%20of%20Corporate.jpg)
I decided to spare the viewers with the same picture of the other five. LOL
Posted on 02/12/2009 6:54:08 AM PST by metmom
“No one is using evolution to mock Christianity.”
Man I’d like to know what sort of hemp you have been smoking...must be good stuff!
What planet did you say you were from again?
Of course the "theory of evolution" has nothing to do with the "origin of life". I don't know what type of statement the author is trying to make. I would ask what explanation for the "origin of life" is the author referring to?
So you believe that there's error in the Bible?
How do you determine what it is? What's your criteria?
Science and Christianity, by Ernst Haeckel. There's two volumes of such mockery of Christianity. The books sold in the hundreds of thousands. Most popular evolution books in pre-war Germany.
And then we have Blatchford:
First, as to Adam and the Fall and inherited sin. Evolution, historical research, and scientific criticism have disposed of Adam. Adam was a myth. Hardly any educated Christians now regard him as an historic person. But -- no Adam, no Fall; no Fall, no Atonement; no Atonement, no Saviour. Accepting Evolution, how can we believe in a Fall? When did man fall? Was it before he ceased to be a monkey, or after? Was it when he was a tree man, or later? Was it in the Stone Age, or the Bronze Age, or in the Age of Iron? There never was any "Fall." Evolution proves a long, slow rise. And if there never was a Fall, why should there be any Atonement? Christians accepting the theory of evolution have to believe that God allowed the sun to form out of the nebula, and the earth to form from the sun. That He allowed man to develop slowly from the speck of protoplasm in the sea. That at some period of man's gradual evolution from the brute, God found man guilty of some sin, and cursed him. That some thousands of years later God sent His only Son down upon the earth to save man from Hell. But Evolution shows man to be, even now, an imperfect creature, an unfinished work, a building still undergoing alterations, an animal still evolving... (pg. 124)And then of course there is Julian Huxley, Mr. Modern Synthesis:Are we to believe that the God who created all this boundless universe got so angry with the children of the apes that He condemned them all to Hell for two score centuries, and then could only appease His rage by sending His own Son to be nailed upon a cross ? Do you believe that? Can you believe it? No. As I said before, if the theory of evolution be true, there was nothing to atone for, and nobody to atone. Man has never sifined against God. In fact, the whole of this old Christian doctrine is a mass of error. There was no creation. There was no Fall. There was no Atonement. There was no Adam, and no Eve, and no Eden, and no Devil, and no Hell. (pg. 125)
For whereas the Christian theory of free will and personal responsibility results in established ignorance and injustice, with no visible remedies beyond personal denunciation, the prison, and a few coals and blankets, the Determinist method would result in the abolition of lords and burglars, of slums and palaces, of caste and snobbery. There would be no ignorance and no poverty left in the world. That is because the Determinist understands human nature, and the Christian does not. It is because the Determinist understands morality, and the Christian does not. For the Determinist looks for the cause of wrong-doing in the environment of the wrong-doer. While the Christian puts all the wrongs which society perpetrates against the individual, and all the wrongs which the individual perpetrates against his fellows down to an imaginary "free will." (pg. 142--144)
Religion as an Objective Problem
You don’t have Christianity without Scripture. That’s what tells us about Christ.
Then these 24% of so called church goers are not Christians. They might attend what my pastor calls "store front churches." Where some store has closed and a church pops up in it. Said churches are not affiliated with any particular church group. They just make up the rules as they go, and interpret the Bible to twist it too where it says what they believe. They too are not true, Christians. They play like they are, but they are not. If you are a TRUE and honest Christian, you do not believe in Darwin. My pastor has spoken on Darwin a lot recently and he does not have good things to say about those who say we all came from a bunch of monkeys. Like I said, if we all came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys??? Are the the stupid ones that did not get on the evolution bus?
Keynes was actually an evolutionist -- he was vice president of the Eugenics Society. He was also gay. His mom was a member of a Cambridge-affiliated eugenics society. His nephew, who was the son of Charles Darwin's grand-daughter, was a member of the Eugenics Society too. Keynes was a fan of Malthus and Galton.
