Jump to content


Photo

Intelligence Vs. Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
208 replies to this topic

#141 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,201 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 26 June 2016 - 05:19 AM

 

 

Fjuri: Christians can't do bad things according to Mike the Wiz; Do note that neither he nor Mike Summers are Christians. They claim to be one, just the same as Hitler did in his days. 

 

Now THAT is a good example of a strawman-fallacy. Perhaps a forgivable strawman fallacy. I have noted in the past that it is certainly an easy strawman fallacy to make and I think anyone could make that fallacy so I am not accusing you of any great crime in making it, because I do understand how it might seem I am arguing that a Christian can't even do anything bad or wrong. But I am only arguing that someone who claims to be a Christian, can't do anti-Christian actions. Certainly a Christian can't commit pre-planned (premeditated) murder, for example, or a live a s*xually immoral lifestyle of orgying every weekend and wife-swapping, for example. 

 

It is definitely possible for Christians to sin, it's just that those sins for Christians, would usually count as the kind of personal-sin that would not be regarded as something as extreme as crime. We might be tempted in some way, or say a white lie. But the New Testament itself says we can, "come boldly to the throne-room of grace" when we sin. So if it is not possible for a Christian to sin, then the bible would not say that we should ask for forgiveness when we sin. 

 

I think Tirian said this from that point-of-view because Tirian will know these things as a Christian.



#142 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,649 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 26 June 2016 - 05:26 AM

But I am only arguing that someone who claims to be a Christian, can't do anti-Christian actions. Certainly a Christian can't commit pre-planned (premeditated) murder, for example, or a live a s*xually immoral lifestyle of orgying every weekend and wife-swapping, for example. 

What makes these sins worse then others?



#143 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 482 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 26 June 2016 - 05:35 AM

The only reason you are calling Hitler a creationist is to associate him with creationists,  

The only reason I label Hitler as a creationist, is because he has made many statements referring to a creator, an almighty creator, and that the Germans were made in god's image.
 

whom you know by majority, are YECs that believe the bible.

 

I have read many times on christianforums.com the claim that the majority --worldwide-- of  creationists is actually muslim. I've never checked or saw sources of this, so I give it for what it i worth.

 

If you are saying that Hitler's quotes about God are somehow an indication that he was a buddhist-creationist? :P

 

I have never made any guess about Hitler's flavour of creationism. 
 

Or was Hitler talking about Allah?

 

It seems improbable, but I am open to the option.

 

 

So then your argument is that Hitler was some type of strange non-Christian "creationist" that did not believe the Lord God of the bible was the creator. Is that what you have been trying to argue?  :rolleyes:

 

 i have never hinted at any relationship between Hitler and christianity.

 

But of course that is not your motive, your motive is OBVIOUSLY to imply he was a creationist like us,

 

And like ISIS. :P

 

No. My motivation is that the truth is told and recognized.

 

because you are annoyed that we associated him with you, by calling him, "evolutionist" or arguing he employed evolutionary-philosophy.

 

Because Mike Summers was spreading errors that needed to be corrected.

These errors have been corrected so often, with evidence, that these aren't erros anymore. Mike Summers' statements can now be labelled as lies.

 

Mike the wiz, in the quoted post you have speculated three times about my motivations, and you were three times wrong. Nobody knows better what is going in my head, than I. In the future please don't speculate anymore about what I think, or believe, or what are my motivations.



#144 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,201 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 26 June 2016 - 07:07 AM

 

 

Fjuri: What makes these sins worse then others?

 

Well, there is a scale-of-sin, and some things don't really count as sin, such as what the OT refers to as, "uninentional sin". Even the NT mentions some issue of grey-area when it talks about making up our own mind about petty issues, such as whether to eat food that was intended for idols. One thing it says is, "sin that does not lead to death",(paraphrase) another thing it says is, "happy is he who does not condemn himself in that thing which he allows". So there is some petty, low-level morality, which is relative. Lying to save someone's life is only a technical lie, for example.

 

Obviously if you steal from your wife, some money, such as a 5 pence coin, even if she found out she would not care, this is only technical theft

 

You're digging into deeper issues now that require a lot more explanation. Suffice to say, if, "Christian" means something, then if someone has a lifestyle or an agenda that contradicts the Christian lifestyle then according to the law of non-contradiction they can't be a Christian.

 

Imagine if you said to me, "I am a biological female" but you are in fact a biological male. That would contradict what it means to be a female.

 

It's the same with a Christian. It means something to be a Christian. But atheists largely, seem to endorse that it doesn't really mean anything, because they don't think Christianity or "being a Christian" really exists. Basically they ASSUME their atheism is true, and that it doesn't really mean anything to be a Christian.

 

But those who are Christian know EVERYTHING the bible says about qualifying to be one, such as, "if you love me, you will obey me" which is what Christ said. He also said, "many will say they knew me but I will say on that day, depart from me, worker of iniquity, for I never knew you".

 

Can you see what gives the game away in that last quote? Someone's actions is what gives the game away. "You shall know them by their fruit".

 

It also says later on; "this is the test of knowing Him (God) that you love one another. Everyone who hates his brother is not of God" (paraphrase)

 

(I paraphrase, and sometimes I paraphrase quite badly, as I have no memory for chapter and verses, but I can look them up if you wish.)

 

Basically you can't be a Christian if you actively pursue an anti-Christian lifestyle/actions/agendas. 

 

Logically there is the possibility that a Christian can commit a one-time grievous act in a moment of passion, such as murder, perhaps. I say perhaps because the circumstances would have to be extraordinary, perhaps a YOUNG/IMMATURE Christian stands a chance of that because like Paul said of some immature Christians he dealt with; "you are still in the flesh". If you are still in the flesh, and pursuing the things of the flesh such as lust, greed, selfishness, anger, ETC...there is a greater chance. If you are a backslidden Christian that is no longer close to the Lord and is no longer listening to Him each day, there is a greater chance. 

 

The closer you are to God, the less likely it is, because your whole DESIRE is to follow Him. I know that must be hard to understand for someone who does not know God.



#145 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,201 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 26 June 2016 - 07:16 AM

 

 

Driewerf: Mike the wiz, in the quoted post you have speculated three times about my motivations, and you were three times wrong. Nobody knows better what is going in my head, than I. In the future please don't speculate anymore about what I think, or believe, or what are my motivations.

 

I repent in dust an ashes. :P

 

But come on Driewerf, if a Christian argues a connection of evolution to Hitler, don't you think it is a rather obvious motive when the atheist then calls Hitler a creationist? Perhaps you yourself are unconscious of your own agenda, which is quite possible, because the heart is desparately deceitful. People think they have good motivations and they indulge cognitive dissonance, (denial).

 

Do you really believe that labelling Hitler a creationist is something you would have done had you not participated in this thread? I think you should be more honest with yourself, it is a pretty blatant tu-quoque argument similar to Johnny calling Little Mo a "big fat man-headed amniote". When we find out that originally, Little Mo called Johnny a big-headed amniote, is it really surprising as to why Little Mo responded with the same accusation?



#146 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 26 June 2016 - 07:17 AM

Fjuri said:

Tirian: It's telling that the atheists in this thread never try to address that evolutionary fitness (as described by Fjuri) could be a dangerous idea from a moral perspective. Instead they try to point out that Christians how done bad things. But of course they have, there are Christians (and those who call themselves Christians) that do bad things sometimes.
But the big difference is that terminating people with low evolutionary fitness would be done in contrast to the teaching of Jesus Christ. The reason Fjuri's idea is dangerous is because the justifications will be made in accordance to his reasoning. There is a big difference.

Fjuri said:
Didn't I state that the theory of evolution is amoral?

