Noah's Ark & post-flood speciation

[Greg Jennings]

ACTUALLY... Darwin was good at observing but lousy at making sound conclusions. Would you like examples?

Wait.....so you're saying the very first guy to seriously study evolution didn't get EVERYTHING right?

That's amazing!!!


But also.....didn't the Christian religion first say that Earth was at the center of the universe? A conclusion made by observing the sky and the celestial bodies. If the religion was wrong early on in its history, then it must be a useless source of information now like Darwin is, right?

 

[Jonahdog]

Stripe remains unable or unwilling to explain the "Darwinist"/physics problem.

 

[Jonahdog]

You know nothing of what it means to be a Christian.

/QUOTE]
Sure I do. It calls for honesty among other things. It calls for caring for other people. Both of those seem sorely lacking with many Christians here.

 

[Greg Jennings]

You know nothing of what it means to be a Christian.

Sure I do. It calls for honesty among other things. It calls for caring for other people. Both of those seem sorely lacking with many Christians here.

I've decided that the christians here aren't actually as nasty as some of them appear to be. We're on the internet. Just like in cases of road rage, anonymity breeds bolder, more combative action. Most of the christians on this site are likely good people, even Nick. The internet makes you do and say things that you would never utter in a face-to-face interaction. Not out of fear, but respect. That respect is lost online. See: twitter

 

[Stripe]

Didn't the Christian religion first say that Earth was at the center of the universe?

No.

I love the easy questions.

Stripe remains unable or unwilling to explain the "Darwinist"/physics problem.

:rotfl:

Darwinists hate reading.

[Christianity] calls for honesty.

Where?

Both of those seem sorely lacking with many Christians here.

:yawn:

I've decided that the christians here aren't actually as nasty as some of them appear to be. We're on the internet. Just like in cases of road rage, anonymity breeds bolder, more combative action. Most of the christians on this site are likely good people, even Nick. The internet makes you do and say things that you would never utter in a face-to-face interaction. Not out of fear, but respect. That respect is lost online. See: twitter

Perhaps you aren't as stupid irl. :idunno:

 

[Greg Jennings]

No.

I love the easy questions.

So Galileo wasn't imprisoned at home by the Church in 1633 until his death because he said the Earth revolves around the Sun?

You can't be this dishonest, can you? EVERYBODY knows that!

Refute this: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/the-truth-about-galileo-and-his-conflict-with-the-catholic-church

Interesting but not really related, this article says that Galileo actually endorsed geocentrism AFTER he endorsed heliocentrism. Apparently he found his own evidence lacking

 

[6days]

Wait.....so you're saying the very first guy to seriously study evolution didn't get EVERYTHING right?

No... What I said was "Darwin was good at observing but lousy at making sound conclusions. Would you like examples?"
It wasn't just 'evolution' that Darwin was wrong about... (And he certainly wasn't the first to believe in common ancestry). Darwin was wrong about science in general. He was wrong about geology... about God...fossils...the tree of life... natural selection... the nature of life... extinction of anthropomorphous apes (Negroes? pygmies?) etc.

Didn't the Christian religion first say that Earth was at the center of the universe?

No... the Christian religion did not say that although some Christians said that, as did some atheists and some vegetarians. It was also some Christians who helped found modern astronomy

 

[Greg Jennings]

No... What I said was "Darwin was good at observing but lousy at making sound conclusions. Would you like examples?"
It wasn't just 'evolution' that Darwin was wrong about... (And he certainly wasn't the first to believe in common ancestry). Darwin was wrong about science in general. He was wrong about geology... about God...fossils...the tree of life... natural selection... the nature of life... extinction of anthropomorphous apes (Negroes? pygmies?)

Other than the black guys and pygmies, scientists today agree with him and not you on the above. Think about that next time you posit a certainty.

etc.No... the Christian religion did not say that although some Christians said that, as did some atheists and some vegetarians. It was also some Christians who helped found modern astronomy

Christianity helped fund much scientific progress, but to deny that the Catholic Inquisition sentenced Galileo to house arrest for life in 1633 over past Heliocentric claims is either ignorant or dishonest.

I'm not wasting my time if you're not going to be honest 6

 

[6days]

Other than the black guys and pygmies, scientists today agree with him and not you on the above. Think about that next time you posit a certainty.

So... we agree them. Darwin was good at observation but made many lousy conclusions.... and on many topics.(funny how evolutionists brush off, and whitewash Darwin's racist statements, rather than just admit he was wrong... All humanity is 'one blood')

Christianity helped fund much scientific progress, but to deny that the Catholic Inquisition sentenced Galileo to house arrest for life in 1633 over past Heliocentric claims is either ignorant or dishonest.

That an egotistical Pope 'sentenced Galileo to house arrest' is your attempt at moving the goalposts. What I said, and is correct,was "some Christians who helped found modern astronomy."

 

[Greg Jennings]

So... we agree them. Darwin was good at observation but made many lousy conclusions.... and on many topics.(funny how evolutionists brush off, and whitewash Darwin's racist statements, rather than just admit he was wrong... All humanity is 'one blood')

Except for those dozens of other human species. But don't let details get in the way.
And no I'm afraid we agree very little here

That an egotistical Pope 'sentenced Galileo to house arrest' is your attempt at moving the goalposts. What I said, and is correct,was "some Christians who helped found modern astronomy."

Hard to move the goalposts to the Church when they started there. The Pope, whether you like it or not, was the spokesman for God and nearly all of Christianity in 1633. The pope is Christian.

You wouldn't let muslims say that ISIS aren't real muslims, so you don't get to sweep the pope under the rug either

 

[Stripe]

So Galileo wasn't imprisoned at home by the Church in 1633 until his death because he said the Earth revolves around the Sun?

Shifting the goalposts is a logical fallacy.

Interesting but not really related, this article says that Galileo actually endorsed geocentrism AFTER he endorsed heliocentrism. Apparently he found his own evidence lacking

For a time, the geocentric model was better at predicting the positions of planets, because epicycles were so well aligned with what was known and the replacement model hadn't matured.

 

[6days]

Except for those dozens of other human species. But don't let details get in the way.

In Darwins day, some people might have thought there were various species of humans, but science has proved that wrong. As God's Word says,(and, as science helps confirm) we are all one blood. "Dozens of species" of humans is what lead to scientific racism, scientism, genocides, and a multitude of shoddy 'scientific' conclusions (like vestigial organs, dimwitted Neandertals, junk DNA, and pseudogenes).

 

[Jonahdog]

In Darwins day, some people might have thought there were various species of humans, but science has proved that wrong. As God's Word says,(and, as science helps confirm) we are all one blood. "Dozens of species" of humans is what lead to scientific racism, scientism, genocides, and a multitude of shoddy 'scientific' conclusions (like vestigial organs, dimwitted Neandertals, junk DNA, and pseudogenes).

No, ignorance leads to racism.

 

[6days]

No, ignorance leads to racism.

Yes... we agree. Too bad people rejected God's Word and accepted Darwinism. As Wiki explains... "Scientific racism is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism, racial inferiority, or racial superiority; alternatively, it is the practice of classifying individuals of different phenotypes or genotype into discrete races." The belief in "dozens of other human species"is a racist, and pseudoscientific belief.

 

[Jonahdog]

Yes... we agree. Too bad people rejected God's Word and accepted Darwinism. As Wiki explains... "Scientific racism is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism, racial inferiority, or racial superiority; alternatively, it is the practice of classifying individuals of different phenotypes or genotype into discrete races." The belief in "dozens of other human species"is a racist, and pseudoscientific belief.

The belief in special creation in a week about 6000 years ago is ignorant.

 

[Stuu]

I've decided that the christians here aren't actually as nasty as some of them appear to be. We're on the internet. Just like in cases of road rage, anonymity breeds bolder, more combative action. Most of the christians on this site are likely good people, even Nick. The internet makes you do and say things that you would never utter in a face-to-face interaction. Not out of fear, but respect. That respect is lost online. See: twitter

I have to agree that fundamentally people are good, although in christianity you are born bad and commanded to be good. More specifically I agree with Steven Weinberg:

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion."

And I'd say christianity is as effective as any religion at making fantastically nasty claims come from the mouths of perfectly decent people.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

And I'd say christianity is as effective as any religion at making fantastically nasty claims come from the mouths of perfectly decent people.

Whereas you just say nasty things while pretending to be above it all. :idunno:

 

[Stuu]

Whereas you just say nasty things while pretending to be above it all. :idunno:

I don't think I have ever written anything as nasty as the concept of hell for 'unsaved' dead 4 year olds, or compulsory love for Jesus / a god / whatever on pain of being burned in sulfur if you don't, or the brutal tribal remedies for law transgressions in the Jewish bible such as an eye for an eye, or the requirement that Jews mutilate the genitals of their male children.

Would you care to give me an example of what you are claiming?

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

I don't think I have ever written anything ... nasty.

Yet you just got done saying that Christianity produces nasty people. :idunno:

 

[Stuu]

Yet you just got done saying that Christianity produces nasty people. :idunno:

Well there you go, demonstrating my point perfectly. Despite being a decent person yourself, christianity has induced you to assume the worst and misread what I wrote, which was:

"And I'd say christianity is as effective as any religion at making fantastically nasty claims come from the mouths of perfectly decent people."

I see christians not as perpetrators of evil, but as the victims of christianity. Most are perfectly decent human beings whose brains are hijacked by some version of a religious meme that is perfectly adapted to exploit vulnerabilities in the way human brains work. No human has actually ever walked again after successfully being executed, or been born of only one parent, but how brilliant it is that this religious meme can make you believe that! And if it can make you believe absurdities, it can probably make you do just about anything, for example misreading another's post to suit the expectations set up in your brain by the meme.

Now I think about it, christian belief displays many of the hallmarks of evolution by natural selection: there is a wide variation in christian belief, and if some versions of the meme die there are at least others fit for survival in some brains, with the likelihood of spreading more widely in the population.

Stuart