Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: JCBreckenridge

all i get is that he felt we woudl be overpopulated- don’tr have tiem to look into somehtign with out reason- as I said- I’m mroe than confortable knowign that swcience supports the need for an ID and for special creation- the hypothesis of macroevolutio nis imposibble on many levels- so impossible, there’s no way it coudl have hsappened- IF malthus beleives in evoltuion, I don’t really care to look him up - I simpyl asked fro a bsic rundown of what he beleives- as all i can find is in regards to him believing soemthign that wasn’t treu regardign poulation- I’m more interested in sceince which has evidence to support it than I am in hypothesis’ that defy natural law-


45 posted on 06/23/2013 10:27:48 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]


To: CottShop

Much of what you see motivating your opposition in the world today, be it Marx or Darwin is motivated by Malthus and his assumptions.

In order to understand them you have to understand Malthus, even if they themselves do not understand Malthus. The reason why Darwin postulated that competition for scarce resources would drive evolution is because Malthus asserted that such a thing was actually possible for population to outstrip resources.


47 posted on 06/23/2013 10:43:07 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Un Pere, Une Mere, C'est elementaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson