Skip to comments.
Rebutting Darwinists: (Survey shows 2/3 of Scientists Believe in God)
Worldnetdaily.com ^
| 04/15/2006
| Ted Byfield
Posted on 04/15/2006 11:44:16 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440, 441-460, 461-480 ... 721-727 next last
To: CarolinaGuitarman; Tribune7
...as described in "Landmarks in the Life of Stalin" by E. Yaroslavsky published in Moscow in 1940-- the height of Stalin's rule for those who don't know history, so obviously with his endorsement." .. I would have some doubts about the truth of a Stalin biography published in 1940.
The idea that Stalin got enlightened by reading Darwin has at least two big problems.
1) Where did he get the book? Remember he was in an Orthodox seminary at the time. I don't know how available a Russian or Georgian translation of Darwin would be in Russia at the time.
2) I don't think Stalin was smart enough to understand Darwin. If he did, then how could he have embraced Lysenko and sent Vavilov to the Gulag, actions which seriously hurt Soviet agriculture.
In fact, the whole thing strikes me as the Stalinist equivalent of George Washington and the cherry tree.
To: Right Wing Professor
You are limiting God if you think He is not outside of Time, with the ability to reckon how the Word would be read, thousands of years after it was written. So, to say that the Hebrews knew nothing of apes in Africa -- God would want people to know the truth as He knew the Word would survive through time. Unfair of me to expect your metaphysical reading of the Word, yet this is the perspective of God outside of Time and of all Wisdom.
442
posted on
04/16/2006 1:58:42 PM PDT
by
Californiajones
("The apprehension of beauty is the cure for apathy" - Thomas Aquinas)
To: Coyoteman
It'a an ape. All else is pure speculation.
To: Californiajones
I think EvoThink is culty faux science, clung to by people who long for any "scientific" sounding reason not to believe in an omniscient, omnipresent, and yet intimately personal God of the Bible.
You continue to assert that the theory of evolution is "faux science", but thus far you have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support this claim. You have also claimed that the theory of evolution has led to "disasterous" social consequences, but you also have adamantly refused to demonstrate this to be true also. Why is this? Why do you continue to make accusations and then refuse to support them with fact?
444
posted on
04/16/2006 2:18:15 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: MissAmericanPie
It'a an ape. All else is pure speculation. The genus name is Homo, same as for you and I.
But then, we're apes of a kind too.
445
posted on
04/16/2006 2:18:56 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(Interim tagline: The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT!)
To: Dimensio
It doesn't matter why, Dimensio, it matters that I do. Where do you stand on Christ's death birth and resurrection? Myth or fact? History or Allegory? Necessary Jungian construct or essential belief?
Please back up with all supporting biblical prooftexts.
446
posted on
04/16/2006 2:28:57 PM PDT
by
Californiajones
("The apprehension of beauty is the cure for apathy" - Thomas Aquinas)
To: balrog666
Cute picture. Show it to your kids yet?
447
posted on
04/16/2006 2:30:05 PM PDT
by
Californiajones
("The apprehension of beauty is the cure for apathy" - Thomas Aquinas)
To: Enduring Freedom
I'm not saying ID is invalid, per se, I'm just saying it's not science.
To: Enduring Freedom
"Infallible" is not the same thing as "falsifiable."
To: Californiajones; Tribune7
I think there is a word missing from the post you addressed: "If you believe in a common ancestor but say you don't for fear of some punishment, what does that make you?"
I concur with the stronger definition of liar, entailing purposeful deception. In the case of human beings the capacity for self-deception is tremendous. The capacity to avoid speaking what is true is even greater because we fear the consequences. Our "common ancestor" was a liar and a murderer, so it is no stretch in view of the ultimate destination of the flesh we currently inhabit, to consider ourselves at least similar.
Meanwhile, it would be easy for science to confuse a common Creator for a common ancestor. From a purely physical standpoint the two are not much different. The argument concerns history unvailable to any current observer, and so to a large degree the charge "it's not science" applies equally to those who assert an intelligible universe came about without the aid of intelligent design.
To: tortoise
451
posted on
04/16/2006 3:03:22 PM PDT
by
BMCDA
(If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it,we would be so simple that we couldn't)
To: Californiajones
You are limiting God if you think He is not outside of Time, with the ability to reckon how the Word would be read, thousands of years after it was written. So, to say that the Hebrews knew nothing of apes in Africa -- God would want people to know the truth as He knew the Word would survive through time. Unfair of me to expect your metaphysical reading of the Word, yet this is the perspective of God outside of Time and of all Wisdom.I think it's bizarre you think your deity created everything by a mechanism that was intelligible to a pastoral tribe that lived over 3000 years ago in one very small region of the middle east. Doesn't it bother you that, had you not been born in a particular part of the world at a particular time, your religion would be entirely different? How can you claim this is metaphysical, when you are arguing it purely beause of the accidental circumstances of your birth?
To: Californiajones
It doesn't matter why, Dimensio, it matters that I do.
It does affect your credibility when you make such claims regarding the theory and then refuse to support your claims with evidence.
Where do you stand on Christ's death birth and resurrection? Myth or fact? History or Allegory? Necessary Jungian construct or essential belief?
None of these questions are relevant to the theory of evolution.
Please back up with all supporting biblical prooftexts.
Why should all supporting evidence be Biblically based? How does this respond to the fact that your claims regarding the theory of evolution are not credible?
453
posted on
04/16/2006 3:09:54 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio
" Why should all supporting evidence be Biblically based?"
Because if you can't back up an argument with an unrelated Bible passage, what good is your argument?
454
posted on
04/16/2006 3:15:30 PM PDT
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
To: Californiajones
Overlooking the "biographical fallacy" inherent in your question, Jenny, I still submit it's none of your business.And yet you were trying to use the "argument from authority fallacy" by claiming to be one in the first place. You can't have it both ways. (Or can we?)
455
posted on
04/16/2006 4:03:20 PM PDT
by
jennyp
(WHAT I'M READING NOW: your mind)
To: Californiajones
I also don't like EvoThink because I am not a monkey or an ape and I am not descended from one. Darwinism effects who we think we are and if we are just dumb animals, we will tend to act in immoral ways (survival of the fittest).The details of who a person's ancestors were does control their own amount of self-worth, doesn't it? I mean, if you discovered that one of your ancestors was an evil person, you'd find yourself drawn to evil too, wouldn't you? Because our own destiny and fundamental place in this world was determined for you long ago, by ancestors long dead. You have no power to rise above (or fall below) your ancestral history. You're trapped.
Right?
456
posted on
04/16/2006 4:08:58 PM PDT
by
jennyp
(WHAT I'M READING NOW: your mind)
To: jennyp
No. I don't believe in EvoThink because apes have no immortal soul. The sins of the Father stop when you accept the blood shed on the cross. That is the meaning of the phrase "born again" -- you now have no ties to your pirate ancestors, or your thieving lib parents, or your adulterous uncle, unless you choose against the Lord to act in that manner. Is that what you were digging at?
457
posted on
04/16/2006 4:22:28 PM PDT
by
Californiajones
("The apprehension of beauty is the cure for apathy" - Thomas Aquinas)
To: jennyp
Proving authority in the Bible has nothing to do with our personal history, except it's obvious one has picked up the Book.
458
posted on
04/16/2006 4:24:03 PM PDT
by
Californiajones
("The apprehension of beauty is the cure for apathy" - Thomas Aquinas)
To: Californiajones
"Observing the fallout upon our society because of the widespread belief in evolution is not logical fallacy, it is cultural discernment.
Darwinism, along with its evil twin, Marxism, and a dash of Frued formed the unholy Triumverate of the modern age -- the bulwarks of the most murderous century in the history of mankind
That is my staunch objection to EvoThink -- and my puzzlement as to how Evos could be conservative."
Why do you connect a scientific theory that says the strongest survive, and a political theory that says all men should be equal in all ways?
Why do you think the theory of evolution as somehow hurt society? Since the theory of evolution (1859) life on earth has become 10x better. In 1859 only a few nations on earth were free, now many are. Would you rather live before or after the theory of evolution became widely accepted.
To: Californiajones
Again, I am interested in what Darwin wrought upon civilization with his theory, because I believe that what a man believes he will enact. The aftereffects of EvoThink compel me, not Darwin's 19th Century science.Your general point I can't disagree with: Philosophical foundations and beliefs have far-reaching real world consequences. But you really go off the rails when you think that accepting the Theory of Evolution as valid & generally correct is somehow inherently responsible for the evils of the world.
The belief in the theories of the properties of electromagnetism has brought us death by electrocution. The belief in the germ theory of disease has brought mankind biological weapons. The theories of quantum mechanics has brought us the transistorized computer, which has enabled the delivery of atom bombs from space. Have these theories had any good effects, too? And more to the point: Do people who study & accept the truth of these theories assign any moral value to electrons, germ theory, or quantum mechanics? Or are well-supported theories merely tools, which can be used just as easily for good as for evil?
Seriously, why is this such a difficult question for some people?
BTW, that's why Islam and modern Iran are so frightening. If we know what they believe, we can figure out what they will DO.
I too am frightened by what these doctrinaire creationists would like to do. Not sure why you'd want to bring THEM up, though. :-)
460
posted on
04/16/2006 4:32:34 PM PDT
by
jennyp
(WHAT I'M READING NOW: "The Great Influenza" by Barry)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440, 441-460, 461-480 ... 721-727 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson