Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory

Source is important. Snatching ideas or ideals is plagiarism. Even more when its altered before repassing. Its like I take one of your quotes, alter it and pass along, then when confronted, I blame you.

ok

So who did the Church plagiarize? Are you saying that the Magna Carta doesn't represent the views of the Church (and therefore the Bible) at the time it was written given the first and last points relate directly with how the King should deal with the Church, that is separation of Church and State?

Of course it is plagiarism. Anyone with a shallow knowledge of ancient religions can verify that all Abrahamic religions are nothing but a compilation of many different religions, including moral code. The bible itself is plagiarism, so many of the stories in there are almost exact copies of ancient ones, ie Gilgamesh(which by itself is again a copy). Oral tradition distorted it along time little by little but the essence is there. Church, religion, bible, this is all a huge waste of time.
As for the Magna Carta, indeed it contains biblical precepts. What you CANNOT assume is that without religion there would be no moral. And just for the record, morality is a social construct. Moral to one society might be completely immoral to another and vice-versa.

Excellent, then you agree that Western law and governance is built on the basis of Christian values as contained in the Bible.

Yes it might have come from elsewhere but nonetheless it is still true to say that.

Agree in part. The Magna Carta was one of the influences. But the fact is that the christian values are a not actually christian, they were adopted by christianity, for they were originated elsewhere.

No, they aren't. And once again, you've changed your position.

You said: Christian values come from the teaching of Christ, Jesus, not believing the Bible or divinity.

You criticized me for conflating 'Christian values' with the Bible, the church and religion, yet you're doing it now that it suits you. You said Christian values come from the teachings of Jesus.

Well, then the politics of the Magna Carta are not Christian values. Jesus said nothing about fair taxation or democracy. Christians existed for nearly 2000 years before the Magna Carta. The church was silent on slavery for nearly 2000 years until attitudes towards it changed.

If these are Christian values, why did it take nearly 2000 years for them to be implemented? You think it's possible that there were other factors involved? By your own logic, just because Christians come up with an idea centuries after Jesus, that idea is not automatically a 'Christian value.'

Was it 'Christian values' at work when Christians were burning witches at the stake? Imprisoning Galileo and killing scientists for heresy? What makes you think you can just pick and choose which ideas are Christian values?

Now you are just flailing around like a man looking for something when he realizes all is lost.

Christian values do come from the teachings of Christ. You CAN believe and follow them without being part of a Church or believing in His divinity or believing everything in the Bible.

HOWEVER, the Church is based on the teachings of Christ and his teachings are documented in the Bible so all are true but all are not required, any one will suffice.

So the Church wrote the Magna Carta but it is not Christian values? Are you seriously going to try and run with that argument?

It took nearly 2000 years because of circumstances. Try reading why the Magna Carta came about. If you want to believe that Bishops writing a document, that is filled with references to the Church (separation of Church and State) and God, has nothing to do with Christian values then good for you.

YES, you are right, both sides of EVERY argument can be found in the Bible and the Church. That is how slavery was abolished, various Church groups fought using the Bible to show slavery was wrong while other groups fought using the Bible to keep it. Those wanting abolition won using the Bible. Look up the history.

In America, during Independence, many of the Founding Fathers were fighting to not only abolish slavery but include those words in the Declaration, they lost (they included Jefferson and Franklin who were both slave owners). Eventually the Puritans won the fight for abolition, using the Bible.

So Christian values are all screwed up, never said they weren't, but they are still Christian values and it is good for everyone that the Church and Christians eventually took the good parts and not the bad.

Nothing I have typed above is inconsistent with anything I have typed before, look back and read my responses carefully.

Last Edited by newtome on 01/10/2019 06:55 AM

You may well be right, I wont argue about it, just saying that society has generally accepted it as Christian.

You're projecting. I'm not the one constantly changing my argument. Remember this started with you saying America and Australia was founded on CHristian values.



The Magna Carta did not come from Christ. It came nearly 2000 years after Christ.



It's your argument. Is every idea that the church comes up with a Christian value? So, protecting pedophiles from the law is a Christian value?



The seperation of church and state is not a Christian value. Jesus never said it and it's not anywhere in the Bible. The Magna Carta may reference the church, but it came nearly 2000 years after the church, and the ideas within did not come from the Bible or Jesus.



Bullshit. There's nothing in the Bible that is against slavery but God himself condones it.



They didn't take the good parts. They invented the ideas in the Magna Carta themselves or took them from other civilizations, they didn't come from the Bible.



I have. Australia and America were not founded on Christian values. They are not the basis for our laws.

