Changes

::Religion is simply just one’s personal belief system; that’s not an opinion. Religion as a concept cannot possibly be the infallible word of God because that is a too specific description of religion. Some religions are not even theistic. If you are referring to Christianity as being infallible, that is your own personal belief. It is not science and they should not go hand in hand and your opinion on whether or not evolution is fallible is also a personal belief as it is unscientific to reject it simply because it contradicts your personal beliefs (religion). Hence, religion and science are two different concepts. Now when you say that the people who are unable to observe the events that say happened (in regards to evolution), it shows that you simply don’t understand evolution. Neither is evolution from an anti-theist or even anti-religious perspective. Evolutionary thought has been prevalent even thousands of years before Charles Darwin. In fact, many of the scientists who proposed it and/or studied it were religious or at least theists themselves, including Charles Darwin. The idea of storytelling is also quite wrong. Evolution would have never survived in the scientific field if it had only been based on storytelling. Evolution is based on the scientific method which requires experimentation and evidence, something which it has provided. Religion on the other hand, particularly those belief systems stemmed from the Bible are based on no more than stories themselves. Christians who use the “Genesis account” or “consider Genesis to be scientifically accurate” (call it what you want, I can’t see the difference), are taking a text literally that is no more than storytelling itself. Nor can a Christian prove that otherwise by observing scientific experimentation. ::I would be curious to know your arguments, at least in a nutshell. The page appears to be full of them but I don’t exactly understand your points. If you are saying that this Web site (I read this[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/52/] article) reflects your personal beliefs, I’ll assume that for now (unless you state otherwise). However, that Web site is quite disturbing to me. The site assumes that evolution “removes any clear source of authority in our lives” which is wrong. Evolution does not, in fact. Evolution only reflects that all organisms descended from a common ancestor. You may look in any scientific textbook or ask any evolutionary biologist and they will disagree with this site’s statement. Evolution has nothing to do with the belief in God. And remember that Christianity is not the only belief system that describes the concept of “God”. You say that I have no business to state that the arguments are wrong. I never said they are wrong. However, if you do indeed believe in what this site is saying, it goes to show that you do not have a clear understanding of evolution and thus can’t say that evolution is wrong either or even argue against it. Arguing against evolution when you don’t understand it is bad enough but when you demonise it, it is a sign of weakness. Evolution is most certainly not the cause of broken lives, broken families, suicide, Nazism, or communism (if you disagree with this, please tell me but I am going by the article on the Web site you provided). ::When I say the source that says creationists use the scientific account of Genesis, I mean the one that was provided earlier in the debate[http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf]. I really do not understand what umbrage you take over the “scientific account” statement. What makes it so twisted is that you state that saying “Genesis is a scientific account” and that “Genesis is scientifically accurate” imply two different things and that to say that Genesis is a scientific account is misleading. How exactly is this misleading and how does a different syntax (in this instance) imply something else? I am also curious to know why you accept the possibility that the Flat Earth Society is a joke. Accepting the possibility of two different things being dubious has nothing to do with whether or not the two juxtaposed things are related other than in the context of whether or not their legitimacy is dubious. So if you give the possibility that the Flat Earth Society is a joke, you might as well bring up the possibility that the Bible is a collection of faerie tale annals. Why the double-standard? ::In your previous post, you select a quote from my previous post like this: "...if you want to accept ... that Charles Darwin lied in his journal ...". Yes, I indeed said that but you left out that I said that "if you want to accept the assumption" between the ellipsis. I said you only assume so. In an earlier post, you said about Darwin's journal entry: "How do you know that Darwin didn't lie?". Thus, you give the possibility that he lied (although, you don't support this assertion with any facts). ::In the event that you disagree that the Bible is not the stuff of legends, I must ask how does the Bible differ from any other archaic texts that describe things not known to be observed by a scientific consensus such as dragons or leviathans? Sure, it may be held to have historical accuracy. The Nibelungenlied served as a useful tool for historians to uncover the history of the Burgundians. However, the details about Siegfried and the dragon are usually considered to be legends. (One may choose to reject these considerations made by historians and believe the legends, of course.) I'm just curious as to how the Bible differs from such other legendary manuscripts. But if you insist on seeing a legitimate source