I didn’t say that you should abandon scripture—quite the contrary. However, you cannot use those biblical passages which are obviously allegorical to buttress a factual argument. Does pi=3?
Does pi=3?
Exactly. Evolution can account for small changes within a species over millions of years. It does not explain how intelligently, no make that brilliantly, we are designed. Sprouting from a single microscopic seed comes a fully developed circulatory system, digestive system, nervous system, immune system, reproductive system, endocrine system...all working in perfect harmony. And all that happened because some chemicals in a mud soup got struck by lightning and fell together in the 'right combination'? The B.S. that gets propagated by liberals and so called scientists never fails to amaze.
Hey, what are you doing here making sense on a crevo thread?
not “from apes” but a common ancestor.
That is why the DNA is so common with so many other species.
The poll is a crock because both positions are not mutually exlusive. God can be the creator of life and evolution is a sound scientific principle.
Evolution actually specifically is the antithisis of asking for faith. It is supposed to be examined and disected and reexamined. Creationism, in the political context, is the one that demands loyalty to the exclusion of what is seen before the eyes.
No theory of evolution, not Darwin's, not Lamark's, not Gould's punctuated equalibrium theory, not the gradualist version of the neo-Darwinian synthesis CLAIMS TO EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF LIFE!!!
Theories of evolution offer explanations of changes in life over time, and their most ardent proponents claim they offer complete explanations of biological diversity.
Fortunately this is just a mistake in FOX's reporting. Unfortunately, the survey question is incoherent, as it asks whether one believes in the theory of evolution (which one?), or does not belive in evolution (what if you believe in evolution, but think all the current theories to explain it suck?) or have no opinion.
Quite frankly, given the alternatives, I'd have to go with 'no opinion', as I suspect the real cause of most evolutionary change involves transcription of already field-tested bits of genetic code between organisms by viruses, and thus doesn't quite fit even the very circumscribed notion of 'random' mutation that all the theories descended from Darwin's proposal now invoke, and probably a small Lamarkian mechanism involving reverse transcriptases.
Why does it need to be *either* Darwinism *or* Intelligent Design? Why can't it be both?
Logically, Darwinism makes complete sense. When provided with an adaptation that makes it better suited to its environment, it just follows that an organism will flourish.
BUT - how do these "spontaneous adaptations" occur? And why do they occur more often in some animals than in others? For instance, reptiles have been around in one form or another for 100's of millions of generations. Pure Darwinism would mean that they should be the some of the most evolved organisms on the planet, yet they're not.
Comparatively speaking, man has been around for an eyeblink of time, but is much further evolved. Darwinism, or intelligent design? Or both?
Just askin'.
Would this be a better headline?
Fewer than 4 in 10 are Made Into Monkeys by Evolution
I am happy with my choice to be a son of God, instead of letting evolution make a monkey out of me.
OK, for rhetorical purposes, let’s assume that your point is correct. My response would be, “So what?”. The fact that they are using a certain concept to “mock” Christianity does not make the “concept” false on its face. You’re just being defensive and more than a bit hesitant in your own belief if that’s your best argument.
I decided to spare the viewers with the same picture of the other five. LOL
Thank you. Have a nice day.
Wow, actual thought process in action.
Better watch out though:
The atheists will snivel that their's is the only path, while the creationists will be relieved of the pleasure of mass abortion of those who disagree with their religion.
I mean, what else is there to debate over, to argue about, or to mobilize against?
Actually, correct to the accuracy that can be measured in cubits, yes.
Correct to the accuracy available using really nice modern carpenters tools, I'd go with pi = 3 9/64, unless you're building a really big project, in which case you'll want more accuracy.
Of course, the ideal value of pi, the ratio of the diameter to the circumference of an ideal circle that exists, if at all, only in the world of Platonic forms, that will take a really long time to tell you if you want it in decimal or binary. Got forever to spend reading?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.