You still haven't named a single Christian value by the way. Do you even know what they are?

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 01/10/2019 07:29 AM

Yes they did adopted. They also adopted the bible as the source for ultimate truth. As the predecessor religions did before them. This is ok, it does go along and changes along time, the problem is when religious precepts are imposed on society. Politics(ruling) and religion should NEVER mingle. Religion is personal choice, therefore, biased. Politics should be strictly rational, taking decisions which will benefit all or at least the majority of people.

Never changed my argument, it has been consistent throughout. It has been responding to you jumping around and taking very narrow interpretations of what I have typed which was never what I typed or meant.

Yes, America and Australia was founded on Christian values, if you read all I have typed and linked you would understand that including the influence of the magna Carta.

The Magna Carta was also strong about stopping government/political interference in the Church/religion. You say this was never from Christ but I am pretty sure Jesus and his disciples would have liked the Roman's to have left them alone.

It should also be remembered that with so many strains of Christianity it was becoming nigh on impossible for a State to pick one.

Slavery, read about the fight to abolish slavery and the fight between Christians on both sides with both quoting the Bible to support their cause.
[link to www.bbc.co.uk]
It is history even if you don't want to believe it.


It is amusing how hard you are fighting about the influence of the Church on the Magna Carta, politicians and the legal profession acknowledge the contribution and importance without question. I think your dislike for whatever Church or religion you were part of is blinding you to the obvious.

From the school of law at Murdoch University in WA.
[link to www.murdoch.edu.au (secure)]

Religion was also important when the Constitution was created, with the central importance of God and the Christian faith acknowledged in Magna Carta reflected in the Constitution.

The significance of religion in Magna Carta for England and Australia is an important point. AsThe Honourable Wayne Martin AC, Chief Justice of Western Australia points out, the impact of Christianity on the Magna Carta is neglected in the rush to acknowledge the more commonly discussed (and perhaps more glamorous) aspects of the great text, that is, the chapters with recognisable legal or human rights implications. It may be that the clauses in Magna Carta were directed to the protection of the church’s property and money; however, one of Magna Carta’s major legacies is the notion that the government cannot discriminate by establishing a religion or imposing religious observance. The reference to keeping the church free in the Magna Carta is therefore relevant to Australia.

If you don't want to accept what I say that is fine but you have far more learned people than me that you need to convince and simply saying NO all the time wont convince anyone without offering up what you consider the real basis was.

All true but just remember what politicians are, they are elected by and pass legislation based on the wishes of their constituents whilst maintaining the separation. God is clearly part of most Western Governments, just look at prays and swearing on religious books etc etc etc

More misrepresentation. I never said that church didn't influence the Magna Carta.

I said the ideas in the Magna Carta did not come from Jesus or the Bible. Show me where the ideas in the magna carta come from Jesus. You told me the 10 commandments aren't even Christian values, but a document that was written by Christians nearly 2000 years after Jesus is?

Slavery was supported by the church for the majority of its existence, but that's not a Christian value? You're just cherry picking.

The Magna Carta was instrumental in the founding of Australia, but the Magna Carta itself did not come from the Bible, and the constitution of Australia, or its laws are not built on the Bible/Christian values.

"simply saying NO all the time wont convince anyone without offering up what you consider the real basis was."

I have, it came from people that lived centuries after Jesus, many of whom were Christian, but you know full well that any idea a christian comes up with is not automatically 'a christian value.'

Did America Have a Christian Founding?

Mark David Hall
Herbert Hoover Distinguished Professor of Political Science

[link to www.heritage.org (secure)]
Christian ideas underlie some key tenets of America’s constitutional order. For instance, the Founders believed that humans are created in the image of God, which led them to design institutions and laws meant to protect and promote human dignity. Because they were convinced that humans are sinful, they attempted to avoid the concentration of power by framing a national government with carefully enumerated powers. As well, the Founders were committed to liberty, but they never imagined that provisions of the Bill of Rights would be used to protect licentiousness. And they clearly thought moral considerations should inform legislation.

Interestingly he also said this:
A fourth possibility is that the Founders acted as Christians in their private and/or public lives. Some historians have argued that the Founding cannot be called Christian because some Founders did not join churches, take communion, or remain faithful to their spouses. Moreover, in their public capacity, they did not act in a Christian manner because they did things such as fight an unjust war against England and did not immediately abolish slavery.

Some historians considered slavery as unchristian???



During the time of the Magna Carta the Church and Christianity was evolving and reassessing their theological philosophy. Due legal process and reasonable doubt came from changing views of the Church. How to enforce laws without angering God or committing the ultimate sin by sentencing someone to death?

In his book, The Origins of Reasonable Doubt, James Whitman, Law Professor at Yale Law School, argues that the ultimate concern of the medieval judiciary was not necessarily how to identify factual proof, but how to absolve oneself of moral responsibility for the outcome of judgement. This was an issue that had existed ever since Christianity had become adopted as the religion of the Roman Empire – and Christians had found themselves in positions of authority, required to dispense justice.

The medieval focus on a due and proper legal process develops, therefore, out of a theological concern for the guilt of those charged with the dispensation of justice. It was only by establishing ‘the procedures of the law’, that those who sat in positions of judgement could be absolved of moral responsibility for their judicial decisions. In so far as the judiciary followed a developed legal process, it was the law that shouldered the burden of responsibility for punishing the guilty party. This concept of due process pervades the Magna Carta, not simply in its appeals to “the lawful judgement of peers and the law of the land”, but in the fact that the basic purpose of the charter was to set out what constitutes right and proper action on the part of the governing authority. With this in mind, it is particularly relevant that this question of due process within a legal framework was a major theological concern of none other than Archbishop Stephen Langton who framed the Magna Carta.

So of course the Church looked hard at the Bible for inspiration and a basis for this change. As I have said before the Bible can be used to argue both sides of any argument just as you are. The Church is always evolving, from your ancient dogmatic views to the more friendly and encompassing views of more modern society. The words of Christ have been used for this change in philosophy.

From a link found here
[link to www.bethinking.org (secure)]

The human race is ruled by a twofold rule, namely, natural law and practices.Natural law is that which is contained in the law and the Gospel, by which each person is commanded to do to others what he would wish to be done to himself, and forbidden to render to others that which he would not have done to himself. Hence, Christ says in the Gospel, ‘All things whatever that you would wish other people to do to you, do the same also to them. For this is the law and the prophets.’

The so-called ‘golden rule’ lies at the very heart of justice – and should thus lie at the very heart of earthly laws. This might sound unsurprising to the modern ear, but in the 12th century it would have been something of revelation. As the Political Philosopher Larry Siedentop suggests:
By identifying natural law with biblical revelation and Christian morality, it gave an egalitarian basis – and a subversive potential – utterly foreign to the ancient world’s understanding of natural law as ‘everything in its place’

The “subversive potential” of such a revisionist approach to the concept of natural law lay in the fact that it treated all persons as equal before the natural law of God. The natural law as conceived refused to differentiate between persons based on their status, for the golden rule commands that everyone do to others as they would have done to themselves. If all persons stood equally before natural law however, and if natural law formed the basis of human law, then the unavoidable implication was that all persons should also stand equal before human law. This egalitarian line of thinking would go on to mark a subtle shift in the way that medieval Europe thought about whom the law was intended to serve. Rather than serve the king or the state in the preservation of the “natural” social order, the law came to be seen as an instrument of justice intended to serve the whole populace. Thus Pope Innocent III, writing in 1204, would declare:
'It may be said that kings are to be treated differently from others. We, however, know that it is written in the divine law, ‘You shall judge the great as well as the little and there shall be no difference of persons’.

A number of eminent scholars have identified this shift as the root from which we have come to speak of natural or inherent human rights. The statement that all humans are fundamentally equal before God naturally lent itself to the suggestion that humans have a ‘natural’ responsibility towards each other. This was particularly true with regards to the poor, for the Church issued a number of striking warnings that suggested a failure to feed the poor left the wealthy responsible for their deaths (e.g. “Feed the poor. If you do not feed them you kill them,” and “A man who keeps more for himself than he needs is guilty of theft”). The question that subsequently arose was whether the poor had a right to claim subsistence from the wealthy in times of need. Such a line of thinking was one that was as deeply indebted to the Scriptures and to the Early Church Fathers. A fundamentally egalitarian message was central to the Christian gospel, and the development of a coherent framework of canon law had allowed this fact to once more to thrust itself into the public sphere.



So yes, the Magna Carta has a very clear Christian philosophy woven into it, one that was only in existence at that time because of the Church and their changing views.

Thanks for sharing Mark David Hall's thoughts on the matter. The very first line: Christian ideas underlie some key tenets of America’s constitutional order.

This statement is not the equivalent of saying:

"...countries built on the foundations of Judeo-Christianity"

"...you can still believe in Jesus and his teachings and use them as a basis for governing."

The Treaty of Tripoli (1797) Article 11 states: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...

I've already told you that the Magna Carta was influenced by the Church, but this is still an original document that came over a thousand years after Jesus, and most of the ideas within are not derived from the teachings of Christ.

Once the Magna Carta existed, and was well received, it provided an early frame work of rights that would later influence the formation of America and Australia, yet both these countries were secular from the onset, and clearly stated to not be built on the foundations of Christian values, nor governed by them, nor are the laws built on the basis of those values.

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Nothing in this amendment comes from Jesus, or the Bible.

If you're saying Christianity influenced western civilization, I agree. That's not the same as saying Christian values are the basis of Australian law and government.

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 01/11/2019 05:25 AM

They've gotten blind radiocarbon dating results for several samples of dinosaur remains now and those dates all come in a range of 20K - 40K years in the past. That translates roughly into a planet which is somewhere between a few hundred thousand and a few million years old, but almost certainly less than ten million. And it means that the theory of evolution is a total crock of shit.

*********************************************************

A proof or disproof is a kind of a transaction. There is no such thing as absolutely proving or disproving something; there is only such a thing as proving or disproving something to SOMEBODY'S satisfaction. If the party of the second part is too thick or too ideologically committed to some other way of viewing reality, then the best proof in the world will fall flat and fail.

In the case of evolution, what you have is a theory which has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly disproved over a period of many decades now via a number of independent lines reasoning and yet the adherents go on with it as if nothing had happened and, in fact, demand that the doctrine be taught in public schools at public expense and that no other theory of origins even ever be mentioned in public schools, and attempt to enforce all of that via political power plays and lawsuits.

At that point, it is clear enough that no disproof or combination of disproofs would ever suffice, that the doctrine is in fact unfalsifiable and that Carl popper's criteria for a pseudoscience is in fact met.


Once again for anybody who may have missed this earlier:


The educated lay person is not aware of how overwhelmingly evolution has been debunked over the last century.

The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:

The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s. Those tests were intended to demonstrate macroevolution; the failure of those tests was so unambiguous that a number of prominent scientists disavowed evolution at the time.

The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...)

The fact that the info code explained the failure of the fruit-fly experiments (the whole thing is driven by information and the only info there ever was in that picture was the info for a fruit fly...)

The discovery of bio-electrical machinery within 1-celled animals.

The question of irreducible complexity.

The Haldane Dilemma. That is, the gigantic spaces of time it would take to spread any genetic change through an entire herd of animals.

The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs. This includes soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, good radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains (blind tests at the University of Georgia's dating lab), and native American petroglyphs clearly showing known dinosaur types.

The fact that the Haldane dilemma and the recent findings related to dinosaurs amount to a sort of a time sandwich (evolutionites need quadrillions of years and only have a few tens of thousands).

The dna analysis eliminating neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.

The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types. "Punctuated Equilibria" in fact amounts to an attempt to get around both the Haldane dilemma and the lack of intermediate fossils, but has an entirely new set of overwhelming problems of its own...

The question of genetic entropy.

The obvious evidence of design in nature.

The arguments arising from pure probability and combinatoric considerations.


Here's what I mean when I use the term "combinatoric considerations"...

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, the specialized system which allows flight feathers to pivot so as to open on upstrokes and close to trap air on downstrokes (like a venetian blind), a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

I ask you: What could be stupider than that?


Fruit flies breed new generations every few days. Running a continuous decades-long experiment on fruit flies will involve more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of anything resembling humans on Earth. Evolution is supposed to be driven by random mutation and natural selection; they subjected those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and recombined the mutants every possible way, and all they ever got was fruit flies.

Richard Goldschmidt wrote the results of all of that up in 1940, noting that it was then obvious enough that no combination of mutation and selection could ever produce a new kind of animal.

There is no excuse for evolution to ever have been taught in schools after 1940.

You certainly have a fitting name, dont you Mr Smith?

Instead of believing GOD is real and we were all created not that long ago, you believe in Aliens and them reviving old species? LMAOLMAOLMAOROFL

Radiocarbon dating is only accurate for samples 50,000 years or younger. Even if dinosaurs are that young, it doesn't tell you how old the planet is.

I won't bother refuting your usual copy/pasted spiel again, it's wrong from the first sentence. Proof, especially in mathematics is objective.

The fact that any of those remains radiocarbon date at all says they are under 65k years regardless of any supposed flaws in the rc dating method.

Extrapolating to an age for the earth involves two simplifying assumptions which I assume to be roughly reasonable: I assume that the geologists at least have their ratios somewhere ballpark for reality and I assume that the 40K outside figure for dinosaur remains is a begin point for at least most dinosaurs.

Given that you can substitute the 40k year figure into the usual little 24 hour clock model for the earths age which has dinosaurs appearing at 10:45 pm. That yields an age of roughly 700,000 tears; if you multiply that by ten to give the evolosers every possible shot, you're still talking about less than ten million years.

That's the problem, you assume.

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 01/11/2019 07:12 AM

Correct, it is not a Christian Theocracy and there was no State religion because there were too many forms of Christianity to choose from.

Wrong, clearly stated not to be Christian theocracy, that is very different to being clearly stated to not be built in the foundations of Christian values. Show me where it said that? Absence is not the same as clearly stating. Apart from a few Jews in America all the countries really knew was Christianity in various forms which back then were deemed to be DIFFERENT religions. Which do you think they should have chosen?

So did you read about the Christian theological principles at the time and how they were fundamental to the document.

You are being willfully ignorant, no point arguing when the historians, politicians, legal profession and theologians disagree with you.

The truth is not determined by appeals to authority.

The Magna Carta was influenced by the church, and the Magna Carta influenced the formation of Australia and America. That's all you can demonstrate.

Saying that either country is built on the foundations of judeo-Christianity is at best a gross exaggeration, or at worst intentionally misleading.

Consider this, you said Christian values are the basis for Australian law. Law varies from state to state, but how does Christianity inform our traffic laws? It doesn't. Military laws? It doesn't.
Immigration? Drug laws, alcohol and tobacco regulations, occupational health and safety, voting...

The vast majority of our laws and constitution were established by individuals in recent times, and in many cases contradict the commandments of Jesus and the Bible.

First line, it is half way through the conclusion. FFS
What are the other key tenets from? The Magna Carta?

Your head is stuck in the OT over 2000 years ago. The evolution of the values of the Church is completely ignored by you.

And the truth is largely determined by those who know have investigated the matter and understand the history so "appealing to authority" is not unreasonable when pursuing truths.

If you are now agreeing but arguing about about the amount then sure, it isn't 100% but I am not sure I ever claimed it was.

So, 'Christian values' are what ever the church of England says they are at any given time, and they change constantly? Maybe in another 1000 years eating babies will be a Christian value.

And the truth is largely determined by those who know have investigated the matter and understand the history so "appealing to authority" is not unreasonable when pursuing truths.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. But since that's what matters to you, here's something from a friend of mine with a degree in History:

"Western legal codes became what they are today when we collectively began to push back against Christianity. In common law countries, legal codes were slowly secularized."

"What are the other key tenets from? The Magna Carta?"

You know, people are capable of original thought.

"If you are now agreeing but arguing about about the amount then sure, it isn't 100% but I am not sure I ever claimed it was."

I never disputed the influence of Christianity, but saying that Australia/America, our government, and laws are built on the foundation of Judeo-Christianity is an exaggeration (or a lie). It's a myth perpetuated by Christians in order to move us closer to a theocracy.

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 01/11/2019 08:45 AM

Do the scriptures support eating babies?

Your friend accepts Christian values, excellent. We were discussing foundations so are secularists planning on overturning the basic tenets of the Magna Carta and rule of law?

It is a well supported myth all throughout the Western world

Yes, even the church is capable of original thought provided there are scriptures to support it, live abolition of slavery.

Last Edited by newtome on 01/11/2019 07:02 PM

Realistic people that rather believe in two miracles instead of one.

Very rational.

Completely deluded.

For science.

Eating babies is a satanist occupation.
Also, it is mere cannibalism.
Another trait of evolution.
Probably beneficial as well.
It's only natural behaviour that is neither good or bad in the moral spectrum of evotardism.

Aren't these things extinct?

Weren't dinosaurs extinct before man was doing carvings or cave paintings?

Last Edited by newtome on 01/11/2019 09:37 PM

"Your head is stuck in the OT over 2000 years ago. The evolution of the values of the Church is completely ignored by you."

This was your response to me when I pointed out that the scriptures don't support the ideas in the magna carta.



What are you talking about? Why do you think he accepts Christian values? Australia and America have always been secular. The magna carta was about challenging the absolute authority of the king. Why would secularists overturn it?



Well supported by what? All you do is tell me experts agree with you and point to the Magna Carta. There's a difference between saying something is so and actually backing it up.



Churches (there are many) have made up all kinds of things not supported by scripture. Like purgatory. The church changed their tune once public opinion started shifting. As my friend said: "Western legal codes became what they are today when we collectively began to push back against Christianity"

He also recommends you research the french revolution, and its hostility to the church, which led to napoleon legal codes all across Europe.