This Forum is now inactive and has been replaced by a new Christogenea Forum. You may browse here but there are no updated threads or new posts since January 1st 2017. Forum members please see THIS NOTICE for information concerning your account at the new forum.

Creationism and Evolution from the Christogenea Overview

Re: Creationism and Evolution from the Christogenea Overview

Postby Ethelwulf » Sat Jan 05, 2013 5:17 pm

I somewhat sympathize with wmfinck on how society is only presented two models. However its wrong to generalize evolution, like creation. There are many different evolution models and mechanisms. What is presented to society is the politically correct models of both creationism (Young Earth Creationism) and evolution (Neo-Darwinian Out of Africa). I think its wrong to equate all of creationism to YEC and evoution to OOA. While you guys understand this with creationism, you wrongy lump all evolution theories together. I've researched all these different theories for years.

I understand the forum rules and that I can't promote/support evolution here. However I would like to ask this if I may:

Would any of you believe in evolution if you never read the Bible?
Ethelwulf
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:55 am

Re: Creationism and Evolution from the Christogenea Overview

Postby Kentucky » Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:58 pm

Ethelwulf wrote:I somewhat sympathize with wmfinck on how society is only presented two models. However its wrong to generalize evolution, like creation. There are many different evolution models and mechanisms. What is presented to society is the politically correct models of both creationism (Young Earth Creationism) and evolution (Neo-Darwinian Out of Africa). I think its wrong to equate all of creationism to YEC and evoution to OOA. While you guys understand this with creationism, you wrongy lump all evolution theories together. I've researched all these different theories for years.

I understand the forum rules and that I can't promote/support evolution here. However I would like to ask this if I may:

Would any of you believe in evolution if you never read the Bible?


The problem with evolution IMHO is that it was not the origin of life as from a big bang and a combination of primordial soups under the right conditions in contradistinction to a divine Creation. The second premise is that of 'kind after kind' or the integrity of the species (and in our case race) in contradistinction to a species evolving into another species. If you want to take into account all of the aberrations of nature through mutations, variations and adaptations, then that is another matter. I guess your putting forth the notion that there is a type of evolution that would satisfactorily fit into God's plan of the ages? Which must give recognition to "There's nothing new under the sun." lol.

If I had never read the Bible, then I guess I would be totally ignorant of any other proposition, but would still wonder who or what lit the fuse on the big bang. Furthermore, if I were a skeptic, I would want more than a string of coincidences and quasi-scientific theories to explain life on earth. The idea of evolving from mud or monkeys is not very appealing to my way of thinking.

Mark
User avatar
Kentucky
 
Posts: 1803
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:20 am

Re: Creationism and Evolution from the Christogenea Overview

Postby NicoChristian » Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:05 am

One thing I've noticed is how Negroids fail to adapt to European climates. They can't get used to the cold, even after living here for years. I would laugh at how Negroids wanted to give up while we're on Army field exercise just because the temperature was like 7 degrees celcius. For me it was warm, and they want to go man down in such temperate conditions. Us Whites can adapt to any climate, look at how Whites in South Afria have tamed the land that was once a barren wasteland. Whites adapt to any climate, whereas groids don't work if it's too hot, they don't work if it's too cold. Many of them have sickle cell anemia which leaves them constantly tired. This myth about groids being great workers or athletes is rubbish. I can outrun plenty of them and they hate hard work and want to sleep all the time. The differences can be noticed anywhere without any scientific reseach.
YHWH bless.
NicoChristian
 
Posts: 450
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Creationism and Evolution from the Christogenea Overview

Postby Ethelwulf » Sun Jan 06, 2013 4:29 pm

Kentucky wrote:
Ethelwulf wrote:I somewhat sympathize with wmfinck on how society is only presented two models. However its wrong to generalize evolution, like creation. There are many different evolution models and mechanisms. What is presented to society is the politically correct models of both creationism (Young Earth Creationism) and evolution (Neo-Darwinian Out of Africa). I think its wrong to equate all of creationism to YEC and evoution to OOA. While you guys understand this with creationism, you wrongy lump all evolution theories together. I've researched all these different theories for years.

I understand the forum rules and that I can't promote/support evolution here. However I would like to ask this if I may:

Would any of you believe in evolution if you never read the Bible?


The problem with evolution IMHO is that it was not the origin of life as from a big bang and a combination of primordial soups under the right conditions in contradistinction to a divine Creation. The second premise is that of 'kind after kind' or the integrity of the species (and in our case race) in contradistinction to a species evolving into another species. If you want to take into account all of the aberrations of nature through mutations, variations and adaptations, then that is another matter. I guess your putting forth the notion that there is a type of evolution that would satisfactorily fit into God's plan of the ages? Which must give recognition to "There's nothing new under the sun." lol.

If I had never read the Bible, then I guess I would be totally ignorant of any other proposition, but would still wonder who or what lit the fuse on the big bang. Furthermore, if I were a skeptic, I would want more than a string of coincidences and quasi-scientific theories to explain life on earth. The idea of evolving from mud or monkeys is not very appealing to my way of thinking.

Mark


Evolution (chemical, biological etc) is a process only. It doesn't answer the origin of life or universe. As far as I am aware those are two questions that can never be known. The Miller-Urey experiment showed how amino acids and so forth could have sprung naturally from early atmospheric conditions on Earth. However what created the hydrogen, methane and so forth that the experiment started off using? No one can answer that. No experiment or observation has ever reproduced something from absolutely nothing.
Ethelwulf
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:55 am

Re: Creationism and Evolution from the Christogenea Overview

Postby wmfinck » Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:19 pm

Ethelwulf wrote:Would any of you believe in evolution if you never read the Bible?


Before I ever read the Bible, I read Sagan's Cosmos twice (at the time I liked his history of the development of modern science), a few chunks of Hawking (i.e., the beginning chapters of A Brief History of Time), and a host of clowns like them. All of this was in my teens and early 20's (the 1970's and early 1980's). But I never accepted their religion. Yes, Evolution is a religion. It is not a science, because its processes cannot be scientifically explained or duplicated. And please, do not confuse theoretical sophistry with scientific explanation. Scientific explanation describes a known process, such as photosynthesis or animal reproduction, step-by-step in detail. A belief in Evolution is a belief in something not seen.

So I could not ever accept Evolution even though I had never read the Bible, and being raised in Catholic schools I typically knew little-to-nothing about it. I first read the Bible in the later months of 1997.

Ethelwulf wrote:Evolution (chemical, biological etc) is a process only.


Confusion confusion, the jew is the author of confusion. Evolution is a process which has never been observed in Nature, and therefore it is actually not a process at all. The labeling of the ocurrences of variation among species as Evolution is a modern insistence which confuses the original issue.

Originally Evolution described the idea that higher species developed from constant and incremental minor changes which occured over presumably long periods of time among lower species. This is what my Catholic schools taught as "Evolution" and as "Science" in the 1960's and 1970's for the few years I suffered them.

But the labeling of species variation as Evolution (or "Micro Evolution", et al.) is a sleight-of-hand trick concocted so that the idea of Evolution as a concept can more easily be kept in the public arena. It is just as readily admitted that all species have an ability to variate within certain boundaries, and that ability was created along with any particular species which manifests it. The holy grail, so to speak, of Evolution is the changing of what is perceived as one species into what is perceived as another species, and this has never happened. Yahweh God created everything as He said, kind (species) after kind (species), although the labeling by man of what constitutes a species is also demonstrably imperfect.

So in conclusion, just because the jews and their atheist bag-holders wish to define the terms which we use, does not mean that I am going to play along with their games. Species variation is not Evolution just because some kike bastards claim that it should be labeled as such.

So now you know why I use "Evolution" as what you maintain is too general a term. I will not desist.
Image
If a jew is moving his lips, he's lying. If you see a rabbi, there has already been a crime!
User avatar
wmfinck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:09 am

Re: Creationism and Evolution from the Christogenea Overview

Postby Ethelwulf » Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:58 pm

wmfinck wrote: Scientific explanation describes a known process, such as photosynthesis or animal reproduction, step-by-step in detail. A belief in Evolution is a belief in something not seen.


The "observe" part of the scientific method is not restricted to direct (eyewitness) observation. If it was then virtually nothing would be science, who has for example directly observed a mountain form? As another example, the Meteor Crater (Arizona) was never observed by anyone. It was formed by a meteorite impact around 50,000 years ago. We don't need to directly observe something to know it occurs/occurred.

Confusion confusion, the jew is the author of confusion. Evolution is a process which has never been observed in Nature, and therefore it is actually not a process at all. The labeling of the ocurrences of variation among species as Evolution is a modern insistence which confuses the original issue.

Originally Evolution described the idea that higher species developed from constant and incremental minor changes which occured over presumably long periods of time among lower species. This is what my Catholic schools taught as "Evolution" and as "Science" in the 1960's and 1970's for the few years I suffered them.

But the labeling of species variation as Evolution (or "Micro Evolution", et al.) is a sleight-of-hand trick concocted so that the idea of Evolution as a concept can more easily be kept in the public arena. It is just as readily admitted that all species have an ability to variate within certain boundaries, and that ability was created along with any particular species which manifests it. The holy grail, so to speak, of Evolution is the changing of what is perceived as one species into what is perceived as another species, and this has never happened. Yahweh God created everything as He said, kind (species) after kind (species), although the labeling by man of what constitutes a species is also demonstrably imperfect.


How do you explain many Christians (in fact the vast majority of them) believe in evolution? Is there really a contradiction with scripture? I'll probably go through your writings some time. When do you date Adam? Because this is what i've never understood with most CI. Where do the other races come from?

Have you read Alexander Winchell's Pre-Adamites? That's a text closer to my own position. Winchell accepted evolution.
Ethelwulf
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:55 am

Re: Creationism and Evolution from the Christogenea Overview

Postby wmfinck » Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:45 am

Ethelwulf wrote:The "observe" part of the scientific method is not restricted to direct (eyewitness) observation. If it was then virtually nothing would be science, who has for example directly observed a mountain form? As another example, the Meteor Crater (Arizona) was never observed by anyone. It was formed by a meteorite impact around 50,000 years ago. We don't need to directly observe something to know it occurs/occurred.


