Churches celebrate Darwin`s birthday

[icurhuman2]

Quote by: Rainbow Off Topic I am not a doctor.

Simple one-line rejoinders don’t cut it. And my reply to your comment was most certainly NOT off-topic. When you fail to reply to comment, your argument, whatever it is, falls apart at the seams. You may not be a doctor, but then neither am I. Are you suggesting that you need to have a doctorate to read a science or nature journal? Have you read anything besides a bible? You’ve missed a lot if that’s the case…

Your position as "whipping-boy" in this forum appears to be sadly justified...

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: icurhuman2 Simple one-line rejoinders don’t cut it. And my reply to your comment was most certainly NOT off-topic. When you fail to reply to comment, your argument, whatever it is, falls apart at the seams. You may not be a doctor, but then neither am I. Are you suggesting that you need to have a doctorate to read a science or nature journal? Have you read anything besides a bible? You’ve missed a lot if that’s the case… Your position as "whipping-boy" in this forum appears to be sadly justified...

if he read and believed a Bible, he wouldn't be arguing against me in this debate. problem is, he doesn't believe the Bible, and neither does the majority of the US.

[RickSp]

Quote by: dthmstr254 oh, and don't forget the original documents [of the census], which, if you would like to explore on your next trip to Rome, can be found in Vatican City's museum.

Sure. You are making stuff up again. The census referred to in Luke - a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed - never happened.

The advantage of celebrating Darwin's birthday is that we have a high level of confidence that Darwin did, in fact, exist.

[icurhuman2]

Quote by: dthmstr254 if he read and believed a Bible, he wouldn't be arguing against me in this debate. problem is, he doesn't believe the Bible, and neither does the majority of the US.

The comparison between religious belief and Darwin's "theory" is a bit bizzare in that the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The big headache for the religions comes from their position on the superiority of homo sapiens sapiens over all other life. Humanity is supposedly the beneficiary of God's efforts in the creation of the universe. However, the argument that human's are above animals because we aren't animals ourselves (which is the real bone of contention) falls apart after only cursory comparisons. WHY ARE WE SPECIAL?
Some say that it's because we use tools. But, animals use tools. Recently wild chimpanzees have been documented as using a tool kit; digging a hole in an ant's nest using a large stick like a shovel, then using a smaller stick to draw the ants out. Some say it's because we don't behave like animals. But surely our territorial dominion is comparable to most animals territorial behavior. We rut like animals, even worse than animals when sexual deviancy is applied. When it gets down to basic instincts we're dominated by them all...
Of course some churches celebrate Darwin's theory, otherwise where would all those Catholic primates and monks come from?

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: icurhuman2 The comparison between religious belief and Darwin's "theory" is a bit bizzare in that the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The big headache for the religions comes from their position on the superiority of homo sapiens sapiens over all other life. Humanity is supposedly the beneficiary of God's efforts in the creation of the universe. However, the argument that human's are above animals because we aren't animals ourselves (which is the real bone of contention) falls apart after only cursory comparisons. WHY ARE WE SPECIAL? Some say that it's because we use tools. But, animals use tools. Recently wild chimpanzees have been documented as using a tool kit; digging a hole in an ant's nest using a large stick like a shovel, then using a smaller stick to draw the ants out. Some say it's because we don't behave like animals. But surely our territorial dominion is comparable to most animals territorial behavior. We rut like animals, even worse than animals when sexual deviancy is applied. When it gets down to basic instincts we're dominated by them all... Of course some churches celebrate Darwin's theory, otherwise where would all those Catholic primates and monks come from?

evolution lists natural selection as one of its main motors, but I have read many posts where evolutionists say that they don't care if God put the life on earth. the contradiction here is, if God could create life, then he could tamper with the rules of life, or the reactions, and make sure that only the right combinations and processes occurred. this phenomenon destroys natural selection, because it would then not be natural, but deity, that was doing the selecting. secondly, I would like you to explain laws through instinct. laws and morals require lucid, critical thought to create, something not derived by instinct. thirdly, if it were instinct, you could easily identify what processes allowed critical thought, and people wouldn't change their mind about anything, which is easily illustrated through the shifting sands that our emotions are, and the decisions we make from them. instinct is like a programmed action, no human has ever gone by a programmed action.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp Sure. You are making stuff up again. The census referred to in Luke - a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed - never happened. The advantage of celebrating Darwin's birthday is that we have a high level of confidence that Darwin did, in fact, exist.

