|Evolution.Page 43 of 64 (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64)|
But it does all fit with evolutionary theory - archaeology, biology, paleontology, geology, astrobiology, molecular phylogenetics. etc. All these scientific disciplines support evolution and not the biblical accounting of genesis. The biblical accounting is at odds with everything else we know.
Completely wrong. All branches of science are compatible with the Bible, all of which were introduced by Bible believers. The founder of paleontology opposed evolution theory.
If science goes against the Bible, why are there so many creation scientists?
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation:
Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. Don Batten, Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology
Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Timothy C. Coppess, M.S., Environmental Scientist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Dr. Andrew J. Fabich, Microbiology
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
Dr. Stephen Grocott, Chemist
Dr. Vicki Hagerman, DMV
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. John Hartnett, Physics
Dr. Mark Harwood, Engineering (satellite specialist)
Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Dr. Russ Humphreys, Physics
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Molecular Biology
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr. William F. Kane, (Civil) Geotechnical Engineering
Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Dr. Johan Kruger, Zoology
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr. John G. Leslie, Biochemist, Physician, Archaeologist
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry
Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Physical Chemistry
Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist
Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geology
Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr. Stephen J. Vinay III, Chemical Engineering
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
Dr. Tas Walker, Geology/Engineering
Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr. Carl Wieland, Medicine/Surgery
Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
Scientists of the past who believed in a Creator:
Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method.
Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy (see also The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?
Johann Kepler (1571–1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy
Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor
John Wilkins (1614–1672)
Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation magazine (1623–1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) Statistics; Scientific economics
Robert Boyle (1627–1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics
John Ray (1627–1705) Natural history
Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of Mathematics
Nicolas Steno (1631–1686) Stratigraphy
Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) Geology
Increase Mather (1639–1723) Astronomy
Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) Medical Doctor, Botany
The Age of Newton:
Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity—See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57–80, 1997)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician
John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy
William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology
Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician
John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician
John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology
William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology
John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology
Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology
Carolus Linneaus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system
Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology
Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy
William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)
James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory; Gas law
John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)
Just Before Darwin:
The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr. Terry Mortenson
Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator
William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist
Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826) Geographer
Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist
John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry
Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy
Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist
John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry
Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp
Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)
Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; Physiologist
Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)
William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)
Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Michael Faraday (1791–1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph
John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer
Just After Darwin:
Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology
James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology
Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archeologist
James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural Chemist
James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics
Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist
Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy
George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics
John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology
Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) (WOH) Genetics
Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects
William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry
Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery
Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity
James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis
John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases
Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy
Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy
A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archeologist
John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve
Early Modern Period:
Dr. Clifford Burdick, Geologist
George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor
L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; Paleontology
Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist
Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology
Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology
Dr. Frank Marsh, Biology
Dr. John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy
William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archeologist
William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist
Dr. Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon
Dr. Larry Butler, Biochemist
Posted: 4/24/2011 4:24:13 PM
|You misunderstand my point. I don't dispute percentage figures of who believes in God and who doesn't. This isn't a democratic vote where whoever has the majority wins. We've always been the minority (or 99.99% of the time). What I'm saying is that you said the Bible is not compatible with science, if that were the case, there should be no scientists who believe the Bible. But there's plenty who do.|
Posted: 4/24/2011 4:42:32 PM
|Project Steve: |
NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism."
Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded. NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!
Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend.
We'd like to think that after Project Steve, we'll have seen the last of bogus "scientists doubting evolution" lists, but it's probably too much to ask. We hope that when such lists are proposed, reporters and other citizens will ask, "How many Steves are on your list!?"
Currently at about 1,125.
Posted: 4/24/2011 7:25:45 PM
|I really have a problem with comparing animal life, development, etc. with human development. Big problem. Do not be confused.|
Human beings face similar and different catastrophes. Earthquakes, etc. And child murder and on and on.
Frankly, why should god cure anything that is the result of free will? That is your gift as a human being and use it wisely. If you can't its because of the economic and political ugliness you were born into. Africa is a prime example. Why does Africa suffer so?? Good, flippin question. A better forum than why does evolution matter?
It doesn't, in the long run. Evolution is a big, fat fancy way of saying we all went forward, now we go back. Devolution or something similar.
Posted: 4/24/2011 9:52:19 PM
|Lets remind you gently where Nietzsche ended his days. God can be captured mathematically. And not always through the Bible. Its as gentle as something very hard becoming crystal clear and easy to understand...and to do. One plus one equals two. Hence, the young man arguing and demonstrating scientists who believe in God. Actually, believing in God makes more common sense than believing in statements such as this..."Incidentally, that would also mean that God could be captured mathematically and is limited in some very specific ways, which would contradict this omnipotence business that you nuts keep pontificating about." Hey, this young guy is not "nuts" and God can be proved to have been moving through your life. I will prove it you for a small fee. lol. God is a concept that is bigger than both you and the young guy.|
Posted: 4/24/2011 11:13:11 PM
|Actually Kreb, old cranky...I wasn't replying to you in that particular post. I think I was responding to K.O. And....sigh....I will remind you loudly, not softly, that what you say isn't always what you have denied and will never say. Yawn. Come out, play and be merriful and lets just say that its flippin fun to disagree and fun to never stand still. Right, ????? Unless...god forbid...you are either praying or meditating. Its easy to recognize nuts, its alway hard to recognize the prophet at the end of your nose or something related to that very wise and profound concept, Krebby.|
Posted: 4/24/2011 11:54:13 PM
|Happy Evolutionary Easter to all of the very smart pof forum folk. God, its light until just about past 8:00 p.m. in my neck of this flippin, fantastic earth.|
Posted: 4/25/2011 1:47:11 AM
|Typical atheists, attack the person rather than the message. Claiming I'm uneducated, lack intelligence and call me nuts. Contrary to your belief, Christianity will never die out. I know this to be true because the devil will never stop his works, not until Jesus returns anyway. |
God isn't only light. And the Bible isn't all literal. But of course the historical writings (creation account, global flood etc) are literal.
Posted: 4/25/2011 3:54:50 AM
|Nice combo of passion and aggressive christianity Q. But, just because you declare creation myth and the global flood of 6000 years ago to be true, does not make them so. No more than Hitler, lil Bush, and others proclaiming that god spoke to them. The Babble was written by guys with an agenda. St. Paul in particular was a master manipulator, and co-opted mythology from established religions to suit his agenda in creating christianity from yet another obscure Jewish cult of the day.|
Don't forget to evolve a little every day. It helps. Meanwhile, a new scripture is coming to the big screen.
Posted: 4/25/2011 5:12:29 AM
What I'm saying is that you said the Bible is not compatible with science, if that were the case, there should be no scientists who believe the Bible. But there's plenty who do.
OK, a more accurate statement is that your understanding of the bible is incompatible science (and even common sense). On the other hand, catholics don't have tht problem, since the catholic perspective is that the stories in the bible are mythology and parables which are not meant to be takwen literally and that there can be no conflict between science and religion. In particular, catholicism accepts evolution and even big bang cosmology. Apparently, the only conflict is with rather peculiar interpretations of the bible (such as your own).
This isn't a democratic vote where whoever has the majority wins.
You're the one who saw fit to list scientists who are religious, so you shouldn't backpeddle when your argument is shot down on the terms you set.
Claiming I'm uneducated, lack intelligence and call me nuts.
Those are self-evident.
Contrary to your belief, Christianity will never die out.
Your personal version of christianity has nothing to do with christianity. I've known 3 jesuit priests who were personal friends of mine. All of them believed in the theory of evolution and one told me flat out that it would be ridiculous to think otherwise. He actually laughed at people who believe in genesis literally and said they missed the entire point. They were obviously christian enough to devote their lives to the catholic church, yet they were educated enough to understand that science and religion are completely seperate and that religion has no business telling science how to formulate theories.
Posted: 4/25/2011 11:46:14 AM
|Yes yes, I'm well aware the Roman Catholic church believe in evolution and don't believe the Bible they preach. Yet you say they don't have a problem? How can you preach holy book to the masses if you don't believe it? Creationists can preach the whole thing with confidence and not having to cut bits out to conform to secularism. They should trust in God, not man. This is why I am not RC. |
Also, from a previous post, I am well aware that creationists start with the Bible, I never denied that. Secular scientists start with their precious evolution theory and millions/billions of years. Both religious.
Taking statistics from just 9 countries out of almost 200 isn't exactly accurate for the entire human race now is it.
Posted: 4/25/2011 11:56:45 AM
Yes yes, I'm well aware the Roman Catholic church believe in evolution and don't believe the Bible they preach. Yet you say they don't have a problem? How can you preach holy book to the masses if you don't believe it?
Just like everything you've posted, the above is a complete fabrication of what others (I, in this case) have written. I never said that catholics don't believe the bible. Go back and correctly state what I said, without trying to spin it. You shouldn't be surprised you aren't taken seriously. You are completely dishonest.
Posted: 4/25/2011 12:16:15 PM
Just like everything you've posted, the above is a complete fabrication of what others (I, in this case) have written. I never said that catholics don't believe the bible. Go back and correctly state what I said, without trying to spin it. You shouldn't be surprised you aren't taken seriously. You are completely dishonest.
You obviously have no grasp as to what is in the Bible. I really don't know why you are arguing against something you do not understand.
Evolution theory says dinosaurs evolved into birds. The Bible says birds were made before dinosaurs. Now tell me Roman Catholics can believe in evolution theory and the Bible. It's an imposibility. And that's only one example.
So you see, I have not been dishonest and have not spun anything.
Posted: 4/25/2011 12:30:20 PM
^^Because catholics do not interpret genesis literally. Therefore, they apparently see no conflict between the creation stories of genesis, and evolution.
It's a historical account, there's no other way it can be interpreted. Besides, do they also take the book of Mark out the Bible too?
In Mark 10:6 Jesus said "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."
And what about the book of Luke? That states the genealogy of Jesus, all the way back to Adam.
I know, just throw the whole thing out yeah? And people wonder why the Christian church split into denominations.
Posted: 4/25/2011 12:39:26 PM
I know that this will come as a great affront to you, but there are people, even religious ones, who do not agree with you.
How can you be sure that you are correct and they are wrong? Maybe you should study comparative religions, to be better informed?
I know full well I (and creationists) are in the minority and that most religious people and most Christians (especially outside of USA) do not agree with me.
I know it is the right interpretation because without Genesis, without Adam and Eve, from a Christian perspective (not your own) where did sin come from?
Posted: 4/25/2011 12:49:01 PM
Some people don't believe in the concept of "sin," especially in the presence of a diety that supposedly is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient.
On that topic, you might want to read up on "secular ethics."
Again, you have no way of knowing that your own view is correct.
I'm not talking about secularism/atheism. The topic moved onto the Roman Catholic beliefs. I asked if they disgregard Genesis, where do they believe sin came from. And of course they do believe in sin, otherwise there is no point in having the saviour Jesus Christ. And I notice you have no reply to my comments about the books of Mark and Luke.
Posted: 4/25/2011 1:02:43 PM
Oh boohoo - did you answer every question I put of you? Why don't you ask Catholics (where, like most other religions, there are 10 church members by inheritance for every one by conviction) how they reconcile the bible with secular society?
Because I already know. My grandmother is Roman Catholic and she disregards the whole of the Old Testament, not even realising it's importance.
But you two seem to want to argue their corner. I guess because you like RC more because they believe in evolution theory just as you do. At least I can say I'm consistant with my beliefs. Would be stupid for me to say I believe the Bible, Genesis, Mark, Luke and all and believe in evolution theory at the same time. I'm assuming you have the intelligence to see that now.
Posted: 4/25/2011 1:19:00 PM
|I'm asking because you seem to think that the position the Roman Catholic church take on Genesis and evolution is perfectly legitimate. You are arguing in their defence.|
Posted: 4/25/2011 1:34:58 PM
|Ah so you defend Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Karl Marx.... Figures.|
Posted: 4/25/2011 1:44:46 PM
I'm asking because you seem to think that the position the Roman Catholic church take on Genesis and evolution is perfectly legitimate.
