218 replies to this topic

[Reflectionist]

How many times do I haev to say this?

Hitler *smack* Was *smack* not *smack* Christian!!!! *smack*

[Arturo]

From Wikipedia:

Religion
Hitler extended his rationalizations into a religious doctrine, underpinned by his criticism of traditional Catholicism. In particular, and closely related to Positive Christianity, Hitler objected to Catholicism's ungrounded and international character - that is, it did not pertain to an exclusive race and national culture. At the same time, and somewhat contradictorily, the Nazis combined elements of Germany's Lutheran community tradition with its Northern European, organic pagan past. Elements of militarism found their way into Hitler's own theology, as he preached that his was a "true" or "master" religion, because it would "create mastery" and avoid comforting lies. Those who preached love and tolerance, "in contravention to the facts", were said to be "slave" or "false" religions. The man who recognized these "truths", Hitler continued, was said to be a "natural leader", and those who denied it were said to be "natural slaves". "Slaves" – especially intelligent ones, he claimed – were always attempting to hinder their masters by promoting false religious and political doctrines.

Anti-clericalism can also be interpreted as part of Nazi ideology, simply because the new Nazi hierarchy was not about to let itself be overode by the power that the Church traditionally held. In Austria, clerics had a powerful role in politics and ultimately responded to the Vatican. Although a few exceptions exist, Christian persecution was primarily limited to those who refused to accommodate the new regime and yield to its power. The Nazis often used the church to justify their stance and included many Christian symbols in the Third Reich (Steigmann–Gall). A particularly poignant exemplar is the seen in the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

[TheAvengerLever]

That doesn't say anything of Hitler being a Christian.

A Christian is not a person who just believes in God. Satan believes in God, and look where he's got himself. To be Christian you have to accept Jesus into your heart.

That... Doesn't make any sense! Comparing pictures tells us nothing about any potential mutations of the creatures' DNA, which IS evolution. And "losing information"? That's evolution, too.

It tells us a whole lot about mutations of creatures.

Evolution: a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage)

If it's losing information, how could it become more advanced? It's almost like having a genius and taking away 2/3 percent of the brain space he uses and making him a mentally handicapped person. That's certainly not become advanced to me.

I'm pretty sure some of you make a fuzz about selling your soul to Satan and whatnot. How can you do that if God owns you?

If you don't have Jesus in your heart, your soul automatically is Satan's. But once you accept Jesus, your soul can't belong to anyone other than God.

Edited by TheAvengerButton, 24 September 2006 - 11:33 AM.

[Arturo]

You don't have to be Christian to be saved. That's simply stupid. Begining with Jews and Muslins that adore the same god as us and finishing with other religions of the world. What's important is that you look for the truth and love everyone like Jesus did.

[Ransom]

There are plenty of fossils between two stages in a creature’s evolution. Hell, WE are one of those stages. You just don't except them for what they are and, falsely, call them separate species.

How can we be an example of an inbetween stage if we dont know what we're evovling into?

And? All of these things are driven by the laws of physics. For instance, humans and all living things are a result of natures strive towards increasing entropy. These thing things are not random, nor are they perfect. They are a result of the laws of thermodynamics.

When i said order i meant the laws of physics. They werent just there from the start you know. they mustve arrived at the beginning of the universe like everything else. and they couldnt have possibly just been blown into existence.

I would diss you a lot less if you proved your existence and your supposed "love" for mankind instead of threatening over half the world’s population with eternal suffering.

So, you diss God, and you alos feel threatened by him, but you dont believe he exists? your cwazy.

4 facts which mean that evolution can never be proved according to the scientific method.

Fact #1: Modern Genetic theory says that when a being passes on its traits to it's offspring, the amount of genetic information passed down must either stay the same, or decrease in complexity.

Fact #2: Darwin's theory of Evolution requires that genetic information increased, one species gradually changing from one form to another over eons of time.

Fact #3: In order to account for the disparity between the two, Evolutionists hypothesized that the changes between one "primitive" species and another "advanced" species were caused by small mutations which occured over eons of time. However, in order for this to be true, there should have been millions of transitory creatures which spanned the bridge between species, for example, a primitive lizard and a dinosaur. To account for this, evolutionists came up with the thory of Punctuated Equilibrium (which is, as far as i know, current evolutionary theory) which says that the mutations happened in short bursts over a very short period of time (I haven't yet heard a biological reason for this) which explains the lack of fossils.

