasp of genetics. And your explanation (you are what you eat) for humans having the same compositional makeup as soil, I am sorry to say is incorrect. The things you eat do not stick to your genetic makeup. Your genetics are there from birth. Example, no matter how much milk or dairy you consume, the calcium from it will not attach itself to your genetic profile and give it a percentage of more calcium.

                          I do thank you for your patience with me. I am thinking over what you are saying. Just having a hard time with a few things is all.
                          Last edited by Jesse; 09-22-2014, 11:16 AM.
                          "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                            Jesse,

                            This is the translation of the Jorge quote from YEC Fideism to plain English:

                            "the Bible is from God and that God said what Jorge thinks it means and means what Jorge thinks it means."

                            K54

                            P.S. The Bible says what Jorge thinks it says, Jorge believes it, end of story.
                            I am hoping that is not how he comes to his conclusions. I am still trying to figure out exactly what is being said though.
                            "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jesse View Post
                              I am hoping that is not how he comes to his conclusions. I am still trying to figure out exactly what is being said though.
                              Sadly we've all seen Jorge in action for years. His position has always been "Jorge is right because Jorge says he is right". That's never gonna change, evidence be damned.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jesse View Post
                                So then the only way that Theistic Evolutionists and the Bible can be compatible is if either or both are distorted (pigeonholed?) with one another? I hope I am getting your argument correct.
                                Doesn't look like it. I suggest a second reading of my previous posts. Invariably it is the BIBLE that gets distorted and so I don't see where you get that "... or both are distorted". I also don't know what you mean by "pigeonholed". I had defined "distort" very clearly.


                                If I am correct in that assumption, then that is what I am having a hard time with it squaring with me. The Bible says nothing about Evolution as far as I can see. But, we can infer a bit from it correct? As an example, in Genesis 1:11-12 God told the earth to create vegetation. But also in Genesis 1:24, God told the earth to produce animals. From my reading of those passages, it looks to me like Evolution in progress. In my personal outlook I don't see a need for distortion or pigeonholing. Would you be kind enough to tell me where I might be wrong and what you think those passages are saying?
                                The Bible says nothing about Evolution, as you say, but the inference you speak of must be consistent with an UNDISTORTED reading of the Bible. If you or I have unrestrained liberty to interpret (and by that distort) what is written then we can pretty much make it say whatever we want it to say. This is what Theistic Evolutionists do.

                                As I said, I have a bit of a lack when it comes to fully understanding the debate between Evolution and Creation. I do however, have a fairly firm grasp of genetics. And your explanation (you are what you eat) for humans having the same compositional makeup as soil, I am sorry to say is incorrect. The things you eat do not stick to your genetic makeup. Your genetics are there from birth. Example, no matter how much milk or dairy you consume, the calcium from it will not attach itself to your genetic profile and give it a percentage of more calcium.
                                Refer back to what I wrote. I try to be as precise as possible when writing about these things (unless I state otherwise) but of course that doesn't mean that I could not do better. I put the word "are" between quotes in my previous post. What I meant by that is that the same chemical elements that we ingest are what make up our material body. That much is indisputable. As to the percentage of these elements that is present, you seem fixated on something that is simply not true. Not all soil contains the same proportion of the elements. The soil in my back yard, for instance has much more silica ('sand') than rich bottom soil of Tennessee farmland.

                                I do thank you for your patience with me. I am thinking over what you are saying. Just having a hard time with a few things is all.
                                No problem - I enjoy a worthwhile chat. It's when it ceases being that where I have a problem.

                                Jorge

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X