that agrees with my point about the Bible being the stuff of legends, I feel obliged to reveal one[httphttps://www.britannica.com/eb/article-35341/Judaism]. ::Regarding those scripture references, how do you cite the assertion that Bible sceptics merely playing with words? There ''is'' certainly a problem in the scripture. Earth is not round. It is spherical. It is incorrect to say that it is round. Bible sceptics do not "falsely" claim that creationists take the Bible literally. The argument presented in Bible scepticism is that if one were to take Genesis literally, then why not take the songs in Psalms or 1 Samuel literally? After all, the Church took the songs in 1 Chronicles and Psalms literally that state Earth is stationary. If they knew beforehand that Earth does not rest on pillars, why would they put it in a song? In 1 Samuel, it's not even a song. It's a prayer. Why would Hannah state in a prayer that God does something he really doesn't? Then there are fundamentalists that say homosexuality is an abomination because the the Bible says so. However, they tend to ignore some of those passages that give some precepts that would be considered wacky today. If we must follow the passages in the Bible that say homosexuality is an abomination, why don't fundamentalists follow those passages that say we cannot cut our hair (Leviticus 19:27), mix textiles for attire (Leviticus 19:19), eat anything with blood (Leviticus 19:26) (I don't see fundamentalists objecting to restaurants serving rare steaks), women teaching men (1 Timothy 2:12), tattooing, and piercing (Leviticus 19:28). Oh, and let us not forget those many passages that justify slavery and cruel and unusual punishment. My point is that there are parts of the Bible (including Genesis) which are not only scientifically inaccurate, but do not represent even the norms of most Christian fundamentalists today. Historically, there have been fundamentalists who have used the Bible to oppose scientific views such as the Church opposing the astronomical viewpoints of Galileo and fundamentalists who have used the Bible to promote intolerance such as those who justified racism with the Curse of Canaan. And today, there are fundamentalists who are using the Bible to oppose scientific views such as creationists opposing the evolutionary viewpoints of Charles Darwin and fundamentalists who are using the Bible to promote intolerance such as those who justify homophobia with passages in Leviticus. It just shows that history repeats itself and I have yet to see how the abuse of dubious Bible passages regarding moral and scientific viewpoints from today's fundamentalists differ from those in the past. ::I am aware of Galileo's faithfulness to Christianity in spite of his clash with the Church, but I didn't know that the Church was adopting secular views which he opposed. That seems quite ironic, especially considering Galileo's situation. Could you cite this assertion? In regards to those passages that contradict science which are now ignored by fundamentalists, they include those passages that say that Earth is stationary. The fact that the Church took those passages literally which resulted in a clash between the Bible and astronomy proves that there are passages which fundamentalists will defend in spite of scientific evidence against them, kind of like creationists today objecting to evolution! [[User:Kilmarnock|Kilmarnock]] 22:34, 13 May 2008 (EDT) ::: Yes, I agree that religion is one's personal belief system, but where I disagree is that it is ''just'' that, rather than something founded on fact, such as the fact of God's existence and of God creating the universe. I don't understand your objection to religion not being the infallible Word of God "because that is too specific a description".::: I agree that Christianity is not science. I accept that religion and science are two different concepts. I reject that science is superior to God's revealed Word.::: I don't reject evolution "simply because it contradicts your personal beliefs". I reject it because (a) it contradicts the revealed and infallible Word of God, and (b) it contradicts scientific observations.::: "''...it shows that you simply don’t understand evolution.''": Oh? How does it show that?::: "''Neither is evolution from an anti-theist or even anti-religious perspective.''": Agreed. But it is anti-Christian. Darwin started off believing in God, but evolutionists like Michael Ruse and Stephen Jay Gould have said that the motive behind evolution was to replace God, and that ''does'' seem to be the case with Darwin.::: "''Evolution would have never survived in the scientific field if it had only been based on storytelling.''": Why not? I say that it has survived because it allows atheists to be "intellectually fulfilled", to quote Richard Dawkins.::: "''Evolution is based on the scientific method which requires experimentation and evidence, something which it has provided.''": Incorrect. What experimentation can you do to see if fish changed into amphibians millions of years ago? Even if you showed today that fish ''can'' evolve into amphibians, it would still not prove that it happened millions of years ago. And the evidence today is that fish ''can't'' evolve into amphibians. That is, we understand enough about genetics to know why fish don't change into amphibians. It's only the faith of evolutionists (not evidence) that says that it did happen in the past.::: "''Christians who use the “Genesis account” or “consider Genesis to be scientifically accurate” (call it what you want, I can’t see the difference)...''": That wasn't the distinction I was making. The distinction was between "scientifically accurate" and a "''scientific'' account".::: "''Christians who use the “Genesis account” ... are taking a text literally that is no more than storytelling itself.''": Oh? What makes it "storytelling"? Since when does an eyewitness account count as "storytelling"?::: "''If you are saying that this Web site (I read this[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/52/] article) reflects your personal beliefs, I’ll assume that for now (unless you state otherwise).''": You assume correctly.::: "''However, that Web site is quite disturbing to me.''": Not surprising. Evolutionists don't like to be told they are wrong.::: "''The site assumes that evolution “removes any clear source of authority in our lives” which is wrong. Evolution does not, in fact.''": Yet you provide no counter argument to the reasons they gave.::: "''You may look in any scientific textbook or ask any evolutionary biologist and they will disagree with this site’s statement.''": And yet the article quoted evolutionary biologists that agreed with that point!::: "''Evolution has nothing to do with the belief in God. And remember that Christianity is not the only belief system that describes the concept of “God”.''": Belief in evolution replaces belief in the creator God of the Bible, because the former makes the latter unneccesary, and because the former contradicts the biblical account.::: "''You say that I have no business to state that the arguments are wrong. I never said they are wrong.''": Then what are you arguing about?::: "''However, if you do indeed believe in what this site is saying, it goes to show that you do not have a clear understanding of evolution and thus can’t say that evolution is wrong either or even argue against it.''": Another fact-free statement of your opinion. Why would it show that? The site was largely written by scientists who learned evolution, and in some if not most cases by people who used to believe in evolution. What makes you think they don't understand it?::: "''Arguing against evolution when you don’t understand it is bad enough but when you demonise it, it is a sign of weakness.''": You mean like the evolutionists demonise creation rather than actually address its arguments? No, creationists address the arguments of evolution. That's not "demonising" it.::: "''Evolution is most certainly not the cause of broken lives, broken families, suicide, Nazism, or communism...''": Just because you say so? Because other articles on that web-site will back up those claims.::: "''What makes it so twisted is that you state that saying “Genesis is a scientific account” and that “Genesis is scientifically accurate” imply two different things and that to say that Genesis is a scientific account is misleading. How exactly is this misleading and how does a different syntax (in this instance) imply something else?''": I explained that earlier, with the example of the Amazonian scientist. What's unclear about that explanation?::: "''I am also curious to know why you accept the possibility that the Flat Earth Society is a joke.''": I recall reading that somewhere once. What's so wrong with accepting that that explanation is a possibility?::: "''So if you give the possibility that the Flat Earth Society is a joke, you might as well bring up the possibility that the Bible is a collection of faerie tale annals. Why the double-standard?''": It's not a double standard at all. I accept the ''possibility'' of ''anything'' that (a) I haven't investigated, and (b) is not blatantly illogical or against known facts. I don't know a lot about the Flat Earth society, so I accept the ''possibility'' that it is a joke society, and I also accept the ''possibility'' that it's not. But just quoting their existence to me does not mean that it's not a joke society. I don't accept the possibility that the Bible is a collection of fairy tales because this is something that I know a lot more about and know that there's good reason for rejecting that idea.::: "''you left out that I said that "if you want to accept the assumption" between the ellipsis. I said you only assume so. In an earlier post, you said about Darwin's journal entry: "How do you know that Darwin didn't lie?". Thus, you give the possibility that he lied (although, you don't support this assertion with any facts).''": An ''assumption'' and a ''possibility'' are two different things. A ''possibility'' is something that you consider ''possible'', but don't necessarily believe to be the case (but don't reject either). An ''assumption'' is something that you ''do'' believe, even if you do so without complete certainty. I pointed out that it's ''possible'' that Darwin lied, not that I think he did; that is, I made no ''assumption'' that he did.::: "''...how does the Bible differ from any other archaic texts that describe things not known to be observed by a scientific consensus such as dragons or leviathans?''": The question is loaded, as it implies that the only things accepted from ancient texts are things that are observed by scientists. That Ceasar Augustus ruled Rome, for example, is something known only from ancient texts, not from scientific observation. Almost all ancient history is known in this way, and to that extent, there is no difference between the Bible and other ancient texts. But of course the Bible ''is'' different, in a number of ways. First, we know that the Jews went to great lengths to copy it accurately, so rather than being a distorted copy of a distorted copy of ... the original, as many ancient documents are, it is a very accurate copy of a very accurate copy of ... the original. Second, archaeologists have found evidence confirming a very large number of details mentioned in the Bible, so we know that it is a very reliable document. Third, it claims to be the testimony of the omniscient God, and there is evidence, such as consistency of authorship over at least 2,000 years and fulfilment of prophecy, that supports that claim.::: "''... the details about Siegfried and the dragon are usually considered to be legends.''": True, they are usually ''considered'' that, but there's good reason for thinking that dragon "legends" have a basis in fact, and in particular, in dinosaurs.::: "...how do you cite the assertion that Bible sceptics merely playing with words?''": How do I "cite" it? I'm not sure what you mean, but I did ''substantiate'' it, and you have not refuted that.::: "''Earth is not round''": Then why did ''New Scientist'' say that it is? Answer: Because "round" is a general term that can include "spherical". That you deny this is why SoI say that this is playing with words.::: "''The argument presented in Bible scepticism is that if one were to take Genesis literally, then why not take the songs in Psalms or 1 Samuel literally?''": Because the Psalms and the verse from 1 Samual are ''poetry'' or ''song'', not ''narrative'', like Genesis. If I said to you that it's raining cats and dogs, would you understand me to mean that it's raining very heavily, or that felines and canines are falling from the sky? Whether or not you take words literally depends on their context. The context of Psalms is that it's poetry/song. The context of Genesis 1 is that it's narrative.::: "''After all, the Church took the songs in 1 Chronicles and Psalms literally that state Earth is stationary.''": Just like you are doing so: in order to justify their/your point of view, not because the words require that.::: "''If they knew beforehand that Earth does not rest on pillars, why would they put it in a song?''": Because not every conversation, song, poem, metaphor, parable, etc. is couched in scientifically-literal terms. Why in recent times have we said that Australia rides on the sheep's back? Not because this is literally true, but because a lot of Australia's income derived from wool. This sort of thing occurs very frequently; there's nothing odd about the Bible doing it also. It's only bibliosceptics like yourself who try and make out that there's something wrong with the Bible doing so, and/or make out that one is unable to tell the difference.::: "''In 1 Samuel, it's not even a song. It's a prayer.''": It's a prayer in poetic form.::: "''Then there are fundamentalists that say homosexuality is an abomination because the the Bible says so.''": Of course. Because it does, and not in poetry.::: "''If we must follow the passages in the Bible that say homosexuality is an abomination, why don't fundamentalists follow those passages that say we cannot cut our hair (rest snipped)''": Because the Bible includes laws specific to the Jews under the Old Covenant. The laws themselves, specifying punishments for certain deeds, are no longer applicable. The principles behind some of the laws, such as God making a man and a woman, not a man and a man (a matter of ''history'', not ''law'') still apply, though. That is, God created sexual intercourse and marriage to be between a male and a female in a state of life commitment, and even though the ''law'' regarding what should happen to someone going against this is no longer applicable, the fact that this is the way we were designed is still the case.::: "''My point is that there are parts of the Bible (including Genesis) which are not only scientifically inaccurate...''": Yet all the examples you quoted made no scientific claims.::: "''Historically, there have been fundamentalists who have used the Bible to oppose scientific views such as the Church opposing the astronomical viewpoints of Galileo''": "Fundamentalists"? That term was only coined in the early 20th century, and it is not appropriate to apply it to those that opposed Galileo, as their motivation was not one of sticking to the biblical account. Rather, the ones that opposed Galileo are more like the liberal churches who today have compromised with the atheistic origins myth (evolution).::: "''And today, there are fundamentalists who are using the Bible to oppose scientific views such as creationists opposing the evolutionary viewpoints of Charles Darwin...''": That wrongly presupposes that the evolutionary view is scientific.::: "''...fundamentalists who are using the Bible to promote intolerance such as those who justify homophobia with passages in Leviticus''": I doubt that you know the meaning of "tolerance". It means to put up with something you're opposed to, not to accept all things as legitimate. And aren't you intolerant of creationism?::: "''I didn't know that the Church was adopting secular views which he opposed. ... Could you cite this assertion?''": See [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5586/105/ here]. And for more on the whole affair, see [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1625/ here].::: "''In regards to those passages that contradict science which are now ignored by fundamentalists, they include those passages that say that Earth is stationary.''": I've since answered this on the Main Page discussion page. Your proof texts were all poetic passages.::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT) :As I have said before, “religion” is not the infallible word of God simply because the word “religion” is too abstract. There are atheistic religions (e.g. those that do not have a God or Gods). A religion is a personal belief