Tripper, meet PatrickHenry. PatrickHenry, meet Tripper.
Posted on 09/13/2005 4:15:07 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
So what would Charles Darwin have to say about the dust-up between today's evolutionists and intelligent designers?
Probably nothing.
[snip]
Even after he became one of the most famous and controversial men of his time, he was always content to let surrogates argue his case.
[snip]
From his university days Darwin would have been familiar with the case for intelligent design. In 1802, nearly 30 years before the Beagle set sail, William Paley, the reigning theologian of his time, published "Natural Theology" in which he laid out his "Argument from Design."
Paley contended that if a person discovered a pocket watch while taking a ramble across the heath, he would know instantly that this was a designed object, not something that had evolved by chance. Therefore, there must be a designer. Similarly, man -- a marvelously intricate piece of biological machinery -- also must have been designed by "Someone."
If this has a familiar ring to it, it's because this is pretty much the same argument that intelligent design advocates use today.
[snip]
The first great public debate took place on June 30, 1860, in a packed hall at Oxford University's new Zoological Museum.
Samuel Wilberforce, the learned bishop of Oxford, was champing at the bit to demolish Darwin's notion that man descended from apes. As always, Darwin stayed home. His case was argued by one of his admirers, biologist Thomas Huxley.
Wilberforce drew whoops of glee from the gallery when he sarcastically asked Huxley if he claimed descent from the apes on his grandmother's side or his grandfather's. Huxley retorted that he would rather be related to an ape than to a man of the church who used half-truths and nonsense to attack science.
The argument continues unabated ...
[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
"One approach, if followed leads to a human race that evolves into a world of peace. The other leads to a human race that evolves into destruction.
Ironic, eh?"
It would appear that we're evolving into the latter, thus showing that a majority of the species have actually 'followed' the evolutionary conclusions of the latter approach...while claiming to follow the former, religious approach.
Unlike your point, this one isn't that ironic.
I have both. If you want a friend that doesn't eat its own poop, get a cat.
Tripper, meet PatrickHenry. PatrickHenry, meet Tripper.
I'll get you next time, Gadget. Or is that the wrong show?
To me, atheism is the only logical conclusion. Since Junior believes in a God but is still logical in all other regards, the only conclusion we can make is that his nuts is bigger than yours.
My nuts is bigger than anyone's.
Mumps after childhood, huh?
I'm what you would call a 'strong atheist'. To me the statement - There is no God - is just a statement of fact.
Wouldn't it be easier to keel haul them?
"Suppose there are two families trapped in a hurricane ravaged area. There is enough food and water to keep one family alive.
"What would Darwin's theory predict the behavior of Family A to be?
"1) Give the food to family B.
"2) Take the food for family A and let family B fend for themselves."
The evolutionarily successful tactic would be to save the food for the children of both families. What would the Christian solution be?
Best laugh of the day!
And mellifluouser too.
Only those that belong to self flagellating sects.
I will refrain from making a homophonic comment.
"Humans - evolved
"Cougars - not evolved
"House cats - perhaps evolved
"Dolphins - evolved
"Honey bees - evolved
"termintes - evolved
"I think this is made up. I think that humans recognize a moral value to other human's lives and that is why they value them, not for selfish survival needs
You are quite right, it is made up - by you.
No one ever said that evolution is more advanced in social animals. We said, if you would care to read the posts, that the evolutionary path taken by any given organism is based on different circumstances and is therefore different. One path is not 'more' or 'less' advanced than any other, just different.
My cat is trying to train me to fill her food bowl. She jumps on my lap, meows until I notice her, then runs over to her empty bowl. If I don't jump up right away she'll continue to repeat the action. Apparently, at least according to her, I'm too stupid to be easily trained.
And those of us that own both?
You wear it well, no one will notice. No really, no one will notice.
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.