But that wouldn't make you amoral would it? Evolution is a concept or idea thought up by intelligent human beings--not an entity.

Fjuri: It makes no judgement with regard to whether actions are moral or not. People have to get their morals from elsewhere. Piasan does it from the pick-n-choose-bible, so does a lot of atheists as they are being raised in a judea-christian society. Of course these morals are the same as good-christians have. The only difference between my morality and yours is that you claim your morality comes from some all-mighty God (exterior) whereas I claim my morality comes from cultural and genetic heritage (both exterior and interior aspects).

So what's the issue if both are the same--your "need" to play God??

Fjuri: The theory of gravity says that if you push someone of a building 100m up, that person is likely to die. Does that create a dangerous idea from a moral perspective? Of course you believe in the bible so that is absurd to you. But imagine yourself a flat-earther that doesn't belief in gravity. Is there suddenly a moral perspective to interpreting that descriptive theory.


Note how he ignors the elephant in the room of whether it would be right or wrong to push someon off the edge claiming gravity does not exist? Would gravity cease to exist becaus he didn't believe it did?

You contradict yourself beause you claimed there is no diference between good christioan morals and yours which is to say you woulld not have gassed the Jews as Hitler et al did. So you thinnk Hitler was wrong? You are trying to have it both ways by trying to believe two opposing ppoints of view. The scripture says no one can serve two masters. So which one is it evo or good??

I have been arguing that evo is dominnant. Which one do you believe is dominant evo or creationism (good)?
 

"Terminating people with evolutionary fitness" would be done in contrast to our inate cultural and genetic teaching as well. The theory of evolution is the descriptive explanation for the diversity of life. Nothing more.

Thus sayeth the Lord (fjuri).
Right and thus Hitler descriptively waa acting as evo's agent! Nothiing more! lol why can't you and the other atheists accept that and sto moalizing for aa descriptive process?

Christians can't do bad things according to Mike the Wiz; Do note that neither he nor Mike Summers are Christians.

The difference is I (and Mike W) am aware when I do wrong and repent but do not do wrong and then claim I did it in the name of Jesus!

They claim to be one, just the same as Hitler did in his days.

Once agaian, you are close with the caveat that I am well aware that I have done wrong but, I have repented and have not blamed anyone, hated anyone nor have I been angry at anyone for 35 years. Nor have I, unlike, Hitler and the Nazi's, plotted the death of or killed anyone.

You have aptly described what it is to be an individual taking presicdence over evo.
 


  • mike the wiz likes this

#147 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 26 June 2016 - 07:24 AM

I would like to bring you back into reality and point out that the word population maens more than one person not some concious multi unit being. Since an individual is a complete unit it follows that the individual has evolved as an individual part of the group. We are individuals first. Group is an organiaational term not an entity!

 

The point is you can't escape talking about populations in evolution; (micro) evolution is the change in allele frequencies of a given population.

 

You are once again trying to inflict human, intelligent characteristics on evo when according to Darwin it has none. The term sucess is human not evolutionary. EVO HAS NO EMOTIONS!

 

You are once again being deliberately obtuse, why?  

 

Evo can not think and so has no point of view. You are speaking for yourself as if you could cause something to evolve. Show us what you have evolved then! Very sloppy cognition for somone who often feighns scietifiic reasoning.

 

You know I didn't imply any of that. Why do you always twist the clear meaning of what others say? 

 

Whateve fantasy you wish to create!

Difficult? Sounds human to me. Evo proceeds without judgement as to difficulty!

 

That is what actual modern-day evolutionary theory says based off of the Hardy-Weinberg equations, but as I've noted before you don't care what the facts are; you just want to attack evo.

 

So what did they create?

And evo marches on naturally selecting and ignoring your imagnary rules!

 

Why are you equivocating creationism?

 

And what part of Love your brother like yourself don't you undersand?

