The biogeographic evidence for evolution

[SkepticThinker]

You're right! Hitler MUST have been a born again Christian who LOVED Jesus and followed all Jesus's precepts like "Blessed are the peacemakers!" and "Put down the sword!"

Latine prohibere usura, suus 'inepta....

Why do you insist on straw manning everyone's points?

 

[viole]

Jesus is coming to save Israel actually. Not sure what sort of bible believers you have met.

Sure.

As is the present unchristian Europe! Just because they draped a christian cross or something across their warmongering sorry arses doesn't make them 'Christian'.

Actually, the book is about the time when Christianity was in full control. The so called dark ages.

Ciao

- viole

 

[tas8831]

How were those three papers he provided to demonstrate that creationists have valid explanations for biogeographic evidence supporting evolution? I missed them.

Wow... now that you mention it...

 

[tas8831]

None of science deals with what state nature was on earth in the past. Science is about methodically believing it was as now and modelling accordingly!

Yes, the Sumers recorded long lives also, and the Egyptians recorded spirit beings as the first kings!

Ah, so the Egyptian gods and goddesses are real. Got it.

 

[tas8831]

I see. The papers backing the claim were never provided. Strange. I would not have expected an empty claim from a creationist. No doubt it is an oversight and the papers were lost as result of canine evolution and diet physiology.

I suspect that were they even real, they were probably on par with the shoddy work of Weikart.

 

[viole]

You're right! Hitler MUST have been a born again Christian who LOVED Jesus and followed all Jesus's precepts like "Blessed are the peacemakers!" and "Put down the sword!"

Latine prohibere usura, suus 'inepta....

Did I say that? I said he might have taken example from Jesus Dad, and all the genocides that He ordered. The Canaanites, you know.

Looks like you ignore the atrocities ordered by your moral giver in the OT.

Since it is obvious that the OT is embarrassing, and not somwell known, my suggestion to all Christians is to rip it from their official scripturs and keep meek Jesus only.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I suspect that were they even real, they were probably on par with the shoddy work of Weikart.

I never expected to see even one example offered in response. From my perspective it was just another lie to maintain a denial of science in face of the fact that there was no valid objection to the science.

I find it strange that an a Christian and academic would resort to the tactic or would be reticent in supplying sources that support his overt and implied claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Crimes committed in this state can be solved in this state. What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

And if you want to say that there was a change in "state" then the burden of proof is upon you. Try your nonsense at a trial where you claim "a month ago the laws of physics were different". If you could not support such a ludicrous claim you would be found guilty. Until you support your "change of state" with something more than a poor reinterpretation of a book of myths you are admitting that you are wrong with every post where you make that claim.

 

[dad]

The state Last Thursday was diferent, obviously.

prove that it wasn't.

Why would I want to, since I have no science claim it was either way? Try to deal in reality. Try to support your 'science' claims.

 

[dad]

Sure.



Actually, the book is about the time when Christianity was in full control. The so called dark ages.

Ciao

- viole

We are in the dark ages now thanks to sillyscience fables. The veneer of Christianity worn by nations should easily be seen through. How is it you seem to have difficulty doing so?

 

[dad]

Ah, so the Egyptian gods and goddesses are real. Got it.

? You doubted demons existed as well as angels??

 

[dad]

And if you want to say that there was a change in "state" then the burden of proof is upon you.

If you want to construct models of the past based on claiming as science, that the nature and laws were a certain way, then you must support that.
I can believe history and the bible in the meanwhile.

Try your nonsense at a trial where you claim "a month ago the laws of physics were different".

You try it. I accept reason and fact and knowledge. There is proof last month existed in this same nature we know today. Last century also. Thousands of years ago also. But NOT for several thousand years ago. That is unknown.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We are in the dark ages now thanks to sillyscience fables. The veneer of Christianity worn by nations should easily be seen through. How is it you seem to have difficulty doing so?

Yeah, those silly observations and measurements! What do they know?

 

[SkepticThinker]

? You doubted demons existed as well as angels??

Uh yeah. Where is the evidence for them???

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wow... now that you mention it...

First they were "position papers", which are likely to have no scientific value. Now they have evolved into "secular peer-reviewed papers". By tomorrow they may be revelations carved in stone.

It is a strange excuse, to withhold works citing skeptical scrutiny as the reason for withholding, when subjecting such works to skeptical scrutiny is a keystone reason for publishing them in the first place.

The love of contradiction is a notable facet of the creationist mentality.

 

[tas8831]

"Of course you have. Name or link to 3 of them. And then EXPLAIN why you think these papers have merit."

You keep insulting my academic credentials, so, my feelings hurt, I don't want to expose my favorite secular peer-reviewed papers to your scrutiny, because, you know, you're a cruel skeptic.

We knew you had no examples.

Thanks for not admitting it while admitting it.

 

[dad]

Yeah, those silly observations and measurements! What do they know?

Not the future or past. Sorry if you thought your religion had a crystal ball.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And if you want to say that there was a change in "state" then the burden of proof is upon you. Try your nonsense at a trial where you claim "a month ago the laws of physics were different". If you could not support such a ludicrous claim you would be found guilty. Until you support your "change of state" with something more than a poor reinterpretation of a book of myths you are admitting that you are wrong with every post where you make that claim.

It just occurred to me, while reading through some of the amusing posts on here, that I have no evidence that the Bible that existed prior to my lifetime was the same book that exists now. Before I was born, it could have been a history book about the spice trade or a long poem about dogs. From what I am reading in the more amusing posts, is that dating techniques are no good. Can't use em. So all of those so called manuscripts and ancient documents used to support the Bible could have been created anytime during my life and not be old at all.

 

[tas8831]

I think you're right!

I know I am - I am right that you cannot support your thesis that Darwin gave us Hitler.

The appendix works on automatic pilot and is the sole organ in the body that is not part of a larger organ system. It is proven impossible that any part of the human nervous or autonomous system touches the appendix, runs through it, or catalyzes its actions... you're correct!

What is 'autonomous system'? As a language expert, why on earth do you pretend that you have special insights into things like anatomy and physiology?

This is hilarious to me because you cannot understand the depths of your ignorance on that one thing (and pretty much all of your evolution/biology claims). And you just won;t admit your demonstrated errors. At least Shmogie did... once.

What needs catalyzing in the appendix? Do you even know what catalysis is?

And you're right again! Hitler wasn't a Darwinist, because he didn't believe in survival of the fittest or that non-white races and Jews were inferior creatures, and he never, ever, ever used Darwinist/evolution terms like "race" or "struggle among races", etc. in his many hundreds of speeches that were written or recorded.

I think you REALLY understand Adolf Hitler and ought to write a book!

Wow... I didn't realize that the term "race" was invented by Darwin - read that in Weikart, did you? And Hitler believed that differential reproduction (i.e., survival of the fittest) justified his Jew hatred, and NOT the writings of his Christian influences like Luther? Huh....

And Hitler used Darwin's "struggle among races" such as races of cabbages, horses, and pigeons - the ONLY races he referred to in his book?

Wow, that Weikart is worse of a scholar than I thought!

Let us all recall, that in his zeal to PROVE that Hitler was influenced by Darwin, BB actually linked to an article that concluded thusly:

One of YOUR linked articles:

"In order to sustain the thesis that Hitler was a Darwinian one would have to ignore all the explicit statements of Hitler rejecting any theory like Darwin’s and draw fanciful implications from vague words, errant phrases, and ambiguous sentences,neglecting altogether more straight -forward, contextual interpretations of such utterances. Only the ideologically blinded would still try to sustain the thesis in the face of the contrary, manifest evidence."​

Poor BB - you try so hard.... and fail...

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm not smearing a respected branch of science, I'm pointing to how Hitler and Darwin would have agreed about the inferiority of blacks, and the necessity of races to struggle IF races are different species--you know, like "aboriginal man" and "occidental man", like when we were kids... or NOW. Gross!!!

For the sake of argument, let's grant that Darwin was a racist. Can you answer the following?

Charles Darwin was a racist, therefore ________________?