Evolution, Creation and Politics

posted at 1:01 pm on January 30, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

Perhaps the most popular parlour game in American politics is for media types to generate litmus test questions which they can put to every candidate and elected official to feed the news cycle beast. These range from generic items such as asking where they stand on abortion or second amendment rights to party specific queries which include egging on Republicans as to whether or not Sarah Palin is “qualified to be President.” One of the oldest and saddest ones, though, is dredged back up by Steve Benen this week, highlighting the gaudy spectacle of Bill Maher asking Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) if he “believes” in evolution.

“Real Time” host Bill Maher asked Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) a fairly straightforward question: “Do you believe in evolution?” Kingston not only said rejects the foundation of modern biology, (sic) he explained it this way: “I believe I came from God, not from a monkey.” He added, “If it happened over millions and millions of years, there should be lots of fossil evidence.”

Seriously, that’s what he said.

First, by way of disclosure, I personally am comfortable with the theory of evolution. I am also comfortable with the fact that in most cases, religion and science are not mutually exclusive, primarily because faith and laboratory experiments have very little overlap. I can also relate to the temptation to deride those who disagree about evolution or other scientific principles because I did it myself when I was younger. It’s easy, as a young man, to be not only invincible but convinced that you’re smarter than everyone else on the planet – particularly those stupid old people.

But as we age, hopefully we learn a little more tolerance and realize our own limitations.

Not only are science and religion not mutually exclusive, more and more these days we see them working together. One of many examples was the discovery by archaeologists of a stone pylon with the name of Pontius Pilate inscribed on it, taking one character out of the realm of “Bible stories” and inserting his name into the history books. Additional examples abound.

Do we really need to badger office seekers and holders with this question any more? Even if some of us disagree with them, is a fixed belief in literal creation truly an indicator of some lack of “critical thinking in the Republican Party,” as Benen so smugly puts it? They aren’t arguing with you in favor of some different scientific theory which contradicts yours. They’re promoting an entirely different belief which demands no proof from the laboratory.

If the development of the universe and our planet played out over billions of years and life “evolved” here as current theory suggests, I’m not so vain about my own intellect to claim that God couldn’t have designed the entire shooting match to do just that. Matters of timelines could be nothing more than misinterpretation of scale. And what of all those fossils in the ground? Perhaps, as I suspect, they are the result of various animal and plant species rising, changing and dying off. Or, for all I know, I’m totally wrong, the planet actually is only six or seven thousand years old and God put them there on purpose for us to find. Why? I haven’t a clue. You’d have to ask Him.

The point is, no matter how sound any given scientific theory turns out to be, you’re never going to prove that it wasn’t a flashing, infinitely divine creation. And you’re never going to shake the belief of those who find it a bedrock foundation of their faith. So why should you try? And in a land founded in part on religious freedom, why would you want to try?

Just some food for thought on a chilly Sunday.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 14 15 16 17

dropped a couple of words, there. “your own contention” should read “your own contention is undermined”.

VekTor on February 1, 2011 at 6:43 PM

There are a plethora of examples of people dieing for their beliefs, paying the ultimate sacrifice.

Just because people have died in the name of a religion does NOT make it right or true.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 5:56 PM

I didn’t claim that their “dying for their beliefs” made them true. I’m talking about eyewitness testimony to a specific event, and the unavoidable conclusion from cross-examining the testimony that it was reliable and genuine. Christianity was not an established religion at the time of the resurrection. There was no cultural or nationalistic reason for anyone to support it. There were no earthly rewards for promoting it. It is illogical that anyone would invent it and stick to the story for their whole life. It is unbelievable that 500+ separate individuals would do so.

Find me any other religion that is built upon unimpeachable eyewitness testimony, please.

joe_doufu on February 1, 2011 at 6:48 PM

Can you provide three examples out of the the “incredible quantity” of logical proofs that DISTINGUISH Christianity as supported from all other religions?

Do you have even one “logical proof” that is exclusive to Christianity?

VekTor on February 1, 2011 at 6:41 PM

This was linked several pages back in this thread, and I found it very interesting reading: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html
Greenleaf was apparently a lawyer who set out to impeach the testimony of the four Gospel writers, by cross-examination, but found that their testimony was in fact reliable.

joe_doufu on February 1, 2011 at 6:52 PM

No, animal husbandry is not intelligent design. That was a nice way of avoiding losing the argument by avoiding the argument altogether, though.

RightOFLeft on February 1, 2011 at 6:09 PM

Animal husbandry is carried out by intelligent beings, with a purpose in mind, taking specific actions, intervening in the evolution of a species. How is that not intelligent design?

Perhaps you are trying to create a straw-man: that the only alternative to evolution by natural selection is God creating the current species completely, in final form, in some sort of laboratory, and making them appear *poof* on Earth in their present state by magic.

There are two problems for you that result from such a caricature of intelligent design. The first is that it demonstrates a magnificent ignorance of what design is. The science of design is one of my field’s main topics of study. What we know about design is that it’s iterative, incremental, with occasional breakthroughs, cross-boundary disruptions, and sometimes dead-ends. In a word, evolutionary.

The second problem is that despite yourself, you are confirming the probability of intelligent design. By saying “animal husbandry is evolution”, you’re agreeing that the evidence totally fits with the theory that humans were created by a higher Intelligence through “animal husbandry”. Did you mean to do that?

joe_doufu on February 1, 2011 at 7:02 PM

RightOFLeft
right4life
SauerKraut537
joe_doufu
et. al.

Guys, let’s not descend into the pit of name calling over something that is actually completely tangential such as Darwin’s book, selective breeding, intelligent design, etc. This essentially breaks down as a discussion of one belief being superior to another, and illustrates certain zeal that all of you have for your own viewpoint.

If you want to argue, look at the central issues, not the tangential ones. Natural selection occurs. It has been observed, and documented, however those observations have been constrained to micro evolutionary changes. i.e. finches giving rise to new species of finches. I don’t see a conflict between ID, evolutionary thought, or the will of God as the source of the mechanism, because you can make an argument that satisfies each camp equally well for this kind of origin of species at the same taxonomic level.

The fundamental problem for evolution and particularly natural selection as the sole driver for evolutionary processes is in the origins of life. The origin problem is so profound that most proponents of evolution avoid it at all costs, but I’ll go there in an abbreviated fashion. As a general statement of origin for evolutionary theory, you have an inorganic origin, that at some point you have an accumulation of organic molecules, namely molecules capable of functions, i.e. proteins, and molecules capable of information storage, i.e. building blocks of RNA and DNA, and the list goes on. Each compound has a very different chemical environment required to produce a significant amount of product, particularly on the levels of yield needed to put together even a crude cell. And then you have to put all of these pieces together into something like a crude cell. Herein lies the biggest intellectual leap…these pieces have to not only be together, they have to function in some way for the cell to actually live. This is why you run across wild theories about crystals providing structures upon which these molecules were built, or kaolinite clays doing the same thing, and the intellectually dishonest approach that I’ve seen some take as to simply state that we are here so trying to figure it out has no value. The point being that from this shaky foundation, as you look to the taxa, you see a lot of confusion that doesn’t really support evolution in my opinion either. You have supposed descent from common ancestry, and yet the archaea phospholipids are levo instead of dextro like the rest of all life. This implies that the fundamental molecular machinery is different from the beginning. Not good for evolution. I could go on, but I have to go home soon.

In closing, I’ll just say this. I’m a marine biologist, who came to realizations about what I believed being based on shaky foundations a long time ago. You can know a Frank Lloyd Wright building by looking at it, and I’ve come to accept that the only logical origin with all the complexity needed for a cell to survive is the same as knowing a Frank Lloyd Wright building. You see the same kind of thing going into the blueprints, but different buildings. Similar patterns to DNA, but different organism. I chose to believe that it is the God of the bible, but ID leaves that open to choice. It is simply a framework through which a Muslim, an Atheist, a Hindu, and a Christian can work to discover things, to avoid the argument over who is right as far as religion.

Have a good evening.

Marine_Bio on February 1, 2011 at 7:16 PM

“If you’re reduced to arguing that selective breeding is the same process as natural selection, then you’ve already lost.”

Nonsense. The logic behind natural selection and selective breeding is exactly the same. Certain traits command better reproductive success than other competing traits. Therefore, traits promoting better reproduction become more prevalent in successive generations.

NORUK on February 1, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Selective breeding is the application of intelligence to breeding. Since human intelligence was not around to guide the evolutionary process before humans existed, there was either no intelligence behind natural selection before humans arrived, or there was another intelligence behind it.

Or an Intelligence….

tom on February 1, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Whether its nature doing the selecting or man himself, the idea is still the same. The former (nature doing the selecting) is a much longer process meaning that it takes tens of thousands of years to get a noticeable change in a species.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Wow. And here I thought that I was just pointing out the obvious: that it’s absurd to take an intelligently-guided process and say that it proves the exact same thing could have happened randomly if you just allow more time.

And yet both of you actually double down on such a ridiculous notion.

The only thing that intelligent selective breeding proves is that intelligent design is possible and productive. It proves absolutely nothing at all about a random process that is postulated but never actually observed.

A tremendous amount of work has gone into producing a plausible theory of evolution that could explain how life could have happened without special intervention. Unfortunately, we have way too many people who can’t tell the difference between plausible and proven. Since evolution is a plausible theory, and the only scientific one available, they jump to the the declaration that it is fact.

Sorry, but there is just way too much speculation, missing evidence, lack of repeatability, and so forth to declare evolution to be proven.

For instance, there is — or rather, was – nothing more basic to the theory of evolution than the idea of an incredibly long, slow, gradual process that took place by minute adaptation upon minute adaptation over enormous periods of time, with nothing but the principle of Survival of the Fittest to weed out the poor adaptations from the improvements.