Since their position is the only one that doesn't conflict with real scientific evidence, it's the ONLY legitimate position anyone could take. Any other position is just a result of ignorance and ego.
Posted: 4/25/2011 3:27:53 PM
|"Christians could use a little evolution" Bumper Snicker..|
"Lord. Please save us from your Followers" Another Bumper Snicker..
We have a local fanatic, June Griffin, who is not only racist and xenophobic, but also the most "Patriotic", "Righteous", and "Religious" person in her world. She considers most of the 1500 Christian sects in the US to be wrong. Kinda like our version of the inbred Westboro Baptist Church. You will not find a more judgemental and hateful person around these parts. We found that the best way to handle June in the local newspapers and talk radio rants, was just listen for amusement, then move immediately back into the reality based world, not feeding her need to troll.
Then there is Betty Bowers. America's Best Christian.
Hard to tell satire from delusion eh.?
Posted: 4/25/2011 11:24:42 PM
|The claim is sometimes made that Hitler was a Christian - a Roman Catholic until the day he died, this was propaganda. In fact, Hitler rejected Christianity. He gasses almost 2 million Christians along with the Jews, blacks etc. |
The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.
All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)
10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)
14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)
19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.
21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)
13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)
14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)
9th April, 1942, dinner:
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)
27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)
A person who wishes to abolish religion is an atheist, are they not? Not eating meat, or being left handed does not contribute to their ideology to slaughter millions.
Karl Marx was a commie.
Posted: 4/26/2011 12:00:17 PM
|Firstly, I never said that all atheists want to abolish religion. Just that people who do want to abolish religion tend to be atheists. Wouldn't make sense a religious person wanting to abolish religion would it. |
Secondly @cheshirecatalyst, Why tell me try and keep up, when I'm not the one who still believes propaganda from 70 years ago? I never said or implied that Hitler respresents all evolution believers. You said you support/defend anyone who believes in the theory. So I mentioned some bad people who did. Resulting in the implication that you defend Hitler, etc. I never said Hitler was an atheist. He was (probably) brought up Catholic than turned from his faith and created his own twisted ideology based on evolution theory.
What's my point with Marx? He championed evolution, dedicating his book to Charles Darwin. I don't know everything there is to know about communism, apart from it refusing freedom of religion and the government owns pretty much everything and can do what they like, rendering the public as pawns to work for the state and not themselves, restricting freedom. It's regarded as a bad form of government and something the democratic world despises.
Posted: 4/26/2011 12:14:28 PM
What's my point with Marx? He championed evolution, dedicating his book to Charles Darwin. I don't know everything there is to know about communism, apart from it refusing freedom of religion and the government owns pretty much everything and can do what they like, rendering the public as pawns to work for the state and not themselves, restricting freedom.
Apparently you have never read Mrax, since your descriprion of Marxism is nothing like the system Marx described. Marx described a system in which society was governed by the working class instead of the upper class and ultimately, a classless society that had no government. In other words, it was pretty much the kind of world depicted in the bible as desirable (minus the theological mumbo jumbo). There was no government to restrict anyone's freedom or own anything and no state to work for.
You really ought to learn about something before you throw it out there as an argument.
Posted: 4/26/2011 12:14:37 PM
However, the depth of the influence, if any, would certainly seem to be greatly exaggerated by a number of religious fundamentalists who seek to paint Darwin's ideas as incredibly dangerous. There is no mention of Darwin or evolution in The Communist Manifesto -- not surprising, since Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, 11 years later—and the only reference to Darwin in Das Kapital amounts to short footnotes on technological specialization in manufacturing and industry.
Despite this, in The Disasters Darwinism Brought to Humanity, Harun Yahya (a Muslim creationist) writes: "Karl Marx, the founder of Communism, adapted Darwin's ideas, which deeply influenced him, to the dialectic process of history." Yahya also writes: "Marx revealed his sympathy for Darwin by dedicating his most important work, Das Kapital, to him."
I know I said there wasn't any point in engaging, but this is just too easy. It really doesn't matter what actual facts are, his faith that Marx dedicated Das Kapital to Darwin will prevail. You really need to attribute your article of faith to an Islamic fundamentalist though.
64 (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64)