Posted on 05/06/2024 8:22:32 PM PDT by kawhill
Of Homo sapiens, Darwin made only a passing mention on the third-to-last page of the tome, noting coyly that "light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history." That's it. That is all he wrote about the dawning of the single most consequential species on the planet.
(Excerpt) Read more at scientificamerican.com ...
You: “ If that had happened, today Darwin would be little more than a footnote in Lord Wallace’s magnum opus and it would be Wallace the fixed and rigid fundamentalists would be clamoring to have resurrected so they could kill him.”
Article: “ 14 years after the founding of this magazine, Charles Darwin published the most important scientific book ever written.”
Why the Darwin worship?
God’s creation can’t be “staggeringly complex”?
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse
Romans 1:19,20
Well, we seem to be the only creature capable of ‘arguing’ in that particular way, so...
Yeah.
When Carl Sagan was confronted with these questions of impossibility, he would always add millions and billions of years so that no one could comprehend the truth.
Yes. It is weird unscientific rhetoric.
It’s supposedly a scientific magazine.
We don’t know. There may be populations on planets out there who have their own Creation stories and their own Bibles - just like different populations on Earth have had theirs.
To save the Big bang, and its HORIZON PROBLEM, Guth postulated that the bits of the universe expanded at a rate FASTER than the speed of light...of course it was possible (wink,wink) since there were no physical laws ,as we have discerned, that would preclude extraluminal speed.
Looks like constructing a myth....
believing in something outside of scientific knowledge and countermanding one of the axioms of modern science...i.e ...nothing can exceed the speed of light...talk about “science” denial...
No. Solipsism refers to one’s own subjective mind. That is not the same as the idea that Mind in general, as a principle, is the ultimate reality.
Darwin envisioned his theories in light of his coming to disbelieve in Christianity in particular.
Not to mention atheistic socialists always claiming to be “scientific”; evolution is positioned in their worldview specifically as a means to explain creation of life without God.
There are plenty of people who believe in God, many profoundly, but still accept that there may be evolutionary processes within Creation.
Wallace? His ideas were in line with the left of today, particularly his environmentalism. He was a self-admitted social justice warrior (to use a modern term). Take him seriously at your own peril.
The interval between events
... and there are many “who believe in God” and are going to Hell.
Natural Revelation works.
Even after God specifically told them He created. But that’s humanity for you.
You seem like such a lovely person.
Thank you.
What’s true is true. I’m glad you see it.
I see that your comment had nothing to do with the thread - unless you meant that anyone who believes that evolutionary processes may be incorporated into Creation is ‘going to Hell’.
I see the connection. I’ll help you.
“Natural revelation” demonstrates the existence of God.
His Word expressly describes God’s creation of everything, including humans (the subject of the thread)
You had written about believing “in God” - a natural result of creation.
Believing, or not believing the truth of six-day creation doesn’t cause or harm your position before God.
How you respond to “special revelation” does.
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.