ALS wrote: › Quote: › agenda driven? whats the agenda? well, i dunno.. maybe you should take a look at your own signature there for a clue.

nice try, but fact is half of scientists are theistic ( sorry I cant provide sourse, I have seen it somewhere).
science is not athiesm
science is not anti-God
evolution is not athiesm
if you believe God spoke the universe into being,
science is the study of Gods Word,, and which Word is more at risk of contamination?
Nature doesnt lie

Looks to me you want to label yourself all over the map then assign an imagined indefensible set of assumptions to me.

You really should rethink your strategy my friend.

Quote: › science is the study of Gods Word,, and which Word is more at risk of contamination?

mans interpretation of nature.

The bible is God's inspired word, so he would keep it always from being perverted or distorted. It's truth's will always remain true, God would not allow it otherwise because God is perfect and so is everything he does.

Well said. And Darwinism is the inspired works of Satan. It was a lie from the beginning and shall always remain so. No quantity of ranting minions can make it otherwise.

I still haven't see biblical proof of how evolution can be theistic. Saying that nature is first over the bible, God's own words, is more pantheistic than theistic.

There isn't any. Technically what they are doing is projecting their sins outward. It's a lot like reading a vegan magazine. You have avowed meat haters drooling over advertisements that make every attempt to emulate steaks, cheese, eggs, leather goods and the like.

The use of the word "nature" is a wide smoke blanket tossed into the air whose meaning is so vague it has no meaning except for the situational ethics at hand. We see the same abuse to the word "science". It's as if it has an entity of its own, when we all know it doesn't.
I believe the impetus here is arrogance..

ALS wrote: › Well said. And Darwinism is the inspired works of Satan. It was a lie from the beginning and shall always remain so. No quantity of ranting minions can make it otherwise.

social darwinism is not evolution
evolution is not athiestic..

I am interested in your theories on natural history about why the natural world is the way it is, . One question that pops in my head is we know there are millions of unique species that thrive in thier particular environment.
However if the environment is changed, even a little, it upsets the balance and the species is threatened with exinction. All it takes for exinction is for the death rate to be higher than the birth rate
Environments change all the time, sometimes populations are seperated by an event ( volcano or land mass displacement), the result is now two differnt environments but the same species inhabit both. one must learn to adapt to survive, the other does not. After so many generations the species are so different from each other, they refuse to breed.
this has been observed.
how can non- adapting animals survive?

I want to ask you to point out where these factual statements are false or satanic:

1.organisms need to eat and reproduce to survive.

2.the longer you survive, the more likely you will have children

3.Environment changes.

4.adaptation is required to survive.

5.passing the adaptation to the children increases the chances of the children haveing children.

6.after so many generations, the decendents genes will be dispersed thru out the gene population, and the adapted trait will be dominate. Why because the ones that did not adapt to the changeing environment had low reproductive rate due to poor health and early death..

7. Most important question of all,
How many of your direct decendants died in childhood?

I'm observing two subtle but important shifts in your argument.

Darwinism has suddenly become Social Darwinism
Evolution has suddenly become adaptation.

You're making progress, although I'm not sure what you mean by "non-adaptive".

ALS wrote: › I'm observing two subtle but important shifts in your argument. Darwinism has suddenly become Social Darwinism Evolution has suddenly become adaptation. You're making progress, although I'm not sure what you mean by "non-adaptive".

????? Are you going to address points brought up in this thread or ignore? You tell me evolution is social darwinism, I point out why they are two seperate things, now what? ignore? why ignore? why? Are you still going to say Evolution and social darwinism are the same thing, when you now know that one is a philosophy and one is a natural mechanism? you have yet to comment on Lucaspa's posts...i would be happy to continue and address any topic on science/ evo...are you the poster who used the 2nd law of thermo a few days ago to falsify Evo and Big Bang?....you havent addressed my points brought up about open and closed systems, what the 2nd law is, and how it works. I enjoy talking with people like you, but its pointless if you refuse to address the issues and topics.
Look, I could easily use Evo to support my athiestic stance, but it would be dishonest of me to do so, because Evo provides no evidence of the reality of athiesm ( or thiesm) Take away all the moral/ethical interpretations of Evolution and what do you have left?
Just a non-moral non-ethical universal self calibrateing natural law ( that God made).
Whats wrong with that?

I just rechecked and you are the one that brought up the term "social darwinism", not me. I haven't ignored you yet my friend.
Since you brought up social darwinism, it's up to you to explain the differences. However, it's a given that adding the term "social" to darwinism suggests an extension of the theory to social systems.