And yet, the punctuated equilibrium notion was postulated by an evolutionist because there was simply no support for such a slow, gradual process in the fossil record. That’s right, the same fossil record that Darwin was certain would eventually bear out his theory, and the same fossil record that GoodLt confidently affirms has taught us all so much more than that old Bible.

Puntuated equilibrium posits that evolution actually happens much faster at some times than others. It makes a certain amount of sense in that we can’t really observe evolution occurring now, and we can’t see evidence of gradual change in the fossil record in the past, but we must believe it happened if we believe evolution occurred at all. This of course only leaves two possible explanations: 1) that fossilization is so rare that most transitional forms have died out before we get lucky to get some more fossils again, or 2) that evolution happened much faster for a time, so therefore it could easily happen between occurrences of fossilization.

The problem that ought to concern the true believer in evolution is that this theory, is an awfully convenient explanation for a total lack of proof of evolution. As in, “She turned me into a newt!!! (I got better)”

But my point here is rather more simple: if the evidence of evolution is so sparse that someone can plausibly propose that it may have happened many times faster in the past, then the theory of evolution has a very long ways to go before it’s proven.

tom on February 1, 2011 at 7:18 PM

Animal husbandry is carried out by intelligent beings, with a purpose in mind, taking specific actions, intervening in the evolution of a species. How is that not intelligent design?

I’ve already explained why I think intelligent design is a misnomer in two separate posts, please refer back to them.

Perhaps you are trying to create a straw-man: that the only alternative to evolution by natural selection is God creating the current species completely, in final form, in some sort of laboratory, and making them appear *poof* on Earth in their present state by magic.

I’m saying that the source of genetic diversity is mutation and selection. It’s not truly design unless both parameters are controlled, or if one or both of the parameters is irrelevant.

Some intelligent design proponents believe exactly what you describe, so it’s not a straw man, but I’m not using that definition. You ascribed it to me without reading my posts, apparently. Which, ironically enough, actually is an example of arguing against a straw man.

RightOFLeft on February 1, 2011 at 7:18 PM

Guys, let’s not descend into the pit of name calling over something that is actually completely tangential such as Darwin’s book, selective breeding, intelligent design, etc.

Who have I called a name?

RightOFLeft on February 1, 2011 at 7:20 PM

RightOFLeft on February 1, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Forgive me, you’re right. I grabbed your name as part of the fray of the discussion, but you haven’t been tossing namecalling around.

Marine_Bio on February 1, 2011 at 7:22 PM

I didn’t claim that their “dying for their beliefs” made them true. I’m talking about eyewitness testimony to a specific event, and the unavoidable conclusion from cross-examining the testimony that it was reliable and genuine. Christianity was not an established religion at the time of the resurrection. There was no cultural or nationalistic reason for anyone to support it. There were no earthly rewards for promoting it. It is illogical that anyone would invent it and stick to the story for their whole life. It is unbelievable that 500+ separate individuals would do so.

Find me any other religion that is built upon unimpeachable eyewitness testimony, please.

joe_doufu on February 1, 2011 at 6:48 PM

There is no “evidence” of Christs ever being crucified in the Roman records. There is no evidence, other than anecdotal evidence, that the events described in the bible ever happened. Christianities own texts contradict themselves ad nauseum whereby one of the gospels declares that zombies rose from their graves when Christ had risen.

The earliest texts that were written down, decades after the actual “events”, are all anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence has the propensity to be colored by the teller of the tale and since the first written documents we know of are decades to hundreds of years after the actual event, implying that the telling of the tale was by word of mouth previously… Well we all know the story game…

When you get a large group of people together in a circle and one person starts off with a short story, whispering it to the person next to them so that no one else can hear… THAT person then tries to pass the story on to the next person in the circle trying their best to keep the story word for word… By the time the story gets back to the originator of the tale, it barely resembles the original tale that was told.

Can you imagine a story game played over decades? The ability of each person in turn to either add to the story whatever embellishments they desired, and downplaying the parts they don’t like?

We simply CANNOT rely on the bible as a source of divine inspiration since it’s clearly a book written by men, told by the fireside at night to young kids who took from the stories what they wished, and mangled the story in the retelling of it…

Just like Islam has the same issues, and Hinduism as well, and all other religions… They are all myths.

Plain and simple… Myths

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 7:23 PM

There is no “evidence” of Christs ever being crucified in the Roman records.

Why would you expect to find a record? Do you think the Romans kept a record of every thief or malcontent they crucified? We read that two thieves were crucified with Jesus, but no one ever wonders why the Romans never kept a record of them. And if the Romans had kept records, do you really think they would have preserved those records for the ages?

And if you wouldn’t necessarily expect to find a record, then why would the absence of a record indicate anything?

There is no evidence, other than anecdotal evidence, that the events described in the bible ever happened.
….
SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 7:23 PM

Anecdotal evidence? You mean, eyewitness testimony?

The New Testament was written by men who either knew Jesus or knew people who had known him. Matthew was one of the 12 disciples. Mark was John Mark, a companion of both Peter and Paul. Luke was a companion of Paul. John was one of the 12 disciples. Jude appears to have been one of the “brethren” of Jesus. The Catholic Church insists they were merely cousins of Jesus, but that is most likely because they have as an article of faith that Mary was always a virgin, even after giving birth, and brothers and sisters of Jesus might complicate that claim. James was another brother of Jesus that was quite well known as prominent among the apostles.

It’s much harder to distort eyewitness testimony when there are plenty of eyewitnesses still around to dispute the facts. Many other gospels were written about Jesus that were in fact rejected as inauthentic. The ones in our Bible today are there because no fault was found in them.

The Bible is attested by far better evidence than you admit to here. Manuscripts have been found of new Testament books before the end of the first century AD. The claim that the books of the Bible were only written hundreds of years after Christ can be dismissed quite easily.

tom on February 1, 2011 at 7:40 PM

The claim that the books of the BibleNew Testament (specifically) were only written hundreds of years after Christ can be dismissed quite easily.

tom on February 1, 2011 at 7:40 PM

Just to clarify.

tom on February 1, 2011 at 7:48 PM

tom on February 1, 2011 at 7:40 PM

Hi Tom,
Even IF it is true that the books of Matthew Mark Luke and John were written by the actual witnesses to the events that they describe, that STILL doesn’t mean that what was written was true and actually happened.

Ever heard of fiction? Ever hear of myth?

Religions were sprouting up like weeds in those days. It was a veritable arms race with religions competing for the “souls” of their “flocks”.

Those writing fantastical claims are required a level of evidence above and beyond the norm. When we’re talking about gods and an afterlife that is only a wish at best…

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I’m sorry but anecdotal evidence just doesn’t cut it.

All the bible is is a snapshot in time of what humanity considered good morals and ethics. The bible is a snapshot in time of the already proposed stories that were being said about Jesus and his tale. The bible is merely a codification of all the tales the leaders in charge wanted to have diseminated amongst the followers and potential converts.

Religions to this day are in an arms race as you see most religions talking of no condom use, having plentiful families like the Muslims and the Mormons do, and did when Polygamy was allowed (in the US anyway, its still practiced in Islam).

The race is to have the biggest numbers is all.

It is this that causes all the troubles in the world. The famine due to over populations, the wars over religious beliefs (especially among the less civilized nations of this planet), the divisivness of religion which pits man against man.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… Religions are like farts, YOURS is good but everyone else’s stinks.

When you understand why YOU discount all the other religions on this planet, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

I’m not saying there isn’t a god or gods, but I’ve not been presented with enough evidence that any of the gods that are worshipped today are really it.

If there is a god, he could easily settle all these disputes we have over he/she/it by making himself more readily verifiable.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 7:56 PM

Science saved my soul

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 8:17 PM

Ever heard of fiction? Ever hear of myth?

Ever heard of clicking the hyperlinks? See my post at 6:52 on this page and take a gander at the link. Eyewitness testimony that has been verified by cross-examination under the legal standard rules of evidence is not “anecdotal”. The four Gospels taken as a whole, along with other eyewitness accounts from the New Testament, provide solid evidence of reliability and truth.

joe_doufu on February 1, 2011 at 8:35 PM

Science saved my soul

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 8:17 PM

LMAO, thanks for confirming that for me.

Good grief.

Inanemergencydial on February 1, 2011 at 8:38 PM

If there is a god, he could easily settle all these disputes we have over he/she/it by making himself more readily verifiable.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 7:56 PM

The Israelites coming out of Egypt saw God as a pillar of fire every night, a pillar of smoke every day, leading their path through the wilderness, and food (manna) falling from the sky every morning to provide their sustenance. And yet, it took less than a year of their journeying for them to lose faith that God was with them.

What you ask for is regular and obvious miracles to confirm God’s existence. But think about it: if there was a pillar of fire every night, or the Red Sea parted every afternoon, or manna fell from heaven every morning, you would simply codify it as a “law of nature” that such things happened regularly and must have a natural cause.

God makes enough evidence available that you can arrive at the conclusion of his existence and the Bible’s truth by reasoned evaluation of the evidence. He does not beat you over the head with so much evidence as to prevent you from choosing hubris and irrationality, though. If you want to find God, all you really need is the humility of a scientist toward his subject.

joe_doufu on February 1, 2011 at 8:42 PM

Science saved my soul

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 8:17 PM

talk about feeling sorry for someone. really sad.

your faith in evolution won’t save you…and thats all it is.

to prove it, list the mutations that led to the eye…you cannot…all you can do is give a ‘just so’ story about ‘light sensitive cells’ yet you believe the eye evolved..its called Faith. yet you have faith in nothing.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 8:45 PM

joe_doufu on February 1, 2011 at 8:42 PM

I always find it interesting how talking about evolution quickly becomes an attack on christianity. it always happens because the darwinists cannot defend their position. they’re liberals, who can only repeat talking points, and when called on something, they are unable to answer, preferring to attack.

yet even if christianity is false, that doesn’t make evolution true.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 8:47 PM

In closing, I’ll just say this. I’m a marine biologist, who came to realizations about what I believed being based on shaky foundations a long time ago. You can know a Frank Lloyd Wright building by looking at it, and I’ve come to accept that the only logical origin with all the complexity needed for a cell to survive is the same as knowing a Frank Lloyd Wright building. You see the same kind of thing going into the blueprints, but different buildings. Similar patterns to DNA, but different organism. I chose to believe that it is the God of the bible, but ID leaves that open to choice. It is simply a framework through which a Muslim, an Atheist, a Hindu, and a Christian can work to discover things, to avoid the argument over who is right as far as religion.

Have a good evening.

Marine_Bio on February 1, 2011 at 7:16 PM

unfortunately it is impossible to have a rational conversation with evolutionists. they’re left-wingers, and they follow the typical wacko playbook. they’re unable to defend their positions, or answer questions, instead they have to attack and denigrate those they disagree with. of course anyone who disagrees is ‘ignorant’ or a ‘religious zealout’ etc.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 8:50 PM

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 8:50 PM

I’m afraid I can’t agree with you r4l. As Reagan said, “It’s not that our liberal friends are ignorant. It’s that they know so much that isn’t so.”

joe_doufu on February 1, 2011 at 8:58 PM

Joe,
The tale of the exodus from Egypt is just that… a tale. Israeli archeologists have definitively proven that the story of the Exodus is just a myth.

That being said, there are a lot of historical facts in the bible, albeit greatly exaggerated facts. For instance, the Great Flood and the tale of the Ark.

What is a common theme, as tales go, among the ancient civilizations of the middle east? Interestingly, a lot of the civilizations have a flood tale don’t they? Mesopotamians, Sumerians, Assyrians, Armenians, ALL of the ancient civilizations in that area have their variation of the tale… There are of course other flood tales farther away from the middle east, but not on the scale of what was seen in those days, and more likely just echoes of this one… This was a BIG one, the bible has that much right, but it didn’t flood the entire world like they claimed.

We’ve been slowly mapping the ocean floors over the last few decades (the oceans cover 70% of the surface of the planet so it’s a big job)… They are now mapping the Black Sea in detail and you’ll never guess what they find… About 8500 years ago, the Black Sea wasn’t a sea in the traditional sense. It was certainly a large body of water, but it was cut off from the world’s oceans by the Bosporus strait where modern day Istanbul is located in Turkey. This inland sea was melt water from the last ice age and was actually a fresh water lake to be more accurate.

But get this, there is evidence of an ancient shoreline located 500 ft below the current sea level… And this ancient shoreline goes all around the interior of the current Black Sea shoreline indicating a much smaller sea, but still a sea due to its size. You want to know something else that is interesting about the Black Sea? It has salinity levels that are less than what the rest of the world’s oceans and seas contain. 8500 years AFTER the flood I’m describing, the salt content of the Black Sea STILL hasn’t equalized with the rest of the world’s oceans and seas. They have taken core samples of the sediments at various places around the sea and they find fresh water mollusk shells down deep in the cores (older sediments), with salt water mollusks exclusively in the sediment closer to the sea floor (newest sediment layers). They’ve found root systems of plants that are actually land based plants like trees and shrubs in the cores… Why would they find root systems normally found in land based plants 500 ft below sea level and how on earth could that come about?

The only explanation is that the Bosporus strait used to be a natural dam against the world’s oceans, which were on the rise due to global warming melting the ice sheets from the last ice age 10-15 thousand years ago. When these civilizations were first gaining steam, some of them were subjected to, and others were witness to, the biggest natural disaster/event in human history, thus why the tale is so prevalent. I’m sure that other civilizations were subject to mass floods from ice melting as well and it may explain why civilizations farther away from the middle east have flood tales of their own… There was actually a massive flood in northwestern United States from an ancient lake called Lake Missoula which wreaked havoc on the states of Oregon, Washington, and some states in western Canada as well. So over the millennia, the Mediterranean Sea slowly eroded the land and pushed at the natural dam that is now the Bosporus Strait. Water always wins in the battle of earth based elements. It has time on its side and slowly worked its way into the bedrock and soils of the strait. It found a way to find its level in this world, just as it always does…

What is even more interesting is the tale of Atlantis. Could it be that Atlantis was a major civilization on the shores of the ancient Black Sea coast (the coast they’ve found 500 ft below sea level)? The tale of Atlantis ends with the city being swallowed by the sea does it not? Could Noah really be a person who was lucky enough to ride out this massive flood on a large boat which contained animals that he traded on this ancient sea?

Get this though, the bible tells us that the Ark came to rest on Mt Ararat in what is modern day Turkey… Go look at a map of the area and find Mt Ararat in relation to the Black Sea. If this ancient sea really was 500 ft below the current sea level we know today, that means that the flood would have been truly massive in scale. It could also have been a relatively gentle rising of waters for 40 days and 40 nights with Noah stranded in the middle of it… I imagine such an influx of water would have changed the weather in that area a lot, with rain showers and mist from agitated water, kind of like what you see at the waterfalls in Niagara Falls. Imagine a Niagara Falls but water falling 500 ft or more. Niagara is only a 100-200 ft drop methinks. If “Noah’s” on a boat in this ancient sea and these flood waters were coming towards him, he might be able to ride it out to an extent. The Bosporus is on the far western shores of the modern day Black Sea. Mt Ararat is on the far eastern shores of the lake… Water flowing into the ancient sea from the Mediterranean would have been heading west to east to find its level no? Him on a boat in that ancient inland fresh water sea… Being pushed eastward and “deposited” on Mt. Ararat in the east? Could it be that he wasn’t really “deposited” ON the mountain, but on the coast of Turkey close to it. Could the originators of this tale just have meant Mt Ararat in a general sense? You can see the Black Sea from the mountain if I’m not mistaken…

This event clearly seared the minds of the people of the day, made them not forget the event by creating a story woven around a god whom they looked up to for protection from all that they didn’t understand, and thus feared.

The mosts extravagent tales of the bible are likely based on real events in human history, I don’t doubt that…

All that happened was that the people of the day, in their ignorance of plate tectonics and global warming melting the ice caps, etc… Well, they created myths to remember the event, and simultaneously allayed their fears by giving a supernatural explanation to what we know today to just be the way of the world.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 9:03 PM

joe_doufu on February 1, 2011 at 8:58 PM

you might find this interesting…

Soft tissue remnants discovered in Archaeopteryx fossil

It boasts more than just beautiful impressions of long-gone feathers. One of the world’s most famous fossils – of the earliest known bird, Archaeopteryx – also contains remnants of the feathers’ soft tissue.

“It’s amazing that that chemistry is preserved after 150 million years,” says Roy Wogelius, a geochemist at the University of Manchester, UK. Wogelius and colleagues scanned the “Thermopolis specimen” using a powerful X-ray beam from a synchrotron at the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource in California.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18882-soft-tissue-remnants-discovered-in-archaeopteryx-fossil.html

soft tissue after 150 million years?? impossible. it should make them reconsider their assumptions used in dating…but it doesn’t. evolution needs that long time frame to do its magic.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 9:12 PM

OK so Sauerkraut believes in Atlantis but dismisses the Bible as myth and fraud?

joe_doufu on February 1, 2011 at 9:16 PM

soft tissue after 150 million years?? impossible. it should make them reconsider their assumptions used in dating…but it doesn’t. evolution needs that long time frame to do its magic.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 9:12 PM

I know I’ll regret even talking to you because doing so is like talking to a stack of bricks but just because you can’t explain it doesn’t mean it can’t be explained (not that I can either but I’m sure there is a viable explanation.

What about the blood they pulled from an excapsulated mosquito that was covered in tree sap that hardened into amber?

Your bias is obvious right4life… you seek to defend your religious beliefs so you attack ONLY the science that shows the creationist claims of your religion to be false.

Grow up will you?

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 9:18 PM

I know I’ll regret even talking to you because doing so is like talking to a stack of bricks but just because you can’t explain it doesn’t mean it can’t be explained (not that I can either but I’m sure there is a viable explanation.

you mean a viable explanation that fits in the darwinian framework. keep the faith!!

What about the blood they pulled from an excapsulated mosquito that was covered in tree sap that hardened into amber?

this wasn’t in amber, it was fossilized. you really are reaching.

Your bias is obvious right4life… you seek to defend your religious beliefs so you attack ONLY the science that shows the creationist claims of your religion to be false.

Grow up will you?

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 9:18 PM

*my* bias? oh please this is just laughable. lets talk about YOUR bias, and your inability to process anything that would conflict with your darwiniac FAITH.

I would say get a clue, but you obviously don’t have the intellect to.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 9:23 PM

OK so Sauerkraut believes in Atlantis but dismisses the Bible as myth and fraud?

joe_doufu on February 1, 2011 at 9:16 PM

its laughable isn’t it? the guy’s a legend in his own mind.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 9:24 PM

Look who’s back.

unfortunately it is impossible to have a rational conversation with evolutionists. they’re left-wingers, and they follow the typical wacko playbook. they’re unable to defend their positions, or answer questions, instead they have to attack and denigrate those they disagree with. of course anyone who disagrees is ‘ignorant’ or a ‘religious zealout’ etc.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 8:50 PM

Followed up with:

I would say get a clue, but you obviously don’t have the intellect to.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 9:23 PM

QED

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 9:25 PM

ONLY the science that shows the creationist claims of your religion to be false.

Grow up will you?

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 9:18 PM

what science is that again? you haven’t posted any science at all. all you’ve done is post darwiniac talking points.

where is the peer-reviewed article, the article from a science journal, as I just posted?

you have posted nothing, because you haven’t done the research, obviously. you call yourself ‘scientific’ and yet you have posted nothing from a journal of science to back up the idiotic drivel you post.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 9:26 PM

oh good, look who’s back..time for more laughs!!

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 9:25 PM

as I said:

I would say get a clue, but you obviously don’t have the intellect to.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 9:23 PM

BINGO.

you could at least have the decency to thank me for explaining the synthesis to you. since you didn’t have a clue….LOL don’t even know the theory you purport to defend…

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 9:28 PM

Grow up will you?

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 9:18 PM

It’s not even worth the effort, SK.

Half of this thread is right4life namecalling, yelling about nothing, typing “BWAHAHAHAHA” or “duhhhhhhh” or “hmmmmm” or “ROTFL” or making wild baseless accusations again perceived enemies.

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 9:28 PM

OK so Sauerkraut believes in Atlantis but dismisses the Bible as myth and fraud?

joe_doufu on February 1, 2011 at 9:16 PM

I don’t believe in the story of Atlantis per se, meaning I don’t believe the fantasical claims that are made about the city being some city of aliens who lived under the sea or whatever other variant of the Atlantis tale that there is.

I do think that its plausible that a city could have been built in what is now ocean or sea and was simply flooded by rising waters after all the ice melted from the last ice age.

That’s a whole other thing when compared to the belief that the creator of the entire cosmos put on a ‘meat suit’ to masquerade as a human for thirty something years… Just so this deity could undergo some form of blood ritual sacrifice, so that the other 2/3 of his triune self could then feel good about forgiving humans for not living up to an impossible standard of perfection. Further, this deity’s forgiveness is contingent upon believing in revelations and miracles that only happened in the ancient past. Any god that will only reveal “himself” in the ancient past should not be surprised, nor upset, that large numbers of people don’t believe in him today.

If God’s existence is so self evident as the christian proclaims, then why on earth have oceans of ink been spilled trying to prove this being?

At least the story of Atlantis is plausible. The story of Jesus is nothing more than a poetic play on the idea of scapegoating.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 9:28 PM

you could at least have the decency to thank me for explaining the synthesis to you. since you didn’t have a clue….LOL don’t even know the theory you purport to defend…

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 9:28 PM

You mean…that theory you never read and don’t understand.

By the way, how much of Origin deals with human evolution?

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 9:29 PM

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 9:25 PM

oh and buck private did you notice the names your darwiniac wacko friend called me? of course not….because darwiniac pigs are more equal than others to wackos like you…

hypocrisy much? LOL

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 9:29 PM

At least the story of Atlantis is plausible. The story of Jesus is nothing more than a poetic play on the idea of scapegoating.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 9:28 PM

LOL

you sound like voltaire…he’s dust, the bible stands…get a clue.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 9:30 PM

oh good, look who’s back..time for more laughs!!

You’re the only one laughing. At your own posts.

It’s kind of sad, really, but you’re determined to make creationists look like psychotic, irrational, unhinged loonbats.

Carry on with your mission.

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 9:31 PM

its laughable isn’t it? the guy’s a legend in his own mind.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 9:24 PM

I knew I’d regret confronting you on another of your inanities but speaking of legends in ones own mind…

You take the cake my friend.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 9:31 PM

Half of this thread is right4life namecalling, yelling about nothing, typing “BWAHAHAHAHA” or “duhhhhhhh” or “hmmmmm” or “ROTFL” or making wild baseless accusations again perceived enemies.

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 9:28 PM

actually I’ve spent most of it either making you look stupid, ok thats real easy, or educating you about the theory of evolution, which you don’t understand at all.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 9:31 PM

I knew I’d regret confronting you on another of your inanities but speaking of legends in ones own mind…

You take the cake my friend.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 9:31 PM

you’re just upset that I made you look stupid again. your desperation is just laughable. oh yeah there has to be SOME explanation that fits in with the vast amounts of time evolution needs to work its magic!!

you never let facts get in the way of your faith.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 9:33 PM

@Good Lt

I wish these forums allowed silencing of people who are as annoying as right4life.

His idea of winning is berating people enough that they just leave the boards to him so that he can hear himself shout as loud as he can over any dissenting voice.

What a maroon.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 9:33 PM

It’s kind of sad, really, but you’re determined to make creationists look like psychotic, irrational, unhinged loonbats.

Carry on with your mission.

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 9:31 PM

oh the irony!! you never look in the mirror do you??

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 9:34 PM

I wish these forums allowed silencing of people who are as annoying as right4life.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 9:33 PM

I’m sure you have a FINAL SOLUTION in mind for people like me don’t you?

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 9:34 PM

You THINK you made me look stuppid when what really happened was the opposite. I don’t doubt that many people might disagree with several of the things I’ve said here but I’m not really talking to you right4life.

I’m talking to them… The people who know that keeping quiet is the best way to learn, that shouting doesn’t make one right, that being an ass is an unwanted branding.

buh bye, never responding to you again because you’re blinded by your own ignorance.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 9:36 PM

Half of this thread is right4life namecalling,

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 9:28 PM

oh but its ok when YOU do it…

what a hypocrite.

It’s kind of sad, really, but you’re determined to make creationists look like psychotic, irrational, unhinged loonbats.

Carry on with your mission.

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 9:31 PM

I do hope you’re NOT in the military. you have no honor, no integrity.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 9:36 PM

buh bye, never responding to you again because you’re blinded by your own ignorance.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 9:36 PM

you’ve said that over and over and over again…but you’re a liar…or a nut-job, which is it?

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 9:37 PM

@right4life

One more parting shot…

Have fun talking to Hot Air… I’m sure they’re not listening…

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 9:37 PM

So Good, what’ll we talk about next? ;-)

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 9:38 PM

You THINK you made me look stuppid when what really happened was the opposite.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 9:36 PM

and where are all those scientific articles to back up what you say?

haven’t noticed you post anything from a science journal…you just think when you say something its from sinai…truly a legend in your own mind…LOL

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 9:38 PM

@right4life

One more parting shot…

Have fun talking to Hot Air… I’m sure they’re not listening…

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 9:37 PM

LOL what a buffoon

buh bye, never responding to you again because you’re blinded by your own ignorance.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 9:36 PM

again, liar or delusional wacko..I’m thinking both.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 9:39 PM

darwiniac pigs are more equal than others to wackos like you…

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 9:29 PM

I think anybody reading this thread will get an idea of where the irrationality, vitriol, hate, namecalling and trolling has coming from throughout.

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 9:42 PM

Hey Good Lt,

Its like the little fly wants to always have the last word… watch! I guarantee that he’ll respond to this as well thinking that I’m really talking to him.

LOL!

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 9:43 PM

I wish these forums allowed silencing of people who are as annoying as right4life.

His idea of winning is berating people enough that they just leave the boards to him so that he can hear himself shout as loud as he can over any dissenting voice.

What a maroon.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 9:33 PM

Silencing? Nah.

An ignore function/button would be nice, though. :-)

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 9:43 PM

Silencing? Nah.

An ignore function/button would be nice, though. :-)

Good Lt on February 1, 2011 at 9:43 PM

That’s the word I meant… He portrayed what I said as if I was going to impliment a “Final Solution” for him, I guess as a way of comparing me to the Catholic called Hitler…

What’s that “law” about forums devolving into comparing people to Hitler or Nazis again?

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 9:45 PM

Godwin’s law… Ha! Has the word God in it!

;-P

Sorry, couldn’t resist a little childish humor considering who were sharing this forum with…

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 9:46 PM

Even IF it is true that the books of Matthew Mark Luke and John were written by the actual witnesses to the events that they describe, that STILL doesn’t mean that what was written was true and actually happened.

Ever heard of fiction? Ever hear of myth?
…..
SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 7:56 PM

Frequently. Usually on the internet. And usually in condescending tones.

But I do happen to know a few things about the Bible, and manuscript evidence, and the old “those stories were passed down for generations before anyone wrote them in the New Testament” claim is easily verifiable as false.

It’s possible to reject the Bible as Scripture, and people do it every day. But it’s a simple matter of fact that there is abundant manuscript evidence that the New Testament was in existence in essentially its present form by the end of the 1st century AD. Not only have manuscripts been found dating back to that time, but whole translations into other languages are known to have existed around that time, and most of the gospels and epistles could be reconstructed from quotes by the early church fathers by that time or not long after.

Whether you accept the contents of the Bible as true is entirely up to you, of course. But don’t spread misinformation about it just because you reject it.

tom on February 1, 2011 at 10:35 PM

I always find it interesting how talking about evolution quickly becomes an attack on christianity. it always happens because the darwinists cannot defend their position. they’re liberals, who can only repeat talking points, and when called on something, they are unable to answer, preferring to attack.

right4life on February 1, 2011 at 8:47 PM

I’ve noticed a lot of those who ardently defend evolution are dripping with disdain for Christianity and the Bible.

Thank God for those who are open-minded.

tom on February 1, 2011 at 10:39 PM

Tom,

In the past few decades several people have claimed to be God or a messenger from God. But in today’s society these people are seen as con artist or delusional. There are a few who fall under the spell of deception and believe these people really have some magical powers or believe they are God, but the rest of us are not fooled. We know these people are not special and have no magical powers.

We see their followers in highly emotional states claiming their new friend is the messiah, and we know they have been deceived or brainwashed. David Koresh made claims like this and had many people believing his deceit. Now he is dead, but there are still people who believe he was God. Yes, there are a few Branch Davidians still around. If his followers pass these beliefs onto their children and friends, in the future they may become just as numerous as the followers or other religions. Why is this any different than Mohamed, Joseph Smith, Marshall Applewhite, Jim Jones, or Jesus?

We can clearly see that people that make these ludicrous claims today are not magical. Why is it any different when the story is passed down for thousands of years? Does the passage of time make the story more valid? Not one shred of evidence was left by any of Jesus’ alleged miracles. Due to the lack of evidence and the sheer ridiculous nature of the stories I do not believe Jesus had any magical powers and was not the son of any God.

So was Jesus a con artist?

At the time of Jesus’ life, knowledge about the world was only a fraction of what it is today. This advance is not just in science. People now question things that sound either too good to be true or not realistic. This type of questioning mind is far more advanced than primitive man. We know today that if a man is seen walking on water it is just a trick. If we see someone claiming to bend spoons with there mind, they are simple using slight of hand. No magical powers are needed to perform these deceptions.

I am not claiming everyone today is a skeptic.

Unfortunately we still have people today who believe in ESP, psychics, ghost, UFOs, Bigfoot, Unicorns, Dragons, and faith healers. These are the same people that would most likely believe someone claiming to be a messiah.

Would it have been easier to fool people in the first century? Imagine, if Houdini had time traveled back to the first century and performed his illusions for hundreds of people and also claimed to be the son of God. Then today we would likely have millions of Houdini churches, with all the followers worshiping the magician.

So was Jesus a con artist like Peter Popoff or Uri Geller? Or did he really believe he had powers. Most magicians and psychics are trying to make money with their tricks. According to the outside biblical references to Jesus, he seemed to be humble man and not very wealthy. Therefore I do not believe he was knowingly trying to deceive people for material gain. He did not seem to gain any wealth or social status with his claims. So, was Jesus delusional?

If Jesus really believed he was the son of God and believed he possessed magical powers, he was delusional. This seems likely because Jesus was willing to die for his beliefs. Although you must remember that being willing to die for a belief does not make the belief true. The Branch Davidians were willing to burn alive in the Waco compound for their delusion, and Muslims are certainly willing to blow themselves up for their beliefs. But dieing for a belief is the ultimate sacrifice. It shows a true commitment and shows the person truly does believe their claims. If any charlatan today was threatened with their life because of their alleged powers, they would most likely admit to the scam to save themselves. Jesus was never recorded denouncing him claims. But were the stories about his teachings accurate?

The new testament stories of Jesus were written long after his supposed existence. Paul did not write about Jesus until long after his death and the gospels were not written until later than that… These stories could have been embellished to make Jesus look powerful and divine. To a first century mind, these miracles seem very plausible and adding them to the stories may been a good way to ensure the spread of his ideas. It is possible that Jesus never even claimed to do miracles. The miracles may have been just added to the stories.

Imagine telling your friend of something spectacular you just saw. How accurate is your story…? Maybe you stretched the truth a little bit just to make the story more exciting, you may have even done it on accident. You may even have missed some important details, or misread what you saw, that in the telling of it made it even more interesting but the issue is that we’re human. Now you’ve told the person, and they latched onto parts of the story that they found interesting and in their telling of the tale, other things get emphasized. I’m sure you see where it leads.

We’re talking about decades of word of mouth tale telling when it comes to the story of Jesus. That is enough time for the stories to get wild and crazy, and actually what we see in the historical record. These decades of word of mouth story telling is more than sufficient time for the stories to grow in magnitude and begin to no longer resemble what was initially told. The early church fathers tried to rein this in and is a major reason that the bible is what it is today. It’s the codification of these early tales into a somewhat cohesive book that got us the Christianity we have today.

Jesus could have been a very wise man, a great philosopher who preached goodness to your fellow man, but was he really the son of god? I don’t think so and unfortunately for you, we don’t have any testaments to his miracles other than the claims laid down in the bible. I think the reality is that in an attempt to make Jesus more impressive, the story tellers may have used previous religions divinity claims by fabricating the miracle stories, the son of god claims, the virgin birth, the resurrection and the ascension.

I think this is a much more plausible explanation for what really happened way back when. Its a shame too… They may have taken a man who could have possibly been one of histories great philosophers of love and human understanding and made his story so unbelievable that people question his very existence. Their intentions may have been good, but the truth would have been better.

To give you an olive branch in this discussion Tom, I believe he was a real man, and was a good man with some wise teachings even without the miracles…

Actions are more important than beliefs.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 11:00 PM

Thank God for those who are open-minded.

tom on February 1, 2011 at 10:39 PM

Actually Tom you have this backwards. It is people who adhere to a particular flavor of religion who are close minded to all the other religions we have on this planet.

Being an agnostic atheist, I withhold commitment to this ethereal being we call god until he’s proven himself to me and to every other human being on this planet, ALL AT ONCE so as to be as unambiguous as possible.

Surely an all powerful, all loving, all knowing god like the god of Christianity, Islam, Judaism can handle such an easy answer to the problem of religious bigotry we see today…

Oh, and look at the DrudgeReport… Al Qaida is supposedly close to blowing up several dirty bombs and other 9/11 level attacks… How comforting it is to know that they’re so sure that THEY’RE god is the one true god.

What do you expect will happen to the Christians once the Muslims strike at them with weapons like these?

I just hope we can make it past that dreadful day.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 11:13 PM

I just hope we can make it past that dreadful day.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 11:13 PM

You won’t…but you can…

Inanemergencydial on February 1, 2011 at 11:26 PM

I’ve noticed a lot of those who ardently defend evolution are dripping with disdain for Christianity and the Bible.

tom on February 1, 2011 at 10:39 PM

Oh yeah, and for the record… The disdain that agnostic atheists have for Christianity is that its leaders tell their “flocks” to disregard the truth of things when it comes to this Theory of Evolution (at least the most fundamentalist forms of it do, Catholics actually understand it and believe it just fine).

It just seems the American varieties of Christianity (more precisely the Protestants) CHOOSE to disregard and actively seek to undermine a perfectly understandable theory that sits on the same par as the Theory of Gravity or the Theory of Relativity.

It seems their biased against the one theory that does the most to undermine the faith claims of their religion when it comes to how and where humans fit in in a cosmic sense…

To me, intellectual honesty is more important than having faith in things unseen and unknown.

Faith robs us of truth. The grounds for recommending belief are that it is true. You make a fundamental mistake if you fail to accept it. We can’t claim truth without justification, and we can’t claim justification unless our evidence rules out the alternatives. If we can’t judge between alternatives, then it doesn’t make any sense to insist that one of them is true and the others are mistaken. Faith is justification-less belief so faith precludes any claims to truth.

Reason is the set of cognitive capacities that make it possible for us to seek out evidence, sift through it, and draw conclusions. Our reasoning capacities are the only tools we have for separating reality from fantasy, fact from fiction, justified belief from nonsense. Once we abandon reason and evidence, there are no principled, coherent, non-prejudicial grounds on which to prefer one god over another. How many supernatural hypotheses are out there for your consideration? How many gods vying for your faith? Is the only game in town from the church you grew up in?

On what basis will you decide to opt for one and not the others?

If it’s ok to abandon reason and just believe without justification, then why not Baal, Acchupta, Ryangombe, Pu’gu, Pen Annwen, Orcus, Orunmila, Nintinugga, Ningirama, Montu, Mahamanasika, Kamrusepa, or Hatdastsisi?

SauerKraut537 on February 2, 2011 at 12:34 AM

So, right4life bashing all that she thinks is not good and proper and xian? Again?

If I had to choose between the history of your religion versus a more rational and secular view, I would choose the latter.

Why question your religon? Because you brought it into this conversation like you always do. All must bow to your mythology or else.

All I need to support my views of rejecting your faith is to quote a very famous xian:

“”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”

“. . . I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s work.”

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

“We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”

- Adolf Hitler, 1933 speech in Berlin

“… I do not merely talk of Christianity, no, I also profess that I will never ally myself with the parties which destroy Christianity.”

—Adolf Hitler, February 15, 1933, speech in Stuttgart

“National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a real Christianity.”

—Adolf Hitler, August 26, 1934, speech in Koblenz

“This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief.”

—Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

“I may not be a light of the church, a pulpiteer, but deep down I am a pious man, and believe that whoever fights bravely in defense of the natural laws framed by God and never capitulates will never be deserted by the Lawgiver, but will, in the end, receive the blessings of Providence.”

—Adolf Hitler, 1944

“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago — a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people.”

-Hitler, April 12, 1922 from a speech at Munich.”

Wow, a xian who used eugenics to murder people he didn’t like and justified it by the faith.

You see right4life, the history of mankind has shown that anything can be abused for nearly any reason. This would include religion and science.

You could be more rational with such topics or you could just keep repeating the same arguments and insults you have been making for the last two years, at least.

QID=56377″>http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=56377

Gene Splicer on February 2, 2011 at 12:36 AM

Gene Splicer on February 2, 2011 at 12:36 AM

Nicely said Gene. But you’ve now affirmed Godwins Law… ;-P

SauerKraut537 on February 2, 2011 at 1:02 AM

Gene Splicer on February 2, 2011 at 12:36 AM

Trotting out the old pull quotes from Hitler, eh. No Clue.

“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”

Anybody who quotes the last paragraph of Mein Kampf Chapter 2 for the purpose of showing that Hitler as a “Christian” is probably lazy a pretty uncritical reader or a charlatan. Why don’t atheists ever quote the actual sentence “Hence today I believe…”. Hence what? “Eternal Nature inexorably avenges the infringement of her commands,” says the previous sentence. This page gives a more complete treatment.

“We were convinced that the people need and require this faith…

Again, this could only be seen as “proof of faith” by someone who had not read Mein Kampf or not read it very well, take you pick. Being convinced that people need and require a faith is not the same thing as holding a faith yourself. Hitler explains the value of religion over and over in MK: Men will die for it.

My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.

Find one thing that Hitler attributes to Jesus that could not be said of the proper historical man. A “fighter”? Chasing people out of the temple? The context of this is also in the speech, he is responding to the criticism by mainline Christians that the Nazis do not act very Christian. So this master propagandist trots out more palatable substitute of Jesus and that makes him “Christian”? Again, this page gives that quote some context.

Axeman on February 2, 2011 at 3:27 AM

So many manifestos – so little time

Bradky on February 2, 2011 at 6:38 AM

Gene Splicer on February 2, 2011 at 12:36 AM

genie, back again huh? and still haven’t evolved any intelligence or common sense…no surprise there still worshipping at the altar of your racist hairygod darwin.

interesting how all the historians acknowledge the darwin-hitler connectiion…and you darwiniacs cannot…but then like the RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS YOU ARE…you cannot bear anything wihch conflics with your faith

The Darwin-Hitler connection is no recent discovery. In her classic 1951 work The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt wrote: “Underlying the Nazis’ belief in race laws as the expression of the law of nature in man, is Darwin’s idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human being.”

The standard biographies of Hitler almost all point to the influence of Darwinism on their subject. In Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Alan Bullock writes: “The basis of Hitler’s political beliefs was a crude Darwinism.” What Hitler found objectionable about Christianity was its rejection of Darwin’s theory: “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.”

John Toland’s Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography says this of Hitler’s Second Book published in 1928: “An essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right.”

In his biography, Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris, Ian Kershaw explains that “crude social-Darwinism” gave Hitler “his entire political ‘world-view.’ ” Hitler, like lots of other Europeans and Americans of his day, saw Darwinism as offering a total picture of social reality. This view called “social Darwinism” is a logical extension of Darwinian evolutionary theory and was articulated by Darwin himself.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=

right4life on February 2, 2011 at 8:27 AM

even people like Gould know about the racism in evolution


“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” Stephen Jay Gould,

Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1977), p. 127.

“‘Social Darwinism’ is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start- ‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society.” (Desmond, Adrian [Science historian, University College, London] & Moore, James [Science historian, The Open University, UK], “Darwin,” [1991], Penguin: London, 1992, reprint, pp.xix).

A direct line runs from Darwin, through the founder of the eugenics movement-Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton-to the extermination camps of Nazi Europe.” (Brookes, Martin.,”Ripe old age,” Review of “Of Flies, Mice and Men,” by Francois Jacob, Harvard University Press, 1999. New Scientist, Vol. 161, No. 2171, 30 January 1999, p.41).

right4life on February 2, 2011 at 8:29 AM

“Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany. Nordenskiold (1929) argues that he was even more influential than Darwin in convincing the world of the truth of evolution. … But, as Gasman argues, Haeckel’s greatest influence was, ultimately, in another, tragic direction-national socialism. His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a “just” state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science-all contributed to the rise of Nazism. The Monist League that he had founded and led, though it included a wing of pacifists and leftists, made a comfortable transition to active support for Hitler.” (Gould, Stephen J. [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University], “Ontogeny and Phylogeny,” Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78).

“The case for Darwinism cannot be based on any edification that is supposed to come from its truths. Through eugenics, Darwinism was a bad influence on Nazism, one of the greatest killers in world history. Darwinism probably contributed to the upsurge of racism in the latter part of the nineteenth century, and thus it helped foment twentieth-century racism generally. Darwinism was also used to exacerbate the neglect of the poor in the nineteenth century. All things considered, Darwinism has had many regrettable, and sometimes actually vicious, effects on the social climate of the modern world. Modern Darwinism does not offer any guarantee of unending progress. It is understandable that so many hate Darwin and Darwinism. It is often a bitter burden to live with Darwinism and its implications. Unlike so many doctrines, religions, and ideologies, it certainly isn’t intellectual opium. No one can make a case for Darwinism based on moral hygiene.” (Rose M.R. [Professor of Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine], “Darwin’s Spectre: Evolutionary Biology in the Modern World,” [1998], Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 2000, Third printing, p.210).

right4life on February 2, 2011 at 8:31 AM

and genie…here’s your racist savior darwin advocating eugenics and elminating the ‘lower races’

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.205-206)

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.205-206)

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the n egro or Australian and the gorilla.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.241-242

right4life on February 2, 2011 at 8:32 AM

and genie, when it came to standing up to the nazis, here’s what Einstein said, and I sure didn’t notice any darwiniacs standing up to Hitler…

and your quotes are just laughable…


So this second Christmas of Hitler’s war finds Niemoller and upwards of 200,000 other Christians (some estimates run as high as 800,000) behind the barbed wire of the frozen Nazi concentration camps. Here men bear mute witness that the Christ—whose birth the outside world celebrates unthinkingly at Christmas—can still inspire a living faith for which men and women even now endure im prisonment, torture and death as bravely as in centuries past.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,765103-1,00.html

the world’s most famous scientist, Albert Einstein. Says he:
“Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks. . . .
“Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.”

right4life on February 2, 2011 at 8:35 AM

Gene Splicer on February 2, 2011 at 12:36 AM

thanks for coming back and spreading your anti-christian bigotry and hatred…its been fun, as usual, making you look like an idiot.

right4life on February 2, 2011 at 8:36 AM

That’s the word I meant… He portrayed what I said as if I was going to impliment a “Final Solution” for him, I guess as a way of comparing me to the Catholic called Hitler…

What’s that “law” about forums devolving into comparing people to Hitler or Nazis again?

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 9:45 PM

well krautie, we’ve seen what happens when you atheists get power…and the hundreds of MILLIONS lives that its cost. the most oppressive governments in the history of the world…hell the muslims can’t hold a candle to you atheists for slaughter, terror, murder and bloodshed.

right4life on February 2, 2011 at 8:38 AM

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 5:23 PM

I’m not sure what’s so very egotistical about simply doing the best you can do to determine what is truth (NOT primarily by scientific means, to be sure) and then simply believing that I believe, for the most part, correctly. Like every other human being on the planet, if I didn’t believe I was right, I’d believe something else.

But no one has been mistreated as a result of my beliefs — unless you consider it mistreatment to disagree with someone. In your example of abortion clinic bombers, I can tell you that I was strongly pro-life before I was a Christian (and before I was conservative, for that matter). I understood then the ATTRACTION to closing down a place that murders children, by violent means if necessary. Wouldn’t all of us, given a chance, go back in time and shut down the death camps of the Nazis? What I understand now is GRACE. Unmerited favor. Forgiveness that in no way is deserved. I understand it because I’ve received it. I’m much slower to personally judge others for their actions as a result of my awareness of my own sin. Yes, I believe God will judge unforgiven sin, and I’ll not mince words about expressing that belief; but that judgment belongs to God, not man.

As for religious people being the source of massive death and destruction, I’ll say two things: first, “religion” is no more responsible for religious killing than “maleness” is responsible for rape. SOME religious people have been guilty of violence. The number of Christians, however, who’ve been guilty of violence in the name of their religion in the last 300 years or so is pretty small. And during that time, look at the GOOD Christianity has done — the hospitals, orphanages, soup kitchens and food pantries, the Salvation Army. Christians were primarily responsible for the end of slavery, which was once universally accepted around the world. Public schools were started as Sunday Schools, which the Church of England pushed the government into making public weekday school. So on balance, CERTAINLY for the last couple of hundred years, I’ll take the GOOD done by Christianity over the harm done by it. You say “cyanide”, I say “charity”.

Furthermore, to the extent that harm HAS been done in the name of religions, it is logically dicey to assume that the religion DROVE the violence. In most cases, the violence was done for political ends, with religion more for protective cover and to motivate the foot soldiers, rather than devout men believing they are doing God’s will by harming others.

And, of course, let’s not forget that the MOST BRUTAL REGIMES IN HISTORY TOTALLY rejected religion. That’s not to say that their atheism made them more violent; but it does make the notion that violence is the result of religion sound pretty foolish. The one sort-of exception among the most brutal regimes (Nazism permitted some religion, although its leaders weren’t religious in any meaningful sense) had, as its primary target for brutality: a particular religion!

Believe what you want. Ultimately, if I’m right, every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. If I’m wrong, you have nothing to fear from me or any other Christian; but you might get a little help from us if you ever need it.

RegularJoe on February 2, 2011 at 9:08 AM

RegularJoe on February 2, 2011 at 9:08 AM

Hey Joe,
I don’t doubt that some religions are better than others at charitable works but that still doesn’t make the supernatural claims of that religion any more right than the rest of them. It’s still just as wrong as the others and all religions have a charity side to them. It’s called spreading goodwill and gaining converts because when a group of people, whether secular or religious in nature, comes to help another group of people it endears them to the charitable ones.

The deal is this… To quote the movie Highlander, “There can be only one.” The common understanding of things in regards to religion is that only one can be right, right? But common sense doesn’t always line up with truth. What if the real answer is that they’re all wrong?

The problem with religion, and I’ve said it before but it bears saying again, this belief in a god or gods ELICITS the most extreme of actions that are done in its name. In the REAL world, the only world we KNOW exists, people’s beliefs have consequences…

Sure, Christianity, for the most part, is a religion of peace these days, but it’s adherents are JUST as susceptible to crazy actions as the Islamist is. They both hold a belief in a god for which we have very little, if any, evidence. Yet some of them choose to take things to the extreme now don’t they?

You rightly claim that Christians were at the forefront of anti slavery movements but the secularists were as well with people like Mark Twain, etc. But never forget that there were plenty of people in the south who pointed directly at the bible to show, and rightly so, that slavery was allowed by your god.

The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

The following passage describes how the Hebrew slaves are to be treated.

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

The following passage describes the sickening practice of sex slavery. How can anyone think it is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave?

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

Since deconverting I’ve been asked the following in various ways… I also used to ask this of atheists I came across when I was still a believer…

“Since atheism doesn’t have any sense of absolute morality, would it not then be an irrational leap of faith, something which atheist themselves so harshly condemn, for an atheist to decide between right and wrong?”

To which I would/might reply:

Absolute morality? The absolute morality that a religious person might profess would include things like what? Stoning people for adultery? Death for apostasy? Punishment for breaking the sabbath? Death for homosexuals? These are all things which are religiously based absolute morality… I don’t think I WANT an absolute morality. I think I want a morality that is thought out, reasoned, argued, discussed, and based upon I would almost say, intelligent design.

Can we not design our society which has the sort of morality, the sort of society that WE, meaning all of us, want to live in? If you actually look at the moralities which are accepted among modern people, among 21st century people. We don’t believe in slavery any more (something the old testament god decided to leave out of his top ten do’s and dont’s in this life), we believe in equality for women, we believe in being gentle and kind to animals…

These are all things which are ENTIRELY recent. They have very little basis in biblical or koranic scripture. They are things that have developed over historical time through a consensus of reasoning, sober discussion, argument, legal theory, political and moral philosophy. These do NOT come from religion.

Now, to the extent you can FIND good bits in religious scripture, you have to cherry pick. You search your way through the bible or the koran, and you find the OCCASIONAL verse that is an acceptable profession of morality, and we say , “LOOK AT THAT, THATS RELIGION!” and you leave out all the horrible bits, and you’ll say, “oh, we don’t believe that anymore, that was from another age and a different context. We’ve grown out of it”.

Well of COURSE we’ve grown out of it! We’ve grown out of it because of secular, moral philosophy and rational discussion.

SauerKraut537 on February 2, 2011 at 10:02 AM

did you deconvert from jainism?

Inanemergencydial on February 2, 2011 at 10:11 AM

well krautie, we’ve seen what happens when you atheists get power…and the hundreds of MILLIONS lives that its cost. the most oppressive governments in the history of the world…hell the muslims can’t hold a candle to you atheists for slaughter, terror, murder and bloodshed.

right4life on February 2, 2011 at 8:38 AM

You’re like crack right4life… I just can’t stop answering your inanities…

Look, JUST because Stalin may have been an atheist doesn’t mean he did all that he did in the name of atheism. He did what he did because it suited HIM. He was as egotistical as you are.

Now, to his quashing of religious beliefs in his country… We all know that religions transcend borders and demand allegiances that are above and beyond national borders. Stalin saw these allegiances as a threat to his control. Stalin WAS the state and the State was god in communism but he didn’t do what he did IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM.

The truth is this… In those countries where religious practice is lowest, they have the lowest crime rates, they have the highest levels of charity and a slew of other good things.

Look at the US for instance. We have some of the highest crime rates in the world and yet we’re one of the most religious countries of all the western nations.

SauerKraut537 on February 2, 2011 at 10:17 AM

Look at the US for instance. We have some of the highest crime rates in the world and yet we’re one of the most religious countries of all the western nations.

SauerKraut537 on February 2, 2011 at 10:17 AM

Wow, now THERE is a stretch — blaming criminals on people whose creed includes don’t steal, don’t kill, and don’t lie. You might know some science, but you don’t know much about logic. Correlation is not causation.

Regarding your other message directly to me, I don’t think you have to cherry-pick the scriptures to find “Love God, and love your neighbor.” You certainly don’t have to cherry-pick the NT to find it; Jesus taught that in those commands was the whole law and the prophets. Regarding the “sex slave” passage, I can honestly say I’ve never heard anyone interpret “slave girl” as “sex slave”, and it never crossed my mind to consider it. I’ll go do some research on it, but I’m skeptical that anyone else interprets it that way. There are things God has said to do that I don’t profess to understand. That’s part of faith, too — accepting that God is God, and I’m not, and I won’t understand everything.

But I do understand that Jesus, in addition to telling people time and time again “you’re healed; now go, and be sure you don’t sin” also said that people who don’t feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and imprisoned, etc. would be cast out, and those who DID do those things would be given eternal life. This just doesn’t sound like a religion any honest person could interpret as hateful and violent.

Take a last word if you want one, I think I’ve said all I need to say. Besides, I need to get to work.

RegularJoe on February 2, 2011 at 10:40 AM

You’re like crack right4life… I just can’t stop answering your inanities…

LOL oh this is too funny!!!!

buh bye, never responding to you again because you’re blinded by your own ignorance.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2011 at 9:36 PM

Look, JUST because Stalin may have been an atheist doesn’t mean he did all that he did in the name of atheism. He did what he did because it suited HIM. He was as egotistical as you are.

MAY have been an atheist, oh please, communism was entirely atheist. stalin, mao, pol pot, etc ALL ATHEISTS. as far as egotistical…have you noticed that you have NO support for any of the BS you post? and your posts are so long…like castro and his speeches..

its called projection

Stalin WAS the state and the State was god in communism but he didn’t do what he did IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM.

its amazing the lengths you will go to exucse mass murder. he was an atheist, his program was atheistic…and the mass murder is clearly the result of his atheism. do you think Stalin would have acted the same way had he thought all people were created by God? please.

The truth is this… In those countries where religious practice is lowest, they have the lowest crime rates, they have the highest levels of charity and a slew of other good things.

Look at the US for instance. We have some of the highest crime rates in the world and yet we’re one of the most religious countries of all the western nations.

SauerKraut537 on February 2, 2011 at 10:17 AM

they didn’t have much crime in the USSR…so? as far as charity, post your proof. the truth is, in this country the conservative christian states have the highest rate of charity, and the US gives more than any other country, from individual citizens.

can you try the truth for just one?

right4life on February 2, 2011 at 10:47 AM

did you deconvert from jainism?

Inanemergencydial on February 2, 2011 at 10:11 AM

I was raised a Lutheran and switched to Presbyterian later in life.

I lived in Utah for a while and was pushed, socially, to move to Mormonism. By that I mean that the Mormons were some of the friendliest people I’ve ever met, and they made inroads for a while towards getting me to go to church with them, but then they asked me to read their book.

I did, and it was just plain crazy. Then I began looking at my own book in the same light as theirs and things started falling into place.

You know what? I think being worldly leads one towards an understanding on these matters of religion… By that I mean that once you immerse yourself in a foreign culture, you begin to see things with a bigger perspective.

The reality is that most people rarely venture far from their home base in life meaning they don’t usually leave the roost of their birth.

When you learn a lot about other cultures, you gain a lot of knowledge and see a lot of similarities and differences.

Knowledge is power as they say, and that’s why I said earlier that Science Saved My Soul

SauerKraut537 on February 2, 2011 at 10:52 AM

SauerKraut537 on February 2, 2011 at 10:17 AM

and of course who were the people that Stalin persecuted? oh yeah people of faith, christians jews, etc.

and where were the atheists who opposed hitler, stalin, etc….can’t think of any.

right4life on February 2, 2011 at 10:52 AM

right4life.

I knew I’d regret speaking to you… ugh. You are such a troll you know that?

If you doubt what I say and you’re truly an intellectually honest individual, go look it up yourself.

When someone say something to me that I’m unsure of or isn’t footnoted, I look it up myself.

You however choose to just berate people into submission.

Keep trying my friend.

SauerKraut537 on February 2, 2011 at 10:56 AM

SauerKraut537 on February 2, 2011 at 12:34 AM

Again, you write pages and pages built on the assumption that Christianity is false, without examining or making an effort to impeach the evidence. Imagining the evidence to be supportive of the conclusion you’re already determined to reach is not scientific.

Second, you assume that the theory of natural selection describes the origin of man with no evidence. Then you accuse Christianity of denying this unproven conjecture (but in parentheses admit that they actually don’t deny it).

And you’ve started again with copy-pasting (the cute “meat suit” slur of Jesus that you’ve posted on Hot Air at least three times before).

Do you know how weak it makes your responses that you willfully refuse to engage with evidence, either of Christianity or natural selection, and that you continually insist that your conclusions are right because you’ve assumed them right from the get-go?

joe_doufu on February 2, 2011 at 11:00 AM

There are things God has said to do that I don’t profess to understand. That’s part of faith, too — accepting that God is God, and I’m not, and I won’t understand everything.
RegularJoe on February 2, 2011 at 10:40 AM

Joe, words have meaning for a purpose. It’s not that god said these things about having a keeping slaves. It’s that the people of that day, who thought slavery was an acceptable practice, said it.

You’re not confused at all, except by your own cognitive dissonance. You hold contradicting beliefs. On the one hand you KNOW that slavery is wrong, yet there it is in the bible as clear as day, that your god actually allows slavery…

You KNOW that its wrong because the people of today hold that slavery is wrong. They didn’t back then.

We’ve grown up as a species. Grow up with the rest of us and quit fearing death.

Ever since we learned of our pending mortality — the most unfortunate consequence of evolving a larger brain — we have done our best to mitigate its doleful message. Much of the greatest works in philosophy, religion, art, and music either exist to bewail our mortality or to argue that a spiritual continuity permits us to accept the physical decline, and eventual decay of our bodies. As the lyrics of Bach’s Jesu meine Freude insists: “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the spirit.”
Stephen J Gould, Urchin in the storm

Contemplation of one’s mortality can addle even the clearest of thinkers. It’s a bit like religion in that way. In fact, it IS religion, and by that I mean that the fear of death gives a lot of oomph to the God hypothesis.

The only position in regards to a religion that leaves me with no cognitive dissonance is atheism

SauerKraut537 on February 2, 2011 at 11:04 AM

right4life.

I knew I’d regret speaking to you… ugh. You are such a troll you know that?

If you doubt what I say and you’re truly an intellectually honest individual, go look it up yourself.

When someone say something to me that I’m unsure of or isn’t footnoted, I look it up myself.

You however choose to just berate people into submission.

Keep trying my friend.

SauerKraut537 on February 2, 2011 at 10:56 AM

you’re a liar and nut job, as any fool could easily see.

whats funny is all you can do is call me names, because you sure can’t answer any point I raised in this entire thread…you’re not nearly as clever as you think you are…but then you atheists never are.

you’re so arrogant you think we should all just bow down when you speak, thats why you don’t have any references for the idiotic drivel you post .

you’re such a whiny loser. man up…grow a pair…and stop being such a liar.

right4life on February 2, 2011 at 11:06 AM

And you’ve started again with copy-pasting (the cute “meat suit” slur of Jesus that you’ve posted on Hot Air at least three times before).

Do you know how weak it makes your responses that you willfully refuse to engage with evidence, either of Christianity or natural selection, and that you continually insist that your conclusions are right because you’ve assumed them right from the get-go?

joe_doufu on February 2, 2011 at 11:00 AM

I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s plagiarized the BS he posts without attribution.

he doesn’t have the intellgence to actually have a conversation…all he can do is post talking points…and then berate you and whine like a little girl when you make him look stupid, which isn’t hard.

right4life on February 2, 2011 at 11:08 AM

Again, you write pages and pages built on the assumption that Christianity is false, without examining or making an effort to impeach the evidence. Imagining the evidence to be supportive of the conclusion you’re already determined to reach is not scientific.

Second, you assume that the theory of natural selection describes the origin of man with no evidence. Then you accuse Christianity of denying this unproven conjecture (but in parentheses admit that they actually don’t deny it).

And you’ve started again with copy-pasting (the cute “meat suit” slur of Jesus that you’ve posted on Hot Air at least three times before).

Do you know how weak it makes your responses that you willfully refuse to engage with evidence, either of Christianity or natural selection, and that you continually insist that your conclusions are right because you’ve assumed them right from the get-go?

joe_doufu on February 2, 2011 at 11:00 AM

Actually, all that I’ve said disproves it.

You don’t need to look at the evidence. Just look in your heart.

Would a god really create all that we see, just so this one lonely speck of dust in the Milky Way Galaxy can harbor life?

Would a god really create all of nature as we know it and choose one tribe of people over all the others? Didn’t he create EVERYTHING? Why is he playing favorites? Why the big game of making us suffer through this just so we can win the lottery if we chose the right god to believe in?

Would a god with all the power in the universe really have to go to the trouble of flooding the entire planet with water, killing off all of mankind except a drunkard named Noah? And if that story IS true, doesn’t it imply that we, the people of today, are all incestual offspring of Noah and his family because we all know that if they were the only ones to survive the great flood then that means they would have had to perform incest in order to repopulate the earth.

Just search your heart Joe.

The religions we follow today makes no sense in light of the evidence we’ve uncovered in the last 6000 years.

SauerKraut537 on February 2, 2011 at 11:10 AM

SauerKraut537 on February 2, 2011 at 11:10 AM

Just link that dope youtube video. That will deconvert the world yo.

Inanemergencydial on February 2, 2011 at 11:11 AM

@joe_doufu

and I repost things on occasion, so what? sometimes things need to be repeated when this cyclical argument makes a full circle.

SauerKraut537 on February 2, 2011 at 11:18 AM

Actually, all that I’ve said disproves it.

You don’t need to look at the evidence. Just look in your heart.

SauerKraut537 on February 2, 2011 at 11:10 AM

and why would anyone believe anything you say, just because its you that say it?

the bolded statement is just too funny…you darwiniacs sure never let any evidence get in the way of your faith in that racist theory of evolution.

right4life on February 2, 2011 at 11:19 AM

The religions we follow today makes no sense in light of the evidence we’ve uncovered in the last 6000 years.

SauerKraut537 on February 2, 2011 at 11:10 AM

what evidence? you haven’t posted any evidence for any of your beliefs.

right4life on February 2, 2011 at 11:20 AM

I hope you get on some medication someday r4l… you clearly need it. adieu

SauerKraut537 on February 2, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Actually, all that I’ve said disproves it.

You don’t need to look at the evidence. Just look in your heart.

SauerKraut537 on February 2, 2011 at 11:10 AM

This is funny. For 15 pages you’ve been telling us that we’re the ones that ignore the evidence.

My suggestion to you: Your heart is wrong. Go look into the evidence.

joe_doufu on February 2, 2011 at 11:26 AM

whatever Joe. arguing with religious people is like arguing with a child. you stick your fingers in your ears saying “na na na na I’m not listening” when I give you evidence, and then turn right around and say I’m not giving you any evidence.

SauerKraut537 on February 2, 2011 at 11:28 AM

I hope you get on some medication someday r4l… you clearly need it. adieu

SauerKraut537 on February 2, 2011 at 11:23 AM

I could be on heavy drugs and still make you look stupid.

and you keep posting to me…you are SUCH A LIAR.

but then its par for the course for darwiniacs…

right4life on February 2, 2011 at 11:33 AM

You’re all still at it? Whew!

Examine your assumptions, question the foundations and know what you believe and why.

Among the community, Stephen J Gould and Richard Dawkins are not the most respected. Stephen J. Gould had a tendency to make very grandiose statements that confused the picture.

This letter from John Tooby, an evolutionary psycholgist from University of California, Santa Barbara in response to one of Gould’s articles is self explanatory, Gould is popular with the masses, but a bit of a moron.

Direct quote from the Tooby letter…

Since Gould is not, in fact, more insightful than other evolutionary biologists, the real world of evolutionary biology cannot offer the ready victories and surmountable challenges that Gould needs to establish the heroism of “Gould.” So real evolutionary biology must be abolished. If as a byproduct or spandrel of this abolition, a generation of scientists and general readers alike are miseducated, that is a small price to pay. And indeed the whole post-1964 edifice of modern evolutionary biology built by Williams, Hamilton, and Maynard Smith and scores of others is left out of Gould’s books, which is something like leaving quantum mechanics out of the history of 20th century physics.

Dawkins used to be more respected than he is today. I started to dislike Dawkins with “The Blind Watchmaker”, and the community at large realized that he went off the deep end with “The God Delusion”.

This is a telling review of The God Delusion from a professor of biology at the University of Rochester.

Look at the what you predicate your conclusions upon. Remove all of the assumptions of what is correct, and simply look at the evidence. Origins above the taxonomic level of genus are problematic to show, and more problematic as you go higer in level. At the level of phyla, I defy anyone to provide a sensible evolutionary argument.

Have fun guys.

Marine_Bio on February 2, 2011 at 11:38 AM

At the level of phyla, I defy anyone to provide a sensible evolutionary argument.

Have fun guys.

Marine_Bio on February 2, 2011 at 11:38 AM

I’m still waiting for a sensible evolutionary argument at any level LOL

right4life on February 2, 2011 at 11:41 AM

right4life pretends and believes fervently that evolution is “racist.”

And yet, when asked how much of the theory itself or the Origin of Species even metions human evolution or racism, he disappears or changes the subject or posts inane insanity like this:

I could be on heavy drugs and still make you look stupid.

and you keep posting to me…you are SUCH A LIAR.

but then its par for the course for darwiniacs…

right4life on February 2, 2011 at 11:33 AM

Luckily, he’s been very convincing on this thread and has swayed the life sciences to reject Darwin’s work on biological evolution and the theory of natural selection, so he has nothing to worry about.

Good Lt on February 2, 2011 at 11:44 AM

right4life on February 2, 2011 at 11:41 AM

There is a sensible argument for one species giving rise to a new species. But that is the classic island biogeography and genetic drift argument. That is the mechanisms for Darwin’s finches. But they started as finches, and became a different species of finch over time. But as I think I called it yesterday, this is microevolution. The fallacy comes in when this is shown as evidence for the process that produced the complexity we observe today.

Marine_Bio on February 2, 2011 at 11:46 AM

right4life pretends and believes fervently that evolution is “racist.”

I’ve posted several articles that back up what I say, you haven’t posted anything to back up your lies and BS. nor have you posited a logical arguement stating why I am wrong.

just denying the truth doesn’t mean anything.

when are you going to get a clue? oh but then you don’t even know what the synthesis was until I told you!! LOL

Luckily, he’s been very convincing on this thread and has swayed the life sciences to reject Darwin’s work on biological evolution and the theory of natural selection, so he has nothing to worry about.

Good Lt on February 2, 2011 at 11:44 AM

its very hard to convince people to give up their faith, especially when evidence doesn’t matter, as you’ve proven.

right4life on February 2, 2011 at 12:01 PM

The fallacy comes in when this is shown as evidence for the process that produced the complexity we observe today.

Marine_Bio on February 2, 2011 at 11:46 AM

very true.

right4life on February 2, 2011 at 12:01 PM

And yet, when asked how much of the theory itself or the Origin of Species even metions human evolution or racism, he disappears or changes the subject or posts inane insanity like this:

another LIE…the title of orgin of the species is:

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

if you had any integrity you’d apologize, but its more than obvious that you don’t

continue with your lies and BS.

right4life on February 2, 2011 at 12:07 PM

Comment pages: 1 14 15 16 17