RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants.

RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

tracydolls -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/6/2008 1:58:36 AM)
quote: And no wonder! Communists and Nazis were some of the most fanatical followers of Charles Darwin. Yes, Charles Darwin was also a racist who used the figleaf of "science' and his so-called 'scientific theories' to justify his racism. Nuff said. quote: Then what objective criteria should we judge scientific theories by? When is it appropriate for new theories to be taught in the 9th grade? when is racism an 'objective criteria" that we can judge "scientific theories by? I say take out race and then you will see the flaw within Evolution/Darwinism. If the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin. Charles Darwin English biologist (1809 - 1882) Who we're the poor in Darwin's time? Slaves, Africans. I have never had a evolutionist be able to explain this. this is my theory; let's take out race..ie black, white,etc. In the year 1798 Napolean Bonaparte starts a campaign into Egypt. what does he discover-Pyramids, gold masks, mummies, stange writings(heiylographics)? statues, reliefs. WOW! blows the mind! But these people are African! How are they older than us? They are the start of civilization as we know. How is this possible? Where have we been, why don't we know that we were not first. How was the kingdom able to come and go? They gave us medicine, science(imothep-mummification?), building Pyramids, civil order, etc. What is going on in US? Slavery. now 178 years it's been going on. Bonaparte at this time also loses Haiti to the slaves there. Tousante Overt? He is furious! So 2 of the biggest empires in the world, France and US and all the others Britain, Spain, Portugal, etc. have to come to the realization that they have enslaved AFricans-who built Pyramids, etc. They also have to tell the world what? about Egypt. (throw in racism) WE CANNOT tell them little monkeys they are ........I hate them....what about our money from slavery...it will start rebellion if they know............I will be damned if I let my 500 negros go....I got a crop to get in...(mix it with pride, self preservation, money) and... how do we explain that the word Egypt is in the Bible 558 times, the word egyptian 23 times? We say the Bible ain't true. Count de Volney :"Just think," de Volney declared incredulously, "that this race of Black men, today our slave and the object of our scorn, is the very race to which we owe our arts, sciences, and even the use of speech! Just imagine, finally, that it is in the midst of people (i.e., Americans) who call themselves the greatest friends of liberty and humanity that one has approved the most barbarous slavery, and questioned whether Black men have the same kind of intelligence as whites!" http://www.freemaninstitute.com/sphinx.htm It is around the time the confusion started, Darwin contributed to that. I think in the end, even Darwin was agnostic in his thinking, if not completely a believer by the time he left us. My grandmother would say"he was not a complete fool, he did'nt go from the cradle to the grave one.

jtshafer -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/6/2008 8:11:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 quote: ORIGINAL: Boofhead quote: sources? http://www.google.com That is an excellent website that has a wealth of information at your finger tips. Honestly, what 'sources' do you wish for someone to put up? Rain falls after clouds become heavily saturated with water vapour to the point that gravity starts becoming a driving factor. The colour of the sky is blue. Do you wish for sources on these also? It could be wrong, but it is well known. I am guessing by these type of replies, one is only trying to find a lever to discredit the author of the OP by scrutinising the information provided. You do know that Hitler was a Christian, and believed he was acting "in the name of God", when he started all that madness, right? Through Christianity and the Christian German population, he was able to create a climate of extreme anti-semitism. So you could really say Hitler and the Nazi's were also followers of Christ. That would be about as accurate as saying they were followers of "Darwin". If your going to condemn Darwinism then you better get busy condemning Christianity in this case as well. As anyone can tell you, Hitler's view of Darwinism, if indeed thats where any of his ideas came from, were as warped and twisted as his views of Christianity, which he abused to no end. But go ahead... blame the belief system and the science instead of blaming the man behind it all. I cannot bielive that any rational student of history could make the statement that Hitler was christian. Hitler used whatever was convenient to further along his self serving ideology. He took from the Bible, ancient Germanic religion, witchcraft, philosophy and many other sources. To be a christian is to be " Christ like", Hitler was a Nazi. Nazism was an ideolgy, a political movement to promote German Nationalism and his own rise to power among other things. To be a Chritian is to deni yourself and to become more like Christ! Hitler was a pagan, a drug addict and a physcopath. The Nazis would elevate whatever furthered thier agenda and would hunt down and destroy who or whatever they precieved to get in the way of thier quest for power. Some people say that Hitler was "Satan Incarnate!!!", but I think we give satan too much credit sometimes. I believe Hitler is a prime example of man living " the way that seems right to him" and not under God's Law! I do believe that demonic influences are all around and that these influences do seduce us, but it is our decision to resist or secume. I believe people have a right to thier opion, but you made your statement as a point of fact. Any rational person who has studied this point in our history would have to agree," Hitler was no Christian".

PromiseLander -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/6/2008 8:34:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Friend, with all the sincerity that I posses, and with no ill intent I am compelled to ask you what you make of the creation story in Genesis? God truely did tell us that He created everything according to its "kind," and that man was created "in the image of God." This can be read from the Hebrew texts as plainly as we read in the various English texts that we have - I know this because I've done it. Is this the Word of God to us? Or must we read "what he meant to say" into this? Metaphores are one thing, but even a metaphorical interpretation of the creation story cannot yield evolution. Once again, how do you take it to mean? I think the creation stories in Genesis are best understood as a monotheistic response to the pagan culture that surrounded Israel and which often tempted them into worshipping other gods. The first text is a magnificently-crafted quasi-poetic work which uses the categories familiar from pagan mythology and subverts the pagan message by turning it upside-down. (I can go into detail if you like). The second text presents an etiological story explaining human alienation from God i.e. a symbolic narrative about the origin of the distance between humanity and the Creator. Neither is history, but the truths they present about the Creator, about the nature of creation, about the nature of humanity both as created and as fallen away from God are all well conveyed by the story form. No interpretation of scripture can "yield" evolution. Just as no interpretation of scripture can "yield" quantum mechanics. Inserting modern science into scripture is always an error whether one does it supposedly in support of evolution or supposedly in support of creationism. No, I don't need you to go into detail, I'm a theologian myself - I know the parallels that are often drawn by folks. But I also see the danger in stating that it is just a story told to relate to a people that have lived within captivity in a pagan culture. Keep a couple things in mind, although they lived in an Egyptian society for 400 years (which was foretold to them), they were still God's people - they were still familiar with God's promises and His nature; if all the people were totally ignorant of the God of Jacob, then Moses' family would have known nothing of God and we likely wouldn't even have the Torah. Also, keep in mind that Moses set up a tent for the sole purpose of speaking with the bodily form of God - we are told that Moses spoke with God as a man speaks with his friend. Knowing God's nature, and knowing that God is not the God of confusion, it is inconceivable that God could have allowed a story to be told about creation, or any other subject for that matter, that would be misleading about His nature. If we say that the story of creation is not how it truely happened, then we risk saying "God did not really mean it when He said..."

unclemonkey -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/6/2008 9:39:02 AM)
ORIGINAL:swan42 quote: Yes, 1dblthnk02, this is a good example. If the Apocalypse of Peter was "God-breathed" at one time in the past, then humanity has done a poor job at recording and preserving God's word. You seem to be confused. Preserving God’s word is God’s responsibility. Also the Apocalypse of Peter is a Gnostic book. “GNOSTICISM IS THE TEACHING based on Gnosis, the knowledge of transcendence arrived at by way of interior, intuitive means.” - http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/gnintro.htm (emphasis mine) IOW, Gnostics are not Christian. That, to me anyway, is good reason for rejecting the possibility that any Gnostic book is God inspired.

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/6/2008 9:59:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tracydolls I say take out race and then you will see the flaw within Evolution/Darwinism. What are you saying? It was "Evolution/Darwinism" that took out race by showing us that there are no separate races of humans, just phenotypes. quote: I have never had a evolutionist be able to explain this. Explain what? Slavery in the U.S. was dissolved just six years after the first publication of The Origin of Species. quote: this is my theory; let's take out race..ie black, white,etc. This is also the theory of evolution. quote: We say the Bible ain't true. Who says? What really happened is that Christian slave-owners began to interpret the bible as condoning slavery and white mastery over other "races." quote: I think in the end, even Darwin was agnostic in his thinking, if not completely a believer by the time he left us. Not according to his daughter's journals.

Jhud -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/6/2008 10:11:52 AM)
quote: Yes, 1dblthnk02, this is a good example. Not only did the Apocalypse of Peter diverge into two distinctly separate versions in different languages, and both versions that survive today are incomplete. If the Apocalypse of Peter was "God-breathed" at one time in the past, then humanity has done a poor job at recording and preserving God's word. The counter-argument obviously is that God's word survives time, therefore the Apocalypse of Peter is not "God-breathed". The counter-argument is logically self-consistent, but also meaningless outside the domain of theology. In either case, scripture that has survived complete and intact has a higher chance being determined by church fathers as being God-breathed _or_ / scripture that was determined by church fathers as being God-breathed necessarily survives complete and intact. In a war (of ideas) the victor writes the history books. Well, not really the whole picture. Obviously it begins with the authority of Christ, as demonstrated by His words, acts, death and resurrection. It proceeds from there to the commissioning of certain followers, who through their proximity to the events, and recognition by Christ, and empowerment by the Holy Spirit, have the authority to speak and write in way that forms the foundation of Christian teaching. Those teachings are tested in a few different ways; the reliability by which their authorship can be established, the consistency with other confirmed teachings, the completeness of the writings in question. Indeed, the preservation itself is a product of their initial authority and beneficial application within early Christian communities who were closest to the events, communities that ensured that the teachings would be faithfully recorded and passed on. And of course it relies on the agreement of early Church leaders that had themselves maintained a body of knowledge passed on through the organ of the church. So the inspiration of writings isn't something that is gained or lost, it is something that is recognized in the final evaluation.

jtshafer -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/6/2008 10:42:52 AM)
quote: nescience quote: ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02 quote: ORIGINAL: jbow Again, the idea that only a scientist and criticize a scientist is completely weird. It is a way to avoid discussion. It is like saying that only a chef can criticize another chefs cooking. It is foolishness. That's funny: I was just told in another thread that only a scientist can support that there is global warming, and that none do. Now that's weird. quote: I am really glad that Ben has done something to bring the farse of evolution and the tactics of evolutionists into the light. But he didn't. He made ersatz martyrs out of a handful of teachers who were dismissed because of their inadequate work, not because of their personal beliefs. quote: All of evolution theory is based solely on assumptions, it is a faith based system that is in place because men do not want t acknowledge their creator, the Lord Jesus. Evolution sceince is completely flawed. It is arduous to reason with this level of nescience. You are not just misguided; you are 100% wrong. quote: Evolutionary scientists supress the truth in unrighteousness. They consistantly throw out test results that do not support their assumptions that the universe is billions of years old because they are obviously erronious... this is science? Wrong. If they actually did this, the theory would not have gone through the last 150 years of refining and reproving that is has gone through (which is not based on the age of the universe, btw). quote: NASA did this years ago when they dated the moon rocks. First they said that they were 4 to 4.5 billion years old then a few years later they published that the rocks were 3 to 5.5 billion years old. The oldest rocks were dated at 4.5 billion, while newer rocks dated as late as 3.16 billion. So what? And what does any of this have to do with "Expelled?" quote: Mt. Saint Helens... in eleven years after the eruption 600' of strata formed. Of course geologists have taught that this takes hundreds of thousands of years, but it took eleven. It takes relatively little time for strata to layer itself out, but it takes far more time for compacted limestone to form. quote: There were trees deposited in Spirit lake, roots down, at different levels just like petrified forests on other places that "science" tells us are millions of years old Again, none have yet compacted into limestone. quote: ... but there they are in Spirit lake randomly placed, like a forest. Some are buried in the sediment up their trunks and some just a few feet. Spirit lake is showing a fossil forest in production and it is happening very fast. No it isn't. No limestone, no petrification. What is your point? quote: Science based on assumptions is not science... Well, at least we agree on this one point. However, I must point out that your belief in the bible over hard science is based entirely on assumptions as well. But, faith isn't a science, so you're okay. quote: That is the problem with evolutionary science, it is not provable, it is not science, it is a faith based system of assumptions. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. But thanks for playing. I have read this post carefully and would like to post this comment for the sake of rational thought from a Christian point of view. You cannot reconcile Modern science with the Christian faith, for they are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Science is a search for truth based on knowledge, proven out through methodology and how we understand the results of that methodolgy at a certain point in time. As our knowledge increases our understanding of science evolves and changes by degrees until we reach a point of scientific fact. Scientific facts are absolutes that change as our understanding changes and a look back through history tells us that scientific fact is in a propetuel fluid state. At the other end of the spectrum is Christian faith. Christian faith is truth based on the belief that Jesus Christ is God and you cannot prove that in a labrotory with any test. Science is intellectual, Christian faith is spiritual and i dont believe the two will meet until the day of Christ's return. This world is in a fallen state and a study of this fallen world will yield at best half truths. I stand here a Christian today, not because of physical proof of God, but because God called me through the Holy Spirit to a life of service. I am not approved by science, but by God through the Holy Spirit and I trust that to be an unchanging absolute. I trust him beyond where I cannot see to be rightous and just. That is an unshakeable absolute that my trust in him is founded on. True faith in Jesus Christ is not fluid, it is a rock that Christians base thier lifes on. The war is between what is known and what is believed. If science is fluid and faith is solid ( or vice versa, depends on your point of view ) how can they be reconciled? For them to be reconciled, one or both would have to change there state and therefore the change would make them something different than what they are. They would cease to be science and faith, thier differences would have to be compromised and they would be only symbalance of thier original selfs. I believe the only time the two will meet and be perfectly contiguous, is when Christ returns and sets all creation to its original state (" before the fall" ). At that time truth will permeate the spiritual and the physical. I know this is alot to get your mind around, but I would like to have honest debate with the issues I brought up. This is an opinion on science and faith and I would like to know yours.

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/6/2008 11:25:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jtshafer I know this is alot to get your mind around, but I would like to have honest debate with the issues I brought up. This is an opinion on science and faith and I would like to know yours. Well, for starters I agree that science and a fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2 are irreconcilable. Empirical evidence does not support fundamentalist creationism. As for your religious views, they are not subject to debate. Your subjective experience of God is not something with which I care to take issue.

gluadys -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/6/2008 1:29:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tracydolls I have never had a evolutionist be able to explain this. this is my theory; let's take out race..ie black, white,etc. Are you aware that evolution HAS taken race out? Evolution has confirmed that all people everywhere are one species, from one source, and that the original source of all humans is Africa. It has also shown that there are no human "races". Darwin himself would be astonished by that, for he still thought in terms of Africans being a "lower" race than Europeans (though he did oppose slavery). It is important to remember that evolution today is not even what Darwin thought it was. There is no place for race in a modern evolutionary understanding of human origins.

gluadys -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/6/2008 1:35:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jtshafer I have read this post carefully and would like to post this comment for the sake of rational thought from a Christian point of view. You cannot reconcile Modern science with the Christian faith, for they are at opposite ends of the spectrum. I think it depends on what spectrum one is looking at. If you mean that modern science is not found anywhere in the bible, I agree. If you mean that faith is not based on scientifically verifiable evidence, I agree. If you mean that a Christian cannot accept the validity of modern science, I disagree.

gluadys -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/6/2008 1:48:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander No, I don't need you to go into detail, I'm a theologian myself - I know the parallels that are often drawn by folks. But I also see the danger in stating that it is just a story told to relate to a people that have lived within captivity in a pagan culture. Keep a couple things in mind, although they lived in an Egyptian society for 400 years (which was foretold to them), they were still God's people - they were still familiar with God's promises and His nature; if all the people were totally ignorant of the God of Jacob, then Moses' family would have known nothing of God and we likely wouldn't even have the Torah. Also, keep in mind that Moses set up a tent for the sole purpose of speaking with the bodily form of God - we are told that Moses spoke with God as a man speaks with his friend. Knowing God's nature, and knowing that God is not the God of confusion, it is inconceivable that God could have allowed a story to be told about creation, or any other subject for that matter, that would be misleading about His nature. If we say that the story of creation is not how it truely happened, then we risk saying "God did not really mean it when He said..." It seems that you are attributing a lot of things, either to me personally, or to this type of interpretation generally, that is not warranted. Let's begin with the phrase "just a story". I so often see it. Is that not a demeaning way to refer to a story? Does it not imply that a story---because it is a story--is worthless? How about looking at "story" in a more positive frame of thought? Second, I did not say that the people had forgotten their history. I said that pagan culture was a constant temptation. And the very existence of the prophetic condemnations of idolatry confirm that it was. Third, the interpretation of Genesis I offered is not misleading about God's nature and I don't know where you dredge that up from. It presents God as the sole Creator, as a Creator of everything, as a Creator in full command of the universe who does not (as Baal or Marduk) have to do battle with and defeat the forces of chaos before creation is possible, who creates an ordered cosmos in an orderly fashion, who creates humanity in the divine image and gives the dominion of the earth into their hand, and who declares the whole of creation to be very good. Would you not agree that this is how it truly happened?

swan42 -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/6/2008 2:35:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey ORIGINAL:swan42 quote: Yes, 1dblthnk02, this is a good example. If the Apocalypse of Peter was "God-breathed" at one time in the past, then humanity has done a poor job at recording and preserving God's word. You seem to be confused. Preserving God’s word is God’s responsibility. Your counter-argument is completely true all by itself. Since the Apocalypse of Peter did not survive intact, it must not be God's word. The logical problem with this completely self-true conclusion is that it is very similar to how we used to determine if 17th century woman was a witch. It is very difficult to use theological tools and logical deductive methods at the same time. P.S. The Apocalypse of Peter is not the same thing as the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, they are completely different documents written more than 100 years apart.

PromiseLander -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/6/2008 2:39:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander No, I don't need you to go into detail, I'm a theologian myself - I know the parallels that are often drawn by folks. But I also see the danger in stating that it is just a story told to relate to a people that have lived within captivity in a pagan culture. Keep a couple things in mind, although they lived in an Egyptian society for 400 years (which was foretold to them), they were still God's people - they were still familiar with God's promises and His nature; if all the people were totally ignorant of the God of Jacob, then Moses' family would have known nothing of God and we likely wouldn't even have the Torah. Also, keep in mind that Moses set up a tent for the sole purpose of speaking with the bodily form of God - we are told that Moses spoke with God as a man speaks with his friend. Knowing God's nature, and knowing that God is not the God of confusion, it is inconceivable that God could have allowed a story to be told about creation, or any other subject for that matter, that would be misleading about His nature. If we say that the story of creation is not how it truely happened, then we risk saying "God did not really mean it when He said..." It seems that you are attributing a lot of things, either to me personally, or to this type of interpretation generally, that is not warranted. Let's begin with the phrase "just a story". I so often see it. Is that not a demeaning way to refer to a story? Does it not imply that a story---because it is a story--is worthless? How about looking at "story" in a more positive frame of thought? Second, I did not say that the people had forgotten their history. I said that pagan culture was a constant temptation. And the very existence of the prophetic condemnations of idolatry confirm that it was. Third, the interpretation of Genesis I offered is not misleading about God's nature and I don't know where you dredge that up from. It presents God as the sole Creator, as a Creator of everything, as a Creator in full command of the universe who does not (as Baal or Marduk) have to do battle with and defeat the forces of chaos before creation is possible, who creates an ordered cosmos in an orderly fashion, who creates humanity in the divine image and gives the dominion of the earth into their hand, and who declares the whole of creation to be very good. Would you not agree that this is how it truly happened? Well, I never said that the story in Genesis as written was misleading about God's nature - what I said was that if we choose to view the creation story as just a mere story or a metaphore, then we risk being misled about God's nature. We do this because now we can no longer say that God is not the God of confusion, because He couldn't have meant what he said. OK, look, rather than bickering about how you or I interpret the Bible, and getting our hackles up and pitching hissies, let's look to Scripture to interpret Scripture. Is that fair enough? Romans 4:17 17 as it is written, "A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOU" in the presence of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist. (emphasis added) The last part there notes Paul's assertion of special creation, not evolution or the like. Now, I can continue and write literally hundreds of individual references to special creation throughout the Bible, but for space, I've chosen just the one. If you wish more references, I will write them. My point is: If the prophets of old believed in special creation, if the very apostles of the Christ believed in special creation, shouldn't we?

tracydolls -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/6/2008 3:01:07 PM)
quote: Explain what? the mass cover-up. By scientists and others about what was found. How do you go tell slaves after 100's of years of telling them they ain't worth nothing but what master say he worth. That they are the starters of civilization. quote: Slavery in the U.S. was dissolved just six years after the first publication of The Origin of Species. Darwin contributed to evolution. He wrote his FIRST book. Voyage of the Beagle" in 1839. He went on the actual voyage in 1831 Again, Darwin contributed to the cover up of what they found. quote: Who says? What really happened is that Christian slave-owners began to interpret the bible as condoning slavery and white mastery over other "races." Who is the Europeans. England, Spain, France, etc. They claimed Christianity. It does have slavery in the Bible. Just doesnt have it just "white" one "race" against another... The Egyptians had the Israelites as slaves. For 400 years. Moses led them out. That's true. quote: Not according to his daughter's journals. Charles Darwin ""I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."" His notes which were published by son and grandaughter. http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm

tracydolls -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/6/2008 3:34:59 PM)
quote: Are you aware that evolution HAS taken race out? Evolution has confirmed that all people everywhere are one species, from one source, and that the original source of all humans is Africa. It has also shown that there are no human "races". not evolution, it is different from DNA studies. that's what proved that. We did'nt evolve, G-D made us in His Image. DNA has proven for those skeptic scientists who maybe thought the Leakeys were not right. quote: Darwin himself would be astonished by that, for he still thought in terms of Africans being a "lower" race than Europeans (though he did oppose slavery ). After the "finding" of Egypt, I don't know how he could have kept fooling hisself. I think he knew better and pride did'nt want to admit it. quote: It is important to remember that evolution today is not even what Darwin thought it was. No it is not, all those theories have been found to be junk, alot of them! Like the one the said Africans are from a lower race. quote: There is no place for race in a modern evolutionary understanding of human origins. Not Now, of course, Not after is has been proven that Africa is where humans originated. Until very recently Scientists were trying to say it is not so. Remember Mary Leflowitz book, NOT out of Africa. a counter arguement to "Black Althea, written by Martin Bernard? A white linguist, who seen so many language connections between Greek, Egypt, he wrote a book, did a study, that was in the 1990's When C. Diop a African scientist tryed in the '50's to say we originated in Africa. Whew, you should go look at the backlash. You can still view the written thrown together theories that try to counter him. Remember Bell Curve? But thank G-D, all that mess is over. The more interesting studies I have been following are these ones.... ""Scientists said yesterday that they have discovered a tiny genetic mutation that largely explains the first appearance of white skin"" ""The work suggests that the skin-whitening mutation occurred by chance in a single individual after the first human exodus from Africa, when all people were brown-skinned. That person's offspring apparently thrived as humans moved northward into what is now Europe, helping to give rise to the lightest of the world's races."""" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501728_pf.html My theory is based here in the Bible; Num 12:10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous. It did not occur by chance in one single indivual. Many people had leprosy in the Bible. We know where it comes from. the gene is going to be traced back to albinos, luecitism, a form of leprosy. Rome called them Europeans; albinions, the name of Europe used to be Albinion, the word alba means white, which mean leper. Look it up.

Method -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/6/2008 3:50:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tracydolls My theory is based here in the Bible; Num 12:10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous. It did not occur by chance in one single indivual. Many people had leprosy in the Bible. We know where it comes from. Leprosy is an infectious disease, not a heritable trait. Leprosy did not cause a mutation in the genes which control melanin production. We know what causes people to be white, and it isn't leprosy.

gluadys -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/6/2008 3:57:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Well, I never said that the story in Genesis as written was misleading about God's nature - what I said was that if we choose to view the creation story as just a mere story or a metaphore, then we risk being misled about God's nature. If the story is not misleading, how does viewing it as a story make it misleading? The story is the story. It has not changed. It says the same thing. And again what is it with all this pejorative language about story? Why do you refer to not to "story" but to "just a mere story"? Does not all this extra language suggest that a story, simply by the fact of being a story, has no value? What does that say about Jesus' stories? Why would a story inspired by God be of no value because it is a story? quote: Romans 4:17 17 as it is written, "A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOU" in the presence of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist. (emphasis added) The last part there notes Paul's assertion of special creation, not evolution or the like. No it doesn't. It speaks of creation. It does not assert that every species was a separate creation. Naturally Paul is not asserting evolution. But this does not constitute a denial of evolution either. quote: My point is: If the prophets of old believed in special creation, if the very apostles of the Christ believed in special creation, shouldn't we? By that logic we should also believe the sun, the stars and all the planets move round the earth and the heavens are a firmament hard as brass. That is what the prophets and apostles believed. Why don't we?

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/6/2008 3:57:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tracydolls the mass cover-up. By scientists and others about what was found. If there was a "mass cover-up," then it was by the slave owners and slave traders justifying their actions via a skewed interpretation of the bible. quote: Again, Darwin contributed to the cover up of what they found. Unsubstantiated garbage. quote: The Egyptians had the Israelites as slaves. For 400 years. Moses led them out. That's true. However, there is a general lack of any conclusive empirical evidence that any of it happened, including the Egyptian slavery of Semites exclusively or at all. quote: His notes which were published by son and grandaughter. You raised the question of whether or not he became a "believer" by the end of his life: "I think in the end, even Darwin was agnostic in his thinking, if not completely a believer by the time he left us." He was not-- at least, not as far as his daughter knew. quote: not evolution, it is different from DNA studies. that's what proved that. No. "DNA studies," i.e. genetics is a branch of biology which is founded upon the theory of evolution. They are not separate fields. quote: Like the one the said Africans are from a lower race. This is not part of the theory of evolution. You are misguided and mistaken.

gluadys -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/6/2008 4:15:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tracydolls After the "finding" of Egypt, I don't know how he could have kept fooling hisself. I think he knew better and pride did'nt want to admit it. He was no different from most Victorian gentlemen in that respect. quote: When C. Diop a African scientist tryed in the '50's to say we originated in Africa. Whew, you should go look at the backlash. You can still view the written thrown together theories that try to counter him. Are you aware that Darwin said the same thing in Descent of Man in 1871? No white scientist wanted to believe it then either. And, of course, the clergy said that contradicted the bible, which set the creation of Adam in Mesopotamia. quote: Rome called them Europeans; albinions, the name of Europe used to be Albinion, the word alba means white, which mean leper. I think you are a bit confused. Albion is an ancient name for Britain, not for all of Europe.

PromiseLander -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/6/2008 4:43:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Well, I never said that the story in Genesis as written was misleading about God's nature - what I said was that if we choose to view the creation story as just a mere story or a metaphore, then we risk being misled about God's nature. If the story is not misleading, how does viewing it as a story make it misleading? The story is the story. It has not changed. It says the same thing. And again what is it with all this pejorative language about story? Why do you refer to not to "story" but to "just a mere story"? Does not all this extra language suggest that a story, simply by the fact of being a story, has no value? What does that say about Jesus' stories? Why would a story inspired by God be of no value because it is a story? quote: Romans 4:17 17 as it is written, "A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOU" in the presence of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist. (emphasis added) The last part there notes Paul's assertion of special creation, not evolution or the like. No it doesn't. It speaks of creation. It does not assert that every species was a separate creation. Naturally Paul is not asserting evolution. But this does not constitute a denial of evolution either. quote: My point is: If the prophets of old believed in special creation, if the very apostles of the Christ believed in special creation, shouldn't we? By that logic we should also believe the sun, the stars and all the planets move round the earth and the heavens are a firmament hard as brass. That is what the prophets and apostles believed. Why don't we? OK, here's more Biblical references to creation - not evolution... John 1:3 - "All things were made by him and without him was not anything made that was made." John 1:10 - "The world became through Him." Col. 1:16 - "for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him" Revelation 4:11 - "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou has created all things and for thy pleasure they are and were created." Romans 1:20 - "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead so that they are without excuse." Hebrews 11:3 - "was formed by a word of God so that we understand that what became or came into existence, or is seen, was not from things appearing." Psalm 33:6 and 9 - "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth . . . for he spoke and it was done; he commanded and it stood fast" And I could go on, and on. The one word "creation" keeps being repeated. Nary a hint of anything like evolution is mentioned in Scripture. Do not be angry with me, rather, if you have a problem with the teachings within the Bible, then your argument is with God, take it up with Him.

tracydolls -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/6/2008 5:11:07 PM)
quote: Leprosy is an infectious disease, not a heritable trait. Leprosy did not cause a mutation in the genes which control melanin production. We know what causes people to be white, and it isn't leprosy. Well according to Wiki we know the leprosy in the bible is not "the disease you speak of" Contrary to popular conception leprosy does not cause body parts to simply fall off, and it differs from tzaraath, the malady described in the Hebrew scriptures and previously translated into English as leprosy. Several of the symptoms mentioned by the biblical text are inconsistent with tzaraath being leprosy, and additionally, the most obvious features of leprosy - the strong disfigurement of the face due to its swelling, and the rotting of limbs - are unmentioned in the description of tzaraath. The Talmud, and the majority of historic Jewish literature in general, regards tzaraath as a punishment for sin; it lists seven possible causes for tzaraath

Method -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/6/2008 5:18:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tracydolls Well according to Wiki we know the leprosy in the bible is not "the disease you speak of" Contrary to popular conception leprosy does not cause body parts to simply fall off, and it differs from tzaraath, the malady described in the Hebrew scriptures and previously translated into English as leprosy. Here is what wiki had to say. The priestly code specifies three different manifestations of tzaraath in the skin: Whitening of the skin over the whole body with sores[9]. Spreading of sores, swellings which are white, or spots which are reddish-white[10][11][12]. *Patches on the skin which are clearly suffering from subcutaneous disease, where the hair has turned white, and which contain sores, swellings which are white, or spots which are reddish-white[13][14][15][16]. Last I checked, I don't have sores associate with my white skin. The leprosy mentioned in the bible is clearly a disease, not just the whitening of skin. The whiteness is clearly described as patchy, not continuous. I have seen no mention that the leprosy or tzaraath was heritable.

tracydolls -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/6/2008 5:20:39 PM)
quote: If there was a "mass cover-up," then it was by the slave owners and slave traders justifying their actions via a skewed interpretation of the bible. who were who, scientists, Christians, etc. Leaders, kings, queens, you think Bonaparte wanted it out there. Darwin contributed to it. quote: However, there is a general lack of any conclusive empirical evidence that any of it happened, including the Egyptian slavery of Semites exclusively or at all. Then I think you should do a study of Egyptian writings. quote: You raised the question of whether or not he became a "believer" by the end of his life: "I think in the end, even Darwin was agnostic in his thinking, if not completely a believer by the time he left us." He was not-- at least, not as far as his daughter knew. but not according to his own writings, I would suggest you read link I posted. In it he talks about G_D. quote: No. "DNA studies," i.e. genetics is a branch of biology which is founded upon the theory of evolution. They are not separate fields. Oh wouldnt you love that to be true! genetics is a branch of biology of science!!! quote: This is not part of the theory of evolution. You are misguided and mistaken. Africans being from the lower races, is not a theory of evolution or was once upon a time? Sounds like a distorted version of Evolution. Like how the Noi is supposed to be Islam.

tracydolls -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/6/2008 5:22:40 PM)
quote: The leprosy mentioned in the bible is clearly a disease, not just the whitening of skin. The whiteness is clearly described as patchy, not continuous. I have seen no mention that the leprosy or tzaraath was heritable. t he bible does not say it is heritable. Cannot go from parent to child, G_D does it. Num 12:10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous.

tracydolls -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/6/2008 5:30:08 PM)
quote: He was no different from most Victorian gentlemen in that respect. sounds like such a nice name for him. quote: Are you aware that Darwin said the same thing in Descent of Man in 1871? No white scientist wanted to believe it then either. And, of course, the clergy said that contradicted the bible, which set the creation of Adam in Mesopotamia. Wrong, Tanzania is what the DNA says. quote: I think you are a bit confused. Albion is an ancient name for Britain, not for all of Europe. I have seen lots of websites say, they Scotland, Britian, north of Spain. I would suggest you read the Romans writings etc. When they "discovered" Europeans! they can be found at the Guttenberg project, which has most ancients texts translated free.[;)]

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI