Why Earle is being misled

[Simon Paynton]

Earle is providing us with a lot of sources that are erroneous.  The people he is quoting as authorities are being misquoted and taken out of context.  Here’s a forum for de-bunking some of his sources.  If anybody would like to follow through on at least one of his quotes then this would be appreciated.

• This topic was modified 7 years, 8 months ago by Simon Paynton.

[Simon Paynton]

Bear in mind that even though Earle’s evolution sources are erroneous, that says nothing about the validity of Christianity or the existence of God.  He is free to believe in evolution and still be a Christian.  The two are pretty much unconnected.  In fact, according to my philosophy, the first supports the second in some ways.

[_Robert_]

He is free to believe in evolution and still be a Christian.

This is true of course, however if you consider the Bible to be the infallible word from god, we have a problem. Why would god tell us he created the world in 6 days? Why would he say we are created from his image when we are still evolving? Why is the female made from a man’s rib. These stories seem more like typical bullshit stories than anything the creator of the universe would communicate. So is anything in that obviously pieced together, fabricated, contradicting book the direct message from the lerd? It is the only thing they have. The universe has presented no evidence that revered book is valid. Zero, Nada. Same with all the other sacred texts. And we know they all can’t be true. It’s all about our need to explain what we don’t know. Next thing you know we are blessing pieces of food, dunking ourselves in water, anointing ourselves in oil, wearing stupid hats, lighting candles, confessing sins to perverts, calling cows sacred, chopping off the heads of infidels. Having wars. It’s a fucking nightmare, religion.

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

He is free to believe in evolution and still be a Christian.

It would read better if you said He is free to accept the truth evolution and still be a Christian. Evolution is a matter of understanding, not one of belief.

Having said that, some Christians are compelled to deny the truth of Evolution because it is not compatible with their particular belief system. Young Earth Creationists, among others and including many Muslims, must deny Evolution and come up with Creationist ideologies because they have to continue to believe the Genesis story of Adam and Eve to be a factually accurate account of reality and not the primitive myth that it is. If they were to be properly educated and come to properly understand modern science, they would have to challenge this disparity and work through the cognitive dissonance that would exist. This would mean they would have to be honest with themselves but because they are indoctrinated by liars for Jesus from an early age with Creationist bullshit, it is easier for them to challenge Evolution than to allow Evolution to challenge their own beliefs. If they were to accept the Adam and Eve account as not being a literal interpretation of reality then they would open the floodgates to all the other “truths” they cling to and be compelled to challenge the veracity of those too. Only the brave will challenge the truth of their own worldviews.

[jakelafort]

Yes, of course he is being misled. And if it were not already clear Earle can’t handle the truth (shamelessly filching a line from a movie) he refuses to read or listen to sources given by those on here.

Simon, no. evolution and christianity are incompatible.  Evolution and deism are compatible. Please elaborate on their compatibility.

[Simon Paynton]

jakelafort wrote:

evolution and christianity are incompatible

They both involve the pressure to thrive.

[jakelafort]

Pressure to thrive, Simon, is that sufficient to declare compatibility?

Would you throw in nazism as compatible with evolution and chrisitianity?

[Simon Paynton]

Nazism was/is a death cult dealing in destructive power and control; where this is true of Christianity, it’s a corruption, as in the abuses of the Catholic Church.

[Simon Paynton]

Here is a quote from darwinismrefuted.com:

The evolutionist author Roger Lewin expresses the thermodynamic impasse of evolution in an article in Science:

One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the second law of thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time, giving less, not more, order.

However, inside a closed system like a cell, entropy can decrease, while the cell exports entropy to the wider universe; thereby preserving the second law of thermodynamics.

Evolutionary theory ignores this fundamental law of physics.

And this web site ignores this fundamental knowledge about entropy.

[Simon Paynton]

Despite the claim that all kinds of intermediate forms exist, there is an impassable barrier between the fossil remains of man and those of apes.

Here is the latest information on the last common ancestor of humans and apes.

Furthermore, it has been revealed that the species which are portrayed as each other’s ancestors are actually contemporary species that lived in the same period.

No offence to Earle, but “why do there still be monkeys?”

[jakelafort]

Simon i think there is more similarity between Nazism and Christianity than evolution and Christianity. But this time in distinguishing Nazism you examined the nature of each as opposed to pressure to thrive. That makes more sense to me.

I am not sure that about the abuses of the catholic church being a departure from something pure however…

 

[Simon Paynton]

The pressure to thrive is actually amoral, if you think about it.  Hitler and Nazi Germany were great at thriving, until they weren’t.  The moral part is “love your neighbour as yourself”.

[Davis]

Simon you keep using thrive in a way which is just extremely confusing because thrive is conceptual when it comes to humans and, as far as we know, that is until we can access or are told by other animals, it is not conceptual with other creatures. If we just stick to non-human mobile individual creatures…what do you mean by thrive?

• stage one maturity
• stay alive
• reproduce
• nurture off spring
• maybe kick them out or continue to live with them and/or partner and maybe protect them (perhaps along  with extended family/group)
• reproduce again and again and again and again and again
• and again until no takers or your body won’t allow it
• maybe stay with partner and maybe live with and/or protect offspring and/or family/group
• stay alive until eaten or get injured or the extremely rare “die by natural causes”.

Is this thriving? Or if not, could you please give me a clear and thorough definition? You could give examples of a few animals…that would help a lot. I’d prefer if you leave humans out for the moment.

[Simon Paynton]

“Thriving” is the state of being strong and healthy – fit to survive, and surviving to reproduce.

[tom sarbeck]

So darwinismrefuted.com says evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics — that systems should decay through time, giving less, not more, order.

Those people and Earle are not thinking clearly. What can be more orderly than big and strong pond scum eating (engulfing) small and weak pond scum?

Evolution changed that. What can be more disorderly than all the rules making our moral decisions so difficult? Besides more of the same. of course.

BTW, Simon, reconsider your saying cells are closed systems. Each cell requires energy and disposes of waste.

 

[Author]

Posts