and did, in fact, come up with a theory that couldn't stand up to an actual experiment. I would like to see ANY experiment that EVER showed macroevolution of a single celled organism into, for example, a sponge.

secondly, as to the census papers, I have two sources:

Arnold J. Toynbee, Hannibal's Legacy (Oxford 1965) I, Chapter III Annex 10.
Tenney Frank, "Roman Census Statistics from 508 to 225 B.C.," American Journal of Philology 51 (1930) 313-324.


here is a summary of the censuses taken by them in between 508 BC and 47 AD:


508 B.C. 130,000

503 B.C. 120,000

498 B.C. 150,700

493 B.C. 110,000

474 B.C. 103,000

465 B.C. 104,714

459 B.C. 117,319

393/92 B.C. 152,573

340 B.C. 165,000
160,000

ca. 334-323 B.C. 250,000
150,000
130,000

294/93 B.C. 262,321
272,320
270,000
220,000
260,000

ca. 290/87 B.C. 272,000

280/79 B.C. 287,000

276/75 B.C. 271,224
271,234

265/64 B.C. 382,234
292,334

252/51 B.C. 297,797

247/46 B.C. 241,212

241/40 B.C. 260,000
250,000

234/3 B.C. 270,212

230/29 or 225/24 B.C. 273,000

209/08 B.C. 137,108

204/03 B.C. 214,000

194/93 B.C. 143,704

189/88 B.C. 258,318
258,310

179/78 B.C. 258,294

174/73 B.C. 269,015
267,231

169/68 B.C. 312,805

164/63 B.C. 337,022
337,452

159/58 B.C. 328,316

154/53 B.C. 324,000

147/46 B.C. 322,000

142/41 B.C. 328,442

136/35 B.C. 317,933

131/30 B.C. 318,823

125/24 B.C. 394,736

115/14 B.C. 394,336

86/85 B.C. 463,000

70/69 B.C. 910,000
900,000

28 B.C. (Augustus) 4,063,000

8 B.C. (Augustus) 4,233,000

A.D. 14 (Augustus) 4,937,000

A.D. 47 5,984,072
6,941,691
6,944,000


the ones that were emboldened are the ones most likely to be the one mentioned in the Bible.

With the census itself being of such importance, the job of compiling the lists was not simply left to anonymous scribes. It was overseen by two censors. These were incorruptible and noble-blooded men of substance who were appointed for their proven integrity and authority. It was their role to scrutinize each man, carefully evaluating his riches and his rank and placing him in his rightful place within the civic hierarchy of Rome. In assessing the lower ranks of Roman society, little was taken into account but their material belongings. However, for the citizens of high position in the hierarchy were subjected to the most penetrating gaze of the censor. And it was an uncomfortable thing indeed, to be inspected in such a way. For very much was at stake. The censors, looking into a man's public and private lives, might decide to move a citizen a few rungs down the social ladder if he had, for example, turned a blind eye to his wife's adulteries, committed perjury, fathered no children, appeared on the stage (actors were seen with contempt by Roman society) or failed to cultivate his land properly.

(http://www.roman-empire.net/society/society.html)

obviously enough, I have links, you don't, and neither will you ever disprove that the originals are indeed catologued.

[RickSp]

You are spewing garbage again little boy. The issue is not whether or not the Romans took censuses, they did, but whether Luke's fantasy has any historical grounding. It doesn't (just like all of the references to Jesus.) And your listing of other censuses across multiple centuries proves only that you have time to waste.

And once again you raise evolution. Absurd. Why do you want to demonstrate your ignorance in yet another topic?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: dthmstr254 if he read and believed a Bible, he wouldn't be arguing against me in this debate. problem is, he doesn't believe the Bible, and neither does the majority of the US.

That is not quite correct.

With a reference to the Bible, one must manifest and/or experience grey-cells' malfunction, to take the whole data written within the Bible literally.
Some data represents events that took place.
Some data represents symbolic parallels, as a warning to Mankind.
Some data remains unknown and/or hard to explain.
Some data can be taken literally.
Ect.
One needs to be aware of that prior reading the Bible, and debating over material the Bible supplies us with, eventually.

What am I to debate :
- the Bible
- Christian Church decision
- Darwin theory
???

Darwin's concept is a theory, and nothing but a theory, regardless of arguments used by some guys. No one can provide any data in order to support Darwin theory, except for speculations, guesses, desires to-come-true, ect.
In contrary, Einstein theory is not only fully acceptable, but has found to be supported by science and technology. It applies to Netwon's theory, ect.

Churches decided to celebrate Darwin birthday, for 2 reasons (at least) :
- release a pressure that appeared in mass-media sources
- relax some Christians' stance with concern to Mankind creation
It does not mean that Christian Church accepts Darwin theory, though (!)
A pure political decision, instead and indeed.

What am I to do, then : get excited over some speculative materials (read : Darwin theory) ? :-)

[Rainbow]

Quote by: icurhuman2 Simple one-line rejoinders don’t cut it. And my reply to your comment was most certainly NOT off-topic. When you fail to reply to comment, your argument, whatever it is, falls apart at the seams. You may not be a doctor, but then neither am I. Are you suggesting that you need to have a doctorate to read a science or nature journal? Have you read anything besides a bible? You’ve missed a lot if that’s the case… Your position as "whipping-boy" in this forum appears to be sadly justified...

Off Topic

My position :
- get a data
- read and analyze a data
- submit findings
I do not come to Volcanvo forum to establish any position.

I place "Off Topic" label for the following reason :
- it does not match thread's topic

A phrase "I am not a doctor" may indicate variety of options. It depends of context within.

Why should I explain to you things you should have been well familiar with ?
What subject you want me to debate ?

Do you mean Darwin theory ?
Darwin theory is a theory, and nothing but a theory. It lacks the science and technology related support.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Rainbow That is not quite correct. With a reference to the Bible, one must manifest and/or experience grey-cells' malfunction, to take the whole data written within the Bible literally. Some data represents events that took place. Some data represents symbolic parallels, as a warning to Mankind. Some data remains unknown and/or hard to explain. Some data can be taken literally. Ect. One needs to be aware of that prior reading the Bible, and debating over material the Bible supplies us with, eventually.

here is what I believe:
the Bible is to be taken literally in the stuff that is dealing with history and direct commandments, metaphorically when it indicates a parable or is just plain poetic (like the Psalms), and if you can't understand the English KJV, cross-reference with the NKJV and NIV, and if further confusion arises, check out what the Greek words mean (like with the three different Greek words for love, or the greek word for bondservant: doulos. past that, prayer and fasting works sometimes. if all else fails (you die) ask God directly, or the writer who wrote the book.

What am I to debate : - the Bible - Christian Church decision - Darwin theory ???

well, if we get lucky, all three, and otherwise, just use the first as a source and the third as fuel.

Darwin's concept is a theory, and nothing but a theory, regardless of arguments used by some guys. No one can provide any data in order to support Darwin theory, except for speculations, guesses, desires to-come-true, ect. In contrary, Einstein theory is not only fully acceptable, but has found to be supported by science and technology. It applies to Netwon's theory, ect.

oh my word, I might faint. someone who isn't too afraid to speak his mind, now, if only a few of these Darwinists would actually admit that instead of avoiding that fact. :)

Churches decided to celebrate Darwin birthday, for 2 reasons (at least) : - release a pressure that appeared in mass-media sources - relax some Christians' stance with concern to Mankind creation It does not mean that Christian Church accepts Darwin theory, though (!) A pure political decision, instead and indeed.

which is why I disagree with it. a political decision leads to more than just a release of pressure. it causes people outside the church to have a misconception of the Christian beliefs, and when they come to a church expecting their beliefs to be the same as what they celebrate, and find the churches believe Creationism, they will most likely leave never to come back, citing a belief in the dishonesty of churches. anyways, didn't the Bible say that the church would be persecuted if they held to their belief? what does it matter to me if I get persecuted for believing what I believe, this is the worst it can get. if they kill me, it doesn't matter, because I am already secured, for NO MAN can pluck me from the Father's hand.

What am I to do, then : get excited over some speculative materials (read : Darwin theory) ? :-)

I might be beginning to like you, but this just :confused: me.

[Jack]

Do you mean Darwin theory ? Darwin theory is a theory, and nothing but a theory. It lacks the science and technology related support.

Another theist without a proper understanding of the scientific use of the term "theory". Look it up. It's been posted too many times already, in a multitude of threads.

"lacks science and technology", huh? You're kidding me, right? OK, sure, right...if you say so.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Isherwood Another theist without a proper understanding of the scientific use of the term "theory". Look it up. It's been posted too many times already, in a multitude of threads. "lacks science and technology", huh? You're kidding me, right? OK, sure, right...if you say so.

definition of theory according to Ricki Lewis, "an assumption based on LOGIC (not experiments) that requires testing." where are the tests that prove that single celled organisms can become multi-cellular. science is based on CURRENT OBSERVATIONS. this is my impression of how a scientist would test evolution:

"hey Earl, could you pull out that there vial of years and pour out 1 billion for me."
"ok, here we go, oh, wait, how do I pour out years?"

someone tell me, how do you observe the billions of years required for macroevolution to even occur? how come every atmosphere model we have in the ice cores is unable to yield the result needed? if we have the model of the earliest atmosphere, then why are none of the atmosphere models we have able to yield the evolution of any specimens we have from single cell to multicellular organisms? if the environment is what causes evolution, then prove it dammit. otherwise, drop the assumptions. there is NO experiment that will do anything other than disprove evolution. I say so, because if they ever did an experiment that pertained to the fossil record or to the logical chain of evolution, they would fail utterly to be able to say anything but that evolution FALTERED. I will tell you why we will never see an experiment that shows the first step of evolution, because the evolutionists are AFRAID to disprove their source of power.

[RickSp]

Quote by: dthmstr254 definition of theory according to Ricki Lewis, "an assumption based on LOGIC (not experiments) that requires testing." where are the tests that prove that single celled organisms can become multi-cellular. science is based on CURRENT OBSERVATIONS. this is my impression of how a scientist would test evolution: someone tell me, how do you observe the billions of years required for macroevolution to even occur?

This again? LOL. You keep demanding testing that you can observe in real time. Very little of science will accommodate you but you keep making the same absurdist demand. Why bother? If you understand so little why go on at such length?

[Matt W]

Something in favour of evolution....close to my heart. After all, everyone knows gentlemen prefer blondes...

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...icle348012.ece

For those who are still considering the debate on whether men prefer blondes, a study may have provided proof in favour of the flaxen-haired, if only because they appeal to the "caveman" within. Academic researchers have discovered that women in northern Europe evolved with light hair and blue eyes at the end of the Ice Age to stand out from the crowd and lure men away from the far more common brunette. Blond hair originated through genetic necessity at a time when there was a shortage of both food and males, leading to a high ratio of women competing for smaller numbers of potential partners, according to the study published this week in the academic journal, Evolution and Human Behaviour.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Matt W Something in favour of evolution....close to my heart. After all, everyone knows gentlemen prefer blondes... http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...icle348012.ece

Interesting but it seems like a bit of a reach. If I am not mistaken, and I often am, hair color tends to have a rough correlation with melanin. There is obviously a higher percentage of blondes among lighted skinned peoples than dark.

The amount of melanin in skin also tends to be correlated with lattitude. In lower latitudes and sunnier climates, melanin protects against sun cancer, whereas at higher latitudes lowers levels of melanin allows the production of more vitamin D and other other vitamins. The exception that seems to prove the rule are the darker skinned Inuit peoples who having a diet rich in Vitamin D benefitting from higher melanin levels in their skin.

Cavemen might have preferred blondes because their generally light skin made them healthier and less likely to have rickets, for example.

Or maybe it had something to do with boobs. Obviously more research is in order.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Matt W Something in favour of evolution....close to my heart. After all, everyone knows gentlemen prefer blondes... http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...icle348012.ece

Off Topic
Having a sex with a young blond-hair-blue-eyes baby, in a cave ?
It does not surprize me that you support Darwin's theory :-)))

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp This again? LOL. You keep demanding testing that you can observe in real time. Very little of science will accommodate you but you keep making the same absurdist demand. Why bother? If you understand so little why go on at such length?

well, your scientists are either lying on the part about science being observable, or they are lying about evolution being science. which one is it, because evolution is not observable, and every other scientific law can be observed in some way. for example: you can test the law of gravity by jumping, letting go of a spoon in midair or other things that invoke gravity's pull. you can see that the earth goes around the sun by looking at the movements and the way the seasons change. they tested the standard model and found it lacking because the standard model held that neutrinos held no mass, but they had an internal "clock" evidenced by the fact that they change flavors, and the fact that only a third of the neutrinos that were supposed to be coming from the sun were electron neutrinos. this test was called the poltergeist experiment. see, all other accepted science is observable, so what observable evidence shows that a bacterium can evolve to become multicellular? sure, they organize into biofilms, but remove a cell from the center and it renews all of its functions, whereas removing a cell from our bodies insures its death without the right nutrients. how the heck did they become mutlicellular systems?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Isherwood "lacks science and technology", huh? You're kidding me, right?

It (read : Darwin's theory) should rather be taken as a hypothesis, instead, since it can not be proven.
I understand that Darwin tried to match a logical pattern for Mankind evolution. It does not necessarily mean Darwin was correct, since there is no data to back up such findings, except for some speculative one(s).

Example (only) :
- object : Mankind
- time start : 1 000 000 B.C.
- time actual : 2006 A.D.
- developement : ???
For 99% of their existance, those guys were doing something, but (unfortunatelly) not much (maybe except for scanning their noses, farting in rocks, ect. most likely).
They even did not develop a wheel, as a basic device for a locommotion (!)

There must be an evolution that takes place with concern to the whole environment we dwell-in. (Otherwise, the environement collapses, as the final result.) Everything within that environment is capable of accomodating to conditions, requirements, needs, ect. in order to survive. That whole environment is a sort of quest for survival.
One may accept a particular concept (read : Darwin theory), while another may reject one for the following reason :
- not enough data, to support it

Why not to go with yet another theory, that Mankind emerged on the Solar System's 3-rd planet - Earth, as a result of genetical experiment (which most likely would match Mankind sudden appearance, races along with their characteristics, ect. ) ?

Does that mean "Others" have created the real-Mankind ?
Why, not.
It could be that "Others" had wiped out the planet Earth's original inhabitants, and planted some genetical forms on different continents, instead. And that could be a rational and logical answer for reasonong that "Others" come back to supervise Mankind progress, ect.

That is a theory, but we have much greater chance to get some data in order to support it, than Darwin's one.
A condition :
- establish a conctact with "Others" (while "Others" - for some reasons - try to do everything in order to avoid one, officially at least)

Why should I bother with observing Darwin's birthday, then ?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: dthmstr254 which is why I disagree with it. a political decision leads to more than just a release of pressure. it causes people outside the church to have a misconception of the Christian beliefs, and when they come to a church expecting their beliefs to be the same as what they celebrate, and find the churches believe Creationism, they will most likely leave never to come back, citing a belief in the dishonesty of churches. anyways, didn't the Bible say that the church would be persecuted if they held to their belief? what does it matter to me if I get persecuted for believing what I believe, this is the worst it can get. if they kill me, it doesn't matter, because I am already secured, for NO MAN can pluck me from the Father's hand.

Church has its administrative body, that plays its role within a particular society, group, ect.
One of its (read : church, as an adminitrative body) managing objectives is to direct people onto a particular way, path, ect. Since a society, group reacts as one body, then it controls, shapes, ect. that origanizm much easier.
In this case, Christian Church decision, was to protect that body, as a relief to growing pressure.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Rainbow It (read : Darwin's theory) should rather be taken as a hypothesis, instead, since it can not be proven. I understand that Darwin tried to match a logical pattern for Mankind evolution. It does not necessarily mean Darwin was correct, since there is no data to back up such findings, except for some speculative one(s). Example (only) : - object : Mankind - time start : 1 000 000 B.C. - time actual : 2006 A.D. - developement : ??? For 99% of their existance, those guys were doing something, but (unfortunatelly) not much (maybe except for scanning their noses, farting in rocks, ect. most likely). They even did not develop a wheel, as a basic device for a locommotion (!) There must be an evolution that takes place with concern to the whole environment we dwell-in. (Otherwise, the environement collapses, as the final result.) Everything within that environment is capable of accomodating to conditions, requirements, needs, ect. in order to survive. That whole environment is a sort of quest for survival. One may accept a particular concept (read : Darwin theory), while another may reject one for the following reason : - not enough data, to support it Why not to go with yet another theory, that Mankind emerged on the Solar System's 3-rd planet - Earth, as a result of genetical experiment (which most likely would match Mankind sudden appearance, races along with their characteristics, ect. ) ? Does that mean "Others" have created the real-Mankind ? Why, not. It could be that "Others" had wiped out the planet Earth's original inhabitants, and planted some genetical forms on different continents, instead. And that could be a rational and logical answer for reasonong that "Others" come back to supervise Mankind progress, ect. That is a theory, but we have much greater chance to get some data in order to support it, than Darwin's one. A condition : - establish a conctact with "Others" (while "Others" - for some reasons - try to do everything in order to avoid one, officially at least) Why should I bother with observing Darwin's birthday, then ?

I like this one, if only for the pure entertainment it is when people find comparable stories that are more likely to prove than the original.