Evolution as taught in Colleges and Universities

[gray wolf]

So Ma. Rational, do we come from a common ancestor with the chimpanzee, I believe, or did God make humans specially. I am a theistic evolutionist in some ways, but I have to draw a line.

[MrsRational]

"Um...I don't know how to put it any simpler? You lack even basic knowledge of the aforementioned subjects."

 

That's a Generalized Unsupported Conjecture.  I may just surprise you

Highly unlikely since you don't even know what a subatomic particle is.

 

"I didn't "fail" to mention them...The nucleus and proton ARE sub-atomic particles. See my answer to the above question."

 

Very well, I mis-termed specifically what I was alluding to...I am fallible   I should have said other Elementary Particles (Fermions, Quarks, Leptons, Bosons)

No you just didn't know the difference, because if you had you would not have made such an error. The fact that you casually lump all these things together shows me that you are skimming Wikipedia and Google for words to sound scientific.

I take science and education very seriously and if you misrepresent your knowledge of physics or biology, I will leap on your errors like a hungry tiger on a steak.

 

"(I put a wide number of fields under these heading for sake of brevity)"

- Medical research

- Wildlife farming and management

- Statistics

- Engineering"

 

Those are just Terms/Titles, I thought I asked for examples with each....?  Please, give one for Medical Research...for Brevity.

Even the very laziest of searches has all the information on this at your finger tips. It took me exactly three seconds to look up evolution + practical applications to find detailed lists and real world applications. We use evolutionary theory at my main job to track viruses and bacterial development, in order to predict needed cures and treatments for pharmaceutical companies.

 

"If you have even a high school level of understanding on the subject you would know the answer to this. Over time organisms will change according to environmental pressures."

 

A little condescending and presumptuous don't you think?  So it's just organisms change...over time? Like a bacteria changing into something other than a bacteria?  Is this mainly through Natural Selection or other mechanisms?  So are evolutionists moving away from abiogenesis?  It's funny, all these "Changes" seem to be a LOSS of Information...How do you get New Structures, Organs, and Organisms by losing Information?

Re-stating your "kinds" belief doesn't make it more true, and as I said previously the term means nothing to biologists. Secondly "evolutionists" are not some hive mind working for some unified cause. Thirdly, evolution is not working towards some goal...sometimes things get more complex and sometimes less.

 

"There is no such thing as a "kind" and the word has no meaning whatsoever in biology."

 

Of course not, the Taxonomic Classification System is a Man-Made Construct developed 6000 years after GOD established "KIND".  And since evolutionists attempt to explain away GOD with these classifications with "so-called" PROOFS, they use the classifications especially "Species/Speciation" (more on this below).  Shouldn't the measuring stick, to disprove or explain away GOD, be HIS Standard and not one contrived by Man that changes like the weather?  This is tantamount to accusing Thomas Jefferson of Tax Evasion when income tax wasn't instituted until 1913.

Once again "evolutionists" are not some hive mind working together for a common goal. Scientists come from hundreds of unique cultural and religious backgrounds all over the world.

What does Jefferson have to do with this discussion? I can't even see how this is an apt or well constructed metaphor.

 

"Creationists use this word because evolution on smaller scales have been documented and can no longer be denied. Creationists therefore decided to claim animals can change as long as they don't go past some undefined magic barrier. So you tell me...what exactly is a "kind"?"

 

Be sure WHAT your definition of evolution is.  Because to discredit the Bible, you have to show change from Family Taxonomic Group or higher. To be clear....

Biblical "Kind" was coined 6000 years before the term "Species" and are two TOTALLY DIFFERENT TERMS.

Biblical "Kind"-- is defined from (IMHO):  (1 Corinthians 15:39) "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds."

Clearly this most closely resembles the Family Group, No?  Doesn't appear to be MAGIC.

 

"Species"-- A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. How many current definitions are there and how many changes have occurred with this definition; say, the past 50 years?

This equation is a Observable, Measurable, Repeatable, and is a Scientific FACT:

 

1. "Micro"-evolution:  Biblical "KIND"

Natural Selection + Genetic Variation =  Biblical "Kind". This is (Humans: Tall/Short, Green Eyes/Blue Eyes, Dark Skin/Light Skin, Puerto Rican/ Greenland Eskimo ... Dogs: Big/Small, Short hair/Long hair, Boxer/Collie) THEY'RE STILL DOGS and HUMANS.

This Equation is an Epic Fairy tale with NO PROOF (ZERO).

2. "Macro"- evolution: "Bacteria to Boy Scout"....

Natural Selection + Random Mutations + Billions of years =  Darwinian evolution

If evolution is TRUE, then please show 1 PROOF of this. You must show a Family Taxonomic Group or higher change to prove evolution and discredit the Biblical Account.

And please, don't say because #1 is True then Ipso Facto #2 is True.  These two are in completely different Universes and the only similarity... is that each equation starts with a "Natural Selection"....which by the way, was first Identified and Documented 27 years before origin of species by Edward Blyth (Creationist).

 

It appears evolutionists are using the ole "Bait and Switch" technique.  Taking "Micro"- evolution" which is Natural Selection and Genetic Variation and "Grandfathering" these into Darwinian evolution or in an attempt to feign credulity with the former without explaining the latter.  There is a very significant distinction. “Micro"-evolution, by definition, is the same thing as genetic variation (the shuffling of pre-existing genetic information). It is both observable and observed, measurable and measured, repeatable and repeated—in short, it has been scientifically verified as a natural phenomenon. However, in every single case, the organism that has undergone the variation is the SAME KIND OF ORGANISM!

 

“Macro"-evolution” or (Bacteria to Boy Scout) on the other hand, has not been verified as a natural phenomenon. It has not been observed, measured, or repeated. No natural mechanism has successfully been put forth as the means by which new and more complex genetic information is generated so as to result in unequivocally new traits, organs, and organisms. “Macro"-evolution is an entirely contrived notion, extrapolated, with no empirical basis, from “Micro"-evolution.

The distinction is both precise and significant. To blur the distinction is to show contempt for empirical science and mix fact with fantasy.

There is one definition of evolution whether you like it or not and trying to invent others that you can more easily attack won't do anything except denigrate yourself. You also talk about changes in science as if that was a bad thing. It's called changing opinions and views based on new and better data, something good scientist do.

Micro/macro are creationists terms that mean nothing to me or any reputable biologist, no more than "kind" does. I gave you not one but two examples of speciation and you chose to ignore them, so I'm not going to waste time trying to find more. It has been observed, sometimes in less than 50 years regardless of your ability to look them up.

You also didn't answer my question...what is a "kind"? I want to know an example of a "kind" of animal, not a re-statement of what you think a kind means.

 

"there are no reputable biologists on earth who denies the theory."

 

‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’

Harold, Franklin M. (evolutionist) Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205.

 

others:

Raymond G. Bohlin PhD Molecular and Cell Biology

Kenneth B Cumming PhD Biology

Carl B. Fliermans PhD Microbiology

Authur Jones PhD Biology

Ariel A Roth PhD Biology

Timothy G Standish PhD Biology

Henry Zuill PhD Biology

 

Just a few....I'd imagine these scholars are all disreputable?

The world is full of quacks, science is not immune. None of these people have published any data or research to support their views.

 

"Speciation in plants and animals have been observed and documented."

 

Speciation is not in question, See response above.

Lol speciation is a major component of what evolution is. At least use Google to look up what things mean man.

 

"changes in moths"

These wouldn't happen to be Peppered Moths?

Peppered moths are an example of natural selection.

 

"We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

- Harold, Franklin M. (evolutionist) Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205.

Here is the quote in context:

 

"The fundamental postulate is that undulipodia and other multi-molecular mechanisms arose, like the human eye, by the progressive accretion of ancillary proteins onto some rudiment or foundation that was functionally useful but need not have been an organ of motility. This amplification took place, one gene at a time, under the guidance of natural selection: each modification conferred at least a small selective benefit. On this premise, one can construct schemes that sound plausible and account, in principle, for the origins of crawling motility, mitosis, or the secretory pathway. We have no better alternative to offer the inquirer, and in the absence of time travel we may never discover what actually happened; and so a modicum of doubt necessarily persists. We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. There is room for discovery here, and for reflection too; nowhere is the appeal of Gould's "pluralistic Darwinism" more keenly felt than in the study of cell evolution."

Why do so many young earth creationists engage in extensive quote mining? It is dishonest and a violation of the ninth commandment not to bear false witness. And it IS false witness because in order to mine the quote you have to read everything in context first. Is their position so bad they have to engage in this dishonesty?

I also resent you claiming "evolutionists" are trying to deny God. I am a lifelong Christian as are several of my colleagues, having got into our fields because we want to ease suffering via medical research. The head of the human genome project is an evangelical Christian, Francis Collins. The idea that we are trying to disprove God is wrongheaded and laughable.

Edited December 27, 2013 by MsRational

[gray wolf]

Francis Collins is one of my heroes!

[Enoch2021]

 

"Um...I don't know how to put it any simpler? You lack even basic knowledge of the aforementioned subjects."

 

That's a Generalized Unsupported Conjecture.  I may just surprise you

Highly unlikely since you don't even know what a subatomic particle is.

 

"I didn't "fail" to mention them...The nucleus and proton ARE sub-atomic particles. See my answer to the above question."

 

Very well, I mis-termed specifically what I was alluding to...I am fallible   I should have said other Elementary Particles (Fermions, Quarks, Leptons, Bosons)

No you just didn't know the difference, because if you had you would not have made such an error. The fact that you casually lump all these things together shows me that you are skimming Wikipedia and Google for words to sound scientific.

I take science and education very seriously and if you misrepresent your knowledge of physics or biology, I will leap on your errors like a hungry tiger on a steak.

 

"(I put a wide number of fields under these heading for sake of brevity)"

- Medical research

- Wildlife farming and management

- Statistics

- Engineering"

 

Those are just Terms/Titles, I thought I asked for examples with each....?  Please, give one for Medical Research...for Brevity.

Even the very laziest of searches has all the information on this at your finger tips. It took me exactly three seconds to look up evolution + practical applications to find detailed lists and real world applications. We use evolutionary theory at my main job to track viruses and bacterial development, in order to predict needed cures and treatments for pharmaceutical companies.

 

"If you have even a high school level of understanding on the subject you would know the answer to this. Over time organisms will change according to environmental pressures."

 

A little condescending and presumptuous don't you think?  So it's just organisms change...over time? Like a bacteria changing into something other than a bacteria?  Is this mainly through Natural Selection or other mechanisms?  So are evolutionists moving away from abiogenesis?  It's funny, all these "Changes" seem to be a LOSS of Information...How do you get New Structures, Organs, and Organisms by losing Information?

Re-stating your "kinds" belief doesn't make it more true, and as I said previously the term means nothing to biologists. Secondly "evolutionists" are not some hive mind working for some unified cause. Thirdly, evolution is not working towards some goal...sometimes things get more complex and sometimes less.

 

"There is no such thing as a "kind" and the word has no meaning whatsoever in biology."

 

Of course not, the Taxonomic Classification System is a Man-Made Construct developed 6000 years after GOD established "KIND".  And since evolutionists attempt to explain away GOD with these classifications with "so-called" PROOFS, they use the classifications especially "Species/Speciation" (more on this below).  Shouldn't the measuring stick, to disprove or explain away GOD, be HIS Standard and not one contrived by Man that changes like the weather?  This is tantamount to accusing Thomas Jefferson of Tax Evasion when income tax wasn't instituted until 1913.

Once again "evolutionists" are not some hive mind working together for a common goal. Scientists come from hundreds of unique cultural and religious backgrounds all over the world.

What does Jefferson have to do with this discussion? I can't even see how this is an apt or well constructed metaphor.

 

"Creationists use this word because evolution on smaller scales have been documented and can no longer be denied. Creationists therefore decided to claim animals can change as long as they don't go past some undefined magic barrier. So you tell me...what exactly is a "kind"?"

 

Be sure WHAT your definition of evolution is.  Because to discredit the Bible, you have to show change from Family Taxonomic Group or higher. To be clear....

Biblical "Kind" was coined 6000 years before the term "Species" and are two TOTALLY DIFFERENT TERMS.

Biblical "Kind"-- is defined from (IMHO):  (1 Corinthians 15:39) "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds."

Clearly this most closely resembles the Family Group, No?  Doesn't appear to be MAGIC.

 

"Species"-- A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. How many current definitions are there and how many changes have occurred with this definition; say, the past 50 years?

This equation is a Observable, Measurable, Repeatable, and is a Scientific FACT:

 

1. "Micro"-evolution:  Biblical "KIND"

Natural Selection + Genetic Variation =  Biblical "Kind". This is (Humans: Tall/Short, Green Eyes/Blue Eyes, Dark Skin/Light Skin, Puerto Rican/ Greenland Eskimo ... Dogs: Big/Small, Short hair/Long hair, Boxer/Collie) THEY'RE STILL DOGS and HUMANS.

This Equation is an Epic Fairy tale with NO PROOF (ZERO).

2. "Macro"- evolution: "Bacteria to Boy Scout"....

Natural Selection + Random Mutations + Billions of years =  Darwinian evolution

If evolution is TRUE, then please show 1 PROOF of this. You must show a Family Taxonomic Group or higher change to prove evolution and discredit the Biblical Account.

And please, don't say because #1 is True then Ipso Facto #2 is True.  These two are in completely different Universes and the only similarity... is that each equation starts with a "Natural Selection"....which by the way, was first Identified and Documented 27 years before origin of species by Edward Blyth (Creationist).

 

It appears evolutionists are using the ole "Bait and Switch" technique.  Taking "Micro"- evolution" which is Natural Selection and Genetic Variation and "Grandfathering" these into Darwinian evolution or in an attempt to feign credulity with the former without explaining the latter.  There is a very significant distinction. “Micro"-evolution, by definition, is the same thing as genetic variation (the shuffling of pre-existing genetic information). It is both observable and observed, measurable and measured, repeatable and repeated—in short, it has been scientifically verified as a natural phenomenon. However, in every single case, the organism that has undergone the variation is the SAME KIND OF ORGANISM!

 

“Macro"-evolution” or (Bacteria to Boy Scout) on the other hand, has not been verified as a natural phenomenon. It has not been observed, measured, or repeated. No natural mechanism has successfully been put forth as the means by which new and more complex genetic information is generated so as to result in unequivocally new traits, organs, and organisms. “Macro"-evolution is an entirely contrived notion, extrapolated, with no empirical basis, from “Micro"-evolution.

The distinction is both precise and significant. To blur the distinction is to show contempt for empirical science and mix fact with fantasy.

There is one definition of evolution whether you like it or not and trying to invent others that you can more easily attack won't do anything except denigrate yourself. You also talk about changes in science as if that was a bad thing. It's called changing opinions and views based on new and better data, something good scientist do.

Micro/macro are creationists terms that mean nothing to me or any reputable biologist, no more than "kind" does. I gave you not one but two examples of speciation and you chose to ignore them, so I'm not going to waste time trying to find more. It has been observed, sometimes in less than 50 years regardless of your ability to look them up.

You also didn't answer my question...what is a "kind"? I want to know an example of a "kind" of animal, not a re-statement of what you think a kind means.

 

"there are no reputable biologists on earth who denies the theory."

 

‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’

Harold, Franklin M. (evolutionist) Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205.

 

others:

Raymond G. Bohlin PhD Molecular and Cell Biology

Kenneth B Cumming PhD Biology

Carl B. Fliermans PhD Microbiology

Authur Jones PhD Biology

Ariel A Roth PhD Biology

Timothy G Standish PhD Biology

Henry Zuill PhD Biology

 

Just a few....I'd imagine these scholars are all disreputable?

The world is full of quacks, science is not immune. None of these people have published any data or research to support their views.

 

"Speciation in plants and animals have been observed and documented."

 

Speciation is not in question, See response above.

Lol speciation is a major component of what evolution is. At least use Google to look up what things mean man.

 

"changes in moths"

These wouldn't happen to be Peppered Moths?

Peppered moths are an example of natural selection.

 

"We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

- Harold, Franklin M. (evolutionist) Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205.

Here is the quote in context:

 

"The fundamental postulate is that undulipodia and other multi-molecular mechanisms arose, like the human eye, by the progressive accretion of ancillary proteins onto some rudiment or foundation that was functionally useful but need not have been an organ of motility. This amplification took place, one gene at a time, under the guidance of natural selection: each modification conferred at least a small selective benefit. On this premise, one can construct schemes that sound plausible and account, in principle, for the origins of crawling motility, mitosis, or the secretory pathway. We have no better alternative to offer the inquirer, and in the absence of time travel we may never discover what actually happened; and so a modicum of doubt necessarily persists. We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. There is room for discovery here, and for reflection too; nowhere is the appeal of Gould's "pluralistic Darwinism" more keenly felt than in the study of cell evolution."

Why do so many young earth creationists engage in extensive quote mining? It is dishonest and a violation of the ninth commandment not to bear false witness. And it IS false witness because in order to mine the quote you have to read everything in context first. Is their position so bad they have to engage in this dishonesty?

I also resent you claiming "evolutionists" are trying to deny God. I am a lifelong Christian as are several of my colleagues, having got into our fields because we want to ease suffering via medical research. The head of the human genome project is an evangelical Christian, Francis Collins. The idea that we are trying to disprove God is wrongheaded and laughable.

 

 

"Highly unlikely since you don't even know what a subatomic particle is."

 

You better hold on to this...you'll need it.

"No you just didn't know the difference, because if you had you would not have made such an error. The fact that you casually lump all these things together shows me that you are skimming Wikipedia and Google for words to sound scientific."

What in the World? Coming to conclusions based on very limited data and intuition (Guesses)?  Do you just make stuff up, convince yourself it's true, then try to intimidate and demean anyone in your path?

"I take science and education very seriously and if you misrepresent your knowledge of physics or biology, I will leap on your errors like a hungry tiger on a steak."

 

Very heart felt....it literally jumps of the page.

"Even the very laziest of searches has all the information on this at your finger tips"

Now I'm Lazy too?

"evolutionary theory at my main job to track viruses and bacterial development"

That's very interesting and a noble job; however, the evolutionary theory part contradicts what these fine gentleman have to say on the issue....

 

'In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.'

Marc Kirschner, Chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School; The Boston Globe  October 23, 2005

 

Philip Skell PhD (Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry Penn State University, Member of the National Academy of Sciences)

Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.

Philip Skell PhD; Why Do We Invoke Darwin, August 29, 2005

 

Examining the major advances in biological knowledge, one fails to find any real connection between biological history and the experimental designs that have produced today's cornucopia of knowledge of how the great variety of living organisms perform their functions. It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers and other practitioners of biological science.

Philip Skell PhD; The Dangers of overselling Evolution, February 23 2009

 

The public should view with profound alarm this unnecessary and misguided reintroduction of speculative historical, philosophical and religious ideas into the realms of experimental science.

Through the writings of neo-Darwinian biologists, they have subsumed many of the biological experimental discoveries of the 20th century. This is so despite the fact that those discoveries were neither predicted nor heuristically guided by evolutionary theory.

Philip Skell PhD; The Dangers of overselling Evolution, February 23 2009

 

"Re-stating your "kinds" belief doesn't make it more true"

 

Well it's not mine....it comes from THE WORD OF GOD.  However, GOD doesn't state technically what "KINDS" mean; so, an inference is made comparing Scripture with Scripture.... NOT comparing Scripture with the MAN"S Taxonomic Classification.  Having said that, a child can clearly see comparing "Kinds" with the Corinthians Passage... then with Family Groups that it's roughly BALLPARK.

 

"I can't even see how this is an apt or well constructed metaphor."

Overall It wasn't a metaphor it was an Analogy... creating a New Standard (Taxonomic Classification) then judging the efficacy and validity of the Old Standard ("Kinds") based on the tenets of the New Standard.  Better?

"There is one definition of evolution whether you like it or not"

 

‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’

Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

‘The interpretation of evolution is in a state of upheaval: the rapid advancement of Molecular Biology has led into question many of the tenets of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism which, although valuable approaches at the time they were formulated, never fulfilled the criteria demanded by real scientific theories… In the author’s opinion, no real theory of evolution can be formulated at present.’

From the publisher’s advertising of a evolutionary book, Evolution Without Selection, by A. Lima-de Faria, Elsevier Science publishing Co. Inc., New York (NY) USA, 1988 372 pages.

 

Wiki: Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.  It then says:  All Life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approx 3.8 billion years ago.  Looks like changing "KINDS" to me.

 

Dictionary.com: a Scientific Theory of the Origin of species of plants and animals.

 

Free Dictionary: A theory of organic evolution claiming that new species arise and are perpetuated by Natural Selection.

 

Oxford Concise Science Dictionary: evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

 

Just One Definition, eh?

 

"trying to invent others that you can more easily attack won't do anything except denigrate yourself."

 

So I'm Uneducated, Lazy and a Fraud. You Accuse me of "skimming wiki and google for scientific sounding words" and now SOMEHOW not only distilling my intent but qualifying it as malicious? Seriously? No Unbridled Conjecture for you I see. Have you read this Site's TOS?

 

"You also talk about changes in science as if that was a bad thing."

 

No, I was talking about changes to "Just So" Stories in a never ending molding to fit a World View Driven Paradigm...to be more precise.

 

"Micro/macro are creationists terms"

 

Really.....

 

Chicago Field Museum of Natural History conference on 'Macroevolution':

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution.  At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."

Roger Lewin, Science(Vol.201(4472):883-887,1980.)

 

So evolutionists have a World Conference on terms Creationists made up?  Interesting. *Note the last sentence/conclusion.

 

"The world is full of quacks, science is not immune."

 

Are you saying these Scholars are "quacks?"  Based on....?

 

"None of these people have published any data or research to support their views."

 

Are you absolutely sure?  If so, does that bring their expertise and knowledge into question?

 

"Lol speciation is what evolution is"

 

If only Speciation is evolution....then I'd be an evolutionist.  I think you may have a problem with what the theory of evolution actually is; See: Chicago Conference (Micro/Macro), Kerkut, Wiki, Oxford Concise Science Dictionary, and a myriad of other definitions.

 

"Peppered moths are an example of natural selection."

 

Profound.

 

"Why do so many young earth creationists engage in extensive quote mining"

 

Now I'm a Quote Miner?...add that to the list. Is that where we "Young Earth Creationists" take quotes out of context?  See below

 

"It is dishonest and a violation of the ninth commandment not to bear false witness."

 

Now a false witness!!  Can you tell me please where that quote is out of context, PLEASE?  The whole preface to the quote is PURE CONJECTURE, with the QUOTE.... A STATED FACT!  Please REREAD IT...."On this Premise one can construct schemes", "We have no better alternative", "modicum of doubt necessarily persists".   Does this speculation somehow invalidate or render the actual quote of null effect??

So you're telling me that YOU read the entire context then posted this as PROOF of some Impropriety?

Is that tiger roar getting close to a faint meow from a stray kitten @ this point?

 

"I also resent you claiming "evolutionists" are trying to deny God."

 

So my claim is unwarranted and baseless? .....

 

Michael Ruse PhD (noted evolutionist), Philosophy of Biology

 

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

Michael Ruse; How evolution became a religion; creationists correct? National Post May 13 2000

Then, sometimes from the same person, you have evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation. Consider Edward O. Wilson, rightfully regarded as one of the most outstanding professional evolutionary biologists of our time, and the author of major works of straight science. In his On Human Nature, he calmly assures us that evolution is a myth that is now ready to take over Christianity.

Michael Ruse: Science, March 7 2003, p.1524

 

Cornelius Hunter, PhD BioPhysics

 

Evolution is an organizing idea that inherently relies on ultimate truth claims -- claims that are outside of science. Evolution draws on several scientific disciplines, but evolution itself is not scientific. This it is not a matter of finding a better scientific explanation before evolution is dropped from science; rather, it is a matter of understanding the boundaries of science. When assumptions about God are made before the science begins, the result is not science, no matter how much science follows.  

Cornelius Hunter PhD BioPhysics, Darwin's God  (2001)  p.158

 

Julian Huxley PhD Professor of Zoology

Eugenics, Dean Inge writes in one of his essays, is capable of becoming the most sacred ideal of the human race, as a race; one of the supreme religious duties. In this I entirely agree with him. Once the full implications of evolutionary biology are grasped, eugenics will inevitably become part of the religion of the future, or of whatever complex sentiments may in the future take the place of organized religion.

Julian Huxley; Man Stands Alone, 1941, p.34

 

Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini PhD Physics and Professor Cognitive Science University of Arizona

Some months ago an American philosopher explained to a highly sophisticated audience in Britain what, in his opinion, was wrong, indeed fatally wrong, with the standard neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution. He made it crystal clear that his criticism was not inspired by creationism, intelligent design or any remotely religious motivation. A senior gentleman in the audience erupted, in indignation: ‘You should not say such things, you should not write such things! The creationists will treasure them and use them against science.’ The lecturer politely asked: ‘Even if they are true?’ To which the instant and vibrant retort was: ‘Especially if they are true!’ with emphasis on the ‘especially’.

This stunning exchange exemplifies the religious fervour with which some scholars and laypersons adhere to the Darwinian doctrine. It’s a secular religion, for sure, an atheistic banner under which the white knights of scientific rationality rally in their fight against the forces of darkness. There are countless manifestations of this unwholesome religious Darwinian fervour, more than can be listed here.

Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini PhD, March 2010

 

"I am a lifelong Christian as are several of my colleagues"

 

Did man "evolve" from chimps/apes or did GOD make Adam fully formed?

 

Did organisms (single/multicellular) live and die before Adam?

[MrsRational]

 

"Highly unlikely since you don't even know what a subatomic particle is."

You better hold on to this...you'll need it.

 

"No you just didn't know the difference, because if you had you would not have made such an error. The fact that you casually lump all these things together shows me that you are skimming Wikipedia and Google for words to sound scientific."

What in the World? Coming to conclusions based on very limited data and intuition (Guesses)?  Do you just make stuff up, convince yourself it's true, then try to intimidate and demean anyone in your path?

 

"I take science and education very seriously and if you misrepresent your knowledge of physics or biology, I will leap on your errors like a hungry tiger on a steak."

Very heart felt....it literally jumps of the page.

 

"Even the very laziest of searches has all the information on this at your finger tips"

Now I'm Lazy too?

 

"evolutionary theory at my main job to track viruses and bacterial development"

That's very interesting and a noble job; however, the evolutionary theory part contradicts what these fine gentleman have to say on the issue....

 

"Re-stating your "kinds" belief doesn't make it more true"

Well it's not mine....it comes from THE WORD OF GOD.  However, GOD doesn't state technically what "KINDS" mean; so, an inference is made comparing Scripture with Scripture.... NOT comparing Scripture with the MAN"S Taxonomic Classification.  Having said that, a child can clearly see comparing "Kinds" with the Corinthians Passage... then with Family Groups that it's roughly BALLPARK.

 

"I can't even see how this is an apt or well constructed metaphor."

Overall It wasn't a metaphor it was an Analogy... creating a New Standard (Taxonomic Classification) then judging the efficacy and validity of the Old Standard ("Kinds") based on the tenets of the New Standard.  Better?

 

"There is one definition of evolution whether you like it or not"

Just One Definition, eh?

 

"trying to invent others that you can more easily attack won't do anything except denigrate yourself."

So I'm Uneducated, Lazy and a Fraud. You Accuse me of "skimming wiki and google for scientific sounding words" and now SOMEHOW not only distilling my intent but qualifying it as malicious? Seriously? No Unbridled Conjecture for you I see. Have you read this Site's TOS?

 

"You also talk about changes in science as if that was a bad thing."

No, I was talking about changes to "Just So" Stories in a never ending molding to fit a World View Driven Paradigm...to be more precise.

 

"Micro/macro are creationists terms"

Really.....

 

Chicago Field Museum of Natural History conference on 'Macroevolution':

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution.  At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."

Roger Lewin, Science(Vol.201(4472):883-887,1980.)

 

So evolutionists have a World Conference on terms Creationists made up?  Interesting. *Note the last sentence/conclusion.

 

"The world is full of quacks, science is not immune."

Are you saying these Scholars are "quacks?"  Based on....?

 

"None of these people have published any data or research to support their views."

 

Are you absolutely sure?  If so, does that bring their expertise and knowledge into question?

 

"Lol speciation is what evolution is"

If only Speciation is evolution....then I'd be an evolutionist.  I think you may have a problem with what the theory of evolution actually is; See: Chicago Conference (Micro/Macro), Kerkut, Wiki, Oxford Concise Science Dictionary, and a myriad of other definitions.

 

"Peppered moths are an example of natural selection."

Profound.

 

"Why do so many young earth creationists engage in extensive quote mining"

Now I'm a Quote Miner?...add that to the list. Is that where we "Young Earth Creationists" take quotes out of context?  See below

 

"It is dishonest and a violation of the ninth commandment not to bear false witness."

Now a false witness!!  Can you tell me please where that quote is out of context, PLEASE?  The whole preface to the quote is PURE CONJECTURE, with the QUOTE.... A STATED FACT!  Please REREAD IT...."On this Premise one can construct schemes", "We have no better alternative", "modicum of doubt necessarily persists".   Does this speculation somehow invalidate or render the actual quote of null effect??

So you're telling me that YOU read the entire context then posted this as PROOF of some Impropriety?

Is that tiger roar getting close to a faint meow from a stray kitten @ this point?

 

"I also resent you claiming "evolutionists" are trying to deny God."

So my claim is unwarranted and baseless? ...

 

 

 

"I am a lifelong Christian as are several of my colleagues"

Did man "evolve" from chimps/apes or did GOD make Adam fully formed?

 

Did organisms (single/multicellular) live and die before Adam?

 

 

Quote mining:

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

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

 

I'm not interested in whatever laundry list of quotes you dredge up from creationist websites. They are all quote mined which is extremely dishonest.

 

I did not call you lazy, I said even the laziest of searches would lead to the information you "requested". Nor did I say you were dishonest or a false witness...I said quote mining is dishonest and false witness. I believe you just never bothered to verify the veracity or context of those statements which is a very bad thing but certainly not anything malicious on your part. If you scroll up and read where I posted your "quote" from Franklin Harold, the entire quote in context means something totally different.

 

Here are some quote mines from you:

 

"...these scholars are quacks..."

"...I'm uneducated, lazy and a fraud..."

"...my claims are unwarranted and baseless..."

"...I'm lazy..."

 

You DID write those words...would you be happy with me citing that to others? Did I present them in an honest way that represents what you were saying? That is what quote mining is and why it is false witness and so dishonest. Don't do it anymore, and start doing your research before you repeat something you read on AiG or some other such website.

 

Claiming everything is a kind and shrugging when asked to provide a specific example is not very impressive. How do you know something is still the same "kind" if you don't even know what a kind is? You can't claim something as fact and then say "I dunno" when asked for a clarification.

 

Speciation is when an organism is no longer able to breed with it's ancestor...i.e. "turning into another creature". "Macro" evolution is merely the compounded effects of "micro" evolution and are not separate processes. While it is true that many evolutionary scientists use the term, I dislike the way they have been distorted by creationists and therefore avoid using those words when talking in a non-scientific context.

 

Your claims about "evolutionists" trying to disprove God ARE unwarranted and baseless because I can disprove them in two seconds...I am a Christian. So are many other people in my field which you would also know if you bothered to do your research.

 

When you constantly misunderstand speciation, atomic theory and the simplest aspects of biology it is reasonable to conclude you don't know what you're talking about. If you respond to me with more mined quotes I will not answer you, you will have to do your own thinking.

Edited December 27, 2013 by MsRational

[Enoch2021]

 

 

"Highly unlikely since you don't even know what a subatomic particle is."

You better hold on to this...you'll need it.

 

"No you just didn't know the difference, because if you had you would not have made such an error. The fact that you casually lump all these things together shows me that you are skimming Wikipedia and Google for words to sound scientific."

What in the World? Coming to conclusions based on very limited data and intuition (Guesses)?  Do you just make stuff up, convince yourself it's true, then try to intimidate and demean anyone in your path?

 

"I take science and education very seriously and if you misrepresent your knowledge of physics or biology, I will leap on your errors like a hungry tiger on a steak."

Very heart felt....it literally jumps of the page.

 

"Even the very laziest of searches has all the information on this at your finger tips"

Now I'm Lazy too?

 

"evolutionary theory at my main job to track viruses and bacterial development"

That's very interesting and a noble job; however, the evolutionary theory part contradicts what these fine gentleman have to say on the issue....

 

"Re-stating your "kinds" belief doesn't make it more true"

Well it's not mine....it comes from THE WORD OF GOD.  However, GOD doesn't state technically what "KINDS" mean; so, an inference is made comparing Scripture with Scripture.... NOT comparing Scripture with the MAN"S Taxonomic Classification.  Having said that, a child can clearly see comparing "Kinds" with the Corinthians Passage... then with Family Groups that it's roughly BALLPARK.

 

"I can't even see how this is an apt or well constructed metaphor."

Overall It wasn't a metaphor it was an Analogy... creating a New Standard (Taxonomic Classification) then judging the efficacy and validity of the Old Standard ("Kinds") based on the tenets of the New Standard.  Better?

 

"There is one definition of evolution whether you like it or not"

Just One Definition, eh?

 

"trying to invent others that you can more easily attack won't do anything except denigrate yourself."

So I'm Uneducated, Lazy and a Fraud. You Accuse me of "skimming wiki and google for scientific sounding words" and now SOMEHOW not only distilling my intent but qualifying it as malicious? Seriously? No Unbridled Conjecture for you I see. Have you read this Site's TOS?

 

"You also talk about changes in science as if that was a bad thing."

No, I was talking about changes to "Just So" Stories in a never ending molding to fit a World View Driven Paradigm...to be more precise.

 

"Micro/macro are creationists terms"

Really.....

 

Chicago Field Museum of Natural History conference on 'Macroevolution':

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution.  At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."

Roger Lewin, Science(Vol.201(4472):883-887,1980.)

 

So evolutionists have a World Conference on terms Creationists made up?  Interesting. *Note the last sentence/conclusion.

 

"The world is full of quacks, science is not immune."

Are you saying these Scholars are "quacks?"  Based on....?

 

"None of these people have published any data or research to support their views."

 

Are you absolutely sure?  If so, does that bring their expertise and knowledge into question?

 

"Lol speciation is what evolution is"

If only Speciation is evolution....then I'd be an evolutionist.  I think you may have a problem with what the theory of evolution actually is; See: Chicago Conference (Micro/Macro), Kerkut, Wiki, Oxford Concise Science Dictionary, and a myriad of other definitions.

 

"Peppered moths are an example of natural selection."

Profound.

 

"Why do so many young earth creationists engage in extensive quote mining"

Now I'm a Quote Miner?...add that to the list. Is that where we "Young Earth Creationists" take quotes out of context?  See below

 

"It is dishonest and a violation of the ninth commandment not to bear false witness."

Now a false witness!!  Can you tell me please where that quote is out of context, PLEASE?  The whole preface to the quote is PURE CONJECTURE, with the QUOTE.... A STATED FACT!  Please REREAD IT...."On this Premise one can construct schemes", "We have no better alternative", "modicum of doubt necessarily persists".   Does this speculation somehow invalidate or render the actual quote of null effect??

So you're telling me that YOU read the entire context then posted this as PROOF of some Impropriety?

Is that tiger roar getting close to a faint meow from a stray kitten @ this point?

 

"I also resent you claiming "evolutionists" are trying to deny God."

So my claim is unwarranted and baseless? ...

 

 

 

"I am a lifelong Christian as are several of my colleagues"

Did man "evolve" from chimps/apes or did GOD make Adam fully formed?

 

Did organisms (single/multicellular) live and die before Adam?

 

 

Quote mining:

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

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

 

I'm not interested in whatever laundry list of quotes you dredge up from creationist websites. They are all quote mined which is extremely dishonest.

 

I did not call you lazy, I said even the laziest of searches would lead to the information you "requested". Nor did I say you were dishonest or a false witness...I said quote mining is dishonest and false witness. I believe you just never bothered to verify the veracity or context of those statements which is a very bad thing but certainly not anything malicious on your part. If you scroll up and read where I posted your "quote" from Franklin Harold, the entire quote in context means something totally different.

 

Here are some quote mines from you:

 

"...these scholars are quacks..."

"...I'm uneducated, lazy and a fraud..."

"...my claims are unwarranted and baseless..."

"...I'm lazy..."

 

You DID write those words...would you be happy with me citing that to others? Did I present them in an honest way that represents what you were saying? That is what quote mining is and why it is false witness and so dishonest. Don't do it anymore, and start doing your research before you repeat something you read on AiG or some other such website.

 

Claiming everything is a kind and shrugging when asked to provide a specific example is not very impressive. If you don't have any idea what a "kind" is than you shouldn't be making clams that something is or is not staying it's "own kind". You cannot have it both ways. Speciation is when an organism is not longer able to breed with it's ancestor...i.e. "turning into another creature". "Macro" evolution is merely the compounded effects of "micro" evolution and are not separate processes. While it is true that many evolutionary scientists use the term, I dislike the way they have been distorted by creationists and therefore avoid using those words when talking in a non-scientific context.

 

Your claims about "evolutionists" trying to disprove God ARE unwarranted and baseless because I can disprove them in two seconds...I am a Christian. So are many other people in my field which you would also know if you bothered to do your research.

 

When you constantly misunderstand speciation, atomic theory and the simplest aspects of biology it is reasonable to conclude you don't know what you're talking about. If you respond to me with more mined quotes I will not answer you, you will have to do your own thinking.

 

 

"I'm not interested in whatever laundry list of quotes you dredge up from creationist websites."

 

You're guessing again.  Yes, I figured that.  Sort of like an all encompassing ad hominem. Look up Graham's Hierarchy of Argument Techniques and see where ad hominem attacks fall.

 

 

"They are all quote mined which is extremely dishonest."

 

A Generalized Baseless Unsupported Assertion used as a vehicle to summarily dismiss, eh?  Never seen that before. Can you specifically exactly point to one valid example?  Are they Just like the Professor Harold Quote?

 

"I did not call you lazy, I said even the laziest of searches would lead to the information you "requested". Nor did I say you were dishonest or a false witness"

 

C'mon

 

"I believe you just never bothered to verify the veracity or context of those statements"

 

You're guessing again.

 

"read where I posted your "quote" from Franklin Harold, the entire quote in context means something totally different."

 

It does not and nothing of the sort and I even pulled the specifics out for you to identify.  You obviously didn't read it because it's crystal clear.

 

"Here are some quote mines from you:

"...these scholars are quacks..."

"...I'm uneducated, lazy and a fraud..."

"...my claims are unwarranted and baseless..."

"...I'm lazy..."

You DID write those words...would you be happy with me citing that to others?

 

You can't be serious.  This is really not worth commenting on.... it's a Clumsy Equivocation.

 

"Claiming everything is a kind"

 

Who in the world is doing that?  It's another Generalized Baseless Assertion...to then, summarily dismiss all inquiries.

 

"Don't do it anymore"

 

You moved up from baseless conjectures to unsolicited advice?  Thanks, you'll forgive me if I just move on.

 

"Speciation is when an organism is not longer able to breed with it's ancestor...i.e. "turning into another creature"."

 

Speciation is just Genetic Variation within KIND--- (Man, Beasts, Birds, Fishes) or a change in Allele Frequency.  How in the world are you going to get another creature...New Organs/Organisms without the Information to do so"??  Mutations??----that's "Macro", and you surely aren't getting there with that scenario either.

 

Speciation or "Micro" is, again:

 

1. "Micro"-evolution/ Change in Allele Frequency:  Biblical "KIND"

Natural Selection + Genetic Variation =  Biblical "Kind", This is (Humans: Tall/Short, Green Eyes/Blue Eyes, Dark Skin/Light Skin, Puerto Rican/ Greenland Eskimo ... Dogs: Big/Small, Short hair/Long hair, Boxer/Collie) THEY'RE STILL DOGS and HUMANS!

 

"Macro" evolution is merely the compounded effects of "micro" evolution and are not separate processes."

 

It is when you superficially look @ just the Terms; However, looking @ the tenets of each with just the slightest of scrutiny, reveals a much different story. Why would you have a World Conference comparing and contrasting  "Micro" and "Macro" if they were both the same process?  It's incoherent and lacks even the slightest attention to detail to even postulate. The "Micro" and "Macro" equivocation, it's like saying; (2 + 2 =4) is the same as (2 + 16 = 4) if you add Millions/billions of years:

 

2. This Equation is an Epic Fairytale with NO PROOF (ZERO).....

 

"Macro"- evolution: "Bacteria to Boy Scout"....

Natural Selection + Random Mutations + Billions of years =  darwinian evolution

 

"I dislike the way they have been distorted by creationists"

 

Another Generalized Baseless Unsupported Conjecture.  I thought you said Creationists made the terms up?  Clearly from the Chicago Conference, this is not the case and their conclusion was also very telling.

 

"Your claims about "evolutionists" trying to disprove God ARE unwarranted and baseless"

 

I think you meant to say: "your SUPPORTED and CITED Claims about evolutionists...", right?

 

"I am a Christian"

 

So this is your Supporting Evidence to directly refute that "evolutionists" are trying to disprove God"??  You wouldn't be Pre-Law by chance?

 

"I am a Christian. So are many other people in my field"

 

Consensus or Numbers don't = TRUTH.  What is the Threshold number where something reaches credulity?...or does it vary with subject or concept?

 

"When you constantly misunderstand speciation"

 

Clearly it is YOU who doesn't understand the TERM or process as I have clearly demonstrated.  See Above.

 

"If you respond to me with more mined quotes I will not answer you, you will have to do your own thinking."

 

This is the coup de gras.  And it's quite shocking that I would even need to post this.  We're talking about SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES here not what our favorite colors are or our OPINIONS concerning the game last night.  To establish our postulates, we SUPPORT THEM with CITED REFERENCES so as to be able to defend them against logical and academic scrutiny.  It's purpose is to limit Conjecture filled Baseless Assertion Parades in an attempt to systematically establish TRUTH.  By the mere fact that I would have to explain this, speaks VOLUMES.  It doesn't matter what WE THINK it is or our BEST GUESS....it's what you can PROVE!

 

Your BASELESS "Quote Mine Assertion" is a feeble attempt to undermine that process....

 

Andrew Snelling PhD Geology

Evolutionists have often protested ‘unfair’ to quoting an evolutionist as if he were against evolution itself. So let it be said from the outset that the vast majority of authorities quoted are themselves ardent believers in evolution. But that is precisely the point , and the value of The Revised QUOTE BOOK. The foundations of the evolutionary edifice are hardly likely to be shaken by a collection of quotes from the many scientists who are biblical creationists. In a court of law, an admission from a hostile witness is the most valuable. Quoting the evolutionary palaeontologist who admits the absence of in-between forms, or the evolutionary biologist who admits the hopelessness of the mutation/selection mechanism, is perfectly legitimate if the admission is accurately represented in its own right, regardless of whether the rest of the article is full of hymns of praise to all the other aspects of evolution.

Andrew Snelling PhD; The Revised Quote Book 1990

 

You also side-stepped a number of issues I brought up in the last reply, roughly:

 

The Definitions of evolution, Direct refutations by the SME's regarding the Medical Field and......

 

Did man "evolve" from chimps/apes or did GOD make Adam fully formed?

 

Did organisms (single/multicellular) live and die before Adam?

[gray wolf]

[Guest]

Believing in God and such doesn't remove you from the capacity to commit atrocities.

 

~

 

And

 

Yea, hath God said, Genesis 3:1(c )

 

Such

 

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22

 

~

 

The Christian tradition of antisemitism makes that abundantly clear.

 

What brought Hitler to power was the over-the-top punishment the Allies gave Germany

 

tanking their economy and kicking them while they were down,

 

the Germans were looking for something better and Hitler came along with national pride and an easy scapegoat so people ate it up.

 

~

 

The Believers Or

 

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. Matthew 5:44-45

 

The Haters

 

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

 

The Lovers Or

 

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

 

If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another. Galatians 5:19-26

 

The Nazi 

 

Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. Acts 5:29

 

The Wehrmacht Oath of Loyalty to Adolf Hitler, 2 August 1934

 

 "I swear by God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_oath

 

 

Way

 

And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Acts 5:27-28

 

~

 

Think The KING OF THE JEWS Is Amused

 

See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever.

 

If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me. I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy.

 

Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people. Deuteronomy 32:39-43

 

Neither Do I

 

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: Matthew 25:40-41

 

~

 

Believe

 

But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

 

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

 

For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:8-10

 

And Be Blessed Beloved

 

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

 

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

 

Love, Joe