system and if you are referring to Christianity as the “infallible word of God”, that is a specific personal belief system. Nor is religion always founded on fact (although some are). If you want to demonstrate the factuality of religion, you must first understand what religion is (it is not defined as the “infallible word of God”, not all religions are theistic) and you must secondly demonstrate which religion so as to provide evidence for its factuality as different religions have different “factualities”. Keep in mind that it is not a fact until you prove it. If you are certain that religion is superior to science, you must demonstrate this claim with evidence of not just a subjective nature. Otherwise, anyone may claim that any school of knowledge is beyond religion or science for that matter while demonstrating this on the mere basis of subjectivity. You state that you reject evolution simply because it contradicts the “infallible word of God”. Well, the infallible word of God is your personal belief. It is nonscientific and subjective. To legitimately reject it, you should first demonstrate how you are certain that this personal belief system of yours has more objective plausibility than evolution. Nor does evolution contradict with scientific observations. Scientific observations give strong objective support for evolution. Unless there is something scientific you know of which contradicts with evolution. If there is something, I would be interested in seeing it. :You quoted me as saying “…it shows that you simply don’t understand evolution.” And you ask me how that is so. But you removed the first part of the sentence which actually has your answer in it. My words in full were: “When you say that the people who are unable to observe the events that say happened (in regards to evolution), it shows that you simply don’t understand evolution.” There’s your answer as to “how it shows that”. The people who observe evolution are able to observe the events that occur. Evolution has been observed since Charles Darwin himself experimented with it. As I have said before, if you do not understand the subject, you cannot argue against it, let alone reject it. So there is no reason to reject it simply because of religious interests. :How exactly is evolution anti-Christian? Just because Darwin experienced a loss of faith, doesn’t mean that evolution is inconsistent with Christianity. As I have said before, there are unscientific factoids in the Bible (even irrelevant to evolution) that many Christians ignore because of scientific evidence, thus a large majority of Christians accept evolution as a fact and still believe in God. But you also say that evolution was used as a tool to “replace God”, well remember that Christianity is not the only monotheistic religion in the world. If the intention of evolution was to “replace God” then evolution wouldn’t simply be anti-Christian but anti-theist. But since there are theistic evolutionists who have proposed evolution before Darwin, this goes to show that the idea that evolution was meant to “replace God” is wrong. Keep in mind that evolution is not a political position. If you are referring to Darwinism as having the motive of “replacing God”, that is no less dubious than the previous claim. Darwinism is merely the specific observations and hypotheses of evolution as Charles Darwin recorded it. It bears nothing of a political agenda in the scientific observations, regardless if some evolutionary theorists have suggested that this is the case. They have nothing to verify this with but speculation. :You say that it is incorrect that “Evolution is based on the scientific method which requires experimentation and evidence, something which it has provided.” But you only select a specific example without observing the actual examples that have been tested in laboratories. Animals have been observed to have mutated through ancestral genes. Animals have been especially observed to mutate to adapt to a change in environment to sustain the survival of their kind (i.e. evolution). One of the most prominent examples of this mutation is that of Darwin ’s finches. When Darwin performed experiments in the Galapagos Islands, he introduced a species of finches in an environment of slightly larger nuts to crack with their beaks. Within a period of only a few generations of these finches, the width and strength of the beaks of the descendant finches had greatly increased to suit the environment of larger nuts as food. This observation was only a fig-leaf. However, the idea of introducing animals into another environment in which they must mutate to adapt to their surroundings in order to survive has been proven to be successful with scientific experiments. Given these scientific experiments and the fossil record of common ancestry with many animal species, evolutionary biologists are able to observe the DNA of the fossils and compare it with the DNA of the hypothetical descendants of these creatures to determine that the evolutionary mutations of these creatures over long periods of time are successful in providing evidence for evolution. And your statement that evidence today states that fish cannot evolve into amphibians is incorrect. Fossils of amphibious fish known as fishapods have been found and the experimentation I have just explained has provided scientific evidence that just as trout had to mutate to survive in brackish water and salt water, the common ancestors of many fish alive today had indeed mutated to survive in both water and air environments. And we still see evidence of close descendants of fishapods today (i.e. lungfish). So no, it is not merely “faith”. Faith doesn’t work in scientific experimentations. As I have said before, if you do not understand the subject, you cannot argue against it. No evolutionary biologist will tell you it is only their “faith” that assures them of the plausibility of evolution. :You’ve already said before that evolution is storytelling (although are unable to support this statement). Now you ask how an eyewitness account counts as storytelling. Well, for all we know, Genesis isn’t even an eyewitness account. But that’s beside the point. Look up “storytelling” in a dictionary. It fits perfectly with your description of Genesis. It is merely the telling of a creation story, hence storytelling. How this is any more plausible than any other versions of creation storytelling is something you have yet to explain. :Since you are making the distinction between “scientifically accurate” and “scientific account”, is there a difference between the two, namely that assumes Genesis to be either fully or partly “scientifically accurate” or “scientifically accountable”? But the Web site is not disturbing to me because I am being told I am wrong. Nor is that a trait specific to evolutionists and not creationists. I guarantee that there are plenty of creationists out there who are utterly disturbed by being told that they are wrong. When you say that I provide no counter argument against the Web site’s claim, you are incorrect. Right after I wrote that evolution does not remove a source of authority, I said that “Evolution only reflects that all organisms descended from a common ancestor”. And this has absolutely nothing to do with the belief in God. I have already countered the argument that evolution is antitheist. One can believe in God and still believe in evolution as there are theistic evolutionists who may very well disagree with the Web site’s statement and many of the early proponents of evolution were theists themselves. The site gives no claim as to how evolution actually removes authority from a person’s life or even bothers to explain how the concept of evolution and God are inconsistent with each other. And where you get the idea that there are evolutionary biologists quoted on that site as agreeing with the site’s statement, I cannot concur. However, if you are referring to the atheistic statement made by Dr Will Provine, this proves nothing. Dr Provine only expressed his disbelief in God and the meaning of life. He by no means says that evolution proves that there is no God and the meaning of life. This is not a scientific claim but an opinionated claim. :I am arguing about the fact that you said I have no business to state the arguments on the given Web site are wrong if I don’t know them. I never said that they were wrong when I didn’t know the arguments. So why are you assuming beforehand that I would say that they are wrong? I hope that’s not a straw man argument. And I’ve already gone over why 1. Belief in God is not synonymous with the belief in the Christian God, hence the disregarding of the “creation” (according to Genesis) is moot. 2. You have yet to connect the idea that the former makes the latter unnecessary. As I have already said, many theistic evolutionists would disagree with you. It is perfectly reasonable that one can believe that God created the universe and allowed humans and other animals to evolve from how he has created them. 3. Will you not acknowledge the fact that the Christian concept of God is not the only concept of God and thus the Genesis account is not the only creation account? :No, my statement that if you merely believe what the site says is not “fact-free”. I have based this argument on the facts provided earlier in my posts. As I have said, evolution is not inconsistent with the belief in God as the site so dubiously and “fact-free” claims. :Please give me an example of how evolutionary argument demonises the story of creation, specifically as these certain creationists do by scapegoating it (that doesn’t include satire). In this case, you’re wrong to say that [these] creationists address the evolutionary arguments. The biological arguments for evolution do not support atheism, Nazism, communism, broken lives, broken families, or suicide. Not simply because I say so, which is a very arrogant statement on your part. If you disagree with a point I am making, feel free to point it out and ask me to explain it but refrain from being sarcastic. Evolution is not a political ideology. It is a scientific observation. The allegations that Adolf Hitler based his Holocaust ideology on evolution are examples of mere speculation. Adolf Hitler never said that he was influenced by the work of Charles Darwin or evolution for that matter. Hitler did however state several times that he was doing the Lord’s work in wiping out the “impure races” as described in “Mein Kampf”. So no, the site does not back up the claims that Hitler was influenced by evolution. It only cites another author speculating that Hitler’s conquest was influenced by evolution. The bottom line is that Hitler never proposed this as his influence. He however put in writing the influences of genocide that Christianity and God had on him. :Your explanation about the Amazonian scientist does not describe how the syntax implies different. A “scientific account” may at least imply either a scientist’s journal or a scientific record. So in the context of the evolutionary study provided earlier, “scientific account” and an “account that is scientifically accurate” do not imply anything different :So you say that you only accept the possibility that the Flat Earth Society is a joke simply because you