There are other reasons why it may be deduced that the Meteor Crater was formed by a meteor. Such as the presence of millions of such craters elsewhere, and then because we have actually observed meteors both striking the Earth and gliding by it harmlessly through space. The analogy with Evolution does not hold. Evolution theory is unproven and is actually contrary to sound science.

Ethelwulf wrote:How do you explain many Christians (in fact the vast majority of them) believe in evolution? Is there really a contradiction with scripture?


How do you explain that many Christians believe Jews are "God's chosen"? How do you explain that many Christians pray to statues and think Jesus was a sand nigger? They get it crammed down their throats by the Jew media, their real gods, and they believe. Many Christians are CINO.

Ethelwulf wrote:I'll probably go through your writings some time. When do you date Adam? Because this is what i've never understood with most CI. Where do the other races come from?


Adam = approximately 7500 years ago.
Whites before Adam = "Fallen angels" which corrupted the Creation.
Other "races" = bastards not created by God.

Here is where one may start, but the arguments are Biblical and maybe not what you are looking for:

http://christogenea.org/content/christogenea-forum-call-01-17-11-end-genesis-heresy

Ethelwulf wrote:Have you read Alexander Winchell's Pre-Adamites? That's a text closer to my own position. Winchell accepted evolution.


I have it posted on my website, I understand its basic intention, but I have not read it. It is only there because I want to demonstrate to people that a relatively short time ago it was possible for academics to discuss different origins for the different races, a discussion which modern egalitarianism generally precludes. While Winchell did well in trying to promote the idea of definite differences among races, that doesn't mean I should agree with his acceptance of Evolution.

If a tribe of niggers cohabits in seclusion for a zillion eons, under any circumstances, they are still only going to produce niggers. The same for chinamen and squirrels, they can only produce chinamen and squirrels. Kind after Kind, that is why a belief in Evolution conflicts with Christianity.

The only reason we have any niggers that can even appear to be civilized is because certain bearers of White genes cannot keep themselves from cohabiting with the beasts. The fact that they are all bastards can probably account for their inherently violent tendencies.
Image
If a jew is moving his lips, he's lying. If you see a rabbi, there has already been a crime!
User avatar
wmfinck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:09 am

Re: Creationism and Evolution from the Christogenea Overview

Postby Fenwick » Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:42 pm

I think that survival of the fittest and species adaptation have often been conflated with evolution, when they weren't always seen as quite the same thing.


Atheists like to claim evolution is proven fact, but when they say evolution, they refer to the belief that all life originates from one small pool of single celled organisms, changing over the eons into every form we see today.


This is separate from survival of the fittest, whereby an animal born with features that enable it to get the most out of it's environment allow it to survive to breed more than it's disadvantaged counterparts, thereby ensuring it's own features become more common in that species. That is proven, but it is not the same thing as evolution, because it has not been proven that the species can drift to become a radically different animal, nor that all life originates from the same family of organisms.

Darwin's work is exalted over others because it allows the enemy to insist that we are born of the same stock as every other biped on Earth. Georges Cuvier's work was equally groundbreaking and thoughtful, but because he didn't believe in evolution, his work on species variation has often been attributed to Darwin and as often as not, ignored because of its theistic undertones.
User avatar
Fenwick
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:21 am

Re: Creationism and Evolution from the Christogenea Overview

Postby Kentucky » Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:21 pm

wmfinck wrote:Evolution theory is unproven and is actually contrary to sound science.


That minor point is often overlooked as if evolution is scientific law, but it is still "theory." It may be a prevailing sentiment, but unless the rules of science have been changed, then evolution is on par with the flat earth theory. Ahem, but who cares about sound science these days? Certainly not academia.

Mark
User avatar
Kentucky
 
Posts: 1803
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:20 am

Re: Creationism and Evolution from the Christogenea Overview

Postby Fenwick » Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:40 pm

Kentucky wrote:
wmfinck wrote:Evolution theory is unproven and is actually contrary to sound science.


That minor point is often overlooked as if evolution is scientific law, but it is still "theory." It may be a prevailing sentiment, but unless the rules of science have been changed, then evolution is on par with the flat earth theory. Ahem, but who cares about sound science these days? Certainly not academia.

Mark

Scientific "Theory" doesn't quite mean the same thing as it does in lay terms. A scientific theory is an explanation based on existing knowledge and corroborated by evidence through experimentation. So we have a Theory of Gravity which is proven, and an Atomic Theory, most of which is proven.

Evolution is better termed as a hypothesis, one which scientists have failed to find substantive evidence for beyond mere mutations and mild variation.


I know this sounds nitpicky, but those are the terms they use and they can refute us easily if it looks like we don't understand what we're talking about.
User avatar
Fenwick
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism vs Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron