Evolution of religious bigotry

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
From the Los Angeles Times

Evolution of religious bigotry

The cowardice and intolerance of slapping a Darwin fish on your car bumper.

Jonah Goldberg

April 1, 2008

Ijust watched "Fitna," a 17-minute film by Geert Wilders, head of the Dutch Freedom Party, which takes a hard-line stance against Muslim immigration.

Released on the Internet on Thursday, "Fitna" juxtaposes verses from the Koran with images and speeches from the world of jihad. Heads cut off, bodies blown apart, gays executed, toddlers taught to denounce Jews as "apes and pigs," imams calling for global domination, protesters holding up signs reading "God Bless Hitler" and "Freedom go to Hell" -- these are just some of the powerful images from "Fitna," an Arabic word that means "ordeal."

Predictably, various Muslim governments have condemned the film. Half the Jordanian parliament voted to sever ties with the Netherlands. Egypt's grand imam threatened "severe" consequences if the Dutch government didn't ban the film.

Meanwhile, European and U.N. leaders are going through the usual motions of theatrical hand-wringing, heaping all of their anger on Wilders for sowing "hatred."

Me? I keep thinking about Jesus fish.

During a 1991 visit to Istanbul, a buddy and I found ourselves in a small restaurant drinking, dancing and singing with a bunch of middle-class Turkish businessmen, mostly shop owners. It was a hilariously joyful evening, even though they spoke nearly no English and we spoke considerably less Turkish.

At the end of the night, after imbibing unquantifiable quantities of raki, an ouzo-like Turkish liquor, one of the men came up to me and gave me a worn-out business card. On the back, he'd scribbled an image. It was little more than a curlicue, but he seemed intent on showing it to me (and nobody else). It was, I realized, a Jesus fish.

It was an eye-opening moment for me, though obviously trivial compared with the experiences of others. Here in this cosmopolitan and self-styled European city, this fellow felt the need to surreptitiously clue me in that he was a Christian just like me (or so he thought).

Traditionally, the fish pictogram conjures the miracle of the loaves and fishes as well as the Greek word IXOYE, which not only means fish but serves as an acronym, in Greek, for "Jesus Christ the Son of God [Is] Savior." Christians persecuted by the Romans used to draw the Jesus fish in the dirt with a stick or a finger as a way to tip off fellow Christians that they weren't alone.

In America, the easiest place to find this ancient symbol is on the back of cars. Recently, however, it seems as if Jesus fish have become outnumbered by Darwin fish. No doubt you've seen these too. The fish symbol is "updated" with little feet coming off the bottom, and "IXOYE" or "Jesus" is replaced with either "Darwin" or "Evolve."

I find Darwin fish offensive. First, there's the smugness. The undeniable message: Those Jesus fish people are less evolved, less sophisticated than we Darwin fishers.

The hypocrisy is even more glaring. Darwin fish are often stuck next to bumper stickers promoting tolerance or admonishing random motorists that "hate is not a family value." But the whole point of the Darwin fish is intolerance; similar mockery of a cherished symbol would rightly be condemned as bigoted if aimed at blacks or women or, yes, Muslims.

As Christopher Caldwell once observed in the Weekly Standard, Darwin fish flout the agreed-on etiquette of identity politics. "Namely: It's acceptable to assert identity and abhorrent to attack it. A plaque with 'Shalom' written inside a Star of David would hardly attract notice; a plaque with 'Usury' written inside the same symbol would be an outrage."

But the most annoying aspect of the Darwin fish is the false bravado it represents. It's a courageous pose without consequence. Like so much other Christian-baiting in American popular culture, sporting your Darwin fish is a way to speak truth to power on the cheap.

Whatever the faults of "Fitna," it ain't no Darwin fish.

Geert Wilders' film could very, very easily get him killed. (He's already guarded around the clock.) It essentially picks up the work of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was murdered in 2004 by a jihadi for criticizing Islam.

"Fitna" is certainly provocative, yet it has good reason to provoke. A cancer of violence, bigotry and cruelty is metastasizing within the Islamic world.

It's fine for Muslim moderates to say they aren't part of the cancer; and that some have, in response to the film, is a positive sign. But more often, diagnosing or even observing this cancer -- in film, book or cartoon -- is dubbed "intolerant" while calls for violence, censorship and even murder are treated as understandable, if regrettable, expressions of well-deserved anger.

It's not that secular progressives support Muslim religious fanatics, but they reserve their passion and scorn for religious Christians who are neither fanatical nor inclined to use violence.

The Darwin fish ostensibly symbolizes the superiority of progressive-minded science over backward-looking faith. I think this is a false juxtaposition, but I would have a lot more respect for the folks who believe it if they aimed their brave contempt for religion at those who might behead them for it.
 
I think the darwin fish is ammusing myself. Why can't you believe in jesus and evolution? Certain animals have evolved, but god might have helped them evolve. And who is he to say what people think when they slap a darwin fish on their bumper? He is already a one way thinker that couldn't possibly fathom what the other half is thinking. Pisses me off sometimes when someone makes a strong statment but does not have the mental ability to consider both sides. I would be happier if he actually asked 20 people with darwin stickers on their car what they meant to them instead of putting words in their mouths. If the muslims are pissed about all the violent video they showed,wouldn't they stop recording themselves cutting poeples heads off, or just quit doing it?
 
I think the darwin fish is ammusing myself. Why can't you believe in jesus and evolution? Certain animals have evolved, but god might have helped them evolve. And who is he to say what people think when they slap a darwin fish on their bumper? He is already a one way thinker that couldn't possibly fathom what the other half is thinking. Pisses me off sometimes when someone makes a strong statment but does not have the mental ability to consider both sides. I would be happier if he actually asked 20 people with darwin stickers on their car what they meant to them instead of putting words in their mouths. If the muslims are pissed about all the violent video they showed,wouldn't they stop recording themselves cutting poeples heads off, or just quit doing it?
The Bible (and therefore Jesus) and Evolution are not complementary, they are in conflict. You can believe whatever you want, however. And there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that animals have evolved from one species to another. NONE.

The darwin sticker is meant to make a statement to others, as is the muslim beheading video. If it were for their own amusement they would put the sticker where they could see it instead of on the back bumper. That's rather obvious and common sensical; it takes a willful act of denial to see it otherwise.
 
I see your point fossten, but the evolving I was refering to was losing limbs or developing different defenses, not the one animal to another. Do you think that one species can evolve within it's self?
 
I just think it's one big world, alot of things are messed up. But god gave us the gift of thinking. So people throw things out their everyday, is it wrong to wonder about them? With tv and the internet theirs alot more information out their. Alot to take in. But I feel lifes to short to be so one sided. Why say the bilbe says so? Why not learn as much as you can and say that you think it was impossible for it to happen. I just don't like people telling me this is this and that is that from a book that is so old. Why can't I believe in a higher being and live a good life? Bible might say that evolution never happened, but in my mind (as messed up as it is) I think their could be evolution and a god. A group of closed minded people will always win over one who imagines. Hell I even think animals have their own train of thought. You think god won't let you into heaven because you thought about if animals could evolve or not? I just can't wrap my head around how some people can be so one sided that they dismiss everything that anyone else says. I'm not saying you, just in general.

And which religion is right? How do you know you picked the right one. They say their are no athiest in a fox hole, but it dosen't say their all christians either.
 
I see your point fossten, but the evolving I was refering to was losing limbs or developing different defenses, not the one animal to another. Do you think that one species can evolve within it's self?
You're not talking about evolving now, you're talking about mutation. Once again, there is no evidence of this. What would be required would be for DNA to write new code, and that simply has never happened, nor has it been falsified in any way in an evolutionary experiment.

The odds of that happening are the same as the odds of monkeys banging on typewriters for billions of years accidentally typing out the entire Bible word for word.

Mutations that happen nowadays are generally deficiencies that harm the host body rather than augment it. The bottom line is that if you believe in an all powerful God, why would you then think that He did not design the world in all of its beauty and splendor? Your mind tells you that this makes sense, as well as that God has a personal interest in YOU.
 
I just don't like people telling me this is this and that is that from a book that is so old.
This is an incredibly honest thing to say. I'm impressed. Most evolutionists (not referring to you) won't admit that they want to live their own lives.

It's interesting because evolution, if true, wipes out the belief that sin causes death, which the Bible teaches. If sin does not cause death, but evolution happened and death came before thinking, reasoning man, then there are no consequences for sin.

Your statement is profound because it captures the real reason people want to believe in evolution - they want to live their own lives and not be told what to do by some old, white-bearded guy living in the clouds with a bunch of angels strumming harps.

The proof in what I say manifests itself whenever I start quoting the Bible. People just don't like being told about their sin. People love their sin, they cherish it, and they want to hang on to it. They want to believe themselves to be good people. Sadly, the Bible tells us differently. It tells us that the best we can do is just filthy rags compared to God. (Isaiah 64:6)
 
I see your point fossten, but the evolving I was refering to was losing limbs or developing different defenses, not the one animal to another. Do you think that one species can evolve within it's self?

Can one speices evolve within itself? No, according to Darwin. Your use of the term "evolve" is sloppy. What you are discribing is adaptation (according to darwin), not evolution. Darwinian evolution has never been shown to happen. Adaptation is a different matter.


BTW, good article Fossten. You should pick up Goldberg's book, you would like it.
 
Evolution vs. creation aside, the article makes a good point that I've often felt. Why are honest, humble Christians reviled in our own country? Yet hate-filled, murderous Muslims get a free pass? I could understand if there were wide-spread rallies where thousands of Christians chanted "death to Islam" or something to that nature. But sadly, most people do not personally know someone who is a faithful Christian in words and deeds. The world is filled with hypocrites of all sorts, and Christianity certainly has it's share.

I don't know what it's like to live in fear because I believe in Jesus, like that man in Turkey. But I do understand the comfort of knowing that I'm not alone.

jesusfish.jpg
 
I am not a evolutionist by any means, nore a bible thumper. I like to come to conclusions myself. Free will is all I have. The simplest way for me to describe it is in math class the teacher teaches you how to do math. Everything is either right or its wrong. 2+2 equals what? It equals 4. No matter how you add it up it equals 4. If 4 is not the answer then it is wrong. In english class the teacher teaches you english out of a book. It is decided to be right or wrong on the teachers judgement. Their is no gray area in math, and english class is nothing but a grey area dependent on someones views that they interpreted from someone elses book. I can put religion and evelution into a equation for you a+x=y. What is y? I don't know. The sum of a and x? yes but then what is y? I guess y stands for what ever you think it does and you can fill in a and x from their. I belive in god, but I will not blindlessly follow a religion. Heck god might talk to me tonight in my sleep and I'll wake up a new man, then again I might be out in the yard working tomorrow and see some deer pop a 4 eyed winged creature out of its ass. I don't have all the answers but I will keep looking.

And as far as muslims shedding blood. I think the christians have had more than their fair share. So if you belive in jesus you have no fear? I've seen some real god fearing men have the worst and I mean absolute worst things that can happen, happen. I can say with out a doubt, somethings will set you back on your ass and leave you breathless and in doubt and you will wake up questioning why it happened.

And for the evolution. If I took you to africa and showed you one fish that had little stick legs, then took you to the amazon and showed you the same fish with normal pectoral fins and asked you what happed you would say the one in africa adapted and I would say it evolved. Then you would say thats not evelution according to darwin thats adaptation. I would say yes that fish adapted to its conditions but its babies will have the stick legs also so its spiecies has evolved. And on the way home we would not wonder about if their is a god, we would just think, hey thats cool that fish grew some stick legs to walk from mud puddle to mud puddle.
 
If I took you to africa and showed you one fish that had little stick legs, then took you to the amazon and showed you the same fish with normal pectoral fins and asked you what happed you would say the one in africa adapted and I would say it evolved.

...And you would be wrong. There is no gray area between adaptation and evolution (as spelled out by Darwin), as you are trying to suggest. It is a matter of a correct and incorrect understanding of the terms. To use your analogy; (2+2=5) vs. (2+2=4). One is factually accurate and one isn't.

I would say yes that fish adapted to its conditions but its babies will have the stick legs also so its spiecies has evolved.

...And you have just proven that you have no clue what evolution is, as defined by Darwin. Darwinian evolution is what is being discussed in this thread; you need to know what you are talking about, so I will help you out here...

The theory of evolution, as defined by Darwin, is a three step process:

1: Random mutation of desirable attributes

2: Natural selection weeding out the "less fit" creatures (survival of the fittests)

3: Leading to the creation of a new species

Adaptation and Darwinian evolution are totally different things. Evolution, as defined by Darwin is as I described above. Evolution can have many different meanings; the most basic being "change over time". In this sense evolution, and adaptation are the same thing and no one questions this evolution. Biological evolution has additional meaning. Some biologists define biological evolution as, "a change is gene frequences over generations." My genes are different from my parents and my childrens genes will be different from mine. Again, this definition of biological evolution is uncontroversial. Charles Darwin didn't use the term biological evolution, but instead, "decent with modification." In a limited sense, this is even uncontroversial. It happens all the time within existing species; breeding race horses, breeding prize winning dogs, ect. Darwin defined evolution very specifically, and that definition is what is controversial.

Evolution isn't selective breeding. Evolution is not the phenomenon of an existing species changing over the course of many years. In fact, evolution is not adaptive characteristics developing within a species at all. Darwin's theory says we get new species, not a taller version of the same one. Evolution is not proved by genetic similarities among living things, the heritability of characteristics, or the age of the Earth.

Dawinists exploit the many meanings of "evolution" to distract critics. Eugenie Scott suggests: "define evolution as an issue of the history of the planet: as the way we try to understand change through time. The present is different from the past. Evolution happened, there is no debate within science as to whether it happened, and so on...I have used this approach at the college level". Scott says that once she gets agreement on that idea, she gradually introduces them to "the Big Idea", that all species are related through descent from a common ancestor. "Darwin called this 'descent with modification' and it is still the best definition of evolution we can use." This underhanded tactic is known as "equivocation"; changing the meaning of the term in the middle of an argument.
 
I was refering to (The most basic being "change over time". In this sense evolution, and adaptation are the same thing and no one questions this evolution) not the people came from monkey's one.

I know I don't have the knowledge or big vocabulary like you guys do. I've learned in a different direction. Anytime I'm wrong just post up like you did and I'll learn from it.

I'm gonna go back to the car forums now
 
I was refering to (The most basic being "change over time". In this sense evolution, and adaptation are the same thing and no one questions this evolution) not the people came from monkey's one.

Then you are not talking about the type of evolution being discussed in this thread.
 
the type of evolution being talked about here is the type which happens continuously through extended history of the earth. said to populate the earth with new species. evolutionary ideas do have a strong case when looked at as the driving force of species creation after mass extinctions in geological and fossil history on the planet.

a mass extinction is the end of certain species as they no longer become recorded in future levels of fossils but are recorded within a previous fossil time boundary. after an extinction time boundary, fossils of new species spring up and flourish until the next extinction.

http://park.org/Canada/Museum/extinction/extincmenu.html
or here, where you can see the idea of another extinction taking place
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html

of course evolution doesn't happen in a short time boundary. it happens over tens of thousands to millions of years, which is why it is hard to fathom. breeding of dogs as a used correlation has happened on a relatively short timescale, a few thousand years, to bring us the many breeds we have today, coming from the lineage of the wolf. since this hasn't produced a new species, just a larger variation of the same species, it is dismissed as proof.

evolution as yet is the only believable answer to the diversity of life that comes before and after mass extinctions, where numbers of species present before the extinction permanently disappear and species that are not a part of the fossil record before the extinction become a part of the fossil record after the extinction time boundary. "god" beliefs still have no answer to this, as palaeontology didn't exist until recently.
 
back to fosstens article. the author fails to realize which side of the world he is on. north american society is open for new and/or different ideals. if we were bound by more recent ancient european ideals, the evolve sticker would get you killed. this is the problem with extreme muslims. there is no free ideals. what the book says is all you can believe. the evolve sticker in north america merely takes a stance against majority thinking, and the god ideal here is christianity. probably more of a stance as christian ideals seem to be coming even more narrow minded and extreme lately and less tolerant to open ideals.
discoveries and new ways of thinking have opened us up to different thought of how things work without a supernatural cause to explain it. there is an order of how things work. yet it has only been recently that these ideals could be explored without religious persecution.(even in christianity).

many symbols are borrowed from other sources. the fish symbol has many pre-christian uses as well.
"The pre-Christian history of the fish symbol:
The fish symbol has been used for millennia worldwide as a religious symbol associated with the Pagan Great Mother Goddess. It is the outline of her vulva. The fish symbol was often drawn by overlapping two very thin crescent moons. One represented the crescent shortly before the new moon; the other shortly after, when the moon is just visible. The Moon is the heavenly body that has long been associated with the Goddess, just as the sun is a symbol of the God.

The link between the Goddess and fish was found in various areas of the ancient world:

In China, Great Mother Kwan-yin often portrayed in the shape of a fish
In India, the Goddess Kali was called the "fish-eyed one"
In Egypt, Isis was called the Great Fish of the Abyss
In Greece the Greek word "delphos" meant both fish and womb. The word is derived from the location of the ancient Oracle at Delphi who worshipped the original fish goddess, Themis. The later fish Goddess, Aphrodite Salacia, was worshipped by her followers on her sacred day, Friday. They ate fish and engaging in orgies. From her name comes the English word "salacious" which means lustful or obscene. Also from her name comes the name of our fourth month, April. In later centuries, the Christian church adsorbed this tradition by requiring the faithful to eat fish on Friday - a tradition that was only recently abandoned.
In ancient Rome Friday is called "dies veneris" or Day of Venus, the Pagan Goddess of Love.
Throughout the Mediterranean, mystery religions used fish, wine and bread for their sacramental meal.
In Scandinavia, the Great Goddess was named Freya; fish were eaten in her honor. The 6th day of the week was named "Friday" after her.
In the Middle East, the Great Goddess of Ephesus was portrayed as a woman with a fish amulet over her genitals.

The fish symbol "was so revered throughout the Roman empire that Christian authorities insisted on taking it over, with extensive revision of myths to deny its earlier female-genital meanings...Sometimes the Christ child was portrayed inside the vesica, which was superimposed on Mary's belly and obviously represented her womb, just as in the ancient symbolism of the Goddess." 4 Another author writes: "The fish headdress of the priests of Ea [a Sumero-Semitic God] later became the miter of the Christian bishops." 5

The symbol itself, the eating of fish on Friday and the association of the symbol with deity were all taken over by the early Church from Pagan sources. Only the sexual component was deleted. "

i wouldn't get too bent over it. the fish symbol could be argued to have been stolen from other sources pre- christianity.
then there is an arguement that jesus was also born of the astrological time coinciding with the age of pisces, and the fish symbol is meant to represent this originally. the dawn of the new age. what it came to mean today is not necessarily it's beginnings.
in the meantime, i'll download fitna and have a look at it myself.
 
hrmwrm, if you're going to c/p, please cite/link your sources. Thanks.

Interesting that you acknowledge that Christianity is majority thinking. Why, then, are public schools filled with evolutionary textbooks and why have the Bible and prayer been kicked out? Seems like the minority elites are ruling the majority. That seems inappropriate.

By the way, your source is incorrect. The ICTHUS is an acronym as the article described. Nothing more. Your attempt to smear it by associating it with other pagan religions is unconvincing.

The point of the article is of course being deliberately missed by you. There is tolerance of everything today EXCEPT Christianity, which is regularly and routinely mocked and denigrated. Christianity has been kicked out of virtually every public place in this country. Even "Christmas" has been squashed. This is not up for dispute. Christians are being told they must tolerate homosexual "lifestyles" and every other sin under the sun, and yet Christians are not tolerated. If a Christian shows up at a gay pride march and witnesses to the marchers, he is arrested and charged with hate speech. But vice versa, nothing happens.
 
This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=44944


Wednesday, April 02, 2008



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ON CAPITOL HILL
Congressional 'hate crimes' plan dropped – for now

But activist victimized by attack under state rules remains wary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 07, 2007
1:00 am Eastern




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WorldNetDaily.com

An amendment that would have set up new federal law to apply penalties for politically incorrect "thoughts" under a "hate crimes" plan has been stripped from a defense spending authorization bill, delaying at least for now the application of such punishments.

But an activist who has suffered because of the application of such a plan – at the state level – says Americans need to remain wary.

The amendment was stripped yesterday from a $500 billion defense reauthorization plan that is expected soon to be forwarded to President Bush.

According to the Congressional Quarterly, members of the Senate serving on a conference committee dropped their demand for the hate-crimes provision, "paving the way for the conference report to be signed."

The amendment would have expanded hate-crime laws that now address race to include crimes committed against anyone in new special classes based on their gender or sexual orientation.

The amendment originally had been approved by the House as a stand-alone measure, and was added to the Senate defense spending bill in September, but the White House had threatened a veto.

Michael Marcavage, of Repent America, says his organization has members who were jailed for proclaiming their Christian beliefs on public streets in Philadelphia, because of state regulations similar to the federal proposal.

"It's extraordinarily important that it has been removed from the defense reauthorization bill," he told WND. "But we know that the homosexual lobby is extraordinarily aggressive when it comes to obtaining special protections. That's exactly what this is."

"We must be very vigilant as to what their next move is going to be. They're not going to go away," he said.

"I do see a lot of people starting to understand exactly what hate crimes legislation can do, when you have a prosecutor with an agenda. That's what we saw in Philadelphia," he said.

It was then, in 2004, that a number of members of his organization chose to proclaim their biblically based belief that homosexuality is wrong at a city-sponsored "gay" fest in Philadelphia. They were arrested and jailed, even threatened with prison sentences decades long, for proclaiming their beliefs.

He said Pennsylvania lawmakers had been told when they approved the state's hate crimes plan in 2002 that it wouldn't really be applied unless "there was blood in the streets."

"Strategically, they can certainly find a way to bring a charge [if they choose]," he said.

"There is a movement in America to criminalize Christians for their beliefs. We're seeing it more and more every day," he said.

It is within the realm of future possibilities that even China, with its aggressive crackdowns on Christians, eventually could be a "safe haven" for Christians should hate crimes laws ever become common in the U.S., he said.

"It's moving quickly in that direction," he said, citing a separate plan in Congress to give "gays" special rights in employment, and another move to silence conservative radio talk shows.

"The mindset behind this legislation is to criminalize Christians," he said.

Rev. Ted Pike, of the National Prayer Network, said there may be an attempt to revive the plan. "But its rejection by conference greatly increases the likelihood that we can defeated it again – if lovers of freedom continue to protest loudly."

Earlier this week, the the Family Research Council had issued an alert about the pending plan, suggesting constituents call members of Congress.

"Tell them it should be removed because the provision is not germane to the national defense of this country. Most importantly, tell them that the provision should be removed because it runs counter to our country's bedrock principles of free speech and thought."

As WND has reported, the plan was feared by critics as a means to target Christians and to demolish both freedom of speech and religion in the United States. It would allow enhanced prosecution for crimes motivated by "hate," including the perception of gender or gender identity.

The White House has concluded such legislation is "unnecessary and constitutionally questionable."

The White House said state and local criminal laws already provide penalties for the violence addressed by the new federal crime defined in the bill, and many carry stricter penalties than the proposed language.

But FRC said the fine print of the plan was alarming.

"The definition is broadened to include sexual orientation among the protected classes, elevating sexual attraction to the status of race and creed. Those who can be found culpable have also been expanded to include not only those who commit the crime but those who may have unknowingly 'inspired' those actions. For example, a pastor can be considered legally culpable if he preaches against the homosexual agenda and a member of his congregation subsequently commits a crime against a homosexual. Thus, the act against the homosexual is considered a crime, as it should be, but so also is the thought against the agenda or conduct," the organization said.

Former White House insider Chuck Colson, in his Breakpoint commentary, has called it a "Thought Crimes" plan.

"This bill is not about hate. It's not even about crime. It's about outlawing peaceful speech – speech that asserts that homosexual behavior is morally wrong," he said.

WND columnist Janet Folger earlier warned in a commentary called "Pastors: Act now or prepare for jail," that in New Hampshire, a crime that typically carries a sentence of 3 1/2 years was "enhanced" to 30 years because a robber shouted an anti-homosexual name at his victim.
 
the type of evolution being talked about here is the type which happens continuously through extended history of the earth.

Which "type" of evolution is that? I am really not sure if you are agreeing with me or not? The "type" of evolution being discussed in the article in the opening post (and thus the form of evolution being discussed here) is darwinian evolution. That is the only one that is really questionable, as it attempts to explain the origin of species, not the changes in a species.

In defending evolution in a debate, one doesn't get to pick which definition of evolution they get to apply. They are arguing the definition in question, which is always Darwins, as that is the only one really in question. To try and redefine it, or change it to one more accepted, is an underhanded arguing tactic, as mentioned in my previous post; equivocation.

The type of evolution being debated here is Darwinian. If you are not arguing on that definition, then your arguments are unneccessary and irrelevant to this thread.

I assume you are arguing for Darwinian evolution.

breeding of dogs as a used correlation has happened on a relatively short timescale, a few thousand years, to bring us the many breeds we have today, coming from the lineage of the wolf. since this hasn't produced a new species, just a larger variation of the same species, it is dismissed as proof.

It is dismissed because it isn't proof of evolution, just adaptation. By that quotes own admission, the process of wolfs becoming dogs has not produced a new species. Producing a new species is the definition of evolution, so it is not proof. That is like saying owning a car is proof that you own a house.

Using tangetial facts doesn't say anything about evolution, and is a very sloppy argument.


evolution as yet is the only believable answer to the diversity of life that comes before and after mass extinctions, where numbers of species present before the extinction permanently disappear and species that are not a part of the fossil record before the extinction become a part of the fossil record after the extinction time boundary. "god" beliefs still have no answer to this, as palaeontology didn't exist until recently.

Actually no. You, or whatever source you are citing here, is turning it 180 degrees, logically. They say, since we have a wide aray of species present today that have come about since the last mass extinction, that is proof of evolution.What?! That makes no since. The fact that we have a wide aray of species present today that came about since the last mass extenction suggests some sort of creation, or intellegent design, not evolution. What would they have "evolved" from? Your post cites how try evolution takes a very, very long time (the dog example), so how would a gigantic number of species have evolved from such a small number of species in such a (relatively) short time?
 
Your post cites how try evolution takes a very, very long time (the dog example), so how would a gigantic number of species have evolved from such a small number of species in such a (relatively) short time?
Very good. Evolutionists always have trouble reconciling the "changes over time" with the so-called Cambrian Explosion. It's a contradiction that has no refuge.
 
i was actually saying the breeding of dogs isn't a valid arguement. sorry that wasn't clear. there are 8 recorded mass extinctions periods in my first source. pre-cambrian and verdian had 1 extinction each. cambrian had 4 scattered throughout it's time relation. ordivician had the second most largest extinction.
 
sorry, wrong button. i'll continue. devonian was next. still through these, marine life is affected. true land plants are just starting to appear in this time period. permian is next. the largest mass extinction ever recorded happened in this period. this is where the rise of terrestial vertebrates occur. then end cretaceous. end of the dinosaurs. then the holocene, which is relating to the last 10,000 years which is thought to be influenced by man. this last is questionable, as it will take quite some time to see the outcome as fact or fiction.

the sudden so- called cambrian explosion is based on available fossils. it doesn't mean that there may not have been more fossils in the older periods. their fossils may not have been preserved as well. this explosion is also over millions of years. it isn't over thousands of years. there is nothing surprising in it. look here
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html

heres a little more intense view of the cambrian.
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/CambrianExplosion.htm
 
The point of the article is of course being deliberately missed by you. There is tolerance of everything today EXCEPT Christianity, which is regularly and routinely mocked and denigrated. Christianity has been kicked out of virtually every public place in this country. Even "Christmas" has been squashed. This is not up for dispute. Christians are being told they must tolerate homosexual "lifestyles" and every other sin under the sun, and yet Christians are not tolerated. If a Christian shows up at a gay pride march and witnesses to the marchers, he is arrested and charged with hate speech. But vice versa, nothing happens.

i guess it comes down to this. the state is tolerant of peoples belief systems, but it won't be a party to furthering superstition. if people wish to believe in
whatever, there are places better suited than the public. these are the freedoms brought by the "christian" founders. to let the christian ideal of creation into public, then you must entertain all ideals of creation. evolution is the only one not of superstitious founding. it may not be 100% accurate, as it has only been studied for a short time. but it is based upon sound natural laws. to put christianity back in public schooling, then all superstition must be entertained due to ethnic and cultural diversity. islam, judaism, buddhism, hinduism, even the many ideals of first nations people, and etc. it has to be looked at from a global view. and you can imagine what a headache this would be.

and it just seems that all is tolerated except christianity to you, because those are the things you pick out most. how do you feel towards me for being atheist? those are the things i have to deal with on occasion as well. as for your link, why would a bunch of nice christians want to rain down on a gay parade? and you wish to talk about intolerance? everybody is born in these countries with the same rights. (north america) you have the right of your belief, yet the gays don't have the right because of your beliefs?(not specifically you, you know what i mean?) it's funny how religions believe they are tolerant, but are usually less than excepting of progressive measures when they conflict with their belief. would you like the world of christianity to be like the world of islam? all christian, nothing else tolerated. if i remember history, that was the reason for distancing this continent from europe.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top