[_ Old Earth _] The Cambrian Explosion: Evidence Against Evolution?

[lordkalvan]

Well, if you want to advance such an inane argument, so has the Bible.

God is not a respecter of persons.

I have no idea what you mean. The Bible has been used by men to justify mass slaughter; what does God's respect or lack of it for persons have to do with anything?

[quote:2nzjol8r]Which undoubtedly explains the lack of such phenomena as slavery, anti-semitism and xenophobia before the advent of Darwin.

These traits are inherent in the unconverted man.[/quote:2nzjol8r]
Again, I have no idea what you mean. Christians have perpetrated slavery, anti-semitism and xenophobia down the ages and used the Bible to rationalize and legitimize their actions.

[quote:2nzjol8r]Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, pp 200-201:
The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, convinced by general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution....At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,16 will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

This actually seems to be making the point.[/quote:2nzjol8r]
The full context of the quotemine that I gave you was from that part of his text that Darwin called a dissertation on the incompleteness of the fossil record and used language typical of its time. The fact that there was no overtly racist intent behind Darwin's words is illustrated by the second reference I gave you, which you have either not read properly or chosen to read in such a way as to reinforce your preconceived ideas about what Darwin believed. Allow me to highlight some relevant and appropriate comments:

Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, pp 94-95:
The great sin of Slavery has been almost universal, and slaves have often been treated in an infamous manner. As barbarians do not regard the opinion of their women, wives are commonly treated like slaves. Most savages are utterly indifferent to the sufferings of strangers, or even delight in witnessing them. It is well known that the women and children of the North-American Indians aided in torturing their enemies. Some savages take a horrid pleasure in cruelty to animals, and humanity with them is an unknown virtue. Nevertheless, feelings of sympathy and kindness are common, especially during sickness, between the members of the same tribe, and are sometimes extended beyond the limits of the tribe. Mungo Park's touching account of the kindness of the negro women of the interior to him is well known. Many instances could be given of the noble fidelity of savages towards each other, but not to strangers; common experience justifies the maxim of the Spaniard, "Never, never trust an Indian." There cannot be fidelity without truth; and this fundamental virtue is not rare between the members of the same tribe: thus Mungo Park heard the negro women teaching their young children to love the truth. This, again, is one of the virtues which becomes so deeply rooted in the mind that it is sometimes practised by savages even at a high cost, towards strangers; but to lie to your enemy has rarely been thought a sin, as the history of modern diplomacy too plainly shews. As soon as a tribe has a recognised leader, disobedience becomes a crime, and even abject submission is looked at as a sacred virtue.

Again, this seems to actually make the point.

That Darwin's work has been debased by the evil of racism is no more reason for spurning the consequences of his insightful contribution to our understanding of the development of life than it is to cast the strong moral guidelines of Christ's teachings to one side because the Bible has been used to justify terrible crimes against humanity or to accuse Einstein of responsibility for warcrimes because his work led to the development of nuclear weapons..

 

[Sir Pwn4lot]

The Cambrian Explosion is as much evidence against the theory of evolution as objects falling at 9.8ms-1 in a vacuum is evidence against the theory of gravity.....

 

[RND]

I have no idea what you mean. The Bible has been used by men to justify mass slaughter; what does God's respect or lack of it for persons have to do with anything?

Just because the word of God has been used by men to paint a picture of God that the whole of scripture doe not pain is not the fault of the scriptures but of fallen men.

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, [As] I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

[quote:3id7psx8][quote:3id7psx8]Which undoubtedly explains the lack of such phenomena as slavery, anti-semitism and xenophobia before the advent of Darwin.

These traits are inherent in the unconverted man.[/quote:3id7psx8]
Again, I have no idea what you mean. Christians have perpetrated slavery, anti-semitism and xenophobia down the ages and used the Bible to rationalize and legitimize their actions.[/quote:3id7psx8]

So has every sector of the human populace. As my mother used to say, "Just because everyone jumps off a bridge doesn't make it right." Darwin's thoughts, who in the eyes of those who embraced his views, merely legitimized their ungodly notions of humankind. Hitler, Margaret Sanger, et al, embraced eugenics as part of the Darwinian view.

http://www.eugenics-watch.com/

 

[lordkalvan]

I have no idea what you mean. The Bible has been used by men to justify mass slaughter; what does God's respect or lack of it for persons have to do with anything?

Just because the word of God has been used by men to paint a picture of God that the whole of scripture doe not pain is not the fault of the scriptures but of fallen men....

So has every sector of the human populace. As my mother used to say, "Just because everyone jumps off a bridge doesn't make it right." Darwin's thoughts, who in the eyes of those who embraced his views, merely legitimized their ungodly notions of humankind. Hitler, Margaret Sanger, et al, embraced eugenics as part of the Darwinian view.

And how is your accusation against the perverted misapplication of the scientific work of Darwin to unsavoury political or social policies in any way different from the at least as equally valid accusation that the perverted misapplication of perhaps even more unsavoury policies were legimized and justified by resort to understandings derived from the Bible? I rather think you are applying double-standards here for no better reason than your hostility towards the implications of Darwin's work for a view of the natural world centred on the wholly-unsupportable idea that life on earth has only been in existence for around 6,000 years.

 

[Barbarian]

Bones can't begin to fossilize until after the death of an animal. The flood in my mind would be a good place to start.

In fact, we see the process going on today. There wasn't a worldwide flood, and the Bible doesn't say there was.

What's your point? Proto-humans developed a thumb when it became favourable for them to do so (i.e. using tools, etc.).How did this happen?

Long time before that. Primitive primates have them. And they've evolved a number of times.

Did man not have thumbs and then determine "I want to use a hammer but since I don't have thumbs to use a hammer I better grow some."?

Evidnece shows a gradual change in the hallux over a very long time. Even Australopithecines, although more dexterous than earlier apes, were not quite as agile with their hands as we are. Monkey's aren't very handy, but they can use tools somewhat. Chimps are somewhat better. And we have become the most proficient.

Opposable thumbs on the feet would certainly be handy, as would many things

The hallux on the human foot has been modified for support and control in walking and running. Given that, it's not surprising we lost flexibility and control in toes.

It doen't change the fact that these are still horses.

In fact,the earliest ones aren't horses at all. Hyracotherium was as close to a rhino as it is to a horse, and it's genus probably gave rise to both horses and rhinos.

However, I do want to address this in the sense that Darwin's book was an attempt to expound on his racist views and it has been the catalyst to the wholesale slaughter of people throughout the world.

You've been misled on that. Hitler, for example looked to Martin Luther's "The Jews and their Lies" for inspiration; most of the "final solution" is based on Luther's advice. Stalin regarded Darwin as an enemy of socialism, and imprisoned and killed Darwinists. Fact is, Darwinists showed that the very basis for Hitler's racist ideas were scientifically unsupportable, and Darwin himself denounced eugenic ideas of culling human populations.

Centuries ago the majority opinion was that the world was flat. Only a small minority said it wasn't.

You've been misled about that, too. Hundreds of years before Christ,educated people knew the world was round. There are existing Roman coins showing it as an orb.

 

[RND]

And how is your accusation against the perverted misapplication of the scientific work of Darwin to unsavoury political or social policies in any way different from the at least as equally valid accusation that the perverted misapplication of perhaps even more unsavoury policies were legimized and justified by resort to understandings derived from the Bible?

I never suggested there was a difference. Satan is at work and uses any means necessary to cast doubt upon the word of God. Those who were responsible for using the word of God to launch the crusades are no better and were under the same influence as the Hitler's, Pol Pot's and Margaret Sanger's of our day.

I rather think you are applying double-standards here for no better reason than your hostility towards the implications of Darwin's work for a view of the natural world centred on the wholly-unsupportable idea that life on earth has only been in existence for around 6,000 years.

You only think that way because you somehow think (although I never been asked or expressed my view) that somehow I condone the violence towards man at the hands of the so-called "Christians" responsible for war and torture. The words of Jesus Christ make any view that violence is tolerated in the word of God for the conversion of souls repugnant. There is no double-standard. *I find the Inquisitions of Rome just as repugnant as the persecutions of Hitler.

* Interestingly Rome had a hand in both.

 

[lordkalvan]

I never suggested there was a difference. Satan is at work and uses any means necessary to cast doubt upon the word of God. Those who were responsible for using the word of God to launch the crusades are no better and were under the same influence as the Hitler's, Pol Pot's and Margaret Sanger's of our day.

Then we agree on something, at least! However, I do not understand why you denigrate Darwin's theory of evolution on the back of its misuse by others, given that you acknowledge the Bible is also misused.

You only think that way because you somehow think (although I never been asked or expressed my view) that somehow I condone the violence towards man at the hands of the so-called "Christians" responsible for war and torture.

No, I only thought that your argument seemed poorly based, impugning Darwin's work because others put it to unsavoury use when, as we both agree, similar misuse has been made of the Bible.

The words of Jesus Christ make any view that violence is tolerated in the word of God for the conversion of souls repugnant. There is no double-standard. *I find the Inquisitions of Rome just as repugnant as the persecutions of Hitler.

The we seem to have some common ground.

* Interestingly Rome had a hand in both.

And paradoxically also in rescuing those persecuted by Nazism and Fascism.

 

[RND]

Then we agree on something, at least!

If you'd had just asked instead of assuming....

However, I do not understand why you denigrate Darwin's theory of evolution on the back of its misuse by others, given that you acknowledge the Bible is also misused.

Because one thought is true and the other is false.

The Bible is full of examples and truths. Just because those examples and truths were misused by others doesn't make those examples and truths of the Bible any less true or examples that should be heeded. In fact these things point out the fallen nature of man.

Evolution can't be seen as true when examined directly against the word of God.

No, I only thought that your argument seemed poorly based, impugning Darwin's work because others put it to unsavoury use when, as we both agree, similar misuse has been made of the Bible.

Darwin's work is contrary to the word of God thus it is a double falsehood that was used by others to legitimize their ungodly work.

The we seem to have some common ground.

Bibilically based?

And paradoxically also in rescuing those persecuted by Nazism and Fascism.

There is little doubt that the Jesuits are adept at the Hegelian. I think when examine honestly we will see that Rome had much more to do with the rise of Hitler to achieve Satan's aims.

 

[lordkalvan]

Then we agree on something, at least!

If you'd had just asked instead of assuming....

If there was an assumption, it was derived from the nature of your posts.

[quote:i85f5oyg]However, I do not understand why you denigrate Darwin's theory of evolution on the back of its misuse by others, given that you acknowledge the Bible is also misused.

Because one thought is true and the other is false.[/quote:i85f5oyg]
This is irrelevant. The point at hand is that you impugned Darwin's work, not because of your judgement as to its scientific worth, but because it was misused by individuals with particular agendas. Whether or not the Bible is true is equally irrelevant when one considers the misuse to which it has been put. The inherent contradiction at the heart of your argument remains.

The Bible is full of examples and truths. Just because those examples and truths were misused by others doesn't make those examples and truths of the Bible any less true or examples that should be heeded. In fact these things point out the fallen nature of man.

Analogous points which can be made with equal force in respect of Darwin's work.

Evolution can't be seen as true when examined directly against the word of God.

Many Christians would disagree with you. Evolution is quite clearly supported when the weight of evidence is considered. Therefore it is entirely possible that your understanding of what you suppose to be the word of God may be at fault: you are, after all, just as fallible as the rest of us.

[quote:i85f5oyg]No, I only thought that your argument seemed poorly based, impugning Darwin's work because others put it to unsavoury use when, as we both agree, similar misuse has been made of the Bible.

Darwin's work is contrary to the word of God thus it is a double falsehood that was used by others to legitimize their ungodly work.[/quote:i85f5oyg]
Again, this is not relevant when considering a criticism levelled at Darwin based solely on the misuse to which his work might have been put by others. Darwin's work is only 'contrary to the word of God' as you choose to interpret that word. There are others who interpret the word quite differently. I have seen nothing that persuades me I should prefer your word to theirs; as far as the evidence that can be seen in the natural world is concerned, quite the contrary seems to be the case.