Fact 4#: Punctuated equilibrium or even a beneficial mutation has never been observed. Therefore, Punctuated equilibrium (and, therefore, evolution) can not be proved. Until it is observed, it can remain no more than a theory.

thankyou steel for proving everything i just said.

And about evolution we have to remember that the fossil register is incomplete. And we cannot strictly speak of intermediate species, because they don't exist, because all species are "intermediate". We know of things that are half dinosaur half bird (Archaeopteryx) or half mammal (Cignonatus or something similar) we know of species that are like biped monkeys (Australopithecus) etc.

what? is that two or three examples out of millions of species? if evolution had occured we would be finding thousands of fossils of halfway animals of all species.

[Arturo]

You fail to see that all species (except maybe humans) are evolving. It's not that a monkey suddenly says "Let's evolve into something!" But evolution can be accelerated artificially, we have done it many times with all domestic species. And the fossil register is incomplete. It's something really strange finding the skeleton of an animal we usually find just a bone. There are also more proofs, for example, genetics proofs and the analogy-homology method. Creationism has none. What's more logical that animals come from different animals or that they suddenly appeared as if from nowhere?

EDIT: And there are many more species, I just mentioned the most notable ones. And Australopithecus is a genre, there are many, for example A. Afarensis, A. Anamensis A. Africanus...

Edited by Arturo, 24 September 2006 - 12:13 PM.

[Korhend]

what? is that two or three examples out of millions of species? if evolution had occured we would be finding thousands of fossils of halfway animals of all species.

We have,take a book out on Paleontology, just about every species in the fossil record can be tied to the evolution of another species.

[Reflectionist]

We have,take a book out on Paleontology, just about every species in the fossil record can be tied to the evolution of another species.

A change in a few words can make a drastic difference.

Hitler claimed to be a Christian in Mien Kampf, my bad. I looked it up. Having not read that, I was just going on my memory of what I was told eons ago.

But, Korhend, you said 'just about.' Doesn't that imply the words 'not all?'

If it does, then... well, the books on paleontology are a good example of a good coincidence, but there's no way it can be construed as fact and infallible. If it were, then wouldn't EVERY species have a fossil or other proof pointing to evolution?

I can't see that happening.

[Ransom]

I think the theory of intelligent design (not necessarily God) is evident all around us, and seems the most logical to me.

evolution just seems sortve... silly.

[Arturo]

Intelligent design is not a theory. It has no scientific basis, so it cannot be compared to evolution. It only makes sense from a religious point of view, something totally incompatible with sciences

[TheAvengerLever]

You don't have to be Christian to be saved. That's simply stupid. Begining with Jews and Muslins that adore the same god as us and finishing with other religions of the world. What's important is that you look for the truth and love everyone like Jesus did.

They God of Christians and Muslims are of totally different attitudes towards life. Whilst the God of the Bible loved his children, the God of Islam wouldn't mind it if his followers performed a jihad on innocent people (and by saying this I'm not trying to say all Muslims are terrorists)

So no, the God of Islam is not the God I worship. And the Bible says that if you believe in Jesus, you will be saved from death and have eternal life with God in heaven.

[Selena]

Personally, I don't think god condones half the things people do. I think that's all religion. Judaism, Christianity and Islam were all born from the same event, but simply went down different paths as they tried to interperet what god really wanted. And who knows which one is really correct - if any. But the three are all sibling religions.

So everybody stop fighting with your brothers, dammit, or your dad's going to ground you. Oh, he'll turn this planet right around. XP

[Arturo]

They God of Christians and Muslims are of totally different attitudes towards life. Whilst the God of the Bible loved his children, the God of Islam wouldn't mind it if his followers performed a jihad on innocent people (and by saying this I'm not trying to say all Muslims are terrorists)

So no, the God of Islam is not the God I worship. And the Bible says that if you believe in Jesus, you will be saved from death and have eternal life with God in heaven.

First things first, jihad=/= holy war. This is a common misunderstanding, since it doesn't have anything to do with violence, but with preaching.

And the God of Islam is the God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus. They even revere Virgin Mary, as we Catholics do. Last time I checked Christian's God was the God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus. So the same God. Saying they are not the same is the same as saying that Yahweh=/=the Father

[Korhend]

Fact 4#: Punctuated equilibrium or even a beneficial mutation has never been observed. Therefore, Punctuated equilibrium (and, therefore, evolution) can not be proved. Until it is observed, it can remain no more than a theory.

Anti-Biotic Resistent strains of Bacteria, as a result of the introduction of anti-biotics.
Pesticide Resistant breeds of insects, as a result of the introduction of Pesticide.

[Chikara Nadir]

They God of Christians and Muslims are of totally different attitudes towards life. Whilst the God of the Bible loved his children, the God of Islam wouldn't mind it if his followers performed a jihad on innocent people (and by saying this I'm not trying to say all Muslims are terrorists)

Have you read the Old Testament? I mean it. Seriously. o.o The history of the Jews is PACKED with religious war. And then the Crusades only a few centuries ago- all of Christian Europe went well out of their way to get into several wars in the Holy Land.

[TheAvengerLever]

God commanded those in the Old Testament to go to war. But then through Christ he left a message of peace. It was wrong for those who fought in the Crusades to go to war in God's name. But they did so, instead of peacefully preaching the Word of God. So don't sit there and tell me that my God, the Christian God, would want us to go to war...to kill our brother.

Jihad means holy war, yes. That's what the terrorists have done, yes. They've attacked our country because Allah commanded them to. And since they think Allah is holy, then what they did was a Jihad.

[31-Year-Old-From-Georgia]

God®: Because Double Standards Are Not a Bad Thing™

[Alakhriveion]

4 facts which mean that evolution can never be proved according to the scientific method.

Fact #1: Modern Genetic theory says that when a being passes on its traits to it's offspring, the amount of genetic information passed down must either stay the same, or decrease in complexity.

No.

Fact #2: Darwin's theory of Evolution requires that genetic information increased, one species gradually changing from one form to another over eons of time.

Also no.

Fact #3: In order to account for the disparity between the two, Evolutionists hypothesized that the changes between one "primitive" species and another "advanced" species were caused by small mutations which occured over eons of time. However, in order for this to be true, there should have been millions of transitory creatures which spanned the bridge between species, for example, a primitive lizard and a dinosaur. To account for this, evolutionists came up with the thory of Punctuated Equilibrium (which is, as far as i know, current evolutionary theory) which says that the mutations happened in short bursts over a very short period of time (I haven't yet heard a biological reason for this) which explains the lack of fossils.

Primitive species do not evolve in to advanced species.

Fact 4#: Punctuated equilibrium or even a beneficial mutation has never been observed. Therefore, Punctuated equilibrium (and, therefore, evolution) can not be proved. Until it is observed, it can remain no more than a theory.

Penicillin!

[Reflectionist]

God commanded those in the Old Testament to go to war. But then through Christ he left a message of peace. It was wrong for those who fought in the Crusades to go to war in God's name. But they did so, instead of peacefully preaching the Word of God. So don't sit there and tell me that my God, the Christian God, would want us to go to war...to kill our brother.

Jihad means holy war, yes. That's what the terrorists have done, yes. They've attacked our country because Allah commanded them to. And since they think Allah is holy, then what they did was a Jihad.

Then Jesus was lying in Matthew 10:34-36?

34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[a]

Now, I don't like war. I don't like seeing people die. But it's no use bitching about it, because it's going to happen. Jesus said so. That's my belief.

Don't take me wrong, we can certainly help push in that direction, because wouldn't a hypothetical four killings during the Holocaust have been much better than the losses that actually happened?

Edited by Reflectionist, 24 September 2006 - 06:00 PM.

[Selena]

Jihad means holy war, yes. That's what the terrorists have done, yes. They've attacked our country because Allah commanded them to. And since they think Allah is holy, then what they did was a Jihad.

Actually, I thought that in real Islam (not the fundamentalist crazies - they're as Muslim as the KKK is Christian) only the caliph could order an actual offensive Jihad. And since there isn't a caliph in control of the Muslim caliphate, there can be no offensive Jihad. Jihad's a struggle, and in 95%+ of cases, it just means a struggle within oneself. There hasn't been a real Jihad for ages, and no caliph since the Ottomans fell. The "Jihad" we see today is little more than a bunch of militaristic crazies justifying hate through religion.

Real religious wars are few and far between, and... as Chik said, common in more than just one belief system. If the Crusades don't count, than neither does this "Jihad."

[Steel Samurai]

Anti-Biotic Resistent strains of Bacteria, as a result of the introduction of anti-biotics.
Pesticide Resistant breeds of insects, as a result of the introduction of Pesticide.

Both of which involve natural selection, not punctuated equilibrium or mutations. This is what occasionally ticks me off about evolutionists. The examples you try to give of mutations are never mutations at all, but a result of natural selection or human selection. There is a big difference. While natural selection simply selects traits from those already present in the creature, and amplifies those traits, Mutation creates entirely new traits in the creature. For example, lets use the insects/insecticide. Originally, all of the insects of this given type were more or less equal. Then, man invented insecticides so he could kill the insects which had been raiding his crops. Most of the insects died off. However, perhaps some of them had a slight resistance to the insecticide, and were able to breed before they died. The next generation of insects would all have some of the genes of the originals. The ones which had the anti-pesticide gene would survive and breed, while those which did not receive it would die and not be able to breed. This process was repeated over successive generations until the anti-insecticide gene was the only gene in the insect's DNA. In order to understand that, you need to have a basic knowledge of genetics, but I'll try to explain that if anyone has any questions.

Now, that was an example of natural selection, not mutation, as everyone should be able to see. It did not involve the adding of new information, rather, it was the amplification of existing information. This is observable and is a proven Scientific Law. The question which Scientists seek to answer, is where did the information come from in the first place. NeoDarwinists believe it came from random beneficial mutations (again, something which has never been observed) occuring over a short period of time, say four or 5 generations. Creationists believe God put the information in the creatures when he created them. Neither can be scientifically proven, as neither have been observed. Therefore, it's up to the individual who wishes to make his own deecision, based upon which seems most reasonable. Just as a side not to that, however, consider this. DNA is made of protein. Protein is made of small, fairly complex compounds known as amino acids. The simplest protein has well over 100 amino acids linked together in a chain. More complex proteins can have, if I remember correctly, thousands. The amino acids must be in the right order, or otherwise the protein becomes useless. Now, let's assume that we have a primeval soup on earth a few billion years ago, and we're trying to observe the creation of the simplest protein. Let's say that the only amino acids in the soup are those necessary for the creation of this protein (in reality there are dozens more) Now, a strike of lightning hits the soup. The odds of the simplest protein known to science forming from the amino acids in the soup randomly in the perfect order it needs to be are around the same as a poker player drawing a royal flush 19 times in a row. And that is just for the simplest protein, with a lot of variables removed.

It only makes sense from a religious point of view, something totally incompatible with sciences

What do Gregor Mendel, Father of genetics, Isaac Newton, Father of
Physics, Johannes Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Boyle, and dozens others I could name have in common? Oh wait, they were all christians, or professed to be so.

[Nevermind]

They God of Christians and Muslims are of totally different attitudes towards life. Whilst the God of the Bible loved his children, the God of Islam wouldn't mind it if his followers performed a jihad on innocent people (and by saying this I'm not trying to say all Muslims are terrorists)

So no, the God of Islam is not the God I worship. And the Bible says that if you believe in Jesus, you will be saved from death and have eternal life with God in heaven.

You're making yourself sound very naive there.

He's still quite wrathful. He Himself admits to being jealous. He is loving, He is cruel, He is spiteful, He is jealous, He's a bit of everything. That's what makes Him God. And we are meant to be cast in his image. So basically, He's like us......but on a much, much larger scale.

[TheAvengerLever]

I never said he wasn't all those things. I just said that my Christian God wouldn't allow me to blow the crap out of myself and kill innocent people.

[Ransom]

No.

Also no.

Primitive species do not evolve in to advanced species.

Penicillin!

Thank you for those deep and intelligent answers...

And Laz, i think it means a different kind of Jealous

[Alakhriveion]

Thank you for those deep and intelligent answers...

When something is just wrong, there aren't a lot of things to say. I'm a forum moderator, not a biology teacher.

Both of which involve natural selection, not punctuated equilibrium or mutations. This is what occasionally ticks me off about evolutionists. The examples you try to give of mutations are never mutations at all, but a result of natural selection or human selection. There is a big difference. While natural selection simply selects traits from those already present in the creature, and amplifies those traits, Mutation creates entirely new traits in the creature. For example, lets use the insects/insecticide. Originally, all of the insects of this given type were more or less equal. Then, man invented insecticides so he could kill the insects which had been raiding his crops. Most of the insects died off. However, perhaps some of them had a slight resistance to the insecticide, and were able to breed before they died. The next generation of insects would all have some of the genes of the originals. The ones which had the anti-pesticide gene would survive and breed, while those which did not receive it would die and not be able to breed. This process was repeated over successive generations until the anti-insecticide gene was the only gene in the insect's DNA. In order to understand that, you need to have a basic knowledge of genetics, but I'll try to explain that if anyone has any questions.

This process you descibe is quintessential EVOLUTION.

Now, that was an example of natural selection, not mutation, as everyone should be able to see. It did not involve the adding of new information, rather, it was the amplification of existing information. This is observable and is a proven Scientific Law. The question which Scientists seek to answer, is where did the information come from in the first place.

It is?

NeoDarwinists [Moderator's note: This word is pronounced Bi-ohl-oh-jists] believe it came from random beneficial mutations (again, something which has never been observed) occuring over a short period of time, say four or 5 generations. Creationists believe God put the information in the creatures when he created them. Neither can be scientifically proven, as neither have been observed. Therefore, it's up to the individual who wishes to make his own deecision, based upon which seems most reasonable.

Evolution most emphatically does not require random beneficial mutations. Mutations occur all the goddamn time and nearly all are quite mundane. When a mutation allows an individual to survive better in its environment, it will be ore likely to pass on this trait. You seem to have an image of evolution as ape-men suddenly giving birth to children with large brains and less hair, and they continued to progress and became Men. I assure you this is not the view of anyone with an ounce of reason to their name.

Just as a side not to that, however, consider this. DNA is made of protein. Protein is made of small, fairly complex compounds known as amino acids. The simplest protein has well over 100 amino acids linked together in a chain. More complex proteins can have, if I remember correctly, thousands. The amino acids must be in the right order, or otherwise the protein becomes useless. Now, let's assume that we have a primeval soup on earth a few billion years ago, and we're trying to observe the creation of the simplest protein. Let's say that the only amino acids in the soup are those necessary for the creation of this protein (in reality there are dozens more) Now, a strike of lightning hits the soup. The odds of the simplest protein known to science forming from the amino acids in the soup randomly in the perfect order it needs to be are around the same as a poker player drawing a royal flush 19 times in a row. And that is just for the simplest protein, with a lot of variables removed.

You're attacking a straw man again. A weak one, too, because odds don't mean a damn thing. The odds that you would recieve that exact combination of your parent's DNA which you did are also extremely slim, yet that combination and only that combination arose at your conception (unless you have a fraternal twin or are a chimera, in which case your existance is still more improbable). The odds of Magical Mystery Tour being on par with Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band were, too, and yet (IMHO, as the kids say) it surely is. The odds of a man becoming president of the United States after losing the election seem negligible, but 7% of our leaders got in to office that way.

Oh, and your requirements for the synthesis of DNA are inane, but that's beside the point.

[TheAvengerLever]

34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'

Jesus may not have been reffering to war, but reffering to people who choose to join him or not.

Like, say you are a girl and you have three other sisters. You become a Christian and your sister becomes a christian through your testimony. But the other two reject Jesus. Well, there you go.

It's not war. It's not war how we see war (vast armies fighting for a cause) because Jesus did not mean for us to kill one another. By saying "man's enemies will be the members of his own household" he refers to the Christian Brotherhood, and how if you dislike someone in your church or what not.

So no, no advocating war here

[Reflectionist]

Ah, I see.

Well, I guess you're still wrong.

Read Mark 13:7-8

7When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains.

AvengerButton dude, I think you're heart is in the right spot, but you don't know what you're talking about on the peace thing.

[Chikara Nadir]

And honestly, don't go thinking that all Mohammad believed in was murder, either. As a man, he certainly knew how to make war, but he seemed pretty well against killing the innocents and harmless. He takes over the city of the people who hated him, and what does he do? Tell his soldiers not to kill or rape the women/children. He may not have been the same peacemaker as Jesus, but he was certainly honourable.

[TheAvengerLever]

Well, I guess you're still wrong.

Not really.

7When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains.

He still isn't advocating war. He's just saying that there will be war. Jesus doesn't say that he wants his children to harm his children. He's just saying the world is going to become a bad place.

AvengerButton dude, I think you're heart is in the right spot, but you don't know what you're talking about on the peace thing.

Meh. All I'm saying is that Jesus is a peacemaker, but he knew that his teachings would make war. He didn't advocate war, he just warned us it would happen and told us not to be afraid of it. Jesus...didn't...want...war...but...he...knew...it...would...come...anyway.

And honestly, don't go thinking that all Mohammad believed in was murder, either. As a man, he certainly knew how to make war, but he seemed pretty well against killing the innocents and harmless. He takes over the city of the people who hated him, and what does he do? Tell his soldiers not to kill or rape the women/children. He may not have been the same peacemaker as Jesus, but he was certainly honourable.

I certainly don't think all Mohammad was all about murder.

Edited by TheAvengerButton, 25 September 2006 - 08:10 PM.

[Nevermind]

And Laz, i think it means a different kind of Jealous

What other kind of jealous is there? He doesn't want any other gods to come before Him, and if they do, He's not happy about it, and gets upset.