Home - List All Discussions

Creationists, you'll love this one

by: boburhed

Just wanted to give you some food for thought.
Many creationists challenge the notion that humans evolved from aquatic beings to land mammals.
I point to the evidence of human gestation to re-inforce the likelihood that we DID in fact evolve fromsea-creatures.
WE are sea creatures that evolve to land mammals to this day.
The sperm is practically a tadpole. The similarity isn't just eerie, it's telling of our link to a distant past.
The egg also lives in salty fluid.
The embryo and fetus live in a warm tropical ocean for 9 months before being thrust out of that original natural environment.
We are naturally aquatic, before we grow into air-breathing beings.
I propose that this process mimics the flow of the evolution of the race. You can deny it and tell me that there is no proof, but deep down, you know I'm making a good point.
When you look at pictures of embryos before they start to look human, they definitely look more like sea creatures.
Why is it so hard to imagine that we may have come from the ocean when our present-day gestation process involves an internalized ocean. We can't be born healthy without first living in an ocean for 9 months.
Thanks,
Have a nice day!

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

Why do evolutionists ignore the scientific evidence? There is no evidence of a gradual evolutionary process, there are no transitional form. The fossil record shows new life forms suddenly appearing in the fossil record, fully formed, without transitional forms. The fossil record has disproved evolution.
How do evolutionists explain away the concept of irreducible complexity. Organs must have all components working in harmony before the organ works or benefits the organism at all. A mouse trap must have a base, spring, trap, and arm to work. To be missing one of the four components does not mean the trap will work 75% effectively, it will not work at all! What good is half a wing, or a partially formed eye that will get the missing ingredients to make it work later? These items are dead weight, and detrimental to the organism's survival! Do you claim all these items come together suddenly, in one big accident, like a tornado putting together a fully functioning 747 airplane from a junkyard?
Whoever believes all the complexity, organization and design came together as a series of accidents must be lacking in the thinking department.

reply from: BKennedy4Life

Wasn't the "Humans go through every stage of the evolutionary process while developing in the womb" theory debunked a LONG time ago?
A Sperm has zilch in common with a tadpole. Tadpoles are multi-celled organism while a sperm can hardly be called a true organism at all. Tadpoles do not have flagella, their tail is composed of many seperate cells that operate similarly. It would be like saying a jet and a dolphin are similar because if you look at their silouhettes after matching their size they look similar.
Don't you have a Missing Lynx to chase after?

reply from: AshMarie88

Darwinism and Evolution have been proved false many, many, many times before.
We're humans, we've always been humans. We couldn't change from non-human to human, it's physically and scientifically impossible. Biology anyone?

reply from: BKennedy4Life

Please tell me than all these supposed "transitions" wern't just build-ups of fossils from pigs teeth concernedparent. No-one has proven macroevolution and we've been studying the fossil record for decades. You can put up 10 pictures of differet sized dog skeletons and say one evolved from the other.
Again, don't you have a Missing Lynx to chase after?

reply from: coco

not trying to be like this but everyone knows on here that the chance you will change someones mind on this subject is zilch so why do people even try?

reply from: coco

are you a scientologist?? Dont they believe that people came from a clam or something like that??

reply from: boburhed

Hi everybody,
It's great to see interest in this post. Even better to see there is at least one person on this site who understands that evolution is real and not to be feared.
I wouldn't contend that humans go through every stage of evolution in the womb. I just think it's interesting to pose these thoughts to people who don't understand evolution. I also wouldn't contend that a sperm is a tadpole. I was just pointing out that our origins are aquatic. I wanted those who think it's rediculous that humans could have come out of the water to rethink it and realize that we all come out of the water.
To the person who said humans have always been humans, you are primarily the person I was addressing with the post in the first place. I'm glad you took interest. Please read on.
I agree with Coco that changing people's minds is difficult, but someone convinced people that man was made from mud and I think it's important to re-educate this segment of the population. Once we get this difficult task taken care of, perhaps we could look forward to something like ending hunger or perhaps world peace.
I'm not a scientologist Coco. Are you? I hope not for your sake.
Thankfully, Concernedparent has stood as the sole voice of reason here. Take notes everybody!
Evolution has never been debunked. Thank the lord for that!
Every creationist argument that has ever been used to try to thwart evolution was either too rediculous to be considered or easily refuted. Most of them were refuted back in the 1970s.
For those that have faith conflicts, I reccomend that you consider evolution to be God's mechanism for bringing human kind about from lesser organisms. It's certainly no less miraculous or believable than making a man out of mud or a woman out of a rib.
There are no universally accepted scientific explanations for how life began. That is not what evolution is about. Evolution is about how (living) things change over time under different environmental conditions.
Also, the fact that it is a theory seems to confuse people. In the world of science, a postulated idea can not make it to the level of "theory" until it has passed rigorous testing or scrutiny that eliminates any doubt about the truth of the idea.
That is why Intelligent Design can not even be considered a theory. It can not be tested and therefore can not be proven. Evolution can and has been. Without it, we wouldn't understand disease, the other animals or our own species.
Intelligent Design might be true, but it is equally as plausible that life was produced by a cloud of magical flatulence. Neither can be tested. Neither can attain the status of evolution as a theory.
Evolutionism (I noticed a few references to it in the posts) is something that doesn't really exist as far as I know. People who believe that evolution is real are simply rational people who understand logical arguments. They are not evolutionists.
Creationism is the idea that life was created by a higher power. Evolutionism would be the theory that life came out of non-living matter. I think you will be hard pressed to find anyone who believes this is likely.
Science holds that the beginning of life is an open question. Evolution is only about change.
Please educate yourself on the topic and come back.
Be aware that any anti-evolution arguments you can find on the web have already been thoroughly debunked. You will have to go elsewhere or perhaps invent your own argument. Make sure it's not already out there.
Have fun!
Bob Urhed

reply from: coco

no I am NOT one of those people, not that they are bad or anything I just dont believe in their belief ideals, anyway as for myself I believe in a higherpower but you CANNOT ignore the science facts that evolution has uncovered. You MAY change a few , if your lucky, but that is it. Some subjects such as abortion and evolution is ALMOST impossible to change simply because some are closed mind and afraid of change. but I see your point, BTW I think they believe that we cam from a clam.

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

Bob, if a scientific theory has passed rigorous testing and scrutiny to remove all doubt it is no longer a theory (an unproven hypothesis), it is a law of science. One scientific law says life can come only from prexisting life, this is a law that the theory of evolution contradicts. Evolution fails to address how life arose; a question which must be adequately answered.
Have fun, indeed! I was humored by your outrageous statements.
Evolutionists have rational logical thinking arguments? Such as; I'm here because a rock evolved into the human species over millions of years of fortunate accidents? That sounds like a cloud of magical flatulence to me.

reply from: fetalisa

HAHA! So you think a scientific theory is 'an unproven hypotheses?' HAHA! Ok, sure guy. Gravity, like evolution, is an unproven hypothesis! HAHAHAHA!
Yet gravity is not a law, but is a theory, no different than evolution.
What 'law' would that be? Can you give the name of this law? Or is this another theory (unproven hypothesis) you have pulled from your behind?
You poor ignorant fool! Had you bothered to even read just the title of Darwin's work, "On the Origin of SPECIES,' you would know evolution does not now, nor has it ever claimed, to address the origins of LIFE, but instead addresses the origins of SPECIES, exactly as the title of Darwin's work states. Evolution can not possibly contradict this scientific law you cite, which you claim states "life comes from preexisting life." Evolution does not address the origins of LIFE, but instead addresses the origins of SPECIES. No wonder you dont' believe evolution. You are far too ignorant on the subject to even be qualified to form an opinion on it.
That's like saying the theory of gravity doesn't address biology. Why would evolution address something it does not concern itself with at all? Here's some hints to help you cop a ride on the cluetrain;
1. Evolution - addresses the origins of SPECIES
2. Abiogenesis - addresses the origins of LIFE
Oh, and scientific theories, like gravity and evolution, do not represent 'unproven hypotheses.'
I will leave you with a most excellent quote from Abraham Lincoln, which should have particular meaning to your thoughts on evolution;
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
Run along little boy. Go tell the world you believe we came from dirt, because a book which states donkeys (Num 22:28) and snakes (Gen 3:1) can speak, says so.
Evolution is the basis of many sciences, including biology, genetics, paleontology, archaeology, etc and so on. That's why evolution is both theory and fact. That's why evolution can be taught in schools as science, whereas creationism can not. (See Dover, PA School Board Case)
Well it should sound like a cloud of magical flatulance to you. It's only a representation of your own extreme ignorance and misunderstanding of what evolution actually says. No evolution textbook worth it's salt would publish this garbage of what you THINK evolution is about.

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

HAHA! So you think a scientific theory is 'an unproven hypotheses?' HAHA! Ok, sure guy. Gravity, like evolution, is an unproven hypothesis! HAHAHAHA!
Yet gravity is not a law, but is a theory, no different than evolution.
What 'law' would that be? Can you give the name of this law? Or is this another theory (unproven hypothesis) you have pulled from your behind?
You poor ignorant fool! Had you bothered to even read just the title of Darwin's work, "On the Origin of SPECIES,' you would know evolution does not now, nor has it ever claimed, to address the origins of LIFE, but instead addresses the origins of SPECIES, exactly as the title of Darwin's work states. Evolution can not possibly contradict this scientific law you cite, which you claim states "life comes from preexisting life." Evolution does not address the origins of LIFE, but instead addresses the origins of SPECIES. No wonder you dont' believe evolution. You are far too ignorant on the subject to even be qualified to form an opinion on it.
That's like saying the theory of gravity doesn't address biology. Why would evolution address something it does not concern itself with at all? Here's some hints to help you cop a ride on the cluetrain;
1. Evolution - addresses the origins of SPECIES
2. Abiogenesis - addresses the origins of LIFE
Oh, and scientific theories, like gravity and evolution, do not represent 'unproven hypotheses.'
I will leave you with a most excellent quote from Abraham Lincoln, which should have particular meaning to your thoughts on evolution;
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
Run along little boy. Go tell the world you believe we came from dirt, because a book which states donkeys (Num 22:28) and snakes (Gen 3:1) can speak, says so.
Evolution is the basis of many sciences, including biology, genetics, paleontology, archaeology, etc and so on. That's why evolution is both theory and fact. That's why evolution can be taught in schools as science, whereas creationism can not. (See Dover, PA School Board Case)
Well it should sound like a cloud of magical flatulance to you. It's only a representation of your own extreme ignorance and misunderstanding of what evolution actually says. No evolution textbook worth it's salt would publish this garbage of what you THINK evolution is about.
I might also mention another scientific law; the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A person can refer to it as Murphy's Law; if something can go wrong, it will go wrong. I'm shooting from the hip, decades since college, but I believe this law says matter becomes more disorganized and breaks down into a lower less useful form over time. Evolution contradicts that scientific law.
I don't have a dictionary handy, but I bet if you referred to one, it would define theory as "an unproved hypothesis". Evolution is just a theory, not fact. It contradicts more than one "law" of science and contradicts the fossil record that shows new life forms appearing suddenly, without transitional forms beforehand.
Some theorists believe the fossil record shows evolution works by "punctuated equillibrium"; long periods of no change punctuated by sudden and dramatic change in a very short period. Thus, the explanation for the apparent lack of transitional life forms in the fossil record. Maybe these very short periods of very dramatic change were in fact creation/intelligent design?

reply from: fetalisa

I get it. You can't cite any reference for the first 'law' you referenced in your above post, so you trot out a second instead.
How so? Can you prove the 2nd law of thermodynamics has ANY relation to evolution at all?
We are not discussing the definition of 'theory.' We are discussing the definition of 'scientific theory,' of which evolution and gravity both serve as perfect examples;
"In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)

Did you see anything there regarding 'unproven hypotheis?" I didn't. You really need to think before you speak. What you are suggesting is gravity is an 'unproven hypothesis' and not to be believed, when you must know gravity is just as much fact as it is theory. It allows us to slingshot probes to other planets using the gravity of other celestial bodies.
You really are ignorant of evolution. Speciation has been observed in the lab and is easily reproducible. Have you not heard of strains of tuberculosis or AIDS, which have developed resistance to modern day drugs? How did they develop resistance to our drugs? That's right. THEY EVOLVED!
You are talking out of your behind again. Evolution doesn't contradict science, but is instead the underpinning of numerous sciences.
Ahhhh, so you are aware of the 'god of the gaps' fallacy which states, anything we don't understand can only be answered by 'godidit.' Yeah, you really know you 'science.' (*snicker*)
Look man, you can believe in evolution, while still holding true to your pet religious fantasy. There are many theistic evolutionists who believe evolution is the quite brilliant and intelligently designed mechanism by which a deity creates new species. However, if your 'faith' in your pet religious fantasy is so weak, and evolution is such a drastic threat to your weak 'faith,' that you will have no part of it, the least you could do is educate yourself about evolution so that you don't come across as so totally ignorant of what you speak, like by claiming there is something wrong with evolution because it doesn't address the origins of life, when the whole point of evolution is to address the origins of species.

reply from: boburhed

Fetalisa and GodsLaw2Live
Hi,
Nice debating. Try to tone down the negativity and turn up the convincing. GodsLaw2Live, your arguments are the ones I was originally referring to as having been thoroughly debunked already.
The second law of thermodynamics doesn't relate to the subject at all.
(by the way, Murphy's Law is something completely different. Go read up on both at wikipedia)
The "theory" argument is equally incorrect. You are thinking of theory in terms of common usage, rather than what Fetalisa and I are referring to, a scientific theory. Fetalisa provided some good information that should allow you to understand the difference.
I hope you are challenged by this dialog and that you will actually take time to read and reconsider your position. Perhaps you can help other people to start separating the fact from fiction once you begin to understand it yourself.
I'm not saying you are ignorant. Your thoughts are understandable, but I guarantee you that their source is not valid.
Faith in the Bible is something that should not be threatened by science. Faith is good. It's important to the religion and it should not be shaken when some new discovery of fact contradicts something written in a 2000 year old book.
After all, the explanations for how things came to be in the Bible is just science from over 2000 years ago. We've come a long way from thinking the earth was created in 7 days, is flat (strangely absent from the bible), that man was made from mud, that dark was just divided from the light instead of the earth spinning around the sun, etc.
The most highly regarded scholars of religion will tell you that the Bible is not to be interpreted as some sort of news report chronicaling the details of actual historical events, but rather should be interpreted in terms of it's symbolic meaning. That is where the meaning of the Bible is located. Any correlation to actual events in world history is not to be considered relevant. This is an underlying problem of the understanding of religion in the west. The writers of any holy book were not trying to create a document of history. They were trying to provide symols to guide and nurture people to become good citizens.
So, with that, I'll sign off.
Thanks
Bob

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

Perhaps. There really is no evidence to support such a contention, but it can not be disproved.
I believe work has to be performed to bring about and maintain an organized living system. (Murphy's Law) The whole system will break down and die without proper management. Romans 8:19-21 discusses this: "The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God."
Genesis 1:2 starts the history of getting things ready for man's creation. "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light." You might think the preceding verse was from Genesis 1:2, but it is word for word from Jeremiah 4:23 and is discussing Jerusalem after destruction fom enemies. Genesis 1:2 also discusses the state of the earth after Lucifer (light bringer) thought that he would make himself like the Most High. Satan was repulsed (Jude 6) "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." There are billions of years of history between Genesis 1:1 (the creation) and Genesis 1:2 (beginning of man's history).

reply from: fetalisa

Oh please! You might as well be quoting the Wizard of Oz to support your point. Genesis, by definition is;
fa·ble n. - A usually short narrative making an edifying or cautionary point and often employing as characters animals that speak and act like humans. (American Heritage Dictionary 2000)
One need only reference Genesis 3:1 to see this is so;
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
So here we have a serpent that 'speak and act like human,' exactly as the definition of the word 'fable' is defined.
In a free country, you certainly have the right to live your life based on such fables. However, surely you can understand why scientists would pay NO HEED AT ALL to what a fable says about how the earth or universe was formed.

reply from: boburhed

we are a funny bunch aren't we?
the three debaters here with me are
1 faith over reason
2 anger over faith not understanding reason
3 reason explaining how faith and reason can coincide, but that faith does not trump reason
This has been educational
Nothing has been accomplished
but that I see how rigid faith is
how angry reason is
and how futile reason explained to faith is
this doesn't seem to help me to enjoy life.
anybody else?

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

One must bear in mind that, while the mechanisms and details of evolution are hotly debated, there is absolutely no doubt that evolution has occurred, and in fact continues to occur. No one can say, with any authority, that "intelligent design" has not played a role in this, but there is no real evidence one way or the other. Creationism and evolution are certainly not mutually exclusive concepts, but while we have overwhelming evidence of evolution, we have absolutely none to support creationism. The fact remains, however, that one need not deny the one in order to accept the other, just as Bob has so eloquently expressed...
Perhaps. There really is no evidence to support such a contention, but it can not be disproved.
I believe work has to be performed to bring about and maintain an organized living system. (Murphy's Law) The whole system will break down and die without proper management. Romans 8:19-21 discusses this: "The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God."
Genesis 1:2 starts the history of getting things ready for man's creation. "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light." You might think the preceding verse was from Genesis 1:2, but it is word for word from Jeremiah 4:23 and is discussing Jerusalem after destruction fom enemies. Genesis 1:2 also discusses the state of the earth after Lucifer (light bringer) thought that he would make himself like the Most High. Satan was repulsed (Jude 6) "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." There are billions of years of history between Genesis 1:1 (the creation) and Genesis 1:2 (beginning of man's history).
I caught your message above that you have no doubt that evolution has occurred, but that does not mean that intelligent design was not involved. You say evolution supposedly has overwhelming evidence, while creationism has zero evidence. I have to respectfully disagree.
Yes, micro-evolution is variation within a species; certain attritubes can become more pronounced in a species based on environmental conditions at that time in history (I believe genes are available for a wide range within a species). However, I don't see one species making the jump into a new species category. I don't see those kinds of engineering changes occurring, new genes being whipped up where they didn't exist before, etc.
I believe accidents in an organism's DNA (blueprint to build a living organism) are detrimental, not helpful.

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

I am not clear on exactly what you are disagreeing with. You seem to be agreeing that evolution occurs, but denying that these small changes within species can add up, and over time, evolve organisms different enough to be considered new species. I find that to be an illogical conclusion. Do you disagree on the point of no evidence existing to support creation by intelligent design? If so, show me the evidence. If all you have is the Bible, don't bother. Hearsay does not constitute "evidence."
Genetic mutations have been observed, therefore it is impossible to logically deny that "new genes" are being formed where they did not exist before. The "new gene" may be inherited by descendants, and exist in that line, but not in others where no such mutation occurred. You might try following the research associated with the human genome project for additional enlightenment.
These "accidents" (mutations) can be either harmful or beneficial. A good example would be creatures in the regions with year round ice and snow, where mutations that resulted in white coats gave them an advantage over darker creatures, and they eventually evolved into all white species. All white coloration did not prove to be advantageous for penguins, since it made them more visible to predators from above while submerged, therefore penguins evolved lighter coloration only on their undersides, like other marine creatures. Any mutations that were not beneficial would survive only as recessive genes, but if climatic changes made the traits associated with those recessive genes in the future, any specimen born with those traits would be more likely to survive, and if the favorable conditions persisted, we could see special change.
I believe a species, such as dogs, have a wide variety of genes/traits available in the pool. These genes or traits can result in widely varying body types, sizes, colors, structure, etc. But I do not believe a dog's gene or trait pool can be expanded on my accidental mutations; the dog must use an already pre-existing gene from the pool. A certain animal may have genes for black, white or gray fur. Depending on it's environment, one of those colors may be more predominant because of "survival of the fittest"; those that stick out get eaten and those well-camouflaged survive; this is what I mean by "micro-evolution", which term really is a misnomer. What I should have said is that a certain combination of pre-existing genes/traits may become more prevalent to match current environmental conditions. It appears like "evolution", but it is merely the animal using the best combination of genes available in the pool, not from the creation of new "mutated genes" that did not exist before. If all the trees in a forest are white, the white moths survive, and the black ones end up lunch. Intelligent design says a creator should pre-plan and allow for variances in an animal's gene pool (don't give moths only a gene for the black color) so the species has the right characteristics for that particular environment, at that time, for the survival of the species. I don't believe the species whips up a new gene through an accidental mutation to protect and improve itself.
I believe men will have the capability of creating new genes, DNA, traits, etc. that can be used to change the characteristics of a living organism. The Bible says there is nothing that man will not be able to do (He's going to rule the Universe!). Man will be able to create a formula, blueprint, DNA for a new life form. However, nature is not intelligent, and Mother Nature did not come up with these DNA blueprints due to a series of fortunate accidents.

reply from: gotfetus

The differences in dogs is primarily due to selective breeding. We see the same in human beings. In order for humanity to advance, we must thin the herd. We must get rid of disgenic groups so we can take the next step in human evolution. Planned Parenthood is the flag ship organization sailing towards those goals. It is time for the sake of us all that we quit opposing, and start suporting the effort to clean up the genetic mess that decades of careless breeding has produced.

reply from: gotfetus

Check this out:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501728.html
Very interesting article worth the read.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

The problem with proving anything from the bible is that there is often NO other proof. So that's why I stick with evolution. I love it. I think it's brilliant, and I think God planned it all to happen. That's not creationism, that's an explanation of luck.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Dude, even JESUS said not to tempt fate XD

reply from: galen

i second that notion CP..evolution may just be a theory... but its a LOT more credible than some of the others that were floating around recently...besideds..God created us somehow...so why could he not have decided to use evolution to do it? Ultimately everything comes from God.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I do not discount the possibility that evolution might be a tool by which a creator creates, I simply do not "believe" (nor disbelieve) what I can not know. I have observed evolution with my own eyes through my tropical fish breeding programs, so I would have to be a fool to deny that evolution occurs.
Understandable. God may or may not be involved in evolution but it undoubtably exists.

reply from: faithman

I do not discount the possibility that evolution might be a tool by which a creator creates, I simply do not "believe" (nor disbelieve) what I can not know. I have observed evolution with my own eyes through my tropical fish breeding programs, so I would have to be a fool to deny that evolution occurs.
Understandable. God may or may not be involved in evolution but it undoubtably exists.
It may undoubtably exist in your brain washed mind, but there is a great deal of doubt in the scientific community, particularly in bio genetics. Micro evolution, in that animals do adapt to environment, but macro evolution is a total farce, and there is absolutely no evidence for it at all.

reply from: faithman

I do not discount the possibility that evolution might be a tool by which a creator creates, I simply do not "believe" (nor disbelieve) what I can not know. I have observed evolution with my own eyes through my tropical fish breeding programs, so I would have to be a fool to deny that evolution occurs.
Understandable. God may or may not be involved in evolution but it undoubtably exists.
It may undoubtably exist in your brain washed mind, but there is a great deal of doubt in the scientific community, particularly in bio genetics. Micro evolution, in that animals do adapt to environment, but macro evolution is a total farce, and there is absolutely no evidence for it at all.
Care to try to back any of that up, Captain Denial?
Have done so many times, don't care to waist time doing so again.

reply from: sander

Hogwash. This is a prolife website, not a pro or anti evolution site. You'll have to come up with another excuse to slam the people who frequent here.
When are you going to keep your word and find something productive to do with your time instead of coming here?

reply from: sander

And out of curiosity, do you accept evolution or not?
None of your business.
What has that got to do with abortion on demand?
You'll still have to come up with another excuse to slam the people who frequent here.
YOU'RE the one who said you were going to find better things to do with your time, keep your word or look like an idiot, no skin off my teeth.

reply from: sander

Careful, those eyes might stick.
I posted in this forum to rebut you're pathetic attempt to slam the people who you deem are ignoring facts. Evolution isn't discussed enough here to paint with such a broad brush.
You really need to consider actually becoming a person of your word.

reply from: sander

It's "hate" to people like you when the truth is pointed out.
Real "hate" is promoting, supporting and partcipating in the killing of children in the womb. When you figure that out, you come back here and we'll discuss hate.
Til then, you might still want to consider becoming a person of your word.

reply from: sander

Well, I don't know what you're on about.
My life is hate-free. I don't hate anyone, nobody hates me. 'Hate' is a waste of time.
Oh and I said I'd reduce how much time I spent here, which I have done.
If you want me gone so much, feel free to put me on ignore.
It's "hate" to people like you when the truth is pointed out.
Real "hate" is promoting, supporting and partcipating in the killing of children in the womb. When you figure that out, you come back here and we'll discuss hate.
Til then, you might still want to consider becoming a person of your word.

reply from: yoda

Hardly. What you hate is uplanned, "unwanted" unborn babies.... and anyone who tries to defend them. Otherwise, you wouldn't even be here, would you?

reply from: sander

Hardly. What you hate is uplanned, "unwanted" unborn babies.... and anyone who tries to defend them. Otherwise, you wouldn't even be here, would you?
Bingo!
You got that right, Yoda.
And if those who see the utter unfairness, and cruelty of the act speak from a place of emotion while speaking the truth in their defense, we're the ones off our rocker and full of hate.
IF it was any other helpless being we were defending we'd be applauded and no amount or choice of language or motive would be questioned. But, because it's a baby in the womb, it's a whole different story.

reply from: faithman

Have done so many times, don't care to waist time doing so again.
Last time I debunked every single point presented, with links to relevant information.
You failed then, you'll fail again.
And after he is spanked, he says "see, I bested you again!" Too funny!
You couldn't spank your own monkey convict punk. And you have never bested me period. That is why you lie and mask threats against me. You are actually a very small peson, and gullible to the lies of secular humanism, and false science of evolution.

reply from: cracrat

At least the theory of evolution is science...

reply from: faithman

Hmmm. Is there a reason why you think about me masturbating? That's interesting, and somewhat disturbing.... (for the less worldly, allow me to clarify that "spanking the monkey" is a euphemism for male masturbation)
Well, all you do is come here and practice mental materbation, because your post have nothing to do with defending womb children. but "stroking" your own ego.

reply from: faithman

Hmmm. Is there a reason why you think about me masturbating? That's interesting, and somewhat disturbing.... (for the less worldly, allow me to clarify that "spanking the monkey" is a euphemism for male masturbation)
Well, all you do is come here and practice mental materbation, because your post have nothing to do with defending womb children. but "stroking" your own ego.
Whatever, but please, try to keep your mind off my penis, and if you can't help yourself, at least have the decency to keep your lurid thoughts to yourself. I assure you I'm not interested....
Then quit posting your stupid posts about it. You are the one making this about what it was not. You are the one taking it over the top and painting the mental pictures. You are the one attempting to project your depravity on others. I realize that jail house wives have a fixation on male genitals, but that is on you not me.

reply from: faithman

Hmmm. Is there a reason why you think about me masturbating? That's interesting, and somewhat disturbing.... (for the less worldly, allow me to clarify that "spanking the monkey" is a euphemism for male masturbation)
Well, all you do is come here and practice mental materbation, because your post have nothing to do with defending womb children. but "stroking" your own ego.
Whatever, but please, try to keep your mind off my penis, and if you can't help yourself, at least have the decency to keep your lurid thoughts to yourself. I assure you I'm not interested....
Then quit posting your stupid posts about it. You are the one making this about what it was not. You are the one taking it over the top and painting the mental pictures. You are the one attempting to project your depravity on others. I realize that jail house wives have a fixation on male genitals, but that is on you not me.
Ummm, you're the one who brought my penis into this discussion. If you want to talk about any latent homosexual desires you might have, that's fine with me (I'm no hater), I'm just asking you to leave my penis out of it...
I most assurdly did not. You are the one who claims to be able to read peoples minds, and you are the one who uses the names of male genitalia. Mine is implied at best and could have meaning other than you atribute. You were the jailhouse wife not me. I have no enterest in perverted sex. that would be your buddies at Planned Parenthood.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I think he may be projecting some self loathing onto others, which would explain why he is so nasty most of the time. I agree that he needs counseling. He is more worthy of our pity than our contempt...
Well, he manages to get to all of us and make us angry for no reason whatsoever. It doesn't solve anything so I don't understand why he does it...

reply from: faithman

You have not shown a thing except how incredibly stupid you are. I know congress is bound by the constitution, and I have shown what the constitution empowers the congress to do. You just don't like it because it has disproven what you have said, and you continue to lie because your gigantic ego has a hard time admitting you have been beaten at everyturn. the abortion laws in texas were not in violation of the constitution nor federal law, because there was not law for the court to rule on. The 5th section of the 14th amendment says the congress has the authority to make law about persons. Article 3 section 2 of the constitution says that the congress can make an exception of abortion, and regulate the court not to rule on it. The court is not the dictator of the US. they can only rule on law passed by the legislature. The court was usurping the authority of the congress, and congress has the power to take exception and regulate them back into it's place. An act of congress is all that we need to remidy abortion on demand. Anamendment is unnessisary, much harder to pass, and a delay while children die. My claims are most assuredly not baseless as I have proven over and over again. You just keep trying to ask loaded questions, and I keep blasting you out of the water. If you intend to keep posting stupid, then I will post the actual smart and most constitutionally swift way to end the killing. Why do you want to delay the end while million more die? That is a more honest question than anything you have asked.

reply from: sk1bianca

here's some interesting links i found (against evolution):
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm

http://www.evolutionhoax.com/ (a pdf book)
http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html

reply from: nancyu

Any BELIEF can easily be "debunked". Evolution is a BELIEF. Just like Christianity and creationism are BELIEFS.
Evidence of creationism are everywhere. Open your eyes. Did these words I'm typing just "evolve" or am I "creating" them. What about the words you type?
Are you evolving from man into woman? Or will a surgeon and hormone therapy create this effect for you? It's all a matter of opinion isn't it? It's all a matter of what you believe.

reply from: ProInformed

"Wasn't the "Humans go through every stage of the evolutionary process while developing in the womb" theory debunked a LONG time ago?"
Yup. But that hasn't stopped it from being a popular excuse to justify abortion.
I've met many choicers, online and in person, who are under the false impression that it is scientifically sound, proven science LOL.
It was called the biogenetic law, or: "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"
and it was made up by Hitler's mentor Ernst Haeckel. It was exposed (and he then admitted) that his drawings of different embryos were altered to make them appear similar to human embryos.
"the so-called law of biogenetics is wrong. No buts or ifs can mitigate this fact. It is not even a tiny bit correct or correct in a different form. It is totally wrong"
The Beginnings of Life by evolutionist Dr. Blechschmidt (1977, p. 32).
Way back in 1874 German embryologist Wilhelm His published a catalog of willful distortions of the data by Haeckel in order to win adherents. Haeckel was subsequently tried and convicted in a scholarly inquest and barred from many scientific circles. Yet, it made its way into textbooks anyway as supposed 'proof' of evolution...
"Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. It was finally exercised from biology textbooks in the fifties. As a topic of serious theoretical inquiry, it was extinct in the twenties."
Keith S. Thompson, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated," American Scientist (Vol. 76, May/June, 1988), p. 273.
Part of the problem is that even though it was rejected by scientists in Haeckel's lifetime, and then removed from (some) textbooks over half a century ago, those old textbooks still exist (I have several that I got from used book sales at libraries) and new textbooks don't always leave out such outdated, proven wrong theories. I have a used biology textbook with a 1986 copyright that still shows the discredited Kettlewell's peppered moth photos as a supposed proof of evolution. And that textbook was still being used in the local school system just a few years ago! (And the 'new' textbook currently being used probably shows such outdated fraudulent 'proofs' of evolution too LOL).
In the early 90's my neice's 9th grade biology workbook showed Ernst Haeckel's drawings of the supposed evolutionary stages that a human embryo goes through, no mention was made of the fact that both his theory and drawings were proved to be fradulent back in the 1800's!
A 1980 survey of 15 high school biology text books, revealed that 9 of the books STILL taught embryological recapitulation as evidence for evolution!
"The core scientific issue remains unchanged: Haeckel's drawings in 1874 are substantially fabricated. In support of his view, I note that his oldest "fish" images is made up of bits and pieces from different animals- some of them mythical . It is not unreasonable to characterize this as "faking".... Sadly, it is the discredited 1874 drawings that are used in so many British and American Biology textbooks today."
Evolutionist Mik Richardson's letter to "Science" 281 (5381); 1289 Aug 28, 1998 titled "Haeckel's Embryos, continued
Many evolutionists see nothing wrong with teaching/promoting evolutionary 'proofs' that have been proven wrong until a better 'proof' comes along... They have FAITH in the theory of evolution and even though they haven't been able to prove it to date, they BELIEVE someday they will. So until then they just teach whatever they can present that might look like proof of evolution, even if it has been thoroughly discredited in scientific circles for decades.
"this interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close examination. Its' shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology."
('The Process of Evolution' by evolutionist Dr. Paul Ehrlich, 1963, p.66).
Yup, way back in 1963 an evolutionist wrote that... so you'd think that by now we would no longer see textbooks pretending that it was some sort of scientific proof of evolution? Ah but the MYTHOLOGY must prevail, eh?
"In seeking to understand why the Haeckelian view persisted so long, we have also to consider the alternatives. We often are highly conservative and will hold to a viewpoint longer than is justified when there is no alternative or, worse, when the logical alternative upsets the rest of our world view."
(Keith Stewart Thomson, "Marginalia Ontogeny and phylogeny recapitulated", American Scientist Vol. 76, May-June 1988, p. 274)
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/haeckel.html

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/ontogeny.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory

http://www.icr.org/article/1068/

http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=219

http://www.icr.org/article/287/

http://www.icr.org/article/728/

reply from: ProInformed

"What actual credible, tested evidence does creationism have?
A 2000 year old book?
Got anything more recent and credible?"
There are many recent writings related to creation science vs evolution.
More importantly (for those who understandably might doubt anything a creation scientist might say) evolutionary scientists have been openly criticizing and discrediting each other's pet explanations of how evolution might have happened.

"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student....have now been debunked."
(Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions
in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct
functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging
problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
(Stephen J. Gould - evolutionist, "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?" Paleobiology, vol. 6 (1980), p. 40)
"It's impossible by micro-mutation to form any new species."
(Dr. Richard Goldschmt, evolutionist. Founder of the "Hopeful Monster" theory.)
"Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing."
(Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)
"Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record."
(Time Magazine, Nov. 7, 1977)
"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."
(Ronald R. West, PhD - paleoecology and geology, Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University, "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216
"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'."
(Sir Fred Hoyle -English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University, "Hoyle on Evolution". Nature, vol. 294, 12 Nov. 1981, p. 105)
"Darwin's evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of scientific and social progress.....The secular myths of evolution have had a damaging effect on scientific research, leading to distortion, to needless controversy, and to gross misuse of science....I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling."
(Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History)
"Set aside the many competing explanations of the Big Bang; something made an entire cosmos out of nothing. It is this realization--that something transcendent started it all--which has hard-science types...using terms like 'miracle.'"
(Gregg Easterbrook, "The New Convergence")
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well."
(Stephen Jay Gould - Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University, "The return of hopeful monsters". Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6), June-Jule 1977, p. 28)
"We should reject, as a matter of principle the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
(Biochemist, Franklin M. Harold "The Way of the Cell," page 205)
"Why do geologists and archeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates appear to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the number do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what look like precise calendar years, figures seem somehow better ... 'Absolute' dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments....No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole bless thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read."
(Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: ages in error". Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol.19(3), 1981, pp.9-29.)

reply from: ProInformed

"What actual credible, tested evidence does creationism have?
A 2000 year old book?
Got anything more recent and credible?"
Darwin stated that if it could be proved that the 'simple cell' was complex instead of a simple 'black box', then his theory would be proven wrong.

"The simplicity that was once expected to be the foundation of life has proven to be a phantom; instead, systems of horrendous, irreducible complexity inhabit the cell. The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century who have gotten used to thinking of life as the result of simple natural laws. But other centuries have had their shocks, and there is no reason to suppose that we should escape them. Humanity has endured as the center of the heavens moved from the earth to beyond the sun, as the history of life expanded to encompass long-dead reptiles, as the eternal universe proved mortal. We will endure the opening of Darwin's Black box"
(Michael j. Behe, Biochemist "Darwin's Black Box, pg. 252")
"Evolutionary biologists have been able to pretend to know how complex biological systems originated only because they treated them as black boxes. Now that biochemists have opened the black boxes and seen what is inside, they know the Darwinian theory is just a story, not a scientific explanation."
(Professor Phillip E. Johnson)
"We have always underestimated the cell...The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines...Why do we call [them] machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts."
(Bruce Alberts, President, National; Academy of Sciences "The Cell as a Collectrion of Protein Machines," Cell 92, February 8, 1998)
"In terms of their basic biochemical design....no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth."
(Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist)
"Complex molecules that are essential to particular organisms often have such a vast information content as...to make the theory of evolution impossible."
(Bird, Origin of Species Revisited, Vol. 1, pg. 71)
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."
(Dr. Francis Crick, biochemist, Nobel Prize winner, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature, pg. 88)
"The world is too complicated in all parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. Each part of a living thing depends on all its other parts to function. How does each part know? How is each part specified at conception? The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some type of organizing principle---an architect."
(Scientist Allan Sandage)
Irreducible complexity: one part can't exist/function when only partially formed and neither can the other parts it interacts with; ALL interacting parts need to be fully formed and fully functional all at once in order for any of them to exist/function.
What we now KNOW about life is that it is indeed irreducibly complex, intricately interwoven and not at all 'simple', from the so-called 'simple cell' all the way up to the universe as a whole.
"The universe and the Laws of Physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn't combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn't form heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on..."
(Stephen Hawking, considered the best known scientist since Albert Einstein, Austin American-Statesmen, October 19, 1997)

reply from: ProInformed

It is commonly claimed (believed) that evolutionary scientists persist in believing in evolution because they have proven it to be true...
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
(Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)
"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups."
(Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist.)
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of the imagination."
(Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University)
"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, "The emperor has no clothes."
(Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.)
"The great cosmologic myth of the twentieth century."
(Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.)
"9/10 of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This Museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of their view."
(Dr. Ethredge, British Museum of Science.)
"We have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many scientific men are agreed that there is no part of the Darwinian system that is of any great influence, and that, as a whole, the theory is not only unproved, but impossible, the ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is to be accepted as a fundamental fact."
(Dr. Thomas Dwight, famed professor at Harvard University)
"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, "How did this ever happen?"
(Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)
"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based upon faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion....The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but irrational."
(Dr. Louis T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University)
"Darwin's theory of evolution is the last of the great nineteenth-century mystery religions. And as we speak it is now following Freudians and Marxism into the Nether regions, and I'm quite sure that Freud, Marx and Darwin are commiserating one with the other in the dark dungeon where discarded gods gather."
(Dr. David Berlinski)
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to "bend" their observations to fit in with it."
(H.S. Lipson, Physicist Looks at Evolution, Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138)
"A time honored scientific tenet of faith."
(Professor David Allbrook)
"Darwinism has become our culture's official creation myth, protected by a priesthood as dogmatic as any religious curia."
(Nancy Pearcey, "Creation Mythology,"pg. 23)
"When students of other sciences ask us what is now currently believed about the origin of species, we have no clear answer to give. Faith has given way to agnosticism. Meanwhile, though our faith in evolution stands unshaken we have no acceptable account of the origin of species."
(Dr. William Bateson, great geneticist of Cambridge)
"Chance renders evolution impossible."
(Dr. James Coppedge)
"It (evolution) is sustained largely by a propaganda campaign that relies on all the usual tricks of rhetorical persuasion: hidden assumptions, question-begging statements of what is at issue, terms that are vaguely defined and change their meaning in midargument, attacks of straw men, selective citation of evidence, and so on. The theory is also protected by its cultural importance. It is the officially sanctioned creation story to modern society, and publicly funded educational authorities spare no effort to persuade people to believe it."
(Professor Phillip Johnson, "Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law and Culture," pg. 9)
"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."
(Dr. James Conant [chemist and former president of Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.)
"The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination."
(Dr. Ambrose Flemming, Pres. Philosophical Society of Great Britain)
"Evolution is a fairy tale for adults."
(Dr. Paul LeMoine, one of the most prestigious scientists in the world)
"George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy.
(Dr. Kenneth Hsu, "Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177)
"Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, his life was spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature...It is absurd to expect that many facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by facts."
(Dr. P.T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194)
"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century...The origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the [ship] Beagle."
(Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.)
"Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing."
(Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)
"Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
(Professor D.M.S. Watson, leading biologist and science writer of his day.)
"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything or at least they are not science."
(George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.)
"The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake."
(Dr. Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]
"There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to support the theory of evolution."
(Sir Cecil Wakely)
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.....It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts...The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief."
(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)
"The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do."
(Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)
"The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation."
(Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, "It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.")
"In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection---quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection tautology."
(Dr. Arthur Koestler)
"One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not been written."
(Dr. Hubert P. Yockey)
"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life's complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."
(Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner)
"Evolution is unproved and improvable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable."
(Sir Arthur Keith, a militant anti-Christian physical anthropologist)
"For over 20 years I thought I was working on evolution....But there was not one thing I knew about it... So for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people, the question is, "Can you tell me any one thing that is true?" I tried that question on the Geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, A very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, "Yes, I do know one thing, it ought not to be taught in High School"....over the past few years....you have experienced a shift from Evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge."
(Dr. Collin Patterson evolutionist, address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, Nov. 1981)
"Facts do not 'speak for themselves' they are read in light of theory."
(Evolutionist, Steven J Gould, Professor. Harvard University)
"Evolution can be thought of as sort of a magical religion. Magic is simply an effect without a cause, or at least a competent cause. 'Chance,' 'time,' and 'nature,' are the small gods enshrined at evolutionary temples. Yet these gods cannot explain the origin of life. These gods are impotent. Thus, evolution is left without competent cause and is, therefore, only a magical explanation for the existence of life..."
(Dr. Randy L. Wysong, instructor of human anatomy and physiology, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, pg. 418.)
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence."
(Dr. R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.)
"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy."
(Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)
"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."
(Dr. I.L. Cohen, "Darwin Was Wrong:" A Study in Probabilities (1985)
"I have often thought how little I should like to have to prove organic evolution in a court of law."
(Dr. Errol White, ichthyologist, in a 1988 address before a meeting of the Linnean Society in London])
"After chiding the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."
(Dr. Loren Eiseley, anthropologist, The Immense Journey, pg. 144.)
"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."
(Dr. P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937)
"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
(Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.)
"Evolution is faith, a religion."
(Dr. Louist T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University)