Since evolution is unprovable it remains a theory. Now if it was just a simple theory and didn't extend its claws elsewhere, we would simply let it be. But since it does extend its claws elsewhere, as evidenced by social darwinism, then it has a philosophical aspect to it by fiat. You seem to want to separate the two so far apart neither is responsible for the other. That can't be done.
History makes it clear that Stalin, Hitler and many other murderous tyrants definitely saw the connection between evolution and their justification for isms. I know this bothers you tremendously, but all the ranting in the world can't change history as it happened. You now find yourself defending the same belief system that slaughtered millions.

I am not the person that discussed Newton's 2nd law.

As to the moral aspects of evolution. I beg to differ. Everything you believe has a moral component to it. Your thoughts and why you think that way have moral components.
Case in point: Do you think God thinks the way you do? Is God an atheist? Of course He isn't. Nor does He think the way you do. The only correct way to think is His way. We should do our best to think that way. Any other way is intrinsically immoral. I highly doubt that God sits around trying to think up ways to disassociate darwinism from social darwinism, etc.

I just thought it would be good to post a little somthing from the Word here.. in the midst of these evolution vs. creation topics a few verses came to mind from Romans. and this is what Paul had to say about the theory of someone who doesnt believe there is a God. yes, atheism as well as polytheism was very much practiced back then, and so here goes:
1:18
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
1:19
because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
1:20
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
1:21
because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
1:22
Professing to be wise, they became fools,
1:23
and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
1:24
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
1:25
who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

some people have claimed that they dont believe theres a God becuase its just logical.... well guess what? the concept of God is actually something he puts inside us when we were born! and its only in us supressing Him and His Word, when all we choose to do in our life can even begin to make sense to us..

God bless, and tell me what you think
~Sarah

Quote: › I just rechecked and you are the one that brought up the term "social darwinism", not me. I haven't ignored you yet my friend. Since you brought up social darwinism, it's up to you to explain the differences. However, it's a given that adding the term "social" to darwinism suggests an extension of the theory to social systems. Since evolution is unprovable it remains a theory. Now if it was just a simple theory and didn't extend its claws elsewhere, we would simply let it be. But since it does extend its claws elsewhere, as evidenced by social darwinism, then it has a philosophical aspect to it by fiat. You seem to want to separate the two so far apart neither is responsible for the other. That can't be done. History makes it clear that Stalin, Hitler and many other murderous tyrants definitely saw the connection between evolution and their justification for isms. I know this bothers you tremendously, but all the ranting in the world can't change history as it happened. You now find yourself defending the same belief system that slaughtered millions. I am not the person that discussed Newton's 2nd law. As to the moral aspects of evolution. I beg to differ. Everything you believe has a moral component to it. Your thoughts and why you think that way have moral components. Case in point: Do you think God thinks the way you do? Is God an atheist? Of course He isn't. Nor does He think the way you do. The only correct way to think is His way. We should do our best to think that way. Any other way is intrinsically immoral. I highly doubt that God sits around trying to think up ways to disassociate darwinism from social darwinism, etc.

ASL, could I not just as easily say your christianity is fallsified because of past human abuses done in the name of christianity? Your trying to do the same thing with Evo and your all confused about assigning moral labels upon amoral natural mechanisms.

No different than constructing a philosophy or political party that attempts to mimic the Theory of Germ Disease....... It just doesnt work because the Theory of Germ Disease has nothing to do whatsoever with ethics,morals or ideologies.


Evolution does not have moral consequences, and does not make cosmic purpose impossible



1. Hitler based his ideas not on Darwinism but on a "divine right" philosophy:
Thus, it [the folkish philosophy] by no means believes in an equality of races, but along with their difference it recognizes their higher or lesser value and feels itself obligated, through this knowledge, to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker in accordance with the eternal will that dominates this universe. [Hitler 1939, 383]
The first edition of Mein Kampf indicates that Hitler was a young-earth creationist at the time of its writing; it says, "[. . .] this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men." (p. 65) (The second edition substitutes "millions" for "thousands.") Other passages further support his creationist leanings, for example:
The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise. [Hitler 1939, 383]
Quotes from Hitler invoking Christianity as a basis for his actions could be multiplied ad nauseam. For example:
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.
"[T]he task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission. [Hitler 1939]
A campaign against the "godless movement" and an appeal for Catholic support were launched Wednesday by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces. [Associated Press 1933]


Now should I conclude that because Hitler beleived in creationism, that creationism is therefore false?

of course not, lets look at the universe and find evidence that supports and falsifies hypothesis


Genocide and racism have existed long before Darwin. Obviously, they do not need any contribution from Darwinism. In many instances, such as the Crusades and the Spanish conquest of Central America, religion was explicitly invoked to justify them.

Evolution does not promote social Darwinism or racism or eugenics.

Evolutionary theory shows us that the long term survival of a species is strongly linked with its genetic variability. All Social Darwinist programs advocate minimizing genetic variability, thus reducing chances of long term survival in the event of environmental change. Understanding of evolution should then rebuke any attempt at social Darwinism if the long term survival of humanity is treated as a goal.
Eugenics and social Darwinian accounts are more often tied to the rise of the science of genetics than to evolutionary theory.

Quote: › Evolution does not have moral consequences

But it already has. 10's of millions killed beg to differ.
Christianity teaches the meek shall inherit the Earth, not "the fittest".

Godless atheism is the hallmark of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and evolution gave them the excuse they needed for vindication. Because it followed your beloved "scientific method".

antilleh-er wrote: › I just thought it would be good to post a little somthing from the Word here.. in the midst of these evolution vs. creation topics a few verses came to mind from Romans. and this is what Paul had to say about the theory of someone who doesnt believe there is a God. yes, atheism as well as polytheism was very much practiced back then, and so here goes: 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 1:19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 1:21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 1:25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. some people have claimed that they dont believe theres a God becuase its just logical.... well guess what? the concept of God is actually something he puts inside us when we were born! and its only in us supressing Him and His Word, when all we choose to do in our life can even begin to make sense to us.. God bless, and tell me what you think ~Sarah

Dear Sarah,

..LOL WOW cool verses

1. I surpress the truth
2.my heart is dark
3.I am a fool ( I have never thought myself wise though. I graduated high school with a D average.)
4.I am unclean
5. I have severe sexual addiction to lust
6. I lie
7. I worship and serve creatures.



Is this really how you see me?

God Bless you too.

... I am not your enemy, just a fellow human like yourself.
I am not a Dark Lord of the Sith trying to destroy all Good in the Uiverse
,Yes I am powerful in the ways of the Force only because I have embraced my fear and let go of my anger.
If you would also like to become strong in the Force, you too must let go of your
Fears and not demonize me. The more you push the Fear away, the stronger it gets.
embrace your Fear,
it loses power
Fear is gone.
No more need to demonize me with bible verses to support spiritual paranoia

ALS wrote: › Quote: › Evolution does not have moral consequences But it already has. 10's of millions killed beg to differ. Christianity teaches the meek shall inherit the Earth, not "the fittest". Godless atheism is the hallmark of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and evolution gave them the excuse they needed for vindication. Because it followed your beloved "scientific method".

please dont ignore this post,
I need to know exactly which of these 6 are satanic, anti-god, nazi, communist, or darwinistic? I honestly dont know because these 6 points just seem to me to be just a description of ordinary common sense





1. Observation:
Some aspect of the world is observed by us and we arrive at new knowledge. This information might be obtained through any or all of our senses, and it may come to us either through our intentional efforts or accidentally.

2. Repetition:
Not much can be done with a single observation (usually); thus, more observations are necessary before proceeding further. Often these new observations are obtained deliberately as part of an effort to confirm or refute the initial observation in step #1. Our observations are often stated in the form of a question or problem, for example: In situation S, why does X always occur?

3. Induction:
After arranging and considering our observations, we attempt to create some general principle which both describes what happened and, more importantly, explains why it happened. This principle should ideally be framed as broadly as possible and is generally called a hypothesis.

4. Deduction:
Now that we have what we hope is a general principle which accurately describes and explains things which happen in our universe, it is time to do some tests to see if we are correct. This is accomplished by creating predictions - these are phrased as statement in the form "if principle P is true, then event E should occur or fact F should be true."

5. Testing:
Once we have predictions, it is time to go out and actually see what we find by collecting more observations. We try to determine if some fact (F) is already true about the world or if some event (E) occurs or can be caused to occur.

6. Induction (again):
After we produce more observations, it is time to take another look at the general principle we formulated earlier. If our predictions were true, then our hypothesis has been made stronger. According to some, once this successful testing has been repeated multiple times, the hypothesis should be called a 'scientific theory.' We now might want to start looking at making our theory broader so that it can account for more diverse phenomena.

If, however, our predictions were not successful, then we must consider what went wrong. Possibilities include: our theory was mistaken and we need to reformulate it; our deductions from the theory were mistaken and we need reconsider our understanding of it; or finally, our experiments were flawed and we need to try again.

Notice that all three of those possibilities are, in fact, theories which might explain some observed phenomenon: the failure of our experiments to confirm our original theory! So, figuring out which of them is correct will involve going through the above process and using the scientific method all over again.

this method is ordered and that the given order is important. If you hypothesize before observing and stating a problem then you are not really being scientific; and you obviously can't test a hypothesis unless you have a hypothesis to test. Moreover, this is an iterative process: testing frequently will provide new information even if the hypothesis fails the tests. If the testing stage fails, you may go back and refine the hypothesis, or go back to analysis to reconsider the problem, then progress forward through the stages again.