"For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 1 John 4:20-21 Message Bible-If anyone boasts, “I love God,” and goes right on hating his brother or sister, thinking nothing of it, he is a liar."

If you don't like what God created that's a crticism of God. God calls KKK and others liars if they hate their brothers!

"And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

"It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

"Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
Goku why do you insist on tryng to make anyone that says they are a Christian a Christian a Christian when the bible and Jesus clearly says a perssn's behavior and actions determine wheter an idividual is a disciple of Jeus Chrisst? You "know" better than this. "By their fruit you will know them!" Stop trying to pretend you are so gullible!

I've got ocean front propety in Nevada I wish to sell you! LOL :)

 

I never said the KKK were 'true' Christians, only dispelling the idea brought up in this thread that evolutionists are responsible for racism.

 

Mike, why do you insist on twisting the clear meaning of what others say?



#148 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 26 June 2016 - 07:46 AM


Driewerf

Driewerf: Mike the wiz, in the quoted post you have speculated three times about my motivations, and you were three times wrong. Nobody knows better what is going in my head, than I. In future please don't speculate anymore about what I think, or believe, or what are my motivations.


Spoken like a true control freak (atheist). Mike W and Driewerf you have my pemission to think or speculate anything you want about me. I will not try to control what you think as I don't think I can. LOL

See now Driewerf if you read the bible you would know that "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks". You tell us what your motive is by all the things you say and do and then call us imputing motive? That is hilarious. You have got to be joking. LOL

 



#149 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 26 June 2016 - 07:52 AM

Yes, but again you are repeating a P.R.A.T.T yet again. (a point refuted a thousand times). 

 

It is obvious to intelligent people (and so I assume is obvious to you) that if someone argues a position yet that position contradicts what they claim, then they are not really of that position but their motives are obviously to ABUSE the authority of scripture.

 

There is no argument for racism that would work, because the bible has hundreds of pages of scripture and none of them condone or even mention the colour of skin in a derogatory way. We also stem from two people, and all people groups come from them.

 

we don't have to go into why their arguments are wrong, because only unintelligent people can't see why they are wrong. To argue as to why those KKK arguments are wrong would be like arguing as to why Hitler was wrong. It is absurd for you to expect me to be put in that position just because people make the CLAIM they are Christian-creationist.

 

You must surely be able to see the difference between a genuine, bible-believing creationist like us here at EFF, and people who are simply racists, but at heart they don't believe anything, they are just wicked people. 

 

You are basically just arguing a modern form of, "witch burners were Christian".

 

No - they weren't. I know it seems unfair because they went by that name, but what exactly did the peacable actions of Christ show? "if you love me, you will obey me". (everyone in Europe during witch-burning were associated with Christianity in some way, every one of the population in some cases, at some time, were either classed as catholic or protestant, and there was no real atheism in those times, but do you seriously believe that made all people practicing Christians that genuinely believe the gospel message and fearfully obeyed Christ?) MY GOODNESS Goku!!!!

 

You have to show where Jesus said black people are worth less that other people if you want to support the KKK's argument. Jesus who went to the samaritan woman at the well, when it was at that time that Jews and Samaritans would not so much as talk to each other because of prejudice. Jesus did not agree with any of the silly things that come from men's wicked hearts. he also said, "the things which are highly esteemed with men, are an abomination to God".

 

 

So do you agree with their argument? If you don't agree with their argument and we agree they were wrong, and can show they were wrong provably, then that proves that their actions contradict the Christian bible. I think you would have to have a very intense case of retardation to not realise that they opportunistically USED the "mark of Cain" as a way of trying to FORCE-FIT racism into the bible, but nothing in those passages implies anything about skin colour. This is one of those argues that are so silly that even if the argument was true it still wouldn't justify racism. When Jonah came out of the whale his skin was coloured by the things he was exposed to in the whale, so the people repented. If God uses something out-of-the-ordinary, to scare people, then God is using the fact that people fear that which is out of the ordinary. He gave Cain some kind of scar, like a large birth-mark, and it would make simple people of that time, shun him. Even so, how would that mean that black people are to blame? I mean I almost laugh out loud, because it is so obvious they are force-fitting their racism into the bible here, with a desperate attempt to justify it.

 

You used the correct word, "justification". I think you're smart enough to see that all types of wicked organisations don't really follow Christ's message and seek, "good will to all men". Since black men are "all men" I am sorry Goku, but these arguments do not prove any genuine Christian connection.

 

Your ad-nauseam P.R.A.T.T is basically the argument that, "if someone says they are X they are".

 

If that is a sound argument, then we would have to let all prisoners that plead innocence, go free and would have had to let Ted Bundy go free because he pleaded innocence. (Reductio Ad Absurdum).

 

I really don't know how many times we have to go over this: creationist =/= Christian.

 

The part of my post you responded to was made in light of the proposition that racism stems from evolution. Apart from this being a poisoning of the well, it is also false.
 

In fact the only time I mentioned Christianity was when I said that the KKK is a "self proclaimed "Christian" organization", which I thought would have been clear enough given the recent emphasis/motif of creationist =/= Christian, and our recurring discussions of how not everyone who claims to be Christian is a genuine follower of Christ. 

 

Put simply you are attacking fallacies that no one has made.

 

As I understand it the mark of Cain, Biblically speaking, had nothing to do with skin color or the skin color of his descendants. However, that is neither here nor there; the whole point is that racism is often championed by those who advocate some type of creationism. Again this is to counter the proposition that racism stems from evolution.



#150 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 26 June 2016 - 08:21 AM

Goku said:
 

The point is you can't escape talking about populations in evolution; (micro) evolution is the change in allele frequencies of a given population.

Point taken! I misunderstood.

Mike Summers, on 26 Jun 2016 - 02:29 AM, said:


You are once again trying to inflict human, intelligent characteristics on evo when according to Darwin it has none. The term sucess is human not evolutionary. EVO HAS NO EMOTIONS!

You are once again being deliberately obtuse, why?

I gues I am a drama queen. I am being facious. lol
 

Mike Summers, on 26 Jun 2016 - 02:29 AM, said:


Evo can not think and so has no point of view. You are speaking for yourself as if you could cause something to evolve. Show us what you have evolved then! Very sloppy cognition for somone who often feighns scietifiic reasoning.


You know I didn't imply any of that. Why do you always twist the clear meaning of what others say?

Apparently I didn't think I was twisting!

Mike Summers, on 26 Jun 2016 - 02:29 AM, said:
Whateve fantasy you wish to create!

Difficult? Sounds human to me. Evo proceeds without judgement as to difficulty.

That is what actual modern-day evolutionary theory says based off of the Hardy-Weinberg equations, but as I've noted before you don't care what the facts are; you just want to attack evo.


Get real! If I thought evo was a fact, I woulldn't attack it. I AM NOT ATtacking you but the silly idea of evo.

Mike Summers, on 26 Jun 2016 - 02:29 AM, said:


So what did they create?

And evo marches on naturally selecting and ignoring your imagnary rules!


Why are you equivocating creationism?

 

Because I think with my mind not yours!

Mike Summers, on 26 Jun 2016 - 02:29 AM, said:

And what part of Love your brother like yourself don't you undersand?

"For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 1 John 4:20-21 Message Bible-If anyone boasts, “I love God,” and goes right on hating his brother or sister, thinking nothing of it, he is a liar."

If you don't like what God created that's a crticism of God. God calls KKK and others liars if they hate their brothers!

"And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

"It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

"Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
Goku why do you insist on tryng to make anyone that says they are a Christian a Christian a Christian when the bible and Jesus clearly says a perssn's behavior and actions determine wheter an idividual is a disciple of Jesus Chrisst? You "know" better than this. "By their fruit you will know them!" Stop trying to pretend you are so gullible!

I've got ocean front propety in Nevada I wish to sell you!

I never said the KKK were 'true' Christians, only dispelling the idea brought up in this thread that evolutionists are responsible for racism.

Does racism exist? Does evo exist? Is there a God? Then Evo did it!

Mike, why do you insist on twisting the clear meaning of what others say?

A tad of an overgenralization! Why do you keep insisting evo is true and then claiming it isn't by claimng it has no effect or accountablity--it hasn't caused anything you incongruently claim it has. According to modern evo scientists it caused everything except the things you say it didn't! Which one is it bro? I would like an asnwer. Is evo a cause or an effect? Mybe both? lol



#151 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 26 June 2016 - 09:02 AM

Goku siad:

I really don't know how many times we have to go over this: creationist =/= Christian.

I have a solution. why dont we both agree to not use the term in the contet of this forum as it seeems synonimous with Christian? If you continue to do so you will be deliberately trying to make a non issue having your cake and eating it too.

The part of my post you responded to was made in light of the proposition that racism stems from evolution. Apart from this being a poisoning of the well, it is also false.

Of course it stems rom evo! What else can it come from? There is no free choice. What caused everything according to you and evo scentists?

In fact the only time I mentioned Christianity was when I said that the KKK is a "self proclaimed "Christian" organization", which I thought would have been clear enough given the recent emphasis/motif of creationist =/= Christian, and our recurring discussions of how not everyone who claims to be Christian is a genuine follower of Christ.

If you knew better what was the point of mentioning it at all? Just trying to ge a "dig" in?

Put simply you are attacking fallacies that no one has made.

So now you are claiming ther is no such thing aa racism?

As I understand it the mark of Cain, Biblically speaking, had nothing to do with skin color or the skin color of his descendants. However, that is neither here nor there; the whole point is that racism is often championed by those who advocate some type of creationism. Again this is to counter the proposition that racism stems from evolution.

evo came first
Now you infer that God is a racist? Wow! cause alwaay occurs before effects. So which came first evolution or racism? Your claim is evo. Since evo caused us then we caused racism. That makes evo ultimately respomsible. Why don't you want to accept what you say you believe?



#152 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 482 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 26 June 2016 - 10:58 AM

I repent in dust an ashes. :P
 
But come on Driewerf, if a Christian argues a connection of evolution to Hitler, don't you think it is a rather obvious motive when the atheist then calls Hitler a creationist? Perhaps you yourself are unconscious of your own agenda, which is quite possible, because the heart is desparately deceitful. People think they have good motivations and they indulge cognitive dissonance, (denial).

Oh, the special mind reading powers of christians/creationists. i had forgotten about  those.

 

Do you really believe that labelling Hitler a creationist is something you would have done had you not participated in this thread? I think you should be more honest with yourself, it is a pretty blatant tu-quoque argument similar to Johnny calling Little Mo a "big fat man-headed amniote". When we find out that originally, Little Mo called Johnny a big-headed amniote, is it really surprising as to why Little Mo responded with the same accusation?

 

You keep ignoring a few things: like all the evidence provided.

And it can not be a tu quoque: otherwise Hitler should be both a creationist and inspired by Darwin.



#153 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 26 June 2016 - 11:39 AM

Driewerf said

And it can not be a tu quoque: otherwise Hitler should be both a creationist and inspired by Darwin.

My claim that Hitler was an agent of evo is based onyour claim that evo caused (created) Hitler and therefore is responsible for anything Hitler et al did!
Do you disagree that Hitler evolved from a similar ancessor to apes.



#154 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,649 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 26 June 2016 - 11:39 AM

Oh, the special mind reading powers of christians/creationists. i had forgotten about  those.

 

You keep ignoring a few things: like all the evidence provided.

And it can not be a tu quoque: otherwise Hitler should be both a creationist and inspired by Darwin.

Its not a tu-quoque for a different reason Driewerf:

 

2)  Not one word stated by Hitler citing either Darwin or evolution has been presented.  All of the claims presented making that assertion have been secondary sources.  (Note:  IIRC, there were one or two references to evolution in Mein Kampf but they were commenting on the development of political systems.)

3)  On the other hand, multiple quotes of specific statements by Hitler in his speeches and written works, have been posted showing references to:

     a) The Almighty.

     b ) The Lord.

     c)  God.

4)  Hatred of the Jews goes back to the time of Christ.  At the trial of Jesus, the Jews said: " And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”  (Matt 27:25)

5)  Martin Luther, hardly an evolutionist, wrote lengthy documents about Jews and fanning hatred of them .... beginning in 1543. 

6)  Hitler tried to create a "monoculture" by creating a "pure" society.  The problem with a genetically identical culture is that a single event can wipe out the entire population. In other words, genetic diversity works best for evolution and genocide is actually ANTI-evolution.

 

You see, a tu-quoque fallacy would be there if we failed to reject the claim of the accusation and simply countered with a counter-accusation.

We have not. We debunked the accusation and supported our accusation. Both are necessary to not have a tu-quoque fallacy. 

 



#155 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,201 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 26 June 2016 - 11:53 AM

 

Fjuri: You see, a tu-quoque fallacy would be there if we failed to reject the claim of the accusation and simply countered with a counter-accusation.

We have not. We debunked the accusation and supported our accusation. Both are necessary to not have a tu-quoque fallacy. 

 

So you didn't do what you done? Oh I forget, most documentaries on the TV tell us Hitler was a creationist don't they, so there is no possible way it could be a tu-quoque!  :rotfl3: 

 

That is hilarious. We say Hitler was an agent of evo and you say he was an agent of creationism, then racism is mentioned, as relateable to evo, and Goku says racism is coming from creationism. I guess it is just a coincidence that we are at a creationist forum, Mike, because Fjuri, Goku and Driewerf obviously meant that Hitler was a buddhist, creationist, non-Christian when they used the term, "creationist".

 

:rotfl3: 

Next week on evo-hilarity episode two: "we as evos are not arguing we evolved from a common ancestor of apes, in fact as evos we are not even claiming to believe in evo". :blink: 

 

Yes, guys. We know you are not saying what you are saying.....as per usual. 

 

:P



#156 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 26 June 2016 - 12:03 PM

Fjuri:

Oh, the special mind reading powers of christians/creationists. i had forgotten about those.

You keep ignoring a few things: like all the evidence provided.

And it can not be a tu quoque: otherwise Hitler should be both a creationist and inspired by Darwin.

Its not a tu-quoque for a different reason Driewerf:

piasan, on 22 Jun 2016 - 3:44 PM, said:



2) Not one word stated by Hitler citing either Darwin or evolution has been presented. All of the claims presented making that assertion have been secondary sources. (Note: IIRC, there were one or two references to evolution in Mein Kampf but they were commenting on the development of political systems.)

3) On the other hand, multiple quotes of specific statements by Hitler in his speeches and written works, have been posted showing references to:

a) The Almighty.

b ) The Lord.

c) God.

4) Hatred of the Jews goes back to the time of Christ. At the trial of Jesus, the Jews said: " And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.” (Matt 27:25)

5) Martin Luther, hardly an evolutionist, wrote lengthy documents about Jews and fanning hatred of them .... beginning in 1543.

6) Hitler tried to create a "monoculture" by creating a "pure" society. The problem with a genetically identical culture is that a single event can wipe out the entire population. In other words, genetic diversity works best for evolution and genocide is actually ANTI-evolution.

You see, a tu-quoque fallacy would be there if we failed to reject the claim of the accusation and simply countered with a counter-accusation.

We have not. We debunked the accusation and supported our accusation. Both are necessary to not have a tu-quoque fallacy.


And also ignored the so called evolutionaary force I might add!
Thanks for the treat once again to your ill logic. lol

Meanwhile I offer as evidence something one might expect to appear as at least as small blip on the evo radar screen: 9,000,000 dead people--evolution in its full grandeur!
 



#157 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 26 June 2016 - 12:15 PM

Mike said:
 

 

Fjuri: You see, a tu-quoque fallacy would be there if we failed to reject the claim of the accusation and simply countered with a counter-accusation.

We have not. We debunked the accusation and supported our accusation. Both are necessary to not have a tu-quoque fallacy.

So you didn't do what you done? Oh I forget, most documentaries on the TV tell us Hitler was a creationist don't they, so there is no possible way it could be a tu-quoque! :rotfl3:

That is hilarious. We say Hitler was an agent of evo and you say he was an agent of creationism, then racism is mentioned, as relateable to evo, and Goku says racism is coming from creationism. I guess it is just a coincidence that we are at a creationist forum, Mike, because Fjuri, Goku and Driewerf obviously meant that Hitler was a buddhist, creationist, non-Christian when they used the term, "creationist".



:rotfl3:

Next week on evo-hilarity episode two: "we as evos are not arguing we evolved from a common ancestor of apes, in fact as evos we are not even claiming to believe in evo". :blink:


Yes, guys. We know you are not saying what you are saying.....as per usual.

I am laughing out loud. What you said was so funny, Mike! How I love parody and sarcasm!



#158 Magnanimae

Magnanimae

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas
  • Interests:Video games, apologetics, school, music, philosophy and science, Jesus.
  • Age: 18
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Las Vegas

Posted 26 June 2016 - 12:45 PM

God cursed the ground for man"s sake? So god somehow redesigned the world and the animal kingdom and choose -- as a moral agent-- to make lions, foxes and wolves carnivores. He choose to make zebras, rabbits and deers game.  It was his choice.


Yes, it was. God made genes which allowed for some animals to become carnivores. So? The animals didn't turn carnivorous until humans sinned. We brought death and suffering into the world.

Consequences your god choose. If you don't like these consequences, blame god.Not evolution, as Mike Summers does.
 


Blame God? Because you don't like the consequences God has made for this world when we disobey Him? Are you saying if someone doesn't like something, they should blame the person who made it that way in the first place? If yes, that's logical to do, but isn't it a little childish? After all, if I did not like the scolding I got at work for messing up, should I then go up to my boss and point fingers at them criticizing them for the way they disciplined me?

That he relly is a mercifull god? That he designed it well? 
 
Why did your god not choose another option?


Yes, he is merciful. Mercy is not giving someone what they deserve. God says we are all deserving of hell, but he does not give it to us, at least not immediately.

The system is designed as well as it can be in my opinion. We have consequences for our actions. If God were to do nothing and people could do anything they want with no consequences and everyone goes to heaven, would that be just or fair. Hitler chilling with the people he slaughtered in paradise unaccountable to our boundlessly merciful God. Of course, this is just one possible system, but one that couldn't exist due to God being unable to change His nature (which includes justice).

As for God choosing another option, who is to say this is not the best way things could be? However, we hit one problem in talking about the best way things could be. Subjectivity. It really is our opinion versus each other's opinions and God's opinion over how things shoule be. So, we could clash all day over the best system possible, but it would be of little value, in my opinion. :)
  • mike the wiz likes this

#159 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,201 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 26 June 2016 - 01:14 PM

And a flushbunking success of a post from Magnanimade to refute evos! :D

 

Youa re right, we are subjective, but because God is omniscient, it follows that in His infinite wisdom, He will choose the best plan. When anti-theists poin the finger, they are just being self-righteous because they imply that they as puney gods, with finite minds, can know better than the Lord, Who is wiser than a million human brains knit together. 



#160 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 26 June 2016 - 02:28 PM

When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it--always.

Mahatma Gandhi






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users