reply from: ProInformed

"Many creationists challenge the notion that humans evolved from aquatic beings to land mammals."
As do many scientists who persist in professing faith in evolution even though they admit it is not mathematically possible.

"As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable. This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science."
(Thompson W.R., "Introduction," in Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1967, reprint, p.xxii)
The MORE I learned about evolution, and read what evolutionists themselves said about it, the less I believed in it (BECAUSE there is no proven, established, theory of evolution that evolutonary scientists all agree on - every version has been debunked by other evolutionary scientists and is woefully lacking in real scientific evidence to back it up). That of course is why very little is actually taught about evolution in school...
I have ALWAYS believed that evolution should not be censored from education, first because I believed it had been proven to be true (before I LEARNED otherwise), then because I was undecided but Pro-Informed and purposely tried to learn more about the controversy in order to make up my own mind (um education vs indoctrination), and now because I realize the more a student learns about evolution the more they will see for themselves what a pathetically shoddy theory it is.
Those who do not believe in evolution sometimes make the mistake of wanting to censor it from education. Ironically teaching MORE about evolution will cause students to give up believing in evolution mythology a lot faster than censoring it would. Increasingly there has been pressure put on schools to teach BOTH evolution and creation science in the schools. Of course the evolutionists don't want that, they want all dissending views of origins to be censored. They don't want the students to find out that the theories of evolution are in trouble, that there are other theories that better fit the evidence.
"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."
(Director of a large graduate biology department, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 28.)

reply from: faithman

You are free to reject any of the many theories regarding evolution, but the fact remains that evolution has occurred, and the evidence of this is so overwhelming that it is considered to be fact, and unlike the theories, which are frequently challenged, there is rarely a serious challenge issued against the fact that evolution has occurred. The controversy surrounds theories about the mechanics of evolution, not the fact that it has occurred. The theories are attempts to explain the phenomena, which can not be logically denied, since they have been observed....
Macro evolution has never been observed to exist. All so called transending creature are either non existant or proven to be a hoax. there is absolutly no proof at all that evolution has ever occured.

reply from: ProInformed

"Evolution...is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."
James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?" Discover, October 1980, p. 88.

reply from: ProInformed

"You are free to reject any of the many theories regarding evolution, but the fact remains that evolution has occurred, and the evidence of this is so overwhelming that it is considered to be fact, and unlike the theories, which are frequently challenged, there is rarely a serious challenge issued against the fact that evolution has occurred. The controversy surrounds theories about the mechanics of evolution, not the fact that it has occurred. The theories are attempts to explain the phenomena, which can not be logically denied, since they have been observed...."
I am also free to reject each and EVERY theory of evolution based on the FACT that they ALL have been proven wrong by other evolutionary scientists.
You have either been misled or are being patently dishonest when you claim that evolution has been proven to have ever occurred (or to even be possible)! It is NOT like gravity, which we have proven the existence of (BECAUSE we can and have observed gravity) but just haven't come up with a proven theory for how/why it works yet.
"Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
(Professor D.M.S. Watson, leading biologist and science writer of his day.)
"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything or at least they are not science."
(George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.)
You are free to believe in evolution, either because you are not yet aware of the fact that it is not proven science, or because your desire to believe in evolution (your religious faith in it) matters more to you than real science, or because it helps you justify abortion... But your faith in evolution doesn't prove a thing scientifically.
"The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."
(Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton University.)
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
(Wald, G. 1954. The Origin of Life. Scientific American August: 44-53)
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation." (Jastrow, Robert, The Enchanted Loom: Mind In the Universe, 1981, p. 19)
"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp.....moreover, for the most part these "experts" have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully."
(Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever."
(Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting *T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].)

reply from: sk1bianca

nobody has actually seen evolution happening.
the whole theory is based on asumptions. scientists found pieces and put together a puzzle to form what they think should be the correct image. evidence can be interpreted in many ways. they can "prove" evolution if that's what you're looking for.
so i think that evolutionism is pretty much a belief, just like creationism.

reply from: sk1bianca

that's very interesting cp. what happened to your fish? did they evolve into another species?
however, just because something could have happened, it doesn't mean it actually did.
science is based on what the human brain can explain and process. we, believers, consider ourselves to be more than intelligent animals. so we try to look beyond what we can explain and understand with our brains
you can't believe in evolution and in the same time believe God created the world and all the living things in it. no matter how we try to make them fit, it won't work.
so it's a big difference between believing you're an evolved animal or a special creature with an immortal soul made by God.

reply from: cracrat

If he had kept selecting and breeding for thousands and thousands of generations, then quite conceivably a new species would emerge. However, the simple fact is that CP wouldn't live long enough to see the product of his efforts, perhaps his great great great great great great great great great great great grandchildren might.
But something happening because it is plausible and we can show it to be plausible is a whole lot better an explanation than "God did it". A whole lot less lazy an explanation too.
Science is based on what we observe in the world around us. We see something, we develop a theory to explain that observation, design an experiment to test the theory. If the result of the experiment agrees with the theory it adds support, if the results disagree we go away and come up with a better theory. Assuming things happen by some mystical, inscrutable pathway that is beyond our capacity to understand is the exact opposite of science and is insulting to me, as a scientist, to suggest otherwise.
There is no problem in marrying faith in God and faith in science. We know evolution has happened but are unsure as to the why. To those with faith, the why is quite clearly God's hand. It was God who directed the emergence of ever more complex organisms until eventually human kind emerged, his 'chosen' species. It as God who decided that man should have dominion over the Earth, it was God who decided we should be above the animals and it was God who gave us our immortal soul once we became man and thus worthy of it. Just because the Bible doesn't spell out how he managed to create man doesn't mean the story of creation is incompatible with modern science, so long as you don't take it literally.

reply from: sk1bianca

it's a pity to limit yourself to the things you can see, test or explain. according to the Bible, God wants humans to reach beyond that, to reach Him and to obtain immortality.
christianity means that you believe what the Bible says, since it is considered to be the Word of God. someone can believe in whatever form of "God" he chooses, but if he denies that the Bible is inspired by God, he cannot call himself a christian.

reply from: cracrat

But things that I cannot see, test or explain fall outside of the boudaries of science. They are, by definition, articles of faith.

reply from: sk1bianca

like i said, and you didn't quote that, you can't believe in the christian God and evolution at the same time.
i choose to be a christian, since my God's miracles are far more real to me (i've seen them happening, to me and others). the "evidence" supporting evolution prove nothing to me but the fact that, if you really want to, you can find a connection between little red riding hood and the big bang theory.

reply from: sk1bianca

i wasn't talking about people who claim to be christians. true christians believe the Bible is the Word of God, and the Bible says God created the world and all living things in it.
my point was that if a person is given pieces of a puzzle and told what the image should look like, he will do everything he can to combine them in order to construct the required image. he will bend them, twist them, force them where they don't fit, he will put aside some of the pieces, because he is convinced that the image he was told he should obtain is correct.

reply from: cracrat

Fundamentalist Christians believe the Bible is both the word of God and an accurate account of what happened. Fundamentalists of any sort are a scary bunch because they are unable to question their faith, and they should not be encouraged. Faith without question is unhealthy and liable to lead to things like 9/11.

reply from: sk1bianca

i did question my faith, and my questions were answered thru things and events science cannot explain.
and Jesus doesn't support killing people who don't follow Him. so you won't have to worry about me getting on a plane and crashing in some building.

reply from: sk1bianca

ok, let me make this clear.
science studies the world and the surrounding reality. if people choose to ignore the fact that God created that reality, they are left with an incomplete puzzle. trying to solve it, or to recreate it somehow, they will introduce asumptions, speculations or imaginary scenes. the final image, coated with a "scientific" paint, will be far from the original puzzle.
science is a limited good. it adresses the mind, the body and, generaly speaking, the earthly component of the human being. which eventually dies. science can improve our lives but it can't make us immortal. because it doesn't adress the soul. Jesus can do that.
someone said once that anything less than immortality is not worth fighting for. it's a bit radical, but you should understand why some people choose Jesus over the "scientific" evolution theory.

reply from: sk1bianca

a self-proclaimed christian who believes in evolution obviously doesn't know his own religion. there are many people in this situation, which i think is very very sad.
they are either not practicing their religion or they do it mechanically without being interested in the christian teachings. many of they simply ignore things they don't really agree with, thinking they aren't very important.
but christianity is a faith that has to be taken as a whole. you can't cut off certain parts you don't like.
this is why there are so many new religions appearing today, which take a bit from every faith, just so people can combine Jesus, yoga, aliens, evolution and others. but, whatever you call it, this is NOT christianity.

reply from: sk1bianca

well, this is your interpretation of the Bible.
but the verse shows that aquatic creatures appeared at the same time with birds.
as for the popes, i don't care what they teach or believe. i'm not catholic.
further more, the orthodox church believes in the teachings of the holy fathers (saints) received from the Holy Spirit, and none of them said we can believe in evolution. actually, some of them said quite the oposite.
i'll look for some text if anyone is interested.

reply from: sk1bianca

that expression doesn't mean that water was capable of producing living creatures. it means that the water was the environment where God chose to create these forms of life, which were quickly multiplying.
as for the birds, it might suggest they came from water, but not from those swarming creatures in it.
however, i didn't find any verse in the Bible that says creatures transformed in the way evolution suggests. the Genesis simply says they came into existence when God expressed his desire to create them.
airplaines, electricity and the others above don't try to prove humans are some kind of evolved apes.
the problem is that if we combine christianity with evolution, then we must aslo accept other ideas about God:
1. the life forms on this planet evolved during millions of years -> God couldn't create the world in 6 days -> He is not omnipotent.
2. during evolution, some species became extinct -> God created imperfect creatures, letting them suffer and die -> God is not good and loving.
i will look for texts from the Holy Fathers.

reply from: kentuckyjoe

I copied this from an article named "Christianity" in the topic by that name.
Some people pretend to believe in a "literal" interpretation of the bible. To them, this guarantees that they don't make any mistakes and thus ensures that they will go straight to heaven. They don't really believe in a literal interpretation of course. In Matthew 19:23-24, Mark 10:25 and Luke 18:25, Christ says that "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven". It is literally impossible for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. Do they really believe that it is impossible for a rich man to go to heaven? Of course not! They picked out the belief in evolution because it is so much easier to deal with than feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty etc. They don't even pretend to love their neighbor as themselves. This is just an easy way to trick themselves into believing they are going to heaven. But according to Christ, they condemn themselves to hell for not putting love into practice.
My understanding is this. Imagine we have two dollars (or two million, it doesn't matter). There are millions of people that are literally starving to death. This isn't pretend, this is real. We give one dollar (or one million) to help feed these starving people as Christ commanded. The question is, what do we do with the second dollar (or second million)?
There are still millions of people starving. We can give this money to our church, oppose abortions or any number of other charitable causes. In every case, we choose to let someone starve to death. For this, Christ curses us into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

reply from: sk1bianca

so if we do any other good deed except feeding the poor we will go to hell...
Christ commanded many other things. they are not less important. He also said that the human soul is more important than food and clothes.
and opposing abortion saves lives too.
by the way, how many people did you let to starve to death? how many dollars do you have left?

reply from: kentuckyjoe

sk1bianca, is there any other thing Christ told us to do and then said if we don't do it, He will condemn us to hell? If so, please name it.

reply from: sander

Unless you are living on the streets, giving every red cent you have to feed the poor, (which would mean you would starve and those who may depend on you), then you're going to be judged by your condemnation.
God is not the insanity you teach.

reply from: sk1bianca

"God said" .... and then it happened ("God made").... and "God saw it was good". it is so simple even a child can understand. it needs no useless complications.
we cannot assume that the creation of the world, the life and the processes taking place on the newly made earth can be explained by what we see today. that world was different, it was perfect. the world and all the life in it changed a lot after the first humans separated themselves from God.
here are some of those texts i said i will look for (approximate translation from romanian):
St. Basil
"Those who do not understand the words of the Scripture in their proper meaning judge them according to their own thoughts, like dreams interpreters. When I hear the Scripture saying plants, I understand plants, when I hear fish or birds or animals I understand fish, birds and animals. I'm not ashamed of the Scripture.
It looks to me that those who give an allegorical interpretation to the Scripture want to give it a imaginary value, by changing the meaning of the words by using a figurative speech. But that means making yourself smarter than the words of the Spirit, when, as an interpretation, you introduce your own ideas in the Scriptures. So let the Scriptures be understood the way they were written!"
St. Efrem
Nobody should believe that the creation in the 6 days is an allegory.
St Gregorios the Theologian
"Couldn't God have made the world in a single day? Or in a moment? But because He made everything not for Himself - because He doesn't need any of this - but because of his goodness and love towards the humanity. He made them bit by bit, so that we know how they were made and avoid falling into errors, driven by human thoughts. And the fact that man was the last creation shouldn't be surprising, since everything was prepared for him like a royal home for an emperor."
"The Word [...] taking a piece of the newly made earth with His immortal hands, created my image..." (very beautiful)

reply from: kentuckyjoe

I don't even begin to pretend to know how Christ will judge any of us. We will all find that out for ourselves.
My personal journey is based on Matthew 22:1-14, especially the last line, "Many are called but few are chosen". I kept asking people about this and everyone told me not to worry, Christ wouldn't have died for our sins if He wanted us to go to Hell. I heard many other reasons not to worry. Yet, I came back to the same thing, these people aren't Christ, what if Christ really meant what He said?
So, I started reading the Gospels, constantly asking the same question. What if Christ really meant what he said?
That leads us to the current discussion. What if Christ really meant what he said? Of all the things Christ tells us to do, Matthew 25:31-46 is the only place where Christ also adds that if we don't do this, He will condemn us to Hell. I take Christ at His Word.
No, I don't give all of my money to feeding the starving. I understand clearly that I might go to Hell for this. Rather, I follow the idea of tithing meaning I give 10% of my income. Does all of this money actually get to those that need it? I don't know. I hope so.
So that's what I'm presenting here. What if Christ really meant what He said?

reply from: sk1bianca

trying to fit the story of evolution thru millions of years within the Bible, which says the world was created in 6 days is a useless complication.
none of our Holy Fathers ever said the earth was flat. the orthodox church wasn't concerned about the shape of the earth . after all, so many people went to heaven perfectly happy without knowing that the earth is round.

reply from: sander

I don't know if you've noticed, but this is a pro-life website, we discuss the abortion issue, it's consequenses and ways to see it stopped. You might want to stay on subject or take this issue to a proper arena and stop trying to lay your guilt trip here and deflecting the subject at hand.

reply from: sk1bianca

the creation has to be taken literally.
Cosma's work is nothing more than a geographic description, not a dogma inspired by the Holy Spirit. was he a saint? did he say that his map is the result of a divine revelation? or did he draw the world as he saw it in his journeys?
he also might have been a nestorian. nestorians are considered heretics by the orthodox church and have been condemned by the early Holy Synods (i hope i wrote it right).
however, not any orthodox monk or priest can formulate dogmas. and certainly not a simple believer. the teachings of the church are not based on what people find with their minds, but on revelations from God.

reply from: kentuckyjoe

Sander, in case you haven't noticed, protecting human life is exactly what I'm trying to do. Don't blame me for these things Christ said. I'm just quoting them accurately. You're problem isn't with me; it's with Christ's teachings.
Also, in case you haven't noticed, we're talking about evolution right now.
Sk1bianca, what are you trying to gain by presenting a creationist point of view? If everyone adopts your point of view, so what?

reply from: yoda

Yeah, I've noticed that. In fact, I haven't noticed you doing that at any time since you've been posting here. I guess it wouldn't be too crazy an idea to think that you're probably a proabort, right?

reply from: sk1bianca

i'm not trying to gain anything. i simply expressed my opinion and my beliefs. i've never intended to make someone agree with my, but rather to explain why i hold my point of view.

reply from: Jameberlin

Is it not possible that both camps have certain elements of truth and certain falsehoods?
I myself believe in physical evolution, but i do not believe in the evolution of the soul.
Meaning, once we are human, human is all we will ever be. If there is another race God sees fit to bestow with a soul like ours, who are we to say? Do we even dare to try and think like God? For that matter, do we pretend we know all we do about the our physical past on this planet?
There are many things science has yet to explain, and there are many mysteries God has yet to reveal to us.
You cannot refute the existence of diverse lifeforms that have walked the earth since the dawn of time, neither can you disprove that there was no influence in the direction of life by God Himself.
Are we (Christians) not taught that God created souls for even all the living animals? Are we (both sides) really saying to each other, that one school of thought must be truth while the other is lies?
Are we really that closed minded?

reply from: sk1bianca

cosmas' work was approved by the church (why not? it was quite interesting and reliable for those times) but not considered a holy dogma, a revelation from the Holy Spirit.
what cosmas thought of his work is irrelevant (especially if he was indeed a heretic).
orthodox doctrine never pretended to know everything about the physical world. it is only concerned about the salvation of our souls.
further more, we can't even blame cosmas for introducing the idea of the flat-earth into the world. he didn't represent a mainstream of any kind, personally or spiritually. he was also criticised by his fellow monks and by other christian authors, including the patriarch of constantinopole. he even added a few more books to his work, trying to fight his critics.
also, there are many many leading church writers who explicitly taught a round earth, such as Bede and Aquinas.
interesting link: http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/FlatEarth.html

so the orthodox are not like the catholic church, were the pope's opinion becomes a sacred doctrine.

reply from: Faramir

The pope's "opinion" does not become doctrine, except under specific circumstances when it applies to faith and morals.
The pope's opinion that we should not have invaded Iraq was not doctrine. If the pope thinks green is a nicer color than blue, it is not doctrine.
There was never a doctrine about about whether the earth was flat or whether it orbits the sun.

reply from: sk1bianca

cp, i have studied my faith and the doctrines of my church and i found no place where it said the earth was flat. no saint or holy father or synod declaired or received any revelation from God stating that.
believing in evolution implies certains conclusions about God which i posted somewhere in this topic, and which contradict the basis of christian faith. now THAT endagers the salvation of our souls.
the shape of the earth has nothing to do with it. God could have made it cubic, flat or shaped like a unicorn. it wouldn't bring us closer to heaven or hell if we know it. so there's no need for a dogma concerning this aspect.
the orthodox church condemned certain people for being heretics or schismatics, and in some cases executions were conducted by state authorities (because some of them were disobedient towards the state, rather than towards the church). but not for saying the earth wasn't flat. you should check your resources.
i might leave for a while. short vacation

reply from: sk1bianca

you can check the link i posted. it's very interesting.
also, i asked a priest today about the flat earth theory. he had a good laugh. he told me to look for an icon of the Creator sitting with his foot on the earth, and the earth is depicted as being round. until i find it you can see there are many icons in which Jesus holds a globe (representing the earth) in His hands.
by the way, i noticed there are still people who believe the earth is flat and even say they can prove it with scientific evidence. sounds pretty crazy, doesn't it?
as for the events at the monastery in tanacu, that too boils down to whom you believe. the orthodox exorcism ritual is a collection of prayers. people don't die because someone says prayers for them. and they don't die from being tied up so they can't hurt themselves and others (psychiatric hospitals do it all the time).
demonic possesion is not a superstition. the Bible says Jesus himself and his disciples performed exorcisms.

reply from: sk1bianca

you'll never find the truth in mainstream newspapers. i myself stopped reading them years ago. i hope you're not one of those "the media can't lie to us" guys.
it would be fair to see the whole picture before you make a judgement.
so here's how the other side looks like:
irina cornici was mentally ill and decided to stay for a while at the monastery (not unusual for a suffering orthodox christian). she had a severe seizure and said she was possesed and asked the priest to perform an exorcism to make the demons leave. she became very violent and wanted to hurt herself and the people around her. they had to tie her on a wooden plank (she wasn't "crucified"!). as far as i know, people don't die because of that (psychiatric hospitals do it all the time). they didn't let her starv, like the mainstream media suggested, they gave her food, and tea and water (people don't starv to death in 2-3 days). they put tape on her mouth when she screamed blasphemies,but they didn't choke her! they also called an ambulance!
when the ambulance arrived (2-3 days later) she was exhausted, but conscious and talking. then she passed out and died on the way to the hospital. then the medical staff said they found her dead so they wouldn't be charged with negligence. worth saying that the hospital involved in the case had one of the highest mortality rates in the country. some time ago even a few babies died because of the horrible sanitary conditions and negligence of the staff.
the autopsy showed she died because of respiratory insuficiency linked to her condition and also that she received an overdosed adrenalin injection in the heart, which the coroner considered to be lethal.
so, like you said, it all boils down to whom you believe. but you HAVE to listen to both sides.
i'm not sure if it was the flat earth society. but i'll look for the link.
as for the flat or round earth... of course people tought about it, debated it, and there were oposite opinions. the orthodox church didn't participate in the dispute (since none of the 2 versions contradicted the christian faith), nor did it delegate someone to represent its opinion. (matters of faith were judged by universal synods, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit).
so lactantius and cosmas didn't speak for the orthodox church, they spoke for themselves. in fact, they were among the very few people who oposed the image of a round earth, even in those times.
if you're trying to convince me of anything you shoudn't quote from theosophic sites.

reply from: kentuckyjoe

yodavater, I look to Christ for my understanding about abortion. He says nothing even though abortion was common during the period He was alive. Therefore, I am neither for nor against abortion.
Some people say the unborn child is the very, very least of our brethren and use this passage to oppose abortions. However, Christ clearly refers to the least of our brethren as being those that are hungry, thirsty, a stranger, naked needing clothing, sick or in prison and NOT to the unborn.
Then our opposition to abortion hinges on "Thou shall not kill". Well, obviously, God didn't mean that at all. We take this to mean we can't kill unless society decides we have a good enough reason to kill. We can kill in war, even if the people we kill are innocent women and children. We can kill in self-defense. The interesting thing about this is our society prohibits us from actively killing most times but gives us free rein to kill passively all we want. Killing passively means deliberately letting someone starve or die of disease because they don't have enough money for medicine. Even though our society embraces this type of killing, this is exactly what Christ condemns us to Hell for.
sk1bianca, I'm posting my view for a purpose. Ten percent of all the money I've ever earned or likely ever will earn hasn't and won't feed many people. Christ said He will judge me by whatever talents He has given me to do what He has commanded. I'm trying to point out as clearly as I can that the issue isn't abortion or evolution but rather doing what Christ commanded us to do.
sk1bianca, do you believe in a literal translation of anything else in the bible or just this one concept?

reply from: yoda

To begin with joe, I'm agnostic. Many of the posters here are neither Christian nor religious, and some of those who support abortion claim to be Christian. So to try to make a statement on abortion from the scriptures limits your audience quite a bit.
So since you claim that the scriptures don't support or condemn abortion, why are you claiming to "look to the scriptures" about abortion? Why don't you come out from behind your scriptures and tell us why you support abortion, in your own words?


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics