Posted on 11/07/2009 6:08:03 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Sooner or later, students of abiogenesis will encounter Darwin's 1871 letter to Joseph Hooker with his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life. He was returning some pamphlets which triggered the reaction: "I am always delighted to see a word in favour of Pangenesis, which some day, I believe, will have a resurrection." The next paragraph has his "big if" dream: ...
(Excerpt) Read more at arn.org ...
We are up to verse 10. As I said, we will go through them one by one till you we go through them all. Or until you admit you misrepresented Genesis 3.
Keep reading. But in the meantime, why don’t you tell me how I am misrepresenting Genesis 3.
None has come to defend you. Even count-your-change beat it out of Dodge.
Why would anyone need to defend me? As usual, you have be cornered and you are refusing to answer questions.
On the publishing history, I find it curious that the Creator evidently was not mentioned in the first edition of Origin of Species, but only appears in the second and later ones. So when did Darwin actually start truckling to public opinion? Why would he truckle to it in the first place? One supposes he wasn't looking for confirmation from theists in order for his theory to be accepted.
Still, any way you slice it, these are not scientific questions.
IMHO, Darwin hoists himself on his own petard if we just read him and take him at his word as to what the evidentiary standard needs to be for his evolution theory to prove correct. All these speculations about his personal, psychological motivation simply detracts from this.
Or so it seems to me, FWIW.
Thanks so much for writing, GGG!
“GodGunsGuts to SargeTheSane; Admin Moderator; Jim Robinson “
“To: GodGunsGuts I repeat, stop hitting the abuse button. 210 posted on 10/22/2009 3:29:31 PM PDT by Admin Moderator”
Oh darn, and here all along I thought it was Topsy. Topsy will be badly shaken to know this.
You: GGG is a YECer that has to meet his minimum number of new threads per day, misrepresents that Bible and won't own up to it.
Clearly that doesn't include me and I don't apprecaite you misrpersenting me to fit whatever YOUR agenda is.
I'm also not a “YECer” or yes person.
I see no misrepresentation on this thread about the Bible. When I do see a misrepresentation of the Bible, I comment on it. I may not catch every one that misrepresents the Bible since I have a life outside of FR.
So, knock off the mindless name calling and misrepresenting ME!
Huh? I made no reference to you or your agenda.
I am referring to these exchanges to ME!
The story behind Darwin’s warm little pond
Sunday, November 08, 2009 4:00:49 PM · 36 of 49
ColdWater to nmh; GodGunsGuts
What is “GGG”?
GGG is a YECer that has to meet his minimum number of new threads per day, misrepresents that Bible and won’t own up to it.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies
The story behind Darwin’s warm little pond
Sunday, November 08, 2009 6:57:21 PM · 48 of 49
nmh to ColdWater
Me: “What is “GGG”?
You: GGG is a YECer that has to meet his minimum number of new threads per day, misrepresents that Bible and won’t own up to it.
Clearly that doesn’t include me and I don’t apprecaite you misrpersenting me to fit whatever YOUR agenda is.
I’m also not a “YECer” or yes person.
I see no misrepresentation on this thread about the Bible. When I do see a misrepresentation of the Bible, I comment on it. I may not catch every one that misrepresents the Bible since I have a life outside of FR.
So, knock off the mindless name calling and misrepresenting ME!
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies
“Huh? I made no reference to you or your agenda.”
I have no agenda but to speak the truth.
I am sorry. But I still see that I only referred to GGG and said NOTHING about you at all. And your second post is the one you sent to me! You can’t complain to me about what you are sending to me.
OH! The light has come on in my head. You ARE GGG. One and the same! When I was referring to GGG I was also (unknowingly) referring to you. Thanks for straightening me out on that. Do I call you GGG or nmh?
Why would anyone want to defend you?
Oh, my condolences to Topsy! But ask Topsy which model of the "common ancestor" he prefers: (a) percolating muck that just gets lucky; or (b) the grey-eyed goddess of Reason.
My suspicion is the truth of the matter lies somewhere in between.
But having said that, still we have only a possible description of original events. Nowhere do we see any clue into the action at the "event" of the Beginning.
It's always so good to see you again, dear YHAOS! Thank you so much for writing.
Simply as a point of information: Topsy is a “she.” A little black slave girl, and a character from Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin. In the anticipation that she was ignorant of God, she was asked who had made her. She answered, ”I s'pect I just growed. Don't think nobody never made me.” From that came the saying, “Like Topsy, it just growed.”
Like Topsy, Darwinian Atheists seem to be similarly vague about the origins of life, particularly the origin of Mankind. Unlike Topsy, they seem to become rather edgy about it when they are reminded of their vagueness.
Thanks for the backgrounder on "Topsy," YHAOS! (I never did read Uncle Tom's Cabin.)
How can Darwinian atheists be other than "vague" about the origins of life? The scientific method in general does not/cannot reach to "origin" questions. On such questions, it always comes in "a day late and a dime short."
"How can Darwinian atheists be other than "vague" about the origins of life?"
How, indeed. I have no quarrel with that. The edgyness is less justifiable, IMO.
Shaddap...
Are you the Admin Mod on loan from DU? (or Nancy Pelosi’s webmaster...)
The lib was shut up/banned days ago.
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.