okay, I think this has gotten way off course. I'm sorry reusable for letting it get so far our of hand. No one should be demonizing your or insulting you, I don't thank that's what antilleh meant, at least I hope not. And I don't think that ALS was referring to you specificially but to a general population.. I'll close this, if you want to add one more reply pm me.

You seem to be intelligent enough to get my point which begs the question of why do you keep ignoring it. Stalin, Hitler, et al, used evolution/darwinism to justify their cause. It's history. I'm sure it's an uncomfortable history to you, but that's all the more reason to reject a Godless theory which was and is specifically used by atheists, dictators and agenda driven nutballs hiding behind phoney science to justify murder, slavery and misery.

There's no point in pursuing your quest any further on a christian message board if you can't acknowledge the facts. Who do you think you will convince?

peace

Khis,

yeah it has gotten a bit off course hasn't it? I still haven't seen an answer to how science is thiestic, though.

ALS wrote: › You seem to be intelligent enough to get my point which begs the question of why do you keep ignoring it. Stalin, Hitler, et al, used evolution/darwinism to justify their cause. It's history.

It's also history that Hitler used Christianity and creationism to justify his cause.

What it shows is that any idea can be misused by people to justify evil.

Quote: › I'm sure it's an uncomfortable history to you, but that's all the more reason to reject a Godless theory which was and is specifically used by atheists, dictators and agenda driven nutballs hiding behind phoney science to justify murder, slavery and misery.

By that logic, we must reject Christianity. Shall we go thru the list of atrocities Christianity has been used to justify? Or the list of atrocities that nutballs have used creationism to justify? the only reason you reject a scientific theory is that there is evidence to disprove it. And the problem you have with evolution is that it is not "phoney" science.

Templar wrote: › Lucas, The problem with your dating is that only carbon 14 has been proven to have a constant linear decay rate.

All nuclides have a constant decay rate. But none of them are "linear". Rather, they are a flat hyperbole. For instance, I used S35 in my studies on proteoglycans.

How do you think they know when there is a critical mass of uranium or plutonium for reactors? The constant decay rate.

Yeah, why don't you do a google on how many christians killed in the name of christianity and how many atheists killed in the name of atheism.

here's my contribution to help you along:
http://www.summit.org/resources/WhyCommunismKills.htm

ALS wrote: › So you speak for science? I don't know anyone that hates science. I know plenty who realize that science has been overtaken by agenda driven maroons. Those same maroons hold up real progress in science.

Ah, the old 'conspiracy theory' thing. ALS, this doesn't work because creationism was THE accepted scientific theory from 1700-1831. If "
the science establishment machine purposely ignores anything that doesn't comport" then it never would have got rid of creationism to begin with. You just can't have it both ways. If science is as dogmatic as you say, then creationism would still be around. If science CAN change, and it did to throw out creationism, then it would also throw out evolution if it were wrong. The reason it hasn't been thrown out is because it isn't wrong.

Quote: › Just the mere act of questioning science dogma is seen as heresy.

LOL!! Remember the neutral theory of speciation? How about Punctuated Equilibria? Or Marguilis' theory that mitochondria are ancient bacteria that were incorporated into eukaryotic cells? Each of these challenged dogma when they were introduced.

ALS, scientists get fame by challenging dogma. Einstein challenges Newton and gets famous. Hawking challenges Einstein and gets famous. Right now Turok is challenging Big Bang and getting famous. Challenging dogma may get you in trouble in religion, but you can't project that failing onto science. Science doesn't work that way.

Quote: › Yet these same dogmatists base most of their tests on observed changes. Hypocrisy runs rampant. Anyone in the scientific fields knows that you cannot just say what you think. You cannot just report what you find. It has to fit approved assumptions or a career can be quickly ruined.

Hmm. I'm in a scientific field. I was one of the first to challenge dogma that there are no adult stem cells. I have prospered quite well, thank you!

Quote: › I think the bible sums it up quite nicely: 1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called

You really shouldn't misquote the Bible. The word used is not "science", but "knowledge". And it refers not to science, but to doctrines preached by false ministers. I Timothy 4:1-2.

Quote: › 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world 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 that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

This is a description of Roman pagan worship. Shame on you to bear false witness against the Bible.

Khisanthax wrote: › 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.

Bibliolatry again. We are not talking about the Bible, but about man's interpretation of the Bible. So, if man's interpretation is bad for reading God's other book, it must be equally bad for the Bible. Sauce for the goose.

Quote: › It's truth's will always remain true, God would not allow it otherwise because God is perfect and so is everything he does.

So creation is perfect and the evidence in creation is from God. So God is telling you, very plainly, that He created by evolution. Now, what does the Bible say about people who ignore God?

Look, Khisantrax, I see you are a pastor. This must be very uncomfortable for you. After all, the position you are presenting is against the First Commandment. You must be anguished to think that not only you have gone astray, but that you have misled your congregation as well and put all those innocent people in danger. I can only imagine your anguish and pain. But sticking with a false doctrine isn't going to help them.

huh? how was i demonizing you? we are going through these verses and the part where it talks about supressing God just came to mind. if you read the beginning before my verses, you should be able to understand that (i hope). i was not in any way referring to YOU as an individual. dude, i have never met you before and dont know you personally. all i know is that you claim you dont bleive in God. (but He sure belives in you!) just dont try to make me out to be someone who is just acting like a child and accusing somoen of something when i dont even know them.. who am I TO JUDGE? thats Gods job, remember, not mine, i dont want that responsibility.

look, dude, (hey by the way whats your first name? i think its kind of rude to just call someone dude if i dont know your name. ) i was just stating what God had to say about it. Paul was a very wise man, he had a relationship w/God most people like me wish they did have and are striving for.. im sorry if you guys dont think i should be posting bible verses here.. i will just take it somewhere else, i didnt realize i was really going off course, since the Word has more to say than i ever could about science..

but seriously, just think about it. name off someone you know that doesnt belive in God.. chances are they do one of those things Paul listed.

i mean its just logical, if you dont bleive you have to be obediant to someone, obviously one of those things is not going to sound that "bad" to you.

i could name off people ive known in my life that are examples, but only becuase i guess i have to to get my point across

God bless you mr.reusablehuman... (since i dont know your name)

look, i just want to let you know that ive been there. ya im not as sharp about science as you seem to be, the only thing i liked about chemistry class was the fact that we got to melt things in fire! but, i stopped believing in God as well.. i used to push away everything i had known, since i decided it just had no evidence..

well that was until the Lord woke me up. He gave me the evidence. He moved in my life with the Holy Spirit, He answers my prayers, when i talk to Him i can feel His presence, sounds weird i know, but He has done tremendous miracles in my life. ever since i have been going downtown, God has been doing things i never dreamed could happen in my darker days. if you study stats and probability as i am now, you understand things only happen by chance 5 out of 100 times usually.... but when these things are happening EVERYTIME, you begin to get it. God is real, and He has had to show me, and its awesome.

now that you know where im coming from, i would love to know where you are.

God bless you mr.reusablehuman

respond!



~Sarah

as you can tell, i have been a bit of a pyro as well..... lol.

Quote: › 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

This is a description of Roman pagan worship. Shame on you to bear false witness against the Bible.[/quote]

it is? sounds more like the people who think they know everything, maybe? [/quote]

Khisanthax wrote: › 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.

Saying that the Bible is over God's Creation is making a false idol. Creation is just as much God's word as is the Bible. After all, WHO CREATED? What we are saying is that GOD, in what He says in Creation, is over a human interpretation of the Bible. God over man. Nothing pantheistic in that.

There is plenty of Biblical verses to attest that God both created and sustains the universe. Everything 'natural' is theistic! We are not saying there is a "nature" separate from God. Creationism does that. Theistic evolution says that what is called 'natural' needs and requires God just as much as what is "miraculous". You have a problem with that?

Altho, if you want to take Genesis 1, we have "let the waters bring forth" and "let the land bring forth". Both those imply evolution.

ALS wrote: › Since evolution is unprovable it remains a theory.

That's not how science works. Theories always remain theories. They become supported and take (provisionally) as truth -- which has happened to gravity and evolution -- or they become refuted and are shown to be false -- as has happened to phlogiston and creationism.

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.

1. Social Darwinists applied value judgements to adaptations. In evolution, adaptations are "good" or "bad" ONLY in reference to particular environments. There is no absolute "good" or "bad". Nor are there any absolutely "superior" species. Species do well or poorly again dependent on the environment they are in.
2. Social Darwinists mistook technology for biology. They decided that superior technology meant that some "races" (by which they meant nations) were biologically superior. That isn't evolution.
3. Social Darwinists forgot that Darwin's Struggle for Existence was a metaphorical struggle. SD's thought that only warfare constituted struggle and they forgot that cooperation can be just as much survival of the fittest as direct conflict.
4. SD's viewed evolution as a ladder leading to the "highest" form. This goes back to #1. They forgot that evolution is a branching bush and that all the twigs are equally "highest".

So instead of Darwinian evolution, what we have instead is a philosophy or rather rationale for keeping the status quo. Those on top in society are said to deserve to be on top because they "evolved" (evolution doesn't apply here) and that any means were admissable to keep those on top on top. Yes, argue against Social Darwinism. It is the naturalistic fallacy. But that some people inaccurately extrapolated evolution and got it wrong doesn't mean the original theory is wrong. Any more than the Inquisition means Christianity is wrong.

Quote: › 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.

Yes, it can. History demonstrates that ANY idea can be warped for selfish ends. Hitler warped creationism to support his agenda.

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.[/quote]
Since atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist, I'd be very surprised if God is an atheist!

Quote: › The only correct way to think is His way. We should do our best to think that way. Any other way is intrinsically immoral.

Which is why you shouldn't ignore ALL the ways that God speaks. IOW, you shouldn't ignore God's Creation when trying to figure out how God created. And yes, focussing only on the Bible is immoral. Worse, it's heresy. Francis Bacon recognized this almost 400 years ago. Too bad creationism in the 21st century doesn't listen.
"For nothing is so mischievous as the apotheosis of error; and it is a very plague of the understanding for vanity to become the object of veneration. Yet in this vanity some of the moderns have with extreme levity indulged so far as to attempt to found a system of natural philosophy [science] on the first chapter of Genesis, on the book of Job, and other parts of the sacred writings, seeking for the dead among the living; which also makes the inhibition and repression of it the more important, because from this unwholesome mixture of things human and divine there arises not only a fantastic philosophy [science] but also a heretical religion. Very meet it is therefore that we be sober-minded, and give to faith that only which is faith's." Francis Bacon. Novum Organum LXV, 1620 http://www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm

Quote: › I highly doubt that God sits around trying to think up ways to disassociate darwinism from social darwinism, etc.

He doesn't have to. After all, He already knows they are separate. God understands the naturalistic fallacy.

lucaspa wrote: › Altho, if you want to take Genesis 1, we have "let the waters bring forth" and "let the land bring forth". Both those imply evolution.

huh? God made evolution? um correct me if im wrong, but thats an oxymoron........

ALS wrote: › I'm observing two subtle but important shifts in your argument. Darwinism has suddenly become Social Darwinism

I didn't see that anywhere in Resuable's posts.

Quote: › Evolution has suddenly become adaptation.

The short definition of evolution is "descent with modification". Natural selection is the part of "modification" that is the designs in plants and animals. Natural selection is the major mechanism of modification and the process that leads to the formation of new species.

Quote: › although I'm not sure what you mean by "non-adaptive".

Some features of plants and animals are not adaptive. For instance, male nipples themselves are not adaptive. They are a side-product of development and the adaptation of female nipples -- which are adaptive.

On a molecular level, many amino acid sequences for proteins do equally good jobs. Thus, changes in amino acid sequences are often non-adaptive because they don't change the activity of the protein involved.

i believe in the big bang theory..







GOD SPOKE, AND..........
BANG.
IT WAS.