cheap trick behind the most devastating lie in the history of mankind

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_Poll ^ | 10/15/2003 | self

[Truth666]

Here are the some of the results of a 1999 Gallup poll on creationism, evolution, and public education :
49% believe that human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life.
Evolution theory is the most important weapon to twist people's minds.
For 99% of the people the most important REAL reason for believing in it : a trick that costed a few bucks, 100 years ago.
Even more incredible : the trick has remained the same until now.
Only lately, with very fast computers that allow virtual reality software to perform convincing enough, have we seen some effects added to the base trick.
I wonder who is the first Freeper to find out the trick behind the most devastating lie in the history of mankind.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Adolph Hitler...All atheists, every last one of them.

Hitler was a Christian. He took the swastika right from his Church.

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, volume 1, chapter 2.

[bethelgrad]

Oh absolutely. I'm coming from this as a seminary student, so I tend to view things from a theological standpoint.

The whole point of the Genesis creation account is that God was behind creation. It is a poetic prose that leaves open multitude of possibilites, including vast amounts of time to complete it.

The real issue is time. What is time to God? A million years or 1 second is nothing to him.

I find evolution wanting for other reasons not necessarily having to do with theology but with evidence they use to present it. Solid evidence exists for an old earth/universe, but I am unconvinced of evolution among the species.

[bethelgrad]

That is a very old and absurd philosophical debating tool designed to distract from real debat :>)

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Uh oh. I'm redundant.

[whattajoke]

Sigh. I've called myself a non-theist for years; the intent being that a) I don't believe in any deities and b) I don't believe in any supernatural anything, and c) the mere thought of attempting to believe in deities and/or supernatural phenomena is anathema to me.

Now you tell me that you (jenny) use it to mean "soft atheist."

What can I do?

And as an aside, Qwinn, you state you are an agnostic scientist who somehow finds fault with the current evolutionary biology thinking. You are indeed a rare breed; perhaps 1 in a million. And a FReeper to boot. What are the chances?

[PatrickHenry]

I'm coming from this as a seminary student, so I tend to view things from a theological standpoint. The whole point of the Genesis creation account is that God was behind creation. It is a poetic prose that leaves open multitude of possibilites, including vast amounts of time to complete it. The real issue is time. What is time to God? A million years or 1 second is nothing to him. I find evolution wanting for other reasons not necessarily having to do with theology but with evidence they use to present it. Solid evidence exists for an old earth/universe, but I am unconvinced of evolution among the species.

Permit me to jump in here. I'm delighted to have a theologian in a thread such as this. Speaking only for myself, I agree with your (presumably) metaphorical interpretation of Genesis, and I applaud your acceptance of the evidence for an old earth and universe.

As for evolution, you say you are unconvinced. That's fine. No one demands unthinking obedience in this game. All that we (on the evolution side) ask is that the evidence be acknowledged, and that the theory of evolution be understood as a scientific attempt to explain that evidence.

[whattajoke]

Allow me to concur with everything my friend PatrickHenry just said.

However, let me add that you should be warned about some of your fellow christians (non of which are or were actual seminary students, mind you) who will undoubtedly condemn you for your admission that the Genesis account is no more than a lovely story. I won't name names, of course, but they'll find this thread soon enough.

Well, actually several have been banned recently and a couple others have opused outta here.

Peace.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Any Jesuits?

[Junior]

If a person cannot communicate lucidly, why should we consider the person capable of thinking in such a manner? Simply reading the "vanity" at the start of this thread is indicative the poster is cursed by mushy thinking. The precipitous decline in the education level of this country has resulted in "vanity" postings that, like this particular thread, are incapable of conveying complete, rational thoughts. I am not "superior" to anyone; I am capable of writing complete, sensible sentences, and in thinking through my points.

[PatrickHenry]

Any Jesuits?

I'd love to have someone in here with Jesuit training. Presumably, he would be in agreement with Galileo's approach to these things:

... I had the opportunity, with regard to Galileo, to draw attention to the need of a rigorous hermeneutic [hermeneutics: the study of the methodological principles of interpretation] for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences ...

Source: Message from the Pope, 1996.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I only had a few Jesuit professors. I think one for Ethics and another for Old Testament.

But I have Galileo's Daughter's letters at home...

[VadeRetro]

Actually, abiogenesis is a grave problem for evolutionary science, and one which makes the scientists look bad. The stuff about creating "Life in a flask" and such is so pure bulls--t, scientists lose credibility.

How are you reasoning this? Science simply models and investigates scenarios. What is wrong with doing this? How does investigating the so-far unknown hurt science's credibility?

It is creationists who are uncomfortable with this area of endeavor. To creationists, and not the general public, every aspect of it invokes religious horror, masked in mocking rejection. All ideas within the subject area, even principles already demonstrated in repeated experiments, are mocked as "Just-so Stories." Every experiment (no matter what the actual goal) is a failure because it didn't produce a living cell, or at least DNA. (For one thing, the earliest self-replicators almost certainly didn't have any DNA. For another, no one realistically expects a short lab experiment to fully recreate eons of parallel processing over some large part of the earth.)

These are not reasoned arguments. These are blanket condemnations, Catch-22 games, strawmen.

[js1138]

No, but I once stayed at a Holiday Inn.

[js1138]

For the sake of discussion, and because it really -is- a heck of a lot simpler, can we just go with the definitions as I presented them?

What you are really after is permission to engage in name calling. You want to pin labels on your debate opponents after they have politely declined to be labeled.

What is your point. You are not privy to the minds of other people, so stop trying to oversimplify what isn't simple. Try engaging in conversation rather than trying to score points.

[metacognative]

I'm rational..and I followed the evidence to the truth of the New Testament and falsity of the Darwinite Cult. Actually, It was the other way 'round back when I was gullible.

[js1138]

Blame Hegel & his vision of a grand historical process inexhorably working its way thru the world stage.

I know of no "ism" that causes mass imprisonment and execution without asserting some grandious,inevitable goal.

The ism that celebrates means rather than the end and process rather than product is capitalism -- which I thought was consistent with conservatism. And -- gasp -- evolution.

[js1138]

...but I am unconvinced of evolution among the species.

Remaining unconvinced is the attitude of a scientist. Scientists have hypotheses and defend them passionately, but occasionally have to bow to facts. It would be interesting if creationsts took to arguing facts rather than slandering other people's morals.

[dangus]

My complaint is not with the research, but the sensationalist hype with which they bypass peer review and go straight to the press, baiting the press with laughably misleading assertions.

Most members of the press probably believe that science has demonstrated sponataneous creation of DNA, for instance, which is very, very far from the truth. (In actuality all they did is create nucleotides. It's the difference between showing that monkeys have written Shakespeare, and showing that a monkey has hit a typewriter key.)

The scientists can tell their peers, "I didn't say anything untrue," while manipulating the ignorant press. Truly shameful. It's the biological equivalent of "cold fusion," only no-one came forth to denounce the fact that it never happened.

[dangus]

I'd be willing to recognize that some atheists don't consider nihilists to be atheists. Hitler was a nihilist. He most definitely did not believe in a Christian God, a Jewish God, or even a "higher power." The distinction is that between atheists who believe that there are zero gods, and nihilists who you might say believe that there are "i" gods. (as in -x^-2=i).

>> But hey, if you need to use falsehoods to prop up your worldview, go ahead.

I've at least had the respect to presume others on the list are incorrect, or holding misleading beliefs. I resent your assertion that I am a liar, and hold you in contempt. I will not discuss this further with you, since you are intolerant of people disagreeing with you.

[js1138]

Most members of the press probably believe that science has demonstrated sponataneous creation of DNA, for instance...

I wouldn't want to overestimate the intelligence of reporters, but I'd like to see some actual evidence of this -- a mainstream story that asserts this, for example.