don’t know much about it. Well, remember what I said about how if you do not understand the subject, you cannot argue against it. Even you have a similar statement in which you say that I would have no business to argue against something I know nothing about. So why are you just assuming the possibility that the Flat Earth Society is a joke without even researching the Flat Earth Society? I have researched the society and it is certainly no joke. You are using a double-standard by dismissing the evidence for the Bible’s dubious claims as a “possibility that it is a joke”, but at the same time, you don’t accept the possibility that the Bible is a collection of faerie tale annals because unlike the Flat Earth Society, you have extensively researched the Bible. So by researching a topic that supports your belief and ostracising evidence against it, you are employing a double-standard. :If you think it is possible that he lied, do you not assume so? If you don’t then why would you even bring it up? The same principle applies to the previous argument. You have absolutely no evidence to back up your claim, yet you either assume or simply present the possibility that something is dubious without even researching it. If you indeed assume that Darwin lied (but you first must know of the subject before you make any assumptions), why don’t you accept the possibility that the Bible is just a collection of faerie tale annals (without using subjective support for this claim). :No, my question does not imply that the only parts of the text in archaic manuscripts that are accepted as fact are observed by scientists. In fact, I made the later statement that parts of many archaic manuscripts are used by historians. So that whole rant about how Caesar Augustus ruling Rome is not observed by scientific fact is moot. Like I have said before, many archaic texts have been useful in determining past history. Yes, the Bible is a very reliable document but so is the Nibelungenlied. Even other documents, especially such Middle Eastern flood epics besides that of Noah’s ark have been of use to archaeologists in the research of natural history (e.g. the Epic of Gilgamesh). Now, if you know of the fulfilment of prophecies in the Bible, you would first have to verify them to give the Bible any more legitimacy over other archaic manuscripts. :Actually, there is no reason to think that the dragon legends have any basis in fact. Dinosaurs went extinct approximately sixty-five million years ago, long before anything closely humanoid appeared on Earth. Yet, you don't believe in in evolution and you think that Earth is only 6,000 years old. Well, I can prove your idea of Earth's age wrong in a plethora of different ways, but I'll just be specific with the dinosaurs. Archaeologists use stratification to determine the age of the soil in which the dinosaur was fossilised which is a process that involves dating the soil based on the half-lives of rock samples in which the fossils are found in. These different half-lives constitute the different eras of natural history. However, no dinosaur remains have ever been found in soil with a half-life past the beginning of the Tertiary era. This pattern of a mass lack of fossils of dinosaurs and several other animals that are now extinct constitutes the K-T boundary which points to a mass extinction event cause by hypothetically increased volcanic activity or a major meteor impact. As for humans, not only does Darwinism verify our evolution from a common primate ancestor, but geological dating additionally verifies that it was impossible for dinosaurs and humans to have lived in the same era. :But, I presume you don't believe in evolution, so I will expand on a different concept. In the Nibelungenlied, Siegfried is described as slaying the Dragon and bathing in his blood to become invincible from any sword or spear. However, a lime leaf fell on his back which gave him a weak spot. Sounds familiar? But if you believe that it is possible to bathe in a dinosaur's blood and become invincible, I will expand on a very similar story to Siegfried. The Iliad is also a very historically reliable account of the Trojan War. Yet, Achilles being the son of a sea nymph is usually omitted from history books. In this mythology, the sea nymph is considered to be a deity (as Greek mythology was a polytheistic religion). However, this bears a serious conflict with monotheistic religions such as Christianity which describes their being only one deity and Him only having one son. Since the two dogmas contradict each other, one can either assume that one of them is merely the stuff of legends, or both are (unless we are living in a parallel universe, of course). But, since you believe that the Christian dogma is the one that properly demonstrates the truth, you must first verify that the holy book central to Christianity (the Bible) is no more the stuff of legends as the mythological accounts of Greek polytheism. :So how do you "substantiate" the idea that Bible sceptics are merely playing with words? Do you have a link to such an article by ''New Scientist'' that says Earth is round? "Round" is not a generic term that applies to "spherical". They are two specifically different concepts. One demonstrates the shape of a two-dimensional figure and another demonstrates the shape of a three-dimensional figure. Going by the simple definition is not playing with words. However, manipulating the word's meaning ostensibly demonstrates playing with words. : So, what point are you missing exactly that the Church did not believe that the songs that demonstrated Earth to be stationary were metaphorical? The Church took the songs and prayers literally, so why should Genesis be any different? You say that not every song is scientifically literal. Yet, not every narrative is literal either (e.g. Genesis). So, why is Genesis any different from not being literal? So no, Bible sceptics do not "try" to find things wrong with the Bible. The fallacies are already there. :How do you verify (with scripture) that these laws in Leviticus are meant only for Jews? And how do you verify (with scripture) that they are no longer applicable? And most of all, how do you verify (with scripture) that the laws regarding homosexuality still apply? Also, you state that the principles behind homosexuality being an abomination apply through history. Can you verify this, too? Regarding how we were "designed" merely because humans can reproduce with sexual organs does not outline the principle that homosexuality is "immoral" or "unnatural". Sexual organs often not always used by heterosexual couples to suit this "design" of reproductivity and there are heterosexual couples who do commonly engage in evading this purported principle. Thus, making homosexuality irrelevant to the evasion of the principle. And remember that homosexuals may engage in life commitment too. So essentially, a homosexual couple forming a life commitment to each other is actually closer to these purported principles than that of a heterosexual couple that are not in a life commitment at all and using their sexual organs for an activity other than that of what they were originally "designed" to do. :So just because a term is coined in a point in time to refer to something in the past, does that mean that it cannot refer to that something in the past? The term "Prime Minister" wasn't used until the nineteenth century to refer to the statesmen who held the office in Britain. However, the Prime Ministers well into the eighteenth century are still known as "Prime Ministers". Oh, and if concepts must be no older as the terms that describe them, that must mean that Earth is not approximately 4.5 billion years old (as I believe) or approximately 6,000 years old (as you believe), but only about 600 years old since the term "Earth" was used c. 1400 to refer to the planet which we occupy. It is quite appropriate to apply the term to those who opposed Galileo. A fundamentalist (minuscule f) is defined as a strict adherent to any basic set of principles. As the Church's motivation was sticking to the Biblical account (specifically, that of the songs and prayers which describe Earth as being stationary), thus it is certainly appropriate to apply it to those who opposed Galileo. The Galileo affair didn't merely involve "churches" but ''the'' Church which was the institution that opposed Galileo's astronomical hypothesis and persecuted him for it. Now, you say that those who opposed Galileo were "like" the "liberal" churches who compromise with evolution. 1. How do you make such a connection? 2. Do you know the meaning of "liberal"? For the record, liberalism is not a doctrine that merely advocates secularism and not a term merely to describe those who believe in evolution and reject the theistic origins myth (creationism). :In the statement in which you quote me as saying that "there are fundamentalists who are using the Bible to oppose scientific views such as creationists opposing the evolutionary viewpoints of Charles Darwin", you say that this "wrongly presupposes that the evolutionary view is scientific". Are you really saying that the evolutionary view is unscientific? Do you even know the definition of ''scientific''? Evolution has been experimented and analysed by scientists while using the scientific method for years and concluded by scientists that evolution is a legitimate and accurate scientific field (just as relativity and gravity were experimented and analysed using the scientific method). If you are indeed boldly suggesting that evolution is unscientific, how do you verify such a claim? :I doubt that you have the presupposition to doubt that I do not know the meaning of "tolerance" because I do. Tolerance is the permissive attitude towards opinions and practices that differ from one's own. It by no means implies that one may "oppose" the view. Despite me not being homosexual, I have a permissive attitude towards homosexuality, that doesn't suggest that I oppose homosexuality because I do not. Hence, I ''tolerate'' homosexuality. And no, I am not intolerant of creationism. I believe that one has the right to believe in creationism, despite me not believing in it. But aren't you intolerant of evolution? :In the article you provide, it says that the Church rejected Galileo's hypothesis (Copernican cosmology) for a hypothesis that was considered to be un-Christian (Aristotelian cosmology) and then goes on to say how the Church rejected those Biblical texts that contradicted Aristotle. Since the passages that contradicted Aristotle were disregarded by the Church, those same passages must have contradicted the passages that support the claim that Earth is stationary. Thus, the Church would have had the option of accepting the assumption that Earth is not stationary based on a cosmological view supported by the scripture (Copernican cosmology) or accepting the assumption that Earth is stationary based on a cosmological view also supported by the scripture (Aristotelian cosmology). So upon accepting either assumption, the Church would have been inevitably "accepting secularised views" because either one would have contradicted the scripture. [[User:Kilmarnock|Kilmarnock]] 02:05, 21 May 2008 (EDT)[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]