[quote:i85f5oyg]The we seem to have some common ground.

Bibilically based?[/quote:i85f5oyg]
Historically based, I think.

[quote:i85f5oyg]And paradoxically also in rescuing those persecuted by Nazism and Fascism.

There is little doubt that the Jesuits are adept at the Hegelian. I think when examine honestly we will see that Rome had much more to do with the rise of Hitler to achieve Satan's aims.[/quote:i85f5oyg][/quote]
Which does not alter the fact that 'Rome' also offered some succour to the persecuted - the work of Monsignor Hugh O'Flaherty comes to mind as one example - although not nearly as much as could have been wished.

 

[RND]

If there was an assumption, it was derived from the nature of your posts.

You still should have asked instead of assuming right?

This is irrelevant.

No it's not. It's the basis for my beliefs.

The point at hand is that you impugned Darwin's work, not because of your judgement as to its scientific worth, but because it was misused by individuals with particular agendas.

No, I also said it is a faith based belief based on the assumption by it's believers that it's true. I been fairly consistent.

Whether or not the Bible is true is equally irrelevant when one considers the misuse to which it has been put. The inherent contradiction at the heart of your argument remains.

No, I think I have fairly well stated my point. The fact that the truth of the Bible was abused is comparable to the fact that the falsehood of Darwin was used as a way to abuse.

Analogous points which can be made with equal force in respect of Darwin's work.

Only if Darwin was true; which it isn't.

[quote:219sesv8]Evolution can't be seen as true when examined directly against the word of God.

Many Christians would disagree with you.[/quote:219sesv8] So? The Bible ain't a popularity contest. Should I be surprised that so-called Christians disagree with the document that they claim to have faith in?

Evolution is quite clearly supported when the weight of evidence is considered.

Not in the Bible it isn't.

Therefore it is entirely possible that your understanding of what you suppose to be the word of God may be at fault: you are, after all, just as fallible as the rest of us.

I'd love to see anything you might have that states conclusively and w/o ambiguity that God created things through evolution. Hint: Use Genesis 1:24.

Again, this is not relevant when considering a criticism levelled at Darwin based solely on the misuse to which his work might have been put by others.

Sure it is. The same heart that justified misusing scripture to their own ends is the same heart that used Darwin's falsehoods to justify their own ends.

Darwin's work is only 'contrary to the word of God' as you choose to interpret that word.

I think the word of God is fairly clear about how life was made.

There are others who interpret the word quite differently.

To their own destruction.

I have seen nothing that persuades me I should prefer your word to theirs;

I'm not shocked.

as far as the evidence that can be seen in the natural world is concerned, quite the contrary seems to be the case.

Well, if that were the case we should see evidence of evolutionary change in animals but alas, we don't.

Historically based, I think.

Then we haven't reached common ground.

Which does not alter the fact that 'Rome' also offered some succour to the persecuted - the work of Monsignor Hugh O'Flaherty comes to mind as one example - although not nearly as much as could have been wished.

I guess the equivalent would be having the man that murdered your wife and the mother of your children asking if there is anything he could do to help! Granted this is an over generalization and there is no doubt that many countless Catholics, out of the kindness of their heart and through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did in fact aid those the hierarchy set to destroy.

 

[lordkalvan]

If there was an assumption, it was derived from the nature of your posts.

You still should have asked instead of assuming right?

Please note the qualifier at the start of the sentence.

This is irrelevant.

No it's not. It's the basis for my beliefs.[/quote]
Your beliefs are also rrelevant. The point is not what you believe, nor whether Darwin was 'right' or 'wrong', nor whether the Bible is 'right; or 'wrong', but rather criticism of Darwin or the Bible because either might have been misused by individuals with nasty agendas to follow and justify.

[quote:1nrbc2z8] The point at hand is that you impugned Darwin's work, not because of your judgement as to its scientific worth, but because it was misused by individuals with particular agendas.

No, I also said it is a faith based belief based on the assumption by it's believers that it's true. I been fairly consistent.[/quote:1nrbc2z8]
The post which sparked this exchange argued that Darwin's views were racist and that the racist nature of his work precipitated 'the wholesale slaughter of people throughout the world'. If you are suggesting that you did not mean to say that Darwin's work was thereby rendered invalid by this argument, then I must have missed you saying so.

[quote:1nrbc2z8]Whether or not the Bible is true is equally irrelevant when one considers the misuse to which it has been put. The inherent contradiction at the heart of your argument remains.

No, I think I have fairly well stated my point. The fact that the truth of the Bible was abused is comparable to the fact that the falsehood of Darwin was used as a way to abuse. [/quote:1nrbc2z8]
So we agree that misuse of a theory or teachings by individuals not directly responsible for that theory or those teachings does not serve to throw into doubt or critique in any meaningful way either the theory or the teachings.

[quote:1nrbc2z8]Analogous points which can be made with equal force in respect of Darwin's work.

Only if Darwin was true; which it isn't.[/quote:1nrbc2z8]
Truth or falseness is irrelevant to the question of whether the idea in question was misused. Also, simply saying that something isn't true does not make it so.

[quote:1nrbc2z8]Evolution can't be seen as true when examined directly against the word of God.

Many Christians would disagree with you.[/quote:1nrbc2z8] So? The Bible ain't a popularity contest. Should I be surprised that so-called Christians disagree with the document that they claim to have faith in?[/quote]
No, but you should at least acknowledge that there is a difference of opinion in the Christian community based on theological interpretation andthat there is no a priori reason why your understanding should trump others.

[quote:1nrbc2z8]Evolution is quite clearly supported when the weight of evidence is considered.

Not in the Bible it isn't.[/quote:1nrbc2z8]
Lots of things are not evidentially supported in the Bible. Does this immediately invalidate the evidence which otherwise supports them?

[quote:1nrbc2z8]Therefore it is entirely possible that your understanding of what you suppose to be the word of God may be at fault: you are, after all, just as fallible as the rest of us.

I'd love to see anything you might have that states conclusively and w/o ambiguity that God created things through evolution. Hint: Use Genesis 1:24.[/quote:1nrbc2z8]
I do not find the creation myths of a pre-scientific people persuasive evidence that evolution is a falsely-founded theory. On the other hand, theologians at least as learned as I assume you to be do not see any difficulty reconciling a metaphorical understanding of Genesis with an understanding of the natural world as revealed by science - evolution is not the only scientifically observed phenomenon that contradicts biblical lore.

[quote:1nrbc2z8]Again, this is not relevant when considering a criticism levelled at Darwin based solely on the misuse to which his work might have been put by others.

Sure it is. The same heart that justified misusing scripture to their own ends is the same heart that used Darwin's falsehoods to justify their own ends.[/quote:1nrbc2z8]
The point is the misuse to which an idea or teachings are put, not the alleged truth or falsehood that lies beneath them.

[quote:1nrbc2z8]Darwin's work is only 'contrary to the word of God' as you choose to interpret that word.

I think the word of God is fairly clear about how life was made.[/quote:1nrbc2z8]
In your opinion, but as far as I am aware only the Pope claims to be free from the possibility of error when promulgating a dogmatic teaching on faith connected to divine revelation. So what you think may be the case is not itself persuasive.

[quote:1nrbc2z8] There are others who interpret the word quite differently.

To their own destruction.[/quote:1nrbc2z8]
Again, your statement alone to this effect is not persuasive. They could make the same comment on your beliefs with equal force and on - from their point of view - as soundly derived theological grounds.

[quote:1nrbc2z8] I have seen nothing that persuades me I should prefer your word to theirs;

I'm not shocked.[/quote:1nrbc2z8]
You may not be shocked, but you should perhaps ponder why this is the case: it might even include the possibility that you could be wrong.

[quote:1nrbc2z8]as far as the evidence that can be seen in the natural world is concerned, quite the contrary seems to be the case.

Well, if that were the case we should see evidence of evolutionary change in animals but alas, we don't.[/quote:1nrbc2z8]
Human blood groups are evidence of evolutionary change. There are many more examples. Indeed, the fact that you are inevitably genetically different from either of your parents is evidence of evolution in action.

[quote:1nrbc2z8]Historically based, I think.

Then we haven't reached common ground.[/quote:1nrbc2z8]
It's entirely possible to agree on something without that agreement being based solely on theological argument. There are, after all. 'different roads to socialism'.

[quote:1nrbc2z8]Which does not alter the fact that 'Rome' also offered some succour to the persecuted - the work of Monsignor Hugh O'Flaherty comes to mind as one example - although not nearly as much as could have been wished.

I guess the equivalent would be having the man that murdered your wife and the mother of your children asking if there is anything he could do to help! Granted this is an over generalization and there is no doubt that many countless Catholics, out of the kindness of their heart and through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did in fact aid those the hierarchy set to destroy.[/quote:1nrbc2z8]
The implication here that the entire hierarchy of the Catholic Church was actively complicit in the atrocities perpetrated by Nazism and Fascism does not seem to be entirely borne out by the historical facts. The Bishop of Munster, for example, publicly denounced Nazi euthanasia programmes.

 

[RND]

Please note the qualifier at the start of the sentence.

"If." I took it as you assumption.

Your beliefs are also rrelevant. The point is not what you believe, nor whether Darwin was 'right' or 'wrong', nor whether the Bible is 'right; or 'wrong', but rather criticism of Darwin or the Bible because either might have been misused by individuals with nasty agendas to follow and justify.

To you? Yes, my beliefs are irrelevant and that's the whole sad mess of this conversation. The criticism of Darwin and the result of Darwinism is justified according to my beliefs.

The post which sparked this exchange argued that Darwin's views were racist and that the racist nature of his work precipitated 'the wholesale slaughter of people throughout the world'. If you are suggesting that you did not mean to say that Darwin's work was thereby rendered invalid by this argument, then I must have missed you saying so.

No, Darwin's work has definitely spawned racism and a whole host of crimes against those that are perceived to be different. Those that used the Bible to do the same were no better.

So we agree that misuse of a theory or teachings by individuals not directly responsible for that theory or those teachings does not serve to throw into doubt or critique in any meaningful way either the theory or the teachings.

Sure. MyI issue with Darwinism is based on my "irrelevant" beliefs!

Truth or falseness is irrelevant to the question of whether the idea in question was misused. Also, simply saying that something isn't true does not make it so.

Again, that's true. People react/over react to truth/false notions of beliefs everyday. But in terms of my POV based on scripture Darwinism is false.

[quote:te3ppo97][quote:te3ppo97]Evolution can't be seen as true when examined directly against the word of God.

Many Christians would disagree with you.[/quote:te3ppo97] So? The Bible ain't a popularity contest. Should I be surprised that so-called Christians disagree with the document that they claim to have faith in?[/quote:te3ppo97]

No, but you should at least acknowledge that there is a difference of opinion in the Christian community based on theological interpretation andthat there is no a priori reason why your understanding should trump others.

I did acknowledge the difference. I said I'm not surprised Christians have abandoned the truth of the word of God.

Lots of things are not evidentially supported in the Bible. Does this immediately invalidate the evidence which otherwise supports them?

I suppose that depends on what we're referring to. The Bible makes to mention of BMW's or Kool-Aid but both exist.

I do not find the creation myths of a pre-scientific people persuasive evidence that evolution is a falsely-founded theory. On the other hand, theologians at least as learned as I assume you to be do not see any difficulty reconciling a metaphorical understanding of Genesis with an understanding of the natural world as revealed by science - evolution is not the only scientifically observed phenomenon that contradicts biblical lore.

Again, as I have stated before I find that science actually confirms the word of God and doesn't disprove it.

The point is the misuse to which an idea or teachings are put, not the alleged truth or falsehood that lies beneath them.

That's what I said.

In your opinion, but as far as I am aware only the Pope claims to be free from the possibility of error when promulgating a dogmatic teaching on faith connected to divine revelation. So what you think may be the case is not itself persuasive.

The pope is no more free from error than you are. He's a man, puts his pants on one leg at a time. But what I believe about evolution is based on my faith and that faith's belief that the Bible is true....every word.

Again, your statement alone to this effect is not persuasive. They could make the same comment on your beliefs with equal force and on - from their point of view - as soundly derived theological grounds.

Sure, anyone can twist the word of God to suit themselves. That's nothing new!

You may not be shocked, but you should perhaps ponder why this is the case: it might even include the possibility that you could be wrong.

Sure, could. But the fact of the matter is that the word of God is likely to turn people off because they don't like the light of truth shinning on them.

Human blood groups are evidence of evolutionary change.

Genotype.

There are many more examples. Indeed, the fact that you are inevitably genetically different from either of your parents is evidence of evolution in action.

But I'm still a human, as were my parents. Now, if my folks gave birth to a ferret you might have something there but.....

It's entirely possible to agree on something without that agreement being based solely on theological argument. There are, after all. 'different roads to socialism'.

Sure, that's understandable.

The implication here that the entire hierarchy of the Catholic Church was actively complicit in the atrocities perpetrated by Nazism and Fascism does not seem to be entirely borne out by the historical facts.

I think we have enough evidence right now to show the complacency of Rome and Hitler's rise.

The Bishop of Munster, for example, publicly denounced Nazi euthanasia programmes.

Sure. But a Bishop in the RCC isn't part of the Hierarchy.

 

[lordkalvan]

To you? Yes, my beliefs are irrelevant and that's the whole sad mess of this conversation. The criticism of Darwin and the result of Darwinism is justified according to my beliefs.

Not irrelevant to me, but irrelevant to whether or not a given theory is correct or not because of any alleged misuse that the theory is put to by others. Essentially, you are making an ad hominem argument.

No, Darwin's work has definitely spawned racism and a whole host of crimes against those that are perceived to be different. Those that used the Bible to do the same were no better.

So I take it that you do agree that you cannot use such an argument to critique the correctness or otherwise of Darwin's scientific work.

Sure. MyI issue with Darwinism is based on my "irrelevant" beliefs!....

Again, that's true. People react/over react to truth/false notions of beliefs everyday. But in terms of my POV based on scripture Darwinism is false.

So not on a critique of the evidence that supports it, then.

I did acknowledge the difference. I said I'm not surprised Christians have abandoned the truth of the word of God.

But you have no more persuasive argument that they 'have abandoned the truth of the word of God' than they have that you have done the same. Which tends to render faith-based arguments against evolutionary theory rather lame.

I suppose that depends on what we're referring to. The Bible makes to mention of BMW's or Kool-Aid but both exist.

I was thinking, for example, of DNA which clearly underpins all life and which the Bible makes no reference to at all.

Again, as I have stated before I find that science actually confirms the word of God and doesn't disprove it.

Except where it doesn't (confirm) and does (disprove), of course....

That's what I said.

So long as you agree that misuse of ideas and teachings do not invalidate those ideas and teachings.

The pope is no more free from error than you are. He's a man, puts his pants on one leg at a time.

I agree entirely.

But what I believe about evolution is based on my faith and that faith's belief that the Bible is true....every word....

Sure, anyone can twist the word of God to suit themselves. That's nothing new!

The question is, who's doing the twisting?

[quote:25h92b8f]You may not be shocked, but you should perhaps ponder why this is the case: it might even include the possibility that you could be wrong.

Sure, could. But the fact of the matter is that the word of God is likely to turn people off because they don't like the light of truth shinning on them.[/quote:25h92b8f]
There exists the equally valid argument that the 'light of truth' is not what you think it is.

[quote:25h92b8f]Human blood groups are evidence of evolutionary change.

Genotype.[/quote:25h92b8f]
This does not alter the fact that human blood groups are evidence of evolutionary change.

[quote:25h92b8f]There are many more examples. Indeed, the fact that you are inevitably genetically different from either of your parents is evidence of evolution in action.

But I'm still a human, as were my parents. Now, if my folks gave birth to a ferret you might have something there but.....[/quote:25h92b8f]
This cartoon caricature of what evolutionary theory proposes does not invalidate the fact that the genetic differences between you and your parents are evidence of evolution in action as are, for example, atavistic and vestigial features in the human animal - for example, ear-twitching muscles, the plica semilunaris and tails in human embryos and documented cases of babies born with tails containing cartilage and/or vertebrae.

[quote:25h92b8f]The implication here that the entire hierarchy of the Catholic Church was actively complicit in the atrocities perpetrated by Nazism and Fascism does not seem to be entirely borne out by the historical facts.

I think we have enough evidence right now to show the complacency of Rome and Hitler's rise.[/quote:25h92b8f]
A complacency shared by governments and other churches.

[quote:25h92b8f]The Bishop of Munster, for example, publicly denounced Nazi euthanasia programmes.

Sure. But a Bishop in the RCC isn't part of the Hierarchy.[/quote:25h92b8f]
I guess you need to tell the Catholic Church this surprising fact:

http://www.catholic-pages.com/church/hierarchy.asp

http://www.bible.ca/catholic-church-hie ... zation.htm

 

[Barbarian]

There is little doubt that the Jesuits are adept at the Hegelian. I think when examine honestly we will see that Rome had much more to do with the rise of Hitler to achieve Satan's aims.

Cardinal Pacelli, later Pope Pius XII:
They [The Nazis] are in reality only miserable plagiarists who dress up old errors with new tinsel. It does not make any difference whether they flock to the banners of the social revolution, whether they are guided by a false conception of the world and of life, or whether they are possessed by the superstition of a race and blood cult...

and...

Early in 1940, Hitler made an attempt to prevent the new Pope from maintaining the anti-Nazi stance he had taken before his election. He sent his underling, Joachim von Ribbentrop, to try to dissuade Pius XII from following his predecessor’s policies. "Von Ribbentrop, granted a formal audience on March 11, 1940, went into a lengthy harangue on the invincibility of the Third Reich, the inevitability of a Nazi victory, and the futility of papal alignment with the enemies of the Führer. Pius XII heard von Ribbentrop out politely and impassively. Then he opened an enormous ledger on his desk and, in his perfect German, began to recite a catalogue of the persecutions inflicted by the Third Reich in Poland, listing the date, place, and precise details of each crime. The audience was terminated; the Pope’s position was clearly unshakable."...

Dr. Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress, wrote in his letter of condolence on Pope Pius' death: "With special gratitude we remember all he has done for the persecuted Jews during one of the darkest periods in their entire history." In 1945, the Congress had made a gift of $20,000 to Vatican charities in recognition of the work of the Holy See in rescuing Jews from Fascist persecution; and an interoffice memorandum, written a year earlier by a WJC official closely involved in the Congress' pleas to Pius XII for help for the Jews of Poland, reads: "The Catholic Church in Europe has been extraordinarily helpful to us in a multitude of ways. From Hinsley in London to Pacelli in Rome, to say nothing of the anonymous priests in Holland, France, and elsewhere, they have done very notable things for us . . . ."

On April 7, 1944, Rabbi Safran of Bucharest paid tribute to the Catholic Church's activities on behalf of Romanian Jews in a letter to the papal nuncio:

Excellency:

In these harsh times our thoughts turn more than ever with respectful gratitude to what has been accomplished by the Sovereign Pontiff on behalf of Jews in general and by Your Excellency on behalf of the Jews of Romania and Transnistria.

In the most difficult hours which we Jews of Romania have passed through, the generous assistance of the Holy See, carried out by the intermediary of your high person, was decisive and salutary. It is not easy for us to find the right words to express the warmth and consolation we experienced because of the concern of the supreme Pontiff, who offered a large sum to relieve the sufferings of deported Jews, sufferings which had been pointed out to him by you after your visit to Transnistria. The Jews of Romania will never forget these facts of historic importance . . .
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... sdef2.html

The Nazis turned to Martin Luther, not the Catholic Church, for their inspiration. At